House of Representatives
2fI0GJE
2fI0GJE
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA<br />
<strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Hansard<br />
MONDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2016<br />
CORRECTIONS<br />
This is a PROOF ISSUE. Suggested corrections for the Official Hansard and Bound Volumes<br />
should be lodged in writing with Hansard DPS as soon as possible but not later than:<br />
Monday, 5 December 2016<br />
Facsimile: Senate (02) 6277 2977<br />
<strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> (02) 6277 2944<br />
Federation Chamber (02) 6277 2944<br />
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br />
PROOF
Month<br />
INTERNET<br />
The Votes and Proceedings for the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> are available at<br />
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes<br />
Pro<strong>of</strong> and Official Hansards for the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>,<br />
the Senate and committee hearings are available at<br />
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard<br />
For searching purposes use<br />
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au<br />
SITTING DAYS—2016<br />
Date<br />
February 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22 23, 24, 25, 29<br />
March 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17<br />
April 18, 19<br />
May 2, 3, 4, 5<br />
August 30, 31<br />
September 1, 12, 13, 14, 15<br />
October 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20<br />
November 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30<br />
December 1<br />
RADIO BROADCASTS<br />
Broadcasts <strong>of</strong> proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Parliament can be heard on ABC NewsRadio in the capital cities on:<br />
ADELAIDE<br />
BRISBANE<br />
CANBERRA<br />
DARWIN<br />
HOBART<br />
MELBOURNE<br />
PERTH<br />
SYDNEY<br />
972AM<br />
936AM<br />
103.9FM<br />
102.5FM<br />
747AM<br />
1026AM<br />
585AM<br />
630AM<br />
For information regarding frequencies in other locations please visit<br />
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/listen/frequencies.htm
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT<br />
FIRST SESSION—FIRST PERIOD<br />
Governor-General<br />
His Excellency General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove AK, MC (Retd)<br />
<strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> Office Holders<br />
Speaker—Hon. Anthony David Hawthorn Smith MP<br />
Deputy Speaker—Mr Mark Maclean Coulton MP<br />
Second Deputy Speaker—Mr Robert George Mitchell MP<br />
Members <strong>of</strong> the Speaker's Panel—Hon. Sharon Leah Bird MP, Mr Russell Evan Broadbent<br />
MP, Mr Scott Andrew Buchholz MP, Ms Sharon Catherine Claydon MP, Mr Steven<br />
Georganas MP, Mr Ian Reginald Goodenough MP, Mr Andrew William Hastie MP, Mr Kevin<br />
John Hogan MP, Mr Stephen James Irons MP, Mr Craig Kelly MP, Ms Maria Vamvakinou<br />
MP, Mr Ross Xavier Vasta MP and Mrs Lucy Elizabeth Wicks MP<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>—Hon. Christopher Pyne MP<br />
Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>—Hon. Darren Chester MP<br />
Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business—Hon. Anthony Stephen Burke MP<br />
Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business—Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP<br />
Party Leaders and Whips<br />
Liberal Party <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
Leader—Hon. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP<br />
Deputy Leader—Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP<br />
Chief Government Whip—Ms Nola Bethwyn Marino MP<br />
Government Whips—Mr Albertus Johannes van Manen MP and Mr Rowan Eric Ramsey MP<br />
The Nationals<br />
Leader—Hon. Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce MP<br />
Deputy Leader—Senator the Hon Fiona Nash<br />
Chief Whip—Mr George Robert Christenson MP<br />
Deputy Whip—Ms Michelle Leanne Landry MP<br />
Australian Labor Party<br />
Leader—Hon. William Richard Shorten MP<br />
Deputy Leader—Hon. Tanya Joan Plibersek MP<br />
Chief Opposition Whip—Mr Christopher Patrick Hayes MP<br />
Opposition Whips—Ms Joanne Catherine Ryan MP and Mr Graham Douglas Perrett MP<br />
Printed by authority <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
i
Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Members Division Party<br />
Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LP<br />
Albanese, Hon. Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALP<br />
Alexander, Mr John Gilbert, OAM Bennelong, NSW LP<br />
Aly, Dr Anne Cowan, WA ALP<br />
Andrews, Hon. Karen Lesley McPherson, QLD LP<br />
Andrews, Hon. Kevin James Menzies, VIC LP<br />
Bandt, Mr Adam Paul Melbourne, VIC AG<br />
Banks, Ms Julia Helen Chisholm, VIC LP<br />
Bird, Hon. Sharon Leah Cunningham, NSW ALP<br />
Bishop, Hon. Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LP<br />
Bowen, Hon. Christopher Eyles McMahon, NSW ALP<br />
Broad, Mr Andrew John Mallee, VIC NATS<br />
Broadbent, Mr Russell Evan McMillan, VIC LP<br />
Brodtmann, Ms Gai Marie Canberra, ACT ALP<br />
Buchholz, Mr Scott Andrew Wright, QLD LP<br />
Burke, Hon. Anthony Stephen Watson, NSW ALP<br />
Burney, Ms Linda Jean Barton, NSW ALP<br />
Butler, Hon. Mark Christopher Port Adelaide, SA ALP<br />
Butler, Ms Terri Megan Griffith, QLD ALP<br />
Byrne, Hon. Anthony Michael Holt, VIC ALP<br />
Chalmers, Dr James Edward Rankin, QLD ALP<br />
Champion, Mr Nicholas David Wakefield, SA ALP<br />
Chester, Hon. Darren Jeffrey Gippsland, VIC NATS<br />
Chesters, Ms Lisa Marie Bendigo, VIC ALP<br />
Christensen, Mr George Robert Dawson, QLD NATS<br />
Ciobo, Hon. Steven Michele Moncrieff, QLD LP<br />
Clare, Hon. Jason Dean Blaxland, NSW ALP<br />
Claydon, Ms Sharon Catherine Newcastle, NSW ALP<br />
Coleman, Mr David Bernard Banks, NSW LP<br />
Collins, Hon. Julie Maree Franklin, TAS ALP<br />
Conroy, Mr Patrick Martin Shortland, NSW ALP<br />
Coulton, Mr Mark Maclean Parkes, NSW NATS<br />
Crewther, Mr Christopher John Dunkley, VIC LP<br />
Danby, Hon. Michael David Melbourne Ports, VIC ALP<br />
Dick, Mr Dugald Milton Oxley, QLD ALP<br />
Dreyfus, Hon. Mark Alfred, QC Isaacs, VIC ALP<br />
Drum, Mr Damian Kevin Murray, VIC NATS<br />
Dutton, Hon. Peter Craig Dickson, QLD LP<br />
Elliot, Hon. Maria Justine Richmond, NSW ALP<br />
Ellis, Hon. Katherine Margaret Adelaide, SA ALP<br />
Entsch, Hon. Warren George Leichhardt, QLD LP<br />
Evans, Mr Trevor Mark Brisbane, QLD LNP<br />
Falinski, Mr Jason George Mackellar, NSW LP<br />
Feeney, Hon. David Batman, VIC ALP<br />
Fitzgibbon, Hon. Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALP<br />
Fletcher, Hon. Paul William Bradfield, NSW LP<br />
Flint, Ms Nicolle Jane Boothby, SA LP<br />
Freelander, Mr Michael Randolph Macarthur, NSW ALP<br />
ii
Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Members Division Party<br />
Frydenberg, Hon. Joshua Anthony Kooyong, VIC LP<br />
Gee, Mr Andrew Robert Calare, NSW NATS<br />
Georganas, Mr Steven Hindmarsh, SA ALP<br />
Giles, Mr Andrew James Scullin, VIC ALP<br />
Gillespie, Hon. Dr David Arthur Lyne, NSW NATS<br />
Goodenough, Mr Ian Reginald Moore, WA LP<br />
Gosling, Mr Luke John Solomon, NT ALP<br />
Hammond, Mr Timothy Jerome Perth, WA ALP<br />
Hart, Mr Ross Anthony Bass, TAS ALP<br />
Hartsuyker, Hon. Luke Cowper, NSW NATS<br />
Hastie, Mr Andrew William Canning, WA LP<br />
Hawke, Hon. Alexander George Mitchell, NSW LP<br />
Hayes, Mr Christopher Patrick Fowler, NSW ALP<br />
Henderson, Ms Sarah Moya Corangamite, VIC LP<br />
Hill, Mr Julian Christopher Bruce, VIC ALP<br />
Hogan, Mr Kevin John Page, NSW NATS<br />
Howarth, Mr Luke Ronald Petrie, QLD LP<br />
Hunt, Hon. Gregory Andrew Flinders, VIC LP<br />
Husar, Ms Emma Lindsay, NSW ALP<br />
Husic, Hon. Edham Nurredin Chifley, NSW ALP<br />
Irons, Mr Stephen James Swan, WA LP<br />
Jones, Mr Stephen Patrick Whitlam, NSW ALP<br />
Joyce, Hon. Barnaby Thomas Gerard New England, NSW NATS<br />
Katter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, QLD AUS<br />
Keay, Ms Justine Terri Braddon, TAS ALP<br />
Keenan, Hon. Michael Fayat Stirling, WA LP<br />
Kelly, Mr Craig Hughes, NSW LP<br />
Kelly, Mr Michael Joseph Eden-Monaro ALP<br />
Keogh, Mr Matthew James Burt, WA ALP<br />
Khalil, Mr Peter Wills, VIC ALP<br />
King, Hon. Catherine Fiona Ballarat, VIC ALP<br />
King, Ms Madeleine Mary Harvie Brand, WA ALP<br />
Lamb, Ms Susan Longman, QLD ALP<br />
Laming, Mr Andrew Charles Bowman, QLD LP<br />
Landry, Ms Michelle Leanne Capricornia, QLD NATS<br />
Laundy, Hon. Craig Arthur Samuel Reid, NSW LP<br />
Leigh, Hon. Dr Andrew Keith Fraser, ACT ALP<br />
Leeser, Mr Julian Martin Berowra, NSW LP<br />
Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope Farrer, NSW LP<br />
Littleproud, Mr David Kelly Maranoa, QLD LNP<br />
Macklin, Hon. Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, VIC ALP<br />
Marino, Ms Nola Bethwyn Forrest, WA LP<br />
Marles, Hon. Richard Donald Corio, VIC ALP<br />
McBride, Ms Emma Margaret Dobell, NSW ALP<br />
McCormack, Hon. Michael Francis Riverina, NSW NATS<br />
McGowan, Ms Catherine, AO Indi, VIC IND<br />
McVeigh, Hon. Dr John Joseph Groom, QLD LNP<br />
Mitchell, Mr Brian Keith Lyons, TAS ALP<br />
iii
Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Members Division Party<br />
Mitchell, Mr Robert George McEwen, VIC ALP<br />
Morrison, Hon. Scott John Cook, NSW LP<br />
Morton, Mr Ben Tangney, WA LP<br />
Neumann, Hon. Shayne Kenneth Blair, QLD ALP<br />
O'Brien, Mr Llewellyn Stephen Wide Bay, QLD LNP<br />
O'Brien, Mr Ted Lynam Fairfax, QLD LNP<br />
O'Connor, Hon. Brendan Patrick John Gorton, VIC ALP<br />
O'Dowd, Mr Kenneth Desmond Flynn, QLD NATS<br />
O'Dwyer, Hon. Ms Kelly Megan Higgins, VIC LP<br />
O'Neil, Ms Clare Ellen Hotham, VIC ALP<br />
O'Toole, Ms Catherine Elizabeth Herbert, QLD ALP<br />
Owens, Ms Julie Ann Parramatta, NSW ALP<br />
Pasin, Mr Antony Barker, SA LP<br />
Perrett, Mr Graham Douglas Moreton, QLD ALP<br />
Pitt, Hon. Keith John Hinkler, QLD NATS<br />
Plibersek, Hon. Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALP<br />
Porter, Hon. Charles Christian Pearce, WA LP<br />
Prentice, Hon. Jane Ryan, QLD LP<br />
Price, Ms Melissa Lee Durack, WA LP<br />
Pyne, Hon. Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP<br />
Ramsey, Mr Rowan Eric Grey, SA LP<br />
Rishworth, Hon. Amanda Louise Kingston, SA ALP<br />
Robert, Hon. Stuart Rowland Fadden, QLD LP<br />
Rowland, Ms Michelle Anne Greenway, NSW ALP<br />
Ryan, Ms Joanne Catherine Lalor, VIC ALP<br />
Sharkie, Ms Rebekha Carina Che Mayo, SA NXT<br />
Shorten, Hon. William Richard Maribyrnong, VIC ALP<br />
Smith, Hon. Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, VIC LP<br />
Snowdon, Hon. Warren Edward Lingiari, NT ALP<br />
Stanley, Ms Anne Maree Werriwa, NSW ALP<br />
Sudmalis, Ms Ann Elizabeth Gilmore, NSW LP<br />
Sukkar, Mr Michael Sven Deakin, VIC LP<br />
Swan, Hon. Wayne Maxwell Lilley, QLD ALP<br />
Swanson, Ms Meryl Jane Paterson, NSW ALP<br />
Taylor, Hon. Angus James Hume, NSW LP<br />
Tehan, Hon. Daniel Thomas Wannon, VIC LP<br />
Templeman, Ms Susan Raye Macquarie, NSW ALP<br />
Thistlethwaite, Hon. Matthew James Kingsford Smith, NSW ALP<br />
Tudge, Hon. Alan Edward Aston, VIC LP<br />
Turnbull, Hon. Malcolm Bligh Wentworth, NSW LP<br />
Vamvakinou, Ms Maria Calwell, VIC ALP<br />
van Manen, Mr Albertus Johannes Forde, QLD LP<br />
Vasta, Mr Ross Xavier Bonner, QLD LP<br />
Wallace, Mr Andrew Bruce Fisher, QLD LNP<br />
Watts, Mr Timothy Graham Gellibrand, VIC ALP<br />
Wicks, Mrs Lucy Elizabeth Robertson, NSW LP<br />
Wilkie, Mr Andrew Damien Denison, TAS IND<br />
Wilson, Mr Joshua Hamilton Fremantle, WA ALP<br />
iv
Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Members Division Party<br />
Wilson, Mr Richard James O'Connor, WA LP<br />
Wilson, Mr Timothy Robert Goldstein, VIC LP<br />
Wood, Mr Jason Peter La Trobe, VIC LP<br />
Wyatt, Hon. Kenneth George, AM Hasluck, WA LP<br />
Zappia, Mr Antonio Makin, SA ALP<br />
Zimmerman, Mr Trent Moir North Sydney, NSW LP<br />
PARTY ABBREVIATIONS<br />
AG—Australian Greens; ALP—Australian Labor Party; AUS—Katter's Australia Party;<br />
IND—Independent; LNP—Liberal National Party; LP—Liberal Party <strong>of</strong> Australia;<br />
NATS—The Nationals; NXT—Nick Xenophon Team<br />
Heads <strong>of</strong> Parliamentary Departments<br />
Clerk <strong>of</strong> the Senate—R Laing<br />
Clerk <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>—D Elder<br />
Secretary, Department <strong>of</strong> Parliamentary Services—R Stefanic<br />
Parliamentary Budget Officer—P Bowen<br />
v
TURNBULL MINISTRY<br />
Title<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Minister for Indigenous Affairs<br />
Minister for Women<br />
Cabinet Secretary<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public<br />
Service<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-<br />
Terrorism<br />
Minister Assisting the Cabinet Secretary<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security<br />
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister<br />
Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation<br />
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and<br />
Water Resources<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister<br />
Minister for Foreign Affairs<br />
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment<br />
Minister for International Development and the Pacific<br />
Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment<br />
Attorney-General<br />
(Vice-President <strong>of</strong> the Executive Council)<br />
(Leader <strong>of</strong> the Government in the Senate)<br />
Minister for Justice<br />
Treasurer<br />
Minister for Revenue and Financial Services<br />
Minister for Small Business<br />
Minister for Finance<br />
(Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> Government in the Senate)<br />
Special Minister <strong>of</strong> State<br />
Minister for Regional Development<br />
Minister for Local Government and Territories<br />
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport<br />
(Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>)<br />
Minister for Urban Infrastructure<br />
Minister for Defence<br />
Minister for Defence Industry<br />
(Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>)<br />
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary <strong>of</strong><br />
ANZAC<br />
Minister for Defence Personnel<br />
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection<br />
Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection<br />
Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science<br />
Minister for Resources and Northern Australia<br />
vi<br />
Minister<br />
Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP<br />
Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion<br />
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash<br />
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO<br />
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash<br />
Hon Michael Keenan MP<br />
Senator the Hon Scott Ryan<br />
Hon Dan Tehan MP<br />
Senator the Hon James McGrath<br />
Hon Angus Taylor MP<br />
Hon Barnaby Joyce MP<br />
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston<br />
Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP<br />
Hon Julie Bishop MP<br />
Hon Steve Ciobo MP<br />
Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-<br />
Wells<br />
Hon Keith Pitt MP<br />
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC<br />
Hon Michael Keenan MP<br />
Hon Scott Morrison MP<br />
Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP<br />
Hon Michael McCormack MP<br />
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann<br />
Senator the Hon Scott Ryan<br />
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash<br />
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash<br />
Hon Darren Chester MP<br />
Hon Paul Fletcher MP<br />
Senator the Hon Marise Payne<br />
Hon Christopher Pyne MP<br />
Hon Dan Tehan MP<br />
Hon Dan Tehan MP<br />
Hon Dan Tehan MP<br />
Hon Peter Dutton MP<br />
Hon Alex Hawke MP<br />
Hon Greg Hunt MP<br />
Senator the Hon Matt Canavan
Title<br />
Minister<br />
Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Hon Craig Laundy MP<br />
Minister for Health and Aged Care<br />
Hon Sussan Ley MP<br />
Minister for Sport<br />
Hon Sussan Ley MP<br />
Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care<br />
Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP<br />
Assistant Minister for Rural Health<br />
Hon Dr David Gillespie MP<br />
Minister for Communications<br />
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield<br />
Minister for the Arts<br />
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield<br />
(Manager <strong>of</strong> Government Business in the Senate)<br />
Minister for Regional Communications<br />
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash<br />
Minister for Employment<br />
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash<br />
Minister for Social Services<br />
Hon Christian Porter MP<br />
Minister for Human Services<br />
Hon Alan Tudge MP<br />
Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services Hon Jane Prentice MP<br />
Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Senator the Hon Zed Seselja<br />
Affairs<br />
Minister for Education and Training<br />
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham<br />
Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills Hon Karen Andrews MP<br />
Minister for the Environment and Energy<br />
Hon Josh Frydenberg MP<br />
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is<br />
one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department <strong>of</strong> Human Services in the Social<br />
Services portfolio and a Department <strong>of</strong> Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title <strong>of</strong> a<br />
department does not necessarily reflect the title <strong>of</strong> a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics<br />
are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers <strong>of</strong> State Act 1952.<br />
vii
SHADOW MINISTRY<br />
Title<br />
Shadow Minister<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition<br />
Hon Bill Shorten MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Hon Bill Shorten MP<br />
Torres Strait Islanders<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal Senator Patrick Dodson<br />
and Torres Strait Islanders<br />
Shadow Cabinet Secretary<br />
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence Terri Butler MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)<br />
Senator Helen Polley<br />
Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition<br />
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Education<br />
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Women<br />
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools<br />
Andrew Giles MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Universities<br />
Terri Butler MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Equality<br />
Terri Butler MP<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition in the Senate<br />
Senator the Hon Penny Wong<br />
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs<br />
Senator the Hon Penny Wong<br />
Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific Senator Claire Moore<br />
Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition in the Senate<br />
Senator the Hon Don Farrell<br />
Shadow Special Minister <strong>of</strong> State<br />
Senator the Hon Don Farrell<br />
Shadow Minister for Sport<br />
Senator the Hon Don Farrell<br />
Shadow Treasurer<br />
Hon Chris Bowen MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Treasurer<br />
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Competition and Productivity<br />
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Charities and Not-for-Pr<strong>of</strong>its<br />
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP<br />
Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy<br />
Ed Husic MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs<br />
Tim Hammond MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury<br />
Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water<br />
Hon Tony Burke MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia Hon Tony Burke MP<br />
Shadow Minister for the Arts<br />
Hon Tony Burke MP<br />
Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business (<strong>House</strong>)<br />
Hon Tony Burke MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins<br />
Australia<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Julie Owens MP<br />
Australia<br />
Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services<br />
Hon Jenny Macklin MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness<br />
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron<br />
Shadow Minister for Human Services<br />
Hon Linda Burney MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers<br />
Senator Carol Brown<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities Senator Louise Pratt<br />
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Hon Anthony Albanese MP<br />
Regional Development<br />
Shadow Minister for Tourism<br />
Hon Anthony Albanese MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Stephen Jones MP<br />
Government<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure<br />
Pat Conroy MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories<br />
Hon Warren Snowdon MP<br />
viii
Title<br />
Shadow Minister<br />
Shadow Attorney-General<br />
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP<br />
Shadow Minister for National Security<br />
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP<br />
Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP<br />
<strong>Representatives</strong><br />
Shadow Minister for Justice<br />
Clare O'Neil MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Hon Brendan O'Connor MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Employment Services, Workforce Ed Husic MP<br />
Participation and Future <strong>of</strong> Work<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations<br />
Lisa Chesters MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy<br />
Hon Mark Butler MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change<br />
Pat Conroy MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Defence<br />
Hon Richard Marles MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs<br />
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Defence Personnel<br />
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for the Centenary <strong>of</strong> ANZAC Hon Warren Snowdon MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence Gai Brodtmann MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Industry and Support Hon Mike Kelly AM MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Senator the Hon Kim Carr<br />
Research<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science Hon Nick Champion MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation<br />
Senator Deborah O'Neill<br />
Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare<br />
Hon Catherine King MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare<br />
Tony Zappia MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health<br />
Hon Warren Snowdon MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Hon Kate Ellis MP<br />
Development (1)<br />
Shadow Minister for TAFE and Vocational Education Hon Kate Ellis MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Skills and Apprenticeships<br />
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Early Childhood<br />
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins<br />
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Rural and Regional Australia<br />
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Australia Lisa Chesters MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Hon Jason Clare MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment<br />
Hon Jason Clare MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Trade in Services<br />
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP<br />
Shadow Minister Assisting for Resources<br />
Tim Hammond MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Northern Australia<br />
Hon Warren Snowdon MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Hon Shayne Neumann MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Finance<br />
Dr Jim Chalmers MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Small Business and Financial Services (2) Senator Katy Gallagher<br />
Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business in the Senate<br />
Senator Katy Gallagher<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business<br />
Julie Owens MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Communications<br />
Hon Michelle Rowland MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications<br />
Stephen Jones MP<br />
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health (3)<br />
Hon Julie Collins MP<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Ageing<br />
Senator Helen Polley<br />
Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health<br />
Senator Deborah O'Neill<br />
Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio, (2) which is in Treasury portfolio and (3)<br />
which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.<br />
ix
CONTENTS<br />
MONDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2016<br />
Chamber<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
Appropriations and Administration Committee—<br />
Report ..................................................................................................................................................................1<br />
Petitions Committee—<br />
Report ..................................................................................................................................................................1<br />
PETITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................1<br />
PETITIONS—<br />
Commercial Fishing ...............................................................................................................................................1<br />
Indigenous Land Rights..........................................................................................................................................1<br />
Maribyrnong Electorate: Grandmothers Against the Detention <strong>of</strong> Refugee Children ............................................1<br />
PETITIONS—<br />
Responses ............................................................................................................................................................2<br />
Refugee and Asylum Seeker Processing and Resettlement ....................................................................................2<br />
PETITIONS—<br />
Statements ...........................................................................................................................................................2<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
Migration Committee—<br />
Reference .............................................................................................................................................................3<br />
BILLS—<br />
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Amendment) (Tagging Live-stock) Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................4<br />
Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................4<br />
Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................5<br />
Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................5<br />
Air Services Amendment Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................7<br />
Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................7<br />
Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................9<br />
Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................9<br />
Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading ..................................................................................................................................................... 11<br />
Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................. 11<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—<br />
World AIDS Day ..................................................................................................................................................13<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—<br />
Korean War ...........................................................................................................................................................19<br />
BILLS—<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Assistance Alignment and Other Measures) Bill 2016—<br />
Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016—<br />
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (New Governance<br />
Arrangements) Bill 2016—<br />
Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and Other<br />
Measures) Bill 2016—<br />
Returned from Senate ........................................................................................................................................23<br />
MOTIONS—<br />
Domestic and Family Violence—<br />
Reference to Federation Chamber .....................................................................................................................26<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee—<br />
Report ................................................................................................................................................................26<br />
MOTIONS—<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................27
CONTENTS—continued<br />
BILLS—<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................32<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS—<br />
Safer Communities Fund ......................................................................................................................................38<br />
LGBTI Children: Bullying ...................................................................................................................................38<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Tasmania: Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths Facility .................................................38<br />
La Trobe Electorate: Crime ..................................................................................................................................39<br />
Brand Electorate: Safer Communities Fund .........................................................................................................39<br />
Capricornia Electorate: Job Creation ....................................................................................................................39<br />
Cowan Electorate: Safer Communities Fund .......................................................................................................39<br />
Bennelong Electorate: Armenian Community ......................................................................................................40<br />
Dobell Electorate: Safer Communities Fund ........................................................................................................40<br />
Menzies Electorate: Sporting Achievements ........................................................................................................40<br />
Solomon Electorate: Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................41<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Crossway LifeCare ............................................................................................................41<br />
Perth Electorate: Safer Communities Fund ..........................................................................................................41<br />
Mallee Electorate: Christmas ...............................................................................................................................42<br />
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority ..................................................................................42<br />
McMillan Electorate: Thanksgiving .....................................................................................................................42<br />
Schools .................................................................................................................................................................42<br />
Working Holiday Visa Program ...........................................................................................................................43<br />
Working Holiday Visa Program ...........................................................................................................................43<br />
Non-Resident Nepali Association.........................................................................................................................43<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE—<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................44<br />
Economy...............................................................................................................................................................44<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................45<br />
Budget ..................................................................................................................................................................45<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................46<br />
Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016 ...........................................46<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission .............................................................................................47<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................48<br />
Building and Construction Industry .....................................................................................................................48<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................48<br />
Trade .....................................................................................................................................................................49<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................50<br />
Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games ............................................................................................................50<br />
Attorney-General ..................................................................................................................................................51<br />
Skilled Migration Program ...................................................................................................................................51<br />
Murray-Darling Basin Plan ..................................................................................................................................51<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission .............................................................................................52<br />
Negative Gearing ..................................................................................................................................................52<br />
Building and Construction Industry .....................................................................................................................53<br />
Negative Gearing ..................................................................................................................................................53<br />
Roads: Bruce Highway .........................................................................................................................................54<br />
Turnbull Government ...........................................................................................................................................55<br />
Taxation ................................................................................................................................................................55<br />
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS—<br />
Report No. 28 <strong>of</strong> 2016-17.....................................................................................................................................56<br />
DOCUMENTS—<br />
Presentation .......................................................................................................................................................56<br />
BILLS—<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................56<br />
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016—<br />
First Reading .....................................................................................................................................................69<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................69
CONTENTS—continued<br />
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016—<br />
First Reading .....................................................................................................................................................70<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................70<br />
BILLS—<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................71<br />
Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................83<br />
Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................83<br />
ADJOURNMENT—<br />
Youth ....................................................................................................................................................................96<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Community and Sports Funding ........................................................................................97<br />
Nursing Workforce ...............................................................................................................................................98<br />
Domestic and Family Violence ............................................................................................................................99<br />
Paterson Electorate: Newcastle Airport .............................................................................................................. 100<br />
Valedictory ......................................................................................................................................................... 101<br />
NOTICES ............................................................................................................................................................... 101<br />
Federation Chamber<br />
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS—<br />
Meals on Wheels ................................................................................................................................................ 103<br />
Swan Electorate: Schools ................................................................................................................................... 103<br />
Oxley Electorate: Domestic Violence................................................................................................................. 104<br />
Renewable Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 104<br />
Housing Affordability ......................................................................................................................................... 105<br />
Child Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 105<br />
Wakefield Electorate: Bushfires ......................................................................................................................... 106<br />
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization .................................................................... 106<br />
Medicare ............................................................................................................................................................. 107<br />
Small Business ................................................................................................................................................... 107<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—<br />
Dismissal ............................................................................................................................................................ 108<br />
Child Sexual Abuse ............................................................................................................................................ 111<br />
International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability ....................................................................................................... 119<br />
Road Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 122<br />
Marine Sanctuaries ............................................................................................................................................. 127<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS—<br />
Indi Electorate: Wodonga Gold Cup .................................................................................................................. 131<br />
World AIDS Day ................................................................................................................................................ 131<br />
Lindsay Electorate: Nepean Hospital ................................................................................................................. 131<br />
Sargood on Collaroy ........................................................................................................................................... 132<br />
Techfugees Australia .......................................................................................................................................... 132<br />
Tucker, Mrs Nicole ............................................................................................................................................. 132<br />
Road Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 132<br />
National Youth Sevens Championships .............................................................................................................. 133<br />
Canberra Electorate: Little Wars Convention ..................................................................................................... 133<br />
Moore Electorate: Joondalup Christmas Lunch ................................................................................................. 133<br />
HMAS Parramatta II .......................................................................................................................................... 134<br />
Taxation .............................................................................................................................................................. 134<br />
Schools Spectacular ............................................................................................................................................ 134<br />
Domestic and Family Violence .......................................................................................................................... 134<br />
Petition: Ingram Family...................................................................................................................................... 135<br />
Page Electorate: World Masters Athletics Championships ................................................................................. 135<br />
Page Electorate: China Cup ................................................................................................................................ 135<br />
Moreton Electorate: Keep Me Posted Campaign ............................................................................................... 135<br />
Petrie Electorate: Margate Festival..................................................................................................................... 136<br />
Indi Electorate: Health Care ............................................................................................................................... 136<br />
Bennelong Electorate: Primary School Leadership Awards ............................................................................... 136<br />
Bonnett, Mr John ................................................................................................................................................ 137
CONTENTS—continued<br />
Cuba: Fidel Castro .............................................................................................................................................. 137<br />
Canberra Refugee Support ................................................................................................................................. 137<br />
Centrelink ........................................................................................................................................................... 138<br />
Melbourne Electorate: Good Xmas Trail ........................................................................................................... 138<br />
Capricornia Electorate: Sarina Sugar Shed ........................................................................................................ 138<br />
Oxley Electorate: Vietnamese Schools ............................................................................................................... 139<br />
Berowra Electorate: Hornsby Rockets ............................................................................................................... 139<br />
Canberra Electorate: Christmas .......................................................................................................................... 139<br />
ACT Boccia ........................................................................................................................................................ 139<br />
Tourism Tropical North Queensland .................................................................................................................. 140<br />
Indi Electorate: Moyhu ....................................................................................................................................... 140<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—<br />
Australia and the Netherlands ............................................................................................................................ 140<br />
Global Security ................................................................................................................................................... 142<br />
National Stronger Regions Fund ........................................................................................................................ 146<br />
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination ..................................................................................................... 154<br />
Strzelecki Track .................................................................................................................................................. 159<br />
Italy: Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................................... 161<br />
Broadband .......................................................................................................................................................... 163<br />
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE—<br />
Additional Information—<br />
Road Upgrades—<br />
(Question No. 4) .............................................................................................................................................. 167<br />
Armadale Road Duplication—<br />
(Question No. 33) ............................................................................................................................................ 167
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1<br />
Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The SPEAKER (Hon. Tony Smith) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> country and read<br />
prayers.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
Appropriations and Administration Committee<br />
Report<br />
The SPEAKER (10:01): I present the annual report for the 2015-16 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Committee on<br />
Appropriations and Administration.<br />
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).<br />
Petitions Committee<br />
Report<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): I present the fifth report <strong>of</strong> the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.<br />
PETITIONS<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with<br />
standing order 207, I present the following petitions:<br />
PETITIONS<br />
Commercial Fishing<br />
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
This petition <strong>of</strong> citizens <strong>of</strong> Australia draws to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> our collective concerns for our rights in this<br />
country to wild harvest fish for communities who do not fish personally and the tourists that visit this country for our fish<br />
resources that we understand it is our duty to inform you <strong>of</strong> our will.<br />
We therefore ask the <strong>House</strong> to do all in its power to: Recognise, retain, restore and if necessary redeem and protect the<br />
rights <strong>of</strong> every commercial fisher in this country to: a) Work in all commonwealth and state waters presently available to them<br />
to sustainably harvest fish for communities in perpetuity b) Protect the access currently available to all state and<br />
commonwealth commercial fishers to fish c) Recognise the rights to use, replace and renew the nets that are currently<br />
permitted to be used in our waters sustainably d) Recognise commercial fishing within the acts <strong>of</strong> discrimination and basic<br />
human rights.<br />
from 1,356 citizens<br />
Indigenous Land Rights<br />
To the Honourable the Speaker and the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
This petition <strong>of</strong> the students, the teachers and community <strong>of</strong> St Mary's College, Adelaide draws to the attention <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>House</strong> the injustice faced by the Indigenous peoples <strong>of</strong> Australia in the issue <strong>of</strong> their land rights. We believe a treaty should be<br />
negotiated for the following reasons: • Prime Minister Bob Hawke had promised to deliver a treaty and it still has not<br />
happened for 25 years. • A treaty is the only way that the land right <strong>of</strong> Aboriginal Peoples will be protected. • The Northern<br />
Territory Intervention has significantly damaged the lives <strong>of</strong> Indigenous Language Groups. If a treaty had been in place, then<br />
this policy would not have been allowed. • A Treaty will result in a positive relationship with all Indigenous Language Groups<br />
leading to better communication and cooperation with Aboriginal Communities.<br />
We therefore ask the <strong>House</strong> to enter into a treaty with the Indigenous Peoples <strong>of</strong> Australia as soon as possible.<br />
from 258 citizens<br />
Maribyrnong Electorate: Grandmothers Against the Detention <strong>of</strong> Refugee Children<br />
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> assembled in Parliament<br />
This petition <strong>of</strong> the Maribyrnong Electorate Group <strong>of</strong> Grandmothers Against the Detention <strong>of</strong> Refugee Children draws the<br />
attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> to the prolonged and inhumane treatment <strong>of</strong> children, their families and unaccompanied minors on<br />
Nauru. This treatment causes significant trauma and long-term mental and physical harm. It is in breach <strong>of</strong> Australia's<br />
responsibility under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status <strong>of</strong> Refugees 1967 Protocol.<br />
We therefore ask the <strong>House</strong> to take immediate action to bring all children, families and unaccompanied minors currently on<br />
Nauru to live in the community on the Australian mainland.<br />
from 2,497 citizens<br />
Petitions received.<br />
CHAMBER
2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
PETITIONS<br />
Responses<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): One ministerial response to a petition previously presented to the <strong>House</strong> has<br />
been received as follows:<br />
Refugee and Asylum Seeker Processing and Resettlement<br />
Dear Mr Vasta<br />
Thank you for your correspondence <strong>of</strong> 20 October 2016 enclosing Petition PN0008, concerning the Australian<br />
Government's regional processing and settlement arrangements.<br />
With the establishment <strong>of</strong> Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Government has focused on disrupting<br />
and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals, and supporting regional processing and<br />
resettlement <strong>of</strong> refugees, as well as returns <strong>of</strong> those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to<br />
Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency<br />
in Australia.<br />
On 17 August 2016, the Governments <strong>of</strong> Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Australia announced that the Manus Regional<br />
Processing Centre (RPC) will close. The Nauru RPC operates as an open centre and transferees are free to come and go at any<br />
time without restriction. Transport is provided to assist transferees to move around Nauru.<br />
Australia's role at the RPCs is to support the Governments <strong>of</strong> PNG and Nauru through contracting specialist security,<br />
welfare and health services.<br />
All transferees at the RPCs receive clinically indicated health care, broadly consistent with Australian public health<br />
standards. General practitioner, nursing and mental health care clinics are open at the RPCs seven days a week. There is also<br />
after-hours medical staffing to respond to after-hours medical emergencies. These services are supplemented by visiting health<br />
practitioners, a tele-health service and medical transfers, when required.<br />
The Governments <strong>of</strong> Nauru and PNG continue to progress refugee determinations for transferees. Transferees found to be<br />
refugees by the Government <strong>of</strong> Nauru will be permitted to remain in Nauru, pending resettlement in Cambodia or another<br />
third country. Transferees found to be refugees by the Government <strong>of</strong> PNG will be permitted to settle permanently in PNG.<br />
Transferees found not to be refugees are expected to return home.<br />
Returns assistance is available to all persons choosing to return home voluntarily. Monthly updates, including refugee<br />
status processing, can be found at: http://newsroom.border.gov.au/channels/Operation-Sovereign-Borders.<br />
Refugees are provided with settlement support services to assist their integration into Nauruan and PNG society. Services<br />
are delivered through a needs-based case management model and may include: cultural and language orientation;<br />
employment, education and health linking; income support; and accommodation assistance. Services focus on building<br />
independence and self-sufficiency.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration and Border Protection has undertaken a review <strong>of</strong> all 2,107 Save the Children and 16<br />
Connect Settlement Service incident reports released by The Guardian on 10 August 2016 and 19 September 2016<br />
respectively, to establish that actions have occurred in response to these reports. Of the 2,123 incidents reported, 968 were<br />
categorised as minor or low-level, 281 were categorised as major, and 23 were categorised as critical. I can confirm that action<br />
was taken in all critical cases and in all major cases that could be identified. Of the critical and major incidents, 19 were<br />
referred to the Nauru Police Force (NPF). The Department consults weekly with the NPF on the status <strong>of</strong> further<br />
investigations.<br />
The International Committee <strong>of</strong> the Red Cross, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the United Nations High<br />
Commissioner for Refugees all undertake regular scrutiny visits to Nauru at the invitation <strong>of</strong> the Government <strong>of</strong> Nauru.<br />
The Australian Government continues to support the Government <strong>of</strong> Nauru to provide for the health, welfare and safety <strong>of</strong><br />
all transferees and refugees in Nauru. All individuals are encouraged to report alleged incidents to the NPF. Australian Federal<br />
Police <strong>of</strong>ficers continue to work alongside the NPF, building the NPF's capacity to investigate complex and sensitive<br />
incidents.<br />
The Australian Government has made significant investments in upgrading health and educational facilities in Nauru,<br />
which benefit Nauruans, transferees and refugees living in the Nauruan community.<br />
The Government remains committed to regional processing and resettlement, and stopping the scourge <strong>of</strong> people smugglers<br />
and deaths at sea.<br />
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Peter Dutton<br />
PETITIONS<br />
Statements<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): As this is the last presentation for the year, I take the opportunity to brief the<br />
<strong>House</strong> on the work <strong>of</strong> the Petitions Committee thus far. Since the commencement <strong>of</strong> the 45th Parliament, the<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3<br />
Petitions Committee has held five meetings, considered 87 petitions, certified 32 e-petitions and 32 paper petitions<br />
as being in order, and certified 23 petitions as being out <strong>of</strong> order. The committee has taken time to deliberate over<br />
the content <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the petitions at these meetings to ensure that they meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the standing<br />
orders.<br />
In my role as chair, I have presented 13 petitions and 21 ministerial responses that were certified in the 44th<br />
Parliament, and I have, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the committee, presented 16 e-petitions and 18 paper petitions, along with<br />
five ministerial responses.<br />
The Petitions Committee is pleased to note that at this time there has been a good uptake <strong>of</strong> the e-petition<br />
system, with there being an equal number <strong>of</strong> e-petitions and paper petitions that have been found in order to this<br />
date. The committee is also pleased that the majority <strong>of</strong> petitions that the committee considers are in order, which<br />
is a good result for those who seek to petition the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The content <strong>of</strong> the petitions has been diverse with petitions from schoolchildren concerned about the price paid<br />
to dairy farmers for their milk, and communities concerned about the lack <strong>of</strong> mobile phone coverage, or the<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> local environments. Communities have banded together to petition the <strong>House</strong> on topics close to them<br />
such as the provision <strong>of</strong> an integrated cancer centre in a regional hospital.<br />
The Petitions Committee has been very busy so far this parliament and I am sure that, in 2017, the committee<br />
will continue to be busy assisting concerned members <strong>of</strong> the Australian community on how to petition the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
I thank the Speaker.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
Migration Committee<br />
Reference<br />
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (10:04): On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I wish to make a<br />
statement concerning the committee's inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. I rise to inform the <strong>House</strong> that the<br />
Joint Standing Committee on Migration has commenced an inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. This<br />
inquiry has been jointly referred by the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Immigration and Border<br />
Protection.<br />
I have spoken many times in this place <strong>of</strong> my concerns in my electorate about the rise in crime committed by<br />
gangs <strong>of</strong> young migrants. It is timely that reasons behind this trend are examined, to put a stop to the crimes that<br />
are occurring and to prevent young migrants from being caught up into these gangs in the future.<br />
I encourage all members who have these issues arising in their communities to publicise the inquiry and to<br />
encourage individuals and service providers to make a submission. The inquiry will examine issues that lead to<br />
migrant youth becoming involved in youth gangs and issues arising from social marginalisation and<br />
disengagement. This is not just for young people but for their whole families.<br />
The inquiry will consider the availability <strong>of</strong> settlement services and whether these services are effectively<br />
promoting good settlement outcomes for migrants. The increase in crimes committed by migrants in my electorate<br />
and in Victoria would suggest that more needs to be done in this regard. This is an issue that the inquiry will look<br />
into closely.<br />
The committee has been asked to consider national and international best practice strategies for improving<br />
migrant settlement outcomes. In a globalised world our migration mix is increasingly diverse and we must be<br />
aware <strong>of</strong> and open to new approaches for managing settlement services to achieve the best outcomes for migrants<br />
and the Australian community as a whole. The inquiry will also consider whether the Migration Act character test<br />
is a useful mechanism for responding to migrant crime and whether in its current form it is an adequate deterrent.<br />
Finally, the inquiry will examine whether current migration application and vetting processes adequately assess an<br />
applicant's migrant settlement prospects and whether English language ability impacts on a migrant's settlement<br />
outcome.<br />
The committee will travel through Australia next year to listen to the stories in our community and to learn<br />
about what is and what is not working with our migration settlement services. The committee hopes to hear from a<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> groups: migrant communities, providers <strong>of</strong> settlement services, law enforcement agencies, English<br />
language education providers and the wider Australian community. The more groups and individuals we hear<br />
from, the more likely it is that the committee will develop a strong understanding <strong>of</strong> the issues at play and prepare<br />
clear recommendations that will assist in addressing the issues currently emerging in electorates like mine right<br />
around the country. I would also like to thank the member for Bonner, who is also a committee member.<br />
CHAMBER
4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
BILLS<br />
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Amendment) (Tagging Live-stock) Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:08): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
To be absolutely clear, and I think I can speak for the member for Melbourne, who is seconding this Australian<br />
Meat and Live-stock Industry (Amendment) (Tagging Live-stock) Bill 2016: I—we—oppose the live animal<br />
export trade in the strongest possible terms. It is clearly systemically cruel; it is clearly not in Australia's economic<br />
self-interest, in the way that it has taken thousands <strong>of</strong> jobs; and it is unpopular, as evidenced by a number <strong>of</strong><br />
opinion polls which show strong public support for shutting the trade down.<br />
In essence, this government's policy and the policy <strong>of</strong> the alternative government, are bad policies. This shows<br />
a very worrying failure <strong>of</strong> governance in this country, that we would allow—and in fact, this government<br />
encourages—an industry and a trade which is so wrong in so many ways, ethically and economically.<br />
Now, the government—and the alternative government—say to people like me and the member for Melbourne<br />
that there is nothing to worry about here; that, since the introduction <strong>of</strong> the Export Supply Chain Assurance<br />
System, or ESCAS, all is well; that now the trade is very well regulated; that we know where Australian livestock<br />
are going; and that we know that they are going through a supply chain <strong>of</strong> acceptable standards. But the reality is<br />
that ESCAS does not work.<br />
We know it does not work, because we are still seeing expose after expose <strong>of</strong> cruelty to Australian livestock in<br />
other countries. Only a month or so ago we saw the shocking revelations out <strong>of</strong> the Middle East and Malaysia<br />
during the Festival <strong>of</strong> Sacrifice. We saw in that footage Australian sheep in particular being handled in the most<br />
dreadful way, in a way that no reasonable person—a person with any heart—could approve <strong>of</strong>. But what is the<br />
response? Next to nothing, at least in this place. In fact, it is very interesting that no exporter has yet been<br />
prosecuted for the mistreatment <strong>of</strong> Australian livestock, even though this government and the alternative<br />
government would say that all is well, and they keep coming back to ESCAS: 'ESCAS has fixed it.' Well, it has<br />
not fixed it. It has not fixed it in a number <strong>of</strong> ways.<br />
It is interesting that ESCAS—and I have gone to the department's own material here—is based on four<br />
principles: animal welfare, control through the supply chain, traceability through the supply chain, and<br />
independent audit. But the problem is that you cannot achieve any <strong>of</strong> those principles when exported animals<br />
cannot be properly identified.<br />
That now goes to the essence <strong>of</strong> this bill: the need to properly identify all livestock that are exported to other<br />
countries. I will just quickly read a summary <strong>of</strong> the situation with tagging as it now stands. In regard to cattle, all<br />
Australian cattle are required to have electronic ear tags as part <strong>of</strong> the National Livestock Identification System,<br />
which is a scheme run by the state and territory governments. The tags are required to be read when the beast<br />
leaves a farm and throughout the supply chain until it reaches the port, but—and this is the crucial bit—there is no<br />
requirement for the tag to be read after the animal leaves Australia. The beast is simply marked as 'exported' after<br />
it gets on the boat, and no further information is collected.<br />
The situation is even worse with sheep and goats. They are currently only required to have a plastic ear tag<br />
bearing the property identification code <strong>of</strong> the property where they came from—in other words, a tag showing a<br />
property number—and each individual animal is not identified. We have seen, time and time again when there is<br />
an expose, particularly in the Middle East, where many <strong>of</strong> our sheep go, that the tags have been ripped <strong>of</strong>f, so they<br />
cannot identify even what farm that animal came from, and hence they cannot identify which exporter was<br />
responsible for sending that sheep to that market.<br />
With other livestock—and people might be interested to know that we export a lot <strong>of</strong> camels and a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
goats—generally, under state and territory law, all livestock that leave a property must be plastic tagged, like the<br />
sheep, with the property identification code, and the transfer must be registered in some way with the relevant<br />
state or territory authority. However, as with sheep and goats, there is no requirement that the tags be able to<br />
individually identify the animal, and, as with all exported livestock including cattle, there is no electronic<br />
traceability <strong>of</strong> the animal after it is exported.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5<br />
In other words, it is all well and good for the government to say that ESCAS has solved all <strong>of</strong> the problems, but<br />
it has not. It has not for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons. Probably the most significant reason—other than perhaps a failure <strong>of</strong><br />
political leadership to address this issue more broadly—that ESCAS has not solved the problem is that our current<br />
tagging arrangements are completely and utterly unsatisfactory. We have cattle, as I read there, that are<br />
electronically tagged, but there is no legal requirement for those tags to be read after the animals leave Australia.<br />
And sheep, goats and camels are not even required to be electronically tagged.<br />
This bill will remedy that. I hold out some hope that the government, the alternative government and the<br />
industry will at least give some measure <strong>of</strong> support to this bill.<br />
This bill remedies things because it would require all livestock exported to be fitted with an electronic<br />
identification tag <strong>of</strong> the kind approved by the secretary <strong>of</strong> the department. And the data from that tag is to be<br />
collected and recorded at each stage during the live export process, including when the beasts—and sheep, goats<br />
and camels—are taken <strong>of</strong>f the vessel in a foreign port, when perhaps they are transferred to a feedlot, when<br />
perhaps they are transferred to a market for sale and when perhaps they are transferred to an abattoir or a<br />
slaughterhouse.<br />
In other words, we will know, if this is done right—and it can be done right—where every single animal is at<br />
any point in time and exactly who is responsible for that animal. That alone will go some considerable way to<br />
forcing the industry to clean up its act. There will be no more ripping <strong>of</strong>f plastic tags and suddenly a sheep's<br />
identity is lost. There will be no more not using the electronic tag overseas. We will know exactly where every<br />
Australian-sourced animal is, who is responsible for it and, by implication, who is responsible for any<br />
mistreatment.<br />
I am doing what I am doing today at the behest <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> people in the industry—people who see the risks<br />
to their industry. They see that there are real problems with the industry and that unless they clean up their act—<br />
unless they can be seen to be acting more ethically and unless they can be seen to be minimising, at least, the<br />
cruelty to Australian livestock—they know that their industry is on notice.<br />
I, for one, will continue to do everything I can to see the industry shut down. People might see a contradiction<br />
in what I am trying to do here—in some ways I am trying to help the industry to be put on a more sustainable<br />
footing. I suppose what I am doing, ultimately, is saying that I will keep fighting to wind up the live animal export<br />
trade. But until we get a government that has a strong sense <strong>of</strong> integrity, until we get a government that has a clear<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the public interest and the national self-interest and until we get a government that is prepared to<br />
show a bit <strong>of</strong> strength and do what the public wants—shut this industry down—then let's at least do what we can<br />
in the interim to ensure that all livestock exported from this country are properly identified. I think that will go<br />
some way to ensuring that animals are better treated throughout the supply chain.<br />
And then, and only then, the government will be able to stand up and say that ESCAS actually means<br />
something—that the ESCAS principles <strong>of</strong> animal welfare mean something, that the principle <strong>of</strong> control through<br />
the supply chain means something and that traceability through the supply chain means something. An<br />
independent audit: how can you even audit ESCAS when we do not know where our livestock are, who is<br />
responsible for them or where they are going? We cannot audit it. So, at the moment, until there is proper<br />
electronic tagging <strong>of</strong> all Australian livestock exported overseas that will be completely hollow, and just theatre.<br />
I notice that the Victorian government, to its credit, has just introduced—or is in the process <strong>of</strong> introducing—<br />
electronic tagging for sheep and goats born in Victoria from 1 January 2017. So, good on the Victorian<br />
government!<br />
Ms McGowan: Hear, hear!<br />
Mr WILKIE: Thank you, member for Indi. Again, how predictable and how upsetting it is to see our own<br />
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture condemn the Victorian government.<br />
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your time and I commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:19): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
CHAMBER
6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The people who collect our trolleys at Coles and Woolworths, and those who flip our burgers at Hungry Jack's or<br />
McDonald's or who fry the chicken at KFC are getting paid less than the legal minimum. They certainly have been<br />
for a number <strong>of</strong> years, and this needs to be fixed.<br />
There is a loophole in the Fair Work Act that says if you are on an enterprise agreement you cannot be paid less<br />
than the legal minimum in the award, but that provision only applies to your nine-to-five working hours on<br />
Monday to Friday. The protection does not apply to people who work on weekends or at nights and, as a result,<br />
hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> workers—mostly young workers—who are getting paid very low wages have been<br />
underpaid by these very large corporations over many years because <strong>of</strong> substandard deals that have been approved<br />
in the Fair Work Commission. On one estimate today these young people are being underpaid a million dollars a<br />
day. A million dollars a day is going to Coles, Woolworths, Hungry Jack's, KFC and McDonald's instead <strong>of</strong> being<br />
paid to those people who are working late at nights and during weekends. This Fair Work Amendment (Pay<br />
Protection) Bill 2016 will fix it, because every 18- or 19-year-old who is out there doing a job in a fast-food<br />
restaurant or supermarket should be paid the legal minimum. They know that without being paid the legal<br />
minimum it is hard to make ends meet, and I think that every parent who has a child working at one <strong>of</strong> these<br />
institutions would be horrified to know that they are not getting paid the minimum award rate.<br />
Australia is not America, and that is a good thing, because in Australia we believe that people who spend their<br />
time working deserve a minimum wage, and minimum rights and conditions. We believe that having a job should<br />
not come at any cost—that there is a limit to what can be traded away. And we believe that, no matter where in<br />
you live in Australia, you deserve the same minimum wage, rights and conditions at work.<br />
That is why we have national employment standards set out and protected by national legislation. Here in<br />
Australia we have a proud history <strong>of</strong> a strong labour union movement that exists to protect people's rights at work.<br />
The labour movement has fought to secure the weekend and an eight-hour working day, and they have ensured<br />
those working outside <strong>of</strong> these hours are fairly compensated through higher pay rates. We have unions who, time<br />
after time, have rallied together and fought the conservatives' attempts to cut the conditions that Australian<br />
workers deserve, and that step up when conservative governments try to tip the balance against ordinary working<br />
people.<br />
I have spent my working life proudly standing up for workers and their unions, and I am proud to be part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
party that always puts people's rights at work ahead <strong>of</strong> big business interests. The Greens always have and always<br />
will protect people's rights at work. But what is clear is that our system has failed some <strong>of</strong> our lowest-paid<br />
workers in Australia. In our fast food companies and supermarket giants, workplace agreements have been struck<br />
that leave workers, some <strong>of</strong> our lowest-paid workers, worse <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
Thanks to a small number <strong>of</strong> dedicated individuals, it has been revealed that at some <strong>of</strong> Australia's largest<br />
businesses—Coles and Woolworths, McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC—workers have been underpaid<br />
hundreds <strong>of</strong> millions <strong>of</strong> dollars a year. The deal struck with Coles saw the company paying night and weekend<br />
penalty rates lower than the award, leaving many workers out <strong>of</strong> pocket overall, with estimates that the<br />
underpayment is worth between $70 million to $100 million a year.<br />
Woolworths, Australia's largest employer, has an almost identical agreement to Coles, suggesting many <strong>of</strong> its<br />
workers have also been underpaid. McDonald's workers are even worse <strong>of</strong>f. It is likely that hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands<br />
<strong>of</strong> workers have been underpaid at McDonald's. In 2013, McDonald's negotiated an agreement with the SDA<br />
under which some McDonald's employees are paid nearly one-third less than the award. McDonald's workers<br />
seem to be out <strong>of</strong> pocket by at least $50 million a year, including some young workers who earn just shy <strong>of</strong> $10 an<br />
hour.<br />
Fairfax Media estimates that Woolies, Hungry Jack's and KFC together have short-changed workers by about a<br />
billion dollars over five years. As part <strong>of</strong> its investigation, Fairfax Media spoke to a young woman, Brigid<br />
Forrester, who until recently worked up to four shifts a week at a McDonald's store in Perth, including Sunday<br />
evenings from 4 pm to 10 pm, and she was not paid penalty rates. One 19-year-old in South Australia was paid<br />
$19,000 for their year's work at McDonald's when they should have received $25,000 under the award.<br />
These are not corporations that are short <strong>of</strong> a quid. Last year, Woolworths had $58 billion in sales and Coles<br />
food and liquor sales alone brought in $32.6 billion. In 2013, McDonald's was estimated to have a turnover <strong>of</strong> $4<br />
billion. At a very minimum these companies can afford to pay the basic legal minimum wage set out in the award<br />
to people working late at night or on weekends.<br />
I think that most people in this country would be shocked to know that the people sitting behind the counter at<br />
these large corporations, which are meant to be regulated by federal law and where there are meant to be people<br />
looking after their interests, can be paid less than the award.<br />
Mr Falinski interjecting—<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7<br />
Mr BANDT: I can hear the government member interjecting, saying this is outrageous. It is not surprising that<br />
they would say that. The government side <strong>of</strong> politics has taken donations from these corporations. So have the<br />
Labor Party. But I am hoping that in this parliament, instead <strong>of</strong> interjecting and saying, as the government<br />
members seem to be saying, that it is okay for 18- or 19-year-olds to get less than the award, that this will be a<br />
wake-up call for this parliament—that this bill can get consensus across the parliament to close this loophole. As I<br />
said, we have a provision in the act that says agreements cannot go below the award for the ordinary 38 hours.<br />
Let's extend that to cover night-time work and weekend work as well.<br />
I want to acknowledge a number <strong>of</strong> people who have uncovered this scandal which is going on in some <strong>of</strong> our<br />
biggest employers. Josh Cullinan, in his spare time, has personally investigated and compiled evidence <strong>of</strong> this<br />
gross underpayment <strong>of</strong> employees. His work should be acknowledged. As should the reporters Ben Schneiders,<br />
Royce Millar, Nick Toscano and other members <strong>of</strong> the Fairfax Media team for their incredible work in further<br />
investigating and exposing these underpayments. I also want to acknowledge the workers who are working for<br />
these companies Duncan Hart, Penny Vickers and Michael Johnstone, who have taken it upon themselves to fight<br />
for their rights at work, and the rights <strong>of</strong> tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> their colleagues. And there is Siobhan Kelly, a<br />
lawyer who successfully ran the appeal case against Coles with Duncan and Josh, against teams <strong>of</strong> lawyers.<br />
When this parliament sees wrongdoing by unscrupulous employers, we should stand up to it. When this<br />
parliament sees young workers working around the clock and getting paid less than the legal minimum set out in<br />
our legislation we should do something about. The Greens will. We have brought a bill to this parliament. When<br />
Fairfax Media, Four Corners and Michael Fraser revealed the rampant worker exploitation at 7-Eleven, we<br />
brought that to parliament too. We had those cases heard in front <strong>of</strong> a Senate inquiry and we have legislation in<br />
front <strong>of</strong> parliament to fix that.<br />
It comes down to a fundamental point, one that I think everyone here should be able to agree with: an 18 yearold<br />
working nights at McDonald's should not be getting paid less than the legal minimum wage set out in the<br />
award. Otherwise, what are awards for? Why do we have federal legislation setting out minimum wages and<br />
conditions if someone is able to undercut it? They should not be able to undercut it. That is what a legal minimum<br />
is. If the law allows deals to be done that underpay our lowest-paid workers, then the law needs to be fixed.<br />
This bill will close that loophole in our national employment laws that unscrupulous big business employers<br />
have exploited to strike deals with organisations like the SDA that result in some <strong>of</strong> our low-paid workers being<br />
drastically underpaid. It provides a simple yet important reform. It extends protections for employees covered by<br />
an enterprise agreement to require employers to pay a base rate <strong>of</strong> pay, full rate <strong>of</strong> pay and any casual loading that<br />
is no less than the relevant award or national minimum wage order. This amendment will apply to existing<br />
agreements and to those that are yet to come into effect.<br />
I would ask everyone here in this place—every member <strong>of</strong> parliament—to ask themselves this: if their 17-, 18-<br />
or 19-year-old daughter went <strong>of</strong>f to work at one <strong>of</strong> these large institutions, would they like them to be paid less<br />
than the minimum award rate <strong>of</strong> pay? Do they think it is fair that their son or daughter could be paid less than the<br />
minimum award? If they do not think that is fair then it is not fair for everyone else who relies on these awards to<br />
make ends meet. We should fix it, we have the capacity to fix it and that is why I commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Air Services Amendment Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:30): I move:<br />
Second Reading<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016 because communities around the country that are<br />
affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected. The rules that govern flight paths<br />
and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with<br />
aircraft noise every day.<br />
This bill comes on the back <strong>of</strong> several years <strong>of</strong> my constituents working within the current law to seek a<br />
solution to issues <strong>of</strong> aircraft noise in Melbourne. In this time, I have spoken in this place about the experience <strong>of</strong><br />
my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds <strong>of</strong> residents. I and my <strong>of</strong>fice have joined<br />
residents in meetings with representatives <strong>of</strong> various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My<br />
colleague, the Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice, has further raised the issue in Senate estimates and other<br />
CHAMBER
8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
fora. And I know that Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft<br />
noise around the country.<br />
What is clear, after this protracted process that has taken place over many years, is that the law needs to change.<br />
Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> federal agencies so that when it comes to<br />
aircraft noise, communities have a voice.<br />
In introducing this bill I would like to inform the <strong>House</strong> about the problems faced by some <strong>of</strong> my constituents<br />
in Melbourne. Some aspects <strong>of</strong> the air noise issue my constituents face are specific to Melbourne and reflective <strong>of</strong><br />
the growing pressures on the liveability <strong>of</strong> our city. But beyond the specific circumstances, the experiences <strong>of</strong> my<br />
constituents are deeply illustrative <strong>of</strong> the problems faced by communities around the country, and will find<br />
parallels in the experiences <strong>of</strong> the constituents <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> my fellow parliamentarians.<br />
I was first in contact with residents <strong>of</strong> the suburb <strong>of</strong> East Melbourne in my electorate regarding aircraft noise in<br />
2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as<br />
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations <strong>of</strong> residents were<br />
borne out by <strong>of</strong>ficial flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above<br />
these suburbs. In one weekend over 200 flights took place over the suburb, and I understand that the number <strong>of</strong><br />
small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many, maybe looking at the MCG or<br />
the city, not essential flights by any means and, certainly, not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.<br />
For those who do not know the area <strong>of</strong> Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the<br />
MCG, and increasingly over many years operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low<br />
levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths <strong>of</strong> larger aircraft may also have been<br />
altered, resulting in an increase in air noise from these flights over the suburb. I have been contacted by residents<br />
in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air<br />
traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential<br />
buildings—<strong>of</strong>ten from helicopter traffic.<br />
It became clear as we tried to get to the bottom <strong>of</strong> this and how to deal with it that the buck stopped with<br />
nobody. In seeking a review <strong>of</strong> the situation from federal agencies, my constituents were sent from door to door,<br />
and told repeatedly that no response was possible. Airservices Australia is the government organisation<br />
established to provide services to the aviation industry, and residents are encouraged to contact it to raise<br />
concerns. But nowhere in the legislation governing Airservices Australia is there a requirement that it considers or<br />
minimises the impact <strong>of</strong> aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential<br />
areas.<br />
Repeatedly, residents in my electorate were told that the airspace above their homes was 'uncontrolled'. That is<br />
to say that neither air traffic control nor federal regulations applied to this airspace. Airservices Australia and<br />
CASA do have responsibility for planning and controlling flight paths, but are only empowered to do so with a<br />
view towards safety, efficiency for the industry or broader environmental issues. The legislation is silent when it<br />
comes to the responsibility to minimise the impact <strong>of</strong> flights on the human and natural environment, community<br />
amenity and residential areas. Because federal agencies are not required to protect community amenity or<br />
residential areas, airspace over residential areas is, if considered safe to fly in, not monitored or controlled. This<br />
means that small aircraft can fly almost at will at relatively low levels over suburbs, causing great distress and<br />
annoyance to residents.<br />
In uncontrolled airspace like this, the only option available to communities is to seek voluntary agreements<br />
from aircraft operators. But this relies on goodwill. My constituents have written to hundreds <strong>of</strong> aircraft operators<br />
but have received very few responses. Supported by the advocacy <strong>of</strong> residents, the City <strong>of</strong> Melbourne—the<br />
council—has worked to create a so-called Fly Neighbourly Agreement, to raise the concerns <strong>of</strong> residents with<br />
aircraft operators and seek an agreement to establish voluntary guidelines. This process is ongoing, and I<br />
acknowledge the important work <strong>of</strong> resident groups and the City <strong>of</strong> Melbourne, and <strong>of</strong> our Greens councillors<br />
Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oke in pushing this process forward.<br />
Nonetheless, when the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is<br />
very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary<br />
agreements. When I and my constituents repeatedly requested simple noise monitoring <strong>of</strong> aircraft over East<br />
Melbourne, just to establish a clear picture <strong>of</strong> the scale <strong>of</strong> the problem, we were told that this would be impossible<br />
because the airspace is not controlled. How is it that we can have high-intensity air traffic occurring over homes<br />
and impacting residents, but the federal agencies that exist to monitor and control air noise are not even able to<br />
record noise levels, let alone take any action to address them?<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9<br />
Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too <strong>of</strong>ten residents are simply unaware <strong>of</strong> changes to<br />
flight paths above their homes until they find out because <strong>of</strong> the significant increase in noise they hear daily once<br />
the changes have already happened. How can there be genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are<br />
not even informed until it is too late?<br />
It is a key principle that in our cities and regions, residents should have a meaningful say in the decisions that<br />
have an impact on their community. But when it comes to flight paths, this is currently not the case. I fear that if<br />
this continues, we are putting at risk the liveability <strong>of</strong> our cities that we value so highly. This bill is addressing a<br />
problem that is emblematic to all <strong>of</strong> us who want more people to live in the inner city. We have to manage the<br />
pressures that come along with that. It is time for a change, to truly give communities a voice and independent<br />
support. For this reason I am pleased to introduce this bill.<br />
The bill will do a number <strong>of</strong> things. First, it will enshrine in law new requirements for consultation with<br />
communities and give residents stronger independent representation when consulted. Under the bill, Airservices<br />
Australia must inform residents affected by changes to flight paths and, crucially, involve them in the process <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental assessments with the amenity <strong>of</strong> residents considered. When a flight path change is proposed,<br />
Airservices Australia will be required to inform the minister responsible for the EPBC Act, who in turn is to<br />
appoint a Community Aviation Advocate to represent the affected parts <strong>of</strong> the community. The Community<br />
Aviation Advocate is to be completely independent <strong>of</strong> Airservices Australia.<br />
Second, it will establish in legislation an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, independent <strong>of</strong> Airservices Australia.<br />
This will <strong>of</strong>fer important oversight and make recommendations to relevant agencies and ministers.<br />
Third, it will amend the role <strong>of</strong> Airservices Australia in legislation to include a requirement to minimise the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.<br />
This broadens the responsibility <strong>of</strong> Airservices Australia in monitoring and controlling airspace and I believe will<br />
place a requirement on Airservices Australia to consider airspace over residential areas that it currently does not.<br />
Fourth, the bill will require that the Airservices Australia board include an expert in environmental<br />
management and a representative <strong>of</strong> a community group affected by aircraft noise.<br />
Fifth, in response to the specific and acute circumstances <strong>of</strong> high-intensity flights <strong>of</strong> small aircraft in<br />
uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, the bill will prohibit flights <strong>of</strong> helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below<br />
2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres <strong>of</strong> central Melbourne, with clear exemptions in the public<br />
interest <strong>of</strong> emergency services, defence and other like aircraft.<br />
This bill includes several aspects <strong>of</strong> a previous private member's bill, introduced in 2011 by the then member<br />
for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan MP. I would like to acknowledge the former member for her work on this issue.<br />
The 2011 bill was supported, with amendments, by the coalition parties at that time, and I voted in favour <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
However, ultimately the bill was narrowly defeated in the <strong>House</strong> by one vote. Since that time the ongoing gaps in<br />
community representation in controlling the impacts <strong>of</strong> air traffic have remained.<br />
This bill would give Melbourne similar rules to that <strong>of</strong> Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city<br />
and over residential areas, and, <strong>of</strong> course, it will not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals,<br />
emergency services, defence or other aircraft.<br />
It is time for action on behalf <strong>of</strong> communities affected by aircraft noise. As such I commend this bill to the<br />
<strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (10:41): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
This Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016 is about three things: jobs, jobs and jobs.<br />
Right now, over 700,000 <strong>of</strong> our fellow Australians cannot find a job—not even one hour <strong>of</strong> paid work each week.<br />
More than a million Australians regularly record that they would like more hours <strong>of</strong> work and more security at<br />
work, but they cannot find it. Eight-hundred thousand members <strong>of</strong> our society are on a disability support pension.<br />
This government prefers to criticise and demonise them rather than support them into work.<br />
CHAMBER
10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
In our regions, in our country towns and in the suburbs, Australians have been locked out <strong>of</strong> employment—<br />
denied the dignity <strong>of</strong> work, the security <strong>of</strong> a decent income and the opportunity to better themselves. This<br />
parliament should be working to change that, not with hollow displays <strong>of</strong> empathy or empty talk <strong>of</strong> agility but<br />
with action. It is why I am asking the parliament to support Labor's plan to put local workers first.<br />
Skills and capacities from overseas will always be a necessary part <strong>of</strong> our modern, globalised open economy.<br />
Currently, I think Australians would be surprised to know there are more than a million visa holders in this<br />
country that have some form <strong>of</strong> work rights. Big parts <strong>of</strong> our temporary work visa system are being used and<br />
abused by dodgy labour-hire firms and unscrupulous employers. These operators are ripping <strong>of</strong>f guest workers,<br />
using them as cheap labour to avoid Australian laws, to avoid paying Australian wages and to avoid meeting<br />
Australian standards, and, in turn, giving these guests to our country a terrible experience to report on when they<br />
return home.<br />
The power <strong>of</strong> the employer to exploit visa holders is <strong>of</strong>ten absolute. We have seen it at Pizza Hut, 7-Eleven and<br />
now Caltex. These are not just dodgy subcontractors or backyard outfits; they are multibillion-dollar multinational<br />
companies paying people less than half the minimum wage, relying upon pyramid subcontracting and legal<br />
artifice and dodge to avoid paying their proper obligations. We all saw the appalling footage just last week <strong>of</strong> a<br />
staff member at 7-Eleven being taken over to the store ATM and made to withdraw money so they could hand<br />
back cash to their boss. This is not an oversight or an exception, it is a business model.<br />
No-one wins from this. The vast majority <strong>of</strong> good employers—businesses doing the right thing—are put at a<br />
disadvantage. Australia's international reputation suffers and the wages <strong>of</strong> all working people are undercut. As<br />
someone who has spent their life representing Australians who go to work every day, I will not stand for this. As a<br />
party brought forth dedicated to the proposition <strong>of</strong> a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, we will not stand for<br />
this. As an alternative government that believes in a fair go all round, we are proposing action to deal with it.<br />
I am proud that when I was Minister for Workplace Relations we toughened up Australia's 457 visas laws so<br />
that employers were required to look locally first. The now Prime Minister, the now Minister for Immigration and<br />
Border Protection and the now Treasurer all voted against Labor's sensible changes—they voted against better<br />
market testing and more controls in opposition, and they are doing nothing about it in government. It staggers me<br />
to hear the discredited Deputy Prime Minister championing these practices in the regions. When youth<br />
unemployment is 13 per cent in Townsville, 18 per cent in Armidale and 27 per cent in Cairns it is no wonder that<br />
the Nationals are becoming notorious as the sellouts <strong>of</strong> the bush.<br />
It is no wonder farmers are furious with the mess that the Nats have made <strong>of</strong> the backpacker tax. It is no<br />
wonder the Deputy Prime Minister's personal, erratic intervention has thrown the Murray-Darling Basin<br />
agreement into disarray and has enraged his colleagues from the Prime Minister down. It is no wonder that the<br />
beleaguered Attorney-General openly debated whether there is any value in being paired with the National Party.<br />
What else do we expect from the Deputy Prime Minister—the only man in Australian politics who doctors the<br />
Hansard and ends up looking worse!<br />
During the mining boom there were pockets in Australia, including places like Canberra, where unemployment<br />
was hovering around four per cent. But the world has changed. The economy has changed since then and our<br />
policies need to change with it. When full-time unemployment is on the rise we need to go further. But under the<br />
Liberals, the average number <strong>of</strong> 457 visas granted for cooks each year has more than doubled. Visa grants have<br />
increased for bricklayers, carpenters and cafe managers. These 457s are legitimately meant to fill a gap—to bring<br />
in specially skilled workers to do jobs an Australian could not do. Instead, we see Australians missing out on jobs,<br />
including electricians, motor mechanics, cabinet-makers and joiners. And, at the same time, apprenticeship places<br />
have fallen by 130,000.<br />
On this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> we know that temporary work visas are not the long-term answer to a national skills<br />
shortage. We need a national training agenda. We need to invest in Australians in TAFE-training skills and<br />
apprenticeships. And we should not be discouraging our people from learning a trade or from getting a<br />
qualification by sending the message that employers can just bring in someone else willing to do the job for less.<br />
This legislation is about supporting the Australian wages system, upholding our standards and creating<br />
Australian jobs. It sets more rigorous evidence requirements for labour market testing for firms to use 457 visas; a<br />
mandatory requirement for jobs to be advertised for a minimum <strong>of</strong> four weeks; a requirement for labour market<br />
testing to occur no more than four months before the nomination <strong>of</strong> the visa worker position; a ban on job ads that<br />
target only overseas workers or specified visa class holders to the detriment <strong>of</strong> locals; and a crackdown on job ads<br />
that set unrealistic requirements for vacant positions and are specifically designed to exclude locals.<br />
If employers genuinely need a 457 visa holder for their business they should have to provide evidence<br />
information to prove it. We simply ask employers to show the need for a nominated occupation and to prove that<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11<br />
none <strong>of</strong> these positions can be filled by Australians. Employers will be required to document their recruitment<br />
efforts, including the wage rates the job was advertised at and any relocation assistance <strong>of</strong>fered to Australian<br />
workers.<br />
Today, I am asking the parliament to support a new Australian jobs test. The Australian jobs test would mean<br />
that before the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection approves any labour market agreement they would<br />
need: to consider whether the agreement supports or creates Australian jobs; a labour market needs statement<br />
provided by the employer demonstrating why they need to use the temporary skilled migration; a training plan<br />
adopted by the employer showing how they will improve the skills <strong>of</strong> local workers; whether the visa workers will<br />
be able to transfer skills to Australian workers; and the employer's plan to support 457 visa workers during their<br />
stay in Australia, including information about workplace entitlements and community services. The Australian<br />
jobs test would apply for the life <strong>of</strong> the agreement. It would be an additional safeguard to labour market testing,<br />
not a substitute for it.<br />
The quality <strong>of</strong> Australian work and the safety in Australian workplaces is a first-order priority for the Labor<br />
Party and, indeed, for the labour movement. This legislation raises the standards <strong>of</strong> 457 visa workers in<br />
occupations where it is mandatory for Australians to hold a licence, registration or membership. For example, in<br />
trades such as the electrical or plumbing occupations, where workers must hold state and territory occupational<br />
licences, our new system would simply require visa applicants in these occupations who hold a passport from a<br />
nominated country either to hold the relevant licence when they apply for the visa or to undertake a mandatory<br />
skills assessment to demonstrate that they can meet the standards, pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism and safety required to obtain<br />
the licence. These standards must be met before the minister grants the visa.<br />
The new visa conditions spelt out in this legislation would require 457 visa holders in licensed occupations not<br />
to perform the occupation before obtaining a licence, or to obtain the licence within 60 days <strong>of</strong> arriving in<br />
Australia; not to engage in any working consistent with the licence or its conditions; and to notify the department<br />
proactively <strong>of</strong> any changes to their licence.<br />
I understand that it is not traditional for an opposition to put forward concrete legislation like this so early in the<br />
term <strong>of</strong> a government, but someone has to do it! It might be easy for us to sit back and complain, to try to garner a<br />
dividend from the government's inadequacy. This issue is too important for that. People doing it tough should not<br />
have to wait three years for this parliament to wake up and to hear their concerns to act. It is a chance for our<br />
parliament to do its job.<br />
This government cannot have it both ways; it cannot complain about Labor raising these issues and also try to<br />
undermine Labor for raising these issues in trying to stand up for Australian standards. We recognise that guest<br />
workers are part <strong>of</strong> the Australian economy but we also recognise that the parliament should focus on making sure<br />
that we give our own unemployed and our own underemployed the best possible chance and the best start in life.<br />
Unlike the government, who come to this issue belatedly, in the Labor Party we know where we stand and we<br />
mean what we say. We are proud <strong>of</strong> our globalised economy but we are also proud <strong>of</strong> having policies which say<br />
that you buy Australian, you build Australian and you employ Australian. I commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms McGowan.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:52): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
I am pleased to present a bill for an act to amend the Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Act 1998. This bill is to be<br />
known as the Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016.<br />
The bill calls on the government, when formulating policy, to ensure that regional impact statements are<br />
prepared and accompany every budget and Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report.<br />
This amendment bill gives voice to those who live in regional Australia and it goes to the very heart <strong>of</strong> regional<br />
living and its relationship with the government and its fiscal policy.<br />
In regional Australia, government initiatives <strong>of</strong>ten have a disproportionate impact on communities. This is due<br />
to distance, to lack <strong>of</strong> infrastructure, to low population density and to the time and cost involved in delivering<br />
services.<br />
CHAMBER
12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
This is clearly evident with patchy and nonexistent mobile phone coverage or internet connections and in<br />
communities with little or no access to public transport which are limited by their day-to-day ability to participate.<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this bill is to call for regional Australia statements to provide information to allow the<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> government policy decisions on regional Australia to be understood and<br />
communicated—communicated by and with the government, by and with departments, by and with stakeholders<br />
and by and with advocacy groups—with communities, with individuals and, importantly with the MPs who<br />
represent them.<br />
This bill calls on the Treasurer to authorise these statements because the Treasurer is the architect <strong>of</strong> the budget,<br />
and it is surely a principle <strong>of</strong> good government that the Treasurer be responsible for both the reporting and the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> his budget decisions—especially the impact, from my perspective, on those <strong>of</strong> us who live in rural and<br />
regional Australia.<br />
The bill calls for much more detail than what is provided in the current rural and regional ministerial<br />
statements. While these statements can be useful, the current practice is to describe new and old programs. This<br />
amendment calls for providing regional Australia statements that provide information to allow the assessment <strong>of</strong><br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> major government policy decisions. So, it calls for data, statistics, trends, analysis, statements,<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> modelling and a demonstration that the government has truly appreciated the impact <strong>of</strong> its fiscal<br />
policies on those <strong>of</strong> us who live outside the cities.<br />
With the adoption <strong>of</strong> this amendment, people who live in regional Australia in communities <strong>of</strong> Indi such as<br />
Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla and Alexandra can be confident and reassured that their needs have been taken<br />
into account in the creation <strong>of</strong> the government's fiscal policies.<br />
The intention <strong>of</strong> the bill<br />
The intention <strong>of</strong> the bill is to ensure that people who live in regional Australia can have full confidence that the<br />
government really does understand the circumstances relevant to our lives and has taken these into account when<br />
making decisions.<br />
Intended results <strong>of</strong> the legislation are that it improves knowledge and understanding <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> fiscal and<br />
budgetary measures upon the community; that, as a result <strong>of</strong> greater information and understanding, there is more<br />
confidence and trust in government and in government's ability and willingness to govern for all Australians; and<br />
that, with greater trust and confidence, there will be increased participation in our democracy and a willingness to<br />
take on leadership positions necessary to advocate for this great nation <strong>of</strong> ours, particularly leadership in rural and<br />
regional Australia and particularly leadership by those groups <strong>of</strong> us who so <strong>of</strong>ten suffer the unintended<br />
consequences <strong>of</strong> poor government understanding <strong>of</strong> our lives.<br />
The major elements <strong>of</strong> the bill are as follows.<br />
Item 1 proposes an obligation upon the Treasurer to publicly release and table regional impact statements with<br />
each budget and MYEFO.<br />
Item 2 inserts a new part 5A—Regional Australia statements.<br />
Section 19B outlines the purpose <strong>of</strong> regional Australia statements, this being to provide information to allow<br />
the assessment <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> government decisions on regional Australia.<br />
Section 19C details the contents <strong>of</strong> the statements, including the likely economic, social, cultural and<br />
environmental impacts on regional Australia <strong>of</strong> key government initiatives. Specifically, it requires coverage <strong>of</strong>:<br />
… the likely impacts on regional Australia <strong>of</strong> key Government initiatives, or significant changes to such initiatives,<br />
announced:<br />
(i) since the last mid-year economic and fiscal outlook report was released; or<br />
(ii) in connection with the budget; and<br />
(b) progress made … in implementing key Government initiatives that are likely to have an impact on regional Australia.<br />
It calls for regional Australia statements to be prepared having regard to the following:<br />
(a) the economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> Government initiatives;<br />
(b) the economic drivers <strong>of</strong> regional communities;<br />
(c) the disproportionate effect that Government initiatives may have in regional communities due to a lack <strong>of</strong> infrastructure,<br />
including:<br />
(i) mobile phone coverage; and<br />
(ii) reliable internet connections; and<br />
(iii) access to public transport;<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 13<br />
(d) the lack <strong>of</strong> access that people living in regional communities have to government services due to cost, and long travel<br />
distances and times;<br />
(e) the effect that lack <strong>of</strong> competition in regional communities has on:<br />
(i) the cost <strong>of</strong> living and doing business in regional communities; and<br />
(ii) the cost and difficulty involved in complying with regulatory requirements for people and businesses in regional—<br />
Australia.<br />
Section 19D allows for the Treasurer to request government bodies to provide information to help in the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> regional Australia statements.<br />
Why is this important? I acknowledge the presence in the chamber <strong>of</strong> the minister particularly responsible for<br />
aged care, which covers an important part <strong>of</strong> regional Australia—a vital service. What I have to say is that there<br />
are so many services that we provide in rural and regional Australia, but we do it differently to those who live in<br />
the city. But our experience is that much <strong>of</strong> government policy is one size fits all, and it is city centric. So, in our<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> child care, in aged care, in higher education, in health services and in infrastructure, what we know is<br />
that the unintended consequences frequently cause communities and the volunteers in those communities extra<br />
work, extra time and huge cost. But what we also know is that there is a fear that the government is not governing<br />
for us.<br />
While I do not actually believe that, I do know that facts fight fears. So we call on the government to give us<br />
the facts. Show us how, in the implementation <strong>of</strong> fiscal policy, you have taken into account the circumstances in<br />
rural and regional Australia; you understand our particular positions; and you are governing for all <strong>of</strong> us. That is<br />
what we are asking for through these impact statements.<br />
Call to action<br />
In conclusion, I call on the government to acknowledge the impact that government decisions have on regional<br />
Australian communities and that this information is then provided to relevant parties. I call on the government to<br />
support this bill, as it demonstrates all the principles <strong>of</strong> good governance by promoting transparency and<br />
accountability. It will bring increased trust in a system <strong>of</strong> government, with the knowledge particularly by people<br />
in rural and regional Australia that their best interests are being considered, and I believe it will truly encourage<br />
people to participate at a much higher level in democracy.<br />
So I call on the government to commit to this bill, to bring it up for consideration, to bring it up for a vote and<br />
to adopt it.<br />
I commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Ms Sharkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and<br />
resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next day <strong>of</strong> sitting.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS<br />
World AIDS Day<br />
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:00): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong><br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) 1 December marks World AIDS Day, which is held every year to raise awareness about the issues concerning HIV and<br />
AIDS, and is a day for people to show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died;<br />
and<br />
(b) the theme for World AIDS Day this year is 'HIV is still here—and it's on the move';<br />
(2) acknowledges the roles played by people living with HIV and their friends, family, supporters, AIDS activists and<br />
researchers, past and present, in making living with HIV possible; and<br />
(3) will support actions to reduce stigma and prevent new HIV transmissions, and work towards a cure.<br />
The 1st <strong>of</strong> December marks World AIDS Day. It is held every year to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the issues in relation to<br />
HIV and AIDS. It is a day for people to show their support for those living with HIV and also to remember those<br />
who have died. It is always important to acknowledge that there have been many, many terrible tragedies across<br />
decades from those who have died from this terrible disease and to acknowledge all <strong>of</strong> those people and their<br />
families in anticipation <strong>of</strong> World AIDS Day.<br />
CHAMBER
14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The theme for this year is 'HIV is still here, and it's on the move', because the prevalence <strong>of</strong> HIV and AIDS is<br />
something that is continuing to be a really important problem for our society both here in Australia and<br />
internationally. I think that, given the amount <strong>of</strong> time that has elapsed since HIV and AIDS first came to the<br />
nation's attention and since the campaigns <strong>of</strong> the 1980s, sometimes it is possible for us to forget just how<br />
significant and how ongoing this crisis is in Australia and across the world. The Australian Federation <strong>of</strong> AIDS<br />
Organisations advises that, by the end <strong>of</strong> 2015, 36.7 million people across the world were estimated to be living<br />
with HIV, with 46 per cent <strong>of</strong> them being on life-saving antiretroviral treatment, which certainly would not have<br />
been the case a long time ago.<br />
In 2015, there were 2.1 million people who became newly infected with HIV, down from 3.1 million in 2000;<br />
17 million had access to HIV treatments, up from 7.5 million in 2010 and 15 million in 2014; and 1.1 million<br />
people died <strong>of</strong> AIDS-related causes in that year, a fall <strong>of</strong> 43 per cent in annual deaths since 2003. These are<br />
encouraging statistics, but the number <strong>of</strong> people affected is still too high. It is worth noting, given some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
conceptions about this particular disease, that adolescent girls and young women aged 15-24 accounted for 20 per<br />
cent <strong>of</strong> new infections among adults globally in 2015, although they comprise only 11 per cent <strong>of</strong> the population.<br />
This is a very multifaceted challenge for the world to face and, here in Australia, it is something that we continue<br />
to face together.<br />
I wanted to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Australian Federation <strong>of</strong> AIDS Organisations and to thank<br />
Darryl O'Donnell, who joined the federation from ACON earlier this year. That organisation is a federation <strong>of</strong><br />
AIDS organisations. The AIDS organisations in this country have been doing such a fantastic job <strong>of</strong> not just<br />
cutting down the stigma around HIV and AIDS but also making sure that people have access to life-saving<br />
medication like the retroviral medication I mentioned earlier. I know that, most importantly, they are looking for<br />
ways to prevent people from contracting the disease in the future. They are looking at ways we can make<br />
medicine for people with HIV and AIDS something that is a feature <strong>of</strong> the past—if we could get rid <strong>of</strong> AIDS like<br />
we have with polio, for example, what a wonderful world it would be.<br />
One important measure in the fight for prevention <strong>of</strong> HIV and AIDS is pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I know<br />
that everyone in this <strong>House</strong> and in the other place will join me in encouraging the government to continue to work<br />
towards listing PrEP on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is really important that, where we can help with<br />
prevention <strong>of</strong> the contraction <strong>of</strong> HIV, we do seek to help with prevention <strong>of</strong> the contraction <strong>of</strong> HIV. It is<br />
something that I know many, many people will be campaigning for.<br />
My friend Phil Carswell, who I mentioned in, I think, last year's World AIDS Day motion or possibly the year<br />
before, is a founding member <strong>of</strong> the Victorian AIDS Council. He recently travelled to Canberra—a little bit later<br />
than he had anticipated doing so—to give a speech about the history <strong>of</strong> AIDS activism and responses to HIV and<br />
AIDS in this country since those fairly notorious grim reaper ads <strong>of</strong> the 1980s. I particularly want to pay tribute to<br />
him. He is not as young as he once was—and he will not mind me saying that—but is continuing to work very<br />
hard in the campaign to assist in breaking down stigma, to ensure that people get the treatment they need and to<br />
build on the efforts towards prevention, which are so important.<br />
I also have a range <strong>of</strong> wonderful organisations in my home state <strong>of</strong> Queensland. For example, I recently had the<br />
benefit <strong>of</strong>, alongside Tanya Plibersek, the Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, visiting the Queensland AIDS<br />
Council, and I wanted to thank them. They did an amazing job at the pride fair this year <strong>of</strong> putting a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
information out and reaching out to people—those with HIV and without HIV—in relation to this terrible disease,<br />
and I thank them for their work as well.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Albanese: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:07): The first World AIDS Day was back in 1988, and it was 1984 when I first<br />
turned up as a first-year medical student and the world was grappling with this new viral infection <strong>of</strong> which we<br />
knew very little. It was, at that time, HTLV-1 and -2, and we could not really see where this was going to head.<br />
But here we are, 30 years later, with 35 million people living with HIV, and about the same number having passed<br />
away due to HIV since the first cases were recorded.<br />
Back in the eighties, there was great uncertainty and incredible fear. There was First World HIV and there was<br />
developing world HIV, and for some time we almost thought that they were completely different conditions, until<br />
we better understood the pathophysiology. Then, when I was an eye surgeon, in 1996, one <strong>of</strong> my major jobs in a<br />
major Sydney hospital was to treat CMV retinopathy, which was almost exclusively, at that time, due to HIV. So,<br />
as a medical student, I saw that this exploding area <strong>of</strong> HIV, then known as AIDS, was going to become a major<br />
job for clinicians <strong>of</strong> my generation. And it is only now—since, as we once said, we 'scienced the heck out <strong>of</strong> it'—<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 15<br />
that we can finally say that most people will live with and not die from AIDS. And that has been an incredible<br />
scientific and technological achievement.<br />
Of course, the numbers are still very stark if you go to sub-Saharan Africa, where two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the world's<br />
cases still exist, and the great challenge there is to get people on treatment. So I do commend the 90-90-90 goals<br />
that have been set as part <strong>of</strong> World AIDS Day, and those are that: we know about at least 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> all<br />
infections; 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> those we know about are able to access ART, the appropriate therapy; and, for those on<br />
therapy, 90 per cent carry zero or near-zero low viral loads. Now, 90-90-90 sounds really good, until you do the<br />
multiplication and find what that really means is that only 72 per cent <strong>of</strong> people living with HIV are actually<br />
appropriately treated under ART. So it is still a very, very distant goal, particularly in parts <strong>of</strong> remote and sub-<br />
Saharan Africa.<br />
To improve that, we have done things in different parts <strong>of</strong> the world. The most important things, I think, were<br />
major deals done, driven by Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Kremer and others out <strong>of</strong> Harvard, to set up a global fund, first<br />
<strong>of</strong> all, to provide a pull mechanism to fund the cures, but then—as it became pretty obvious that the cures were<br />
there and we simply needed to strike agreements—to make sure that these expensive drugs were available in<br />
countries where HIV was endemic. And, while we saw some potential risks—that these drugs, sold for one price<br />
in a developed economy, and provided virtually for free by beneficent pharmaceutical manufacturers, created<br />
some tensions where some <strong>of</strong> these products could be siphoned away and sold on the black market—that ended up<br />
being an incredibly minor challenge, compared to the overwhelming benefit <strong>of</strong> making sure that these drugs were<br />
available.<br />
Closer to home, right here in Australia, we have seen an absolute focus on approving these drugs as soon as<br />
they have been appropriately assessed by international agencies and then by the TGA. We took away, as a<br />
government, the CD4 count requirement which said that, until you had a particular blood test result, you could not<br />
access the treatment. We realised that that was just delaying treatment. And what this is about is early<br />
identification and treatment.<br />
The last national HIV strategy is coming to its conclusion, and we are talking about where we go from here. So,<br />
to remind ourselves <strong>of</strong> those facts: there were still, around the world, 2.1 million new cases last year, and 150,000<br />
<strong>of</strong> those were children; and we know that the number <strong>of</strong> people receiving ART has gone up from 7½ million to<br />
closer to 17 million in the last 10 years, but that is still only halfway to where we would like to be.<br />
But, most importantly, we have worked really hard on maternal to child transmission. Around the world, there<br />
are 1.8 million children who have HIV through no fault other than they were born to a parent who was a carrier <strong>of</strong><br />
HIV. In Australia, we have seen that number fall precipitously. Around the world we have now seen a halving,<br />
since 2010, <strong>of</strong> maternal to child transmission, and that in itself is a major victory because, when you talk about<br />
maternal to child transmission, you are talking about someone living for the full period <strong>of</strong> their life carrying this<br />
disease, which is an incredible burden.<br />
In closing, this is a victory <strong>of</strong> science and technology. Never had the world got together, I do not think, save for<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> influenza and epidemics, to be so singularly focused on finding a cure, and, for a decade, there was very,<br />
very little hope that that would be possible, and it injected huge amounts <strong>of</strong> community fear, uncertainty, stigma<br />
and discrimination. Thankfully, we are past that. Thankfully, now, we have got these numbers down. I think,<br />
without being too self congratulatory, developed economies found solutions for developing economies, like we<br />
have <strong>of</strong>ten failed to do in other areas. So, on World AIDS Day, I salute every clinician and researcher involved in<br />
that victory.<br />
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:12): I rise to support the motion from my friend the member for Griffith,<br />
acknowledging that this week we will hold, on Thursday, World AIDS Day, and the theme this year is: HIV is<br />
still here and it is on the move. World AIDS Day has been held every year since 1988. More than 36 million<br />
people around the world are living with HIV.<br />
The first recorded case <strong>of</strong> HIV AIDS in Australia was in Sydney in October 1982, and the first Australian death<br />
from AIDS occurred in July 1983. Between 1984 and mid-1985, there was a 540 per cent increase in HIV<br />
infections. And there was no cure. Labor health minister Neal Blewett, with the support <strong>of</strong> the then opposition,<br />
deserves incredible praise for embarking on a world-leading, pioneering and brave campaign to promote a safesex<br />
message. A television advertisement showing the Grim Reaper knocking people down like pins in a bowling<br />
alley was first screened on 5 April 1987 and kicked <strong>of</strong>f efforts to provide the public with reliable information on<br />
preventing HIV and AIDS.<br />
The success <strong>of</strong> the campaign can be judged by the reduction in the rate <strong>of</strong> infections. New diagnoses <strong>of</strong> HIV—<br />
according to the Australian Federation <strong>of</strong> Aids Organisations, based in my electorate in Newtown—have<br />
stabilised at just over 1,000 per year in the last three years. HIV diagnosis among Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
CHAMBER
16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Islanders, however, has been increasing over the last five years. Ninety per cent <strong>of</strong> people living with HIV are<br />
men.<br />
The stabilisation follows a concerted effort to increase the scope and regularity <strong>of</strong> HIV testing. The key is<br />
awareness. Pre-exposure prophylaxis has revolutionised HIV prevention. Through its use—along with rapid HIV<br />
testing, treatment as prevention, condoms and lube, and supportive attitudes and laws—the situation in Australia<br />
has stabilised. What is more, highly effective treatment for those with HIV means that deaths in Australia are now<br />
rare.<br />
Unfortunately, people are still dying, including my dear friend and the first out MP in Australia, Paul O'Grady,<br />
who passed away in recent times after a very long illness. When he contracted HIV he resigned from the New<br />
South Wales parliament because he was not expected to live very much longer. He <strong>of</strong> course lived for decades<br />
longer as a result <strong>of</strong> the effort <strong>of</strong> science in prolonging people's lives and providing that treatment.<br />
Internationally, there remains a massive challenge. In our region <strong>of</strong> the Asia-Pacific, 180,000 cases <strong>of</strong> AIDS<br />
and 1.2 million cases <strong>of</strong> HIV are reported each year. The Australian government has committed $220 million over<br />
three years towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This fund operates in 120 countries<br />
and is estimated to have saved 20 million lives since 2002. Australia should play a leading role in our region in<br />
tackling HIV, and this <strong>of</strong> course should be a bipartisan effort.<br />
I want to today pay tribute to those people who in the early years had the courage to come out and say that they<br />
were HIV positive, sometimes attracting criticism and very personal derision as a result <strong>of</strong> the courageous stance<br />
that they took. Many <strong>of</strong> those people are no longer around. But, as a result <strong>of</strong> that many—hundreds <strong>of</strong><br />
thousands—<strong>of</strong> lives here in Australia have been saved. The courage and vision that the former Labor government<br />
showed—and also it must be said the fact that the opposition <strong>of</strong> the time was prepared to support that leadership<br />
from Neal Blewett has made a real difference in our society. It is another reason why we need to be open about<br />
these issues, how we need to as a community do whatever we can to ensure that in future years we do not actually<br />
have a theme <strong>of</strong> 'HIV is still here and it is on the move'; but that we can celebrate that HIV is in the past.<br />
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:17): It is a privilege to follow both the member for Griffith and the<br />
member for Grayndler on this important matter. I rise to speak in support <strong>of</strong> the member for Griffith's motion on<br />
World AIDS Day, which is Thursday <strong>of</strong> this week, a health issue which has wide-reaching impacts across all <strong>of</strong><br />
our constituencies.<br />
World AIDS Day is a good opportunity to both reflect on the significant progress we have made in fighting<br />
AIDS in our community, and to reaffirm our commitment to the challenges ahead. Certainly, developments in<br />
treating HIV have been a public health triumph. From the first Australian AIDS death in 1983 until the present<br />
day, where living with HIV is no longer a death sentence but is managed as a chronic disease, Australia has been<br />
at the front line <strong>of</strong> treatment.<br />
Over the last 30 years the development <strong>of</strong> retrovirals, combined in this country with our world-class universal<br />
health care system, Medicare, and our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme have meant the vast majority <strong>of</strong><br />
Australians with HIV have been able to access the health care they need to ensure they will not go on to develop<br />
AIDS. We have also led the world internationally in trying to make sure that these retrovirals are available in<br />
developing countries.<br />
We are at a stage where most people who now contract HIV in this country will be able to successfully manage<br />
their condition and remain relatively healthy for the rest <strong>of</strong> their lives. And advancements in treatment are<br />
continuing. One factor which will play a significant role in the fight against HIV is pre-exposure prophylaxis<br />
medicine, PrEP, which experts have called a 'game changer'. Trials <strong>of</strong> PrEP have shown it is highly effective at<br />
stopping the transmission <strong>of</strong> HIV, and that it will play an important part in supporting Australia to reach the goal<br />
<strong>of</strong> virtually eliminating HIV transmissions by 2020. I commend the number <strong>of</strong> state governments who are trialling<br />
PrEP and making PrEP available. We hope that it will eventually be available on the pharmaceutical benefits<br />
schedule.<br />
But, while we mark the progress we have made in fighting HIV/AIDS in Australia, more than ever we cannot<br />
afford to be complacent. According to the most recent statistics, there are approximately 27,150 people living with<br />
HIV in Australia. It is estimated that 12 per cent <strong>of</strong> these people are unaware <strong>of</strong> their HIV positive status. While<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> notifications per 100 people diagnosed and living with HIV has declined by 25 per cent in the past ten<br />
years in Australia, progress has flat-lined over the past three years. Significantly, the HIV diagnosis rate in<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has increased in the past five years.<br />
We cannot afford any sign <strong>of</strong> complacency. Many Australians are <strong>of</strong> the impression that the great success we<br />
have had in dramatically reducing the numbers <strong>of</strong> Australians with HIV means that HIV-AIDS was no longer the<br />
threat it had once been. This is simply not the case. Australians must continue to be made aware that HIV remains<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 17<br />
a very serious threat and that the transmission <strong>of</strong> HIV can only be halted by safe sex practices and through harm<br />
minimisation with intravenous drug users. We still need to work very significantly with Aboriginal and Torres<br />
Strait Islander communities as a population to get the rates down there and we are working on the evidence for<br />
that.<br />
As well as awareness <strong>of</strong> how at-risk groups can minimise their risk <strong>of</strong> acquisition, we must also promote<br />
awareness <strong>of</strong> how to support individuals living with, or affected by, HIV/AIDS. Confronting discrimination and<br />
promoting acceptance should be an essential part <strong>of</strong> community conversations about HIV/AIDS. Challenging the<br />
stigma around the disease is a critical part <strong>of</strong> promoting awareness and making sure people not only feel<br />
empowered to tackle the disease if they are infected, but to take steps to protect themselves from transmission in<br />
the first place.<br />
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> researchers, AIDS activists, friends, family and supporters, as<br />
well as people living with HIV, in building a community in which HIV is now a disease people can live with. We<br />
know it has been the community working on prevention, hand in hand with government, community organisations<br />
and HIV-infected people, that has underpinned the success here in Australia, and that must continue to be the<br />
case. Again, I am always disappointed that we have seen many <strong>of</strong> the HIV-AIDS organisations defunded under<br />
this government. I would caution very strongly that the government, if it is going to continue to get infection rates<br />
down, needs to continue to engage with the sector. That funding needs to be restored or they need to work with<br />
the community to see how they can continue the very important services they provide today.<br />
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (11:22): I support the motion moved by the member for<br />
Griffith. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, has been called 'the epidemic <strong>of</strong> our time'. Since first<br />
being recognised in 1984, more than 35 million people have died from AIDS or HIV. It is one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
destructive pandemics in world history. Since the first diagnosis <strong>of</strong> AIDS in Australia, in 1984, there have been<br />
more than 36,000 people diagnosed as HIV positive in Australia. It is estimated that more than 25,000 Australians<br />
are currently living with HIV. However, with the combination therapies now available, it is not the challenge that<br />
it once was.<br />
AIDS initially appeared in the early 1980s as a trickle <strong>of</strong> cases and posed a dilemma for health workers, who<br />
did not understand it. By the mid-1980s the public was worked into a hysterical state. In Queensland, under the<br />
then Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the hysteria was arguably even worse. Recently released Queensland cabinet<br />
minutes from 1985 reveal the depth <strong>of</strong> misinformation and hatred for the LGBTIQ community at the time.<br />
Queensland's then welfare, youth and ethnic affairs minister, Ge<strong>of</strong>f Muntz, said:<br />
As a parent, I would have strong reservations about letting young people compete in a pool that was used for such a sick event<br />
as a gay swimming carnival.<br />
Although the then Queensland health minister, Brian Austin, argued in cabinet to rescind the ban on condomvending<br />
machines in Queensland, the Bjelke-Petersen cabinet rejected his arguments and the ban remained,<br />
notwithstanding the fact that the World Health Organization had recommended that the ban be lifted. Homosexual<br />
activity was a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence in Queensland at the time under Bjelke-Petersen. It was not until 1990 and the first<br />
Labor government to be elected in Queensland for 32 years, with the great Wayne Goss as Premier, that<br />
homosexuality laws in Queensland were overturned. But in the 1980s police were regularly raiding venues in<br />
Brisbane and charging people for engaging in consensual homosexual acts.<br />
With such an unenlightened government in Queensland in the 1980s, the community remained ill informed<br />
about AIDS, which promoted fear and encouraged discrimination towards the LGBTIQ community. The grim<br />
reaper advertising campaign contributed to that hysteria without providing any information about the disease<br />
itself. Although the larger community campaign was devoid <strong>of</strong> detail, targeted campaigns were being rolled out to<br />
the LGBTIQ community with much more detail and practical advice on how to stay safe. The larger community<br />
was further gripped with fear when several babies in Queensland died after receiving infected blood. The AIDS<br />
epidemic then became real to all Australians, not just the LGBTIQ community. Although Australia quickly set up<br />
screening procedures to ensure that blood transfusions were safe, the fear created by these infections quickly<br />
turned into anger. That anger, sadly, was directed at the LGBTIQ community, who were blamed for putting babies<br />
at risk. Adam Carr from the Victorian AIDS Action Committee delivered a speech at a public meeting in<br />
December 1984, just as the media was latching onto the story <strong>of</strong> the babies being infected. This is part <strong>of</strong> that<br />
speech:<br />
Unscrupulous politicians, extreme right wing fringe groups, powerful religious bigots and a sensation-hungry media will<br />
combine to exploit public fear and to channel ignorance into bigotry and the search for a scapegoat, and we have no guarantee<br />
that even the most liberal-minded <strong>of</strong> governments will be able to resist this kind <strong>of</strong> pressure for long.<br />
That was 32 years ago. I can relate to the frustration Adam Carr felt at the time.<br />
CHAMBER
18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Sadly, while the issues are different, the fear and division being inflamed by some politicians and elements in<br />
the media are the same today as they were in 1984. HIV is no longer the death sentence it was considered to be in<br />
the early 1980s. In Australia, more than 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> people living with HIV have access to antiretroviral<br />
treatment. Of these people, 92 per cent have an undetectable viral load. The targets set by the United Nations are<br />
that, by 2020, 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> people living with HIV will know their status, 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> people diagnosed with<br />
HIV will be receiving treatment and 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> people on treatment will have suppressed viral loads. We<br />
cannot be complacent about HIV and AIDS, but we have significantly improved the outlook for those living with<br />
it. We must keep up the awareness campaign to highlight the importance <strong>of</strong> safe sex.<br />
World AIDS Day is an important part <strong>of</strong> this. Although by far the highest rate <strong>of</strong> transmission <strong>of</strong> HIV is<br />
through male homosexual activity, I stress that it can be transmitted by both homosexual and heterosexual<br />
activity. World AIDS Day is also a show <strong>of</strong> support for those in the community living with HIV, their friends and<br />
families and the many activists and researchers who have worked tirelessly to make it possible to live with HIV. I<br />
mention in particular the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation. It has been around since the 1980s. In fact, my brother<br />
was collecting for the foundation nearly 20 years ago when he met his partner, Michael—and they are still<br />
together.<br />
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:27): HIV is still here and it is on the move. This is, <strong>of</strong> course, the theme <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Thursday's World AIDS Day and it goes to the heart <strong>of</strong> this very important motion the member for Griffith has put<br />
before the <strong>House</strong>, which I am pleased to speak in support <strong>of</strong>. I was also very pleased to be in the chamber for the<br />
contribution <strong>of</strong> my friend the member for Moreton, who spoke very effectively and passionately about the<br />
challenges <strong>of</strong> overcoming discrimination, which has been at the heart <strong>of</strong> our successes as a country in overcoming<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the challenges posed by HIV/AIDS. I was also here for the contribution by the shadow minister for<br />
health, the member for Ballarat, who touched on the progress and cautioned about complacency, which I think<br />
really goes to the heart <strong>of</strong> where we sit today in Australia as well as looking more broadly to the challenges in the<br />
developing world posed by the continuing prevalence <strong>of</strong> HIV.<br />
In this motion, there are a couple <strong>of</strong> elements that deserve to be drawn out. First is the question <strong>of</strong> awareness<br />
raising, noting that this is a very important week where we show our support for work that has been done and for<br />
people. We acknowledge that 36 million people have died around the world <strong>of</strong> complications relating to HIV and<br />
that there are a similar number today, tens <strong>of</strong> millions, who are living with HIV. We show our solidarity for all <strong>of</strong><br />
those people and our support for them. We also acknowledge the extraordinary advances that have taken place—<br />
advances in treatment but also advances in public health and wider public policymaking. It is important that all <strong>of</strong><br />
us in this debate touch upon the extraordinary contribution <strong>of</strong> then health minister Neal Blewett and, indeed, to<br />
acknowledge the bipartisanship that was shown at that time when this issue first came into Australian political life<br />
and the critical importance <strong>of</strong> that bold and entirely appropriate response. But, in acknowledging those actions and<br />
the advantages in treatment, there is a challenge that comes with it, and that challenge really comes to visibility<br />
because, <strong>of</strong> course, HIV still exists in Australia as it does in parts <strong>of</strong> the developing world, particularly Sub-<br />
Saharan Africa.<br />
As well as HIV still existing, it is disappointing and disturbing but we have to face up to the fact that so do<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the stigmas, which the member for Moreton touched upon, going back to the eighties and nineties—some<br />
<strong>of</strong> them still persist. That is why this motion in this place is so important. That is why a bipartisan support <strong>of</strong><br />
World AIDS Day is so important.<br />
The member for Ballarat, again, said that there could be no room for complacency when we debate these issues.<br />
She dwelt on a couple <strong>of</strong> really important matters: firstly, that there are a very large number <strong>of</strong> Australia's who are<br />
unaware that they have HIV today; and, secondly, that rates are flatlining and increasing when it comes to the<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. This is not over as a public health problem, and we need to<br />
continue with our efforts when it comes to our work in treatments and our work in education, particularly around<br />
safe sex and some <strong>of</strong> the drug availability questions and, as other speakers have touched upon, PrEP. These<br />
continue to be very important, if we are to not only reach our goals <strong>of</strong> ending transmission worldwide by 2020 but<br />
also enable all Australians presently living with HIV to live full lives and participate fully in society.<br />
This motion importantly acknowledges the roles played by people living with HIV and their friends. I think it is<br />
important to stress in this place the courage shown by many people at times when it was difficult to do so. It was<br />
their courage that created the impetus for effective political and public policy action that has been so successful in<br />
Australia. I also acknowledge, as previous speakers have done, the work <strong>of</strong> researchers and some <strong>of</strong> the advocacy<br />
bodies. I join other speakers in expressing my concern about the defunding <strong>of</strong> some advocacy organisations at a<br />
juncture when there is no time for complacency. I also join the call at the end <strong>of</strong> this resolution that this <strong>House</strong><br />
will support actions to reduce stigma, prevent new transmissions and work towards a cure.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 19<br />
As we come towards World AIDS Day, I show my support with members <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> and other places to<br />
enable all Australians with HIV to live full lives. I join colleagues in making a statement not only in solidarity for<br />
all those who have past and all those living with HIV but also to take every action I can against further<br />
transmission. I commend the motion to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned<br />
and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS<br />
Korean War<br />
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:33): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong><br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) from 21 to 28 <strong>of</strong> October the Minister for Veterans' Affairs undertook a veterans mission to Korea; and<br />
(b) eight veterans joined the Minister to tour battlefields and attend commemorations, including Mr Gordon Hughes DSM,<br />
Mr Graham Connor, Mr Les Hall, Mr Jack Lang, Mr John Murphy, Lieutenant Commander Les Powell RAN (Retd.), Colonel<br />
Peter Scott DSO (Retd.), and Mr Ray Seaver;<br />
(2) acknowledges that:<br />
(a) this year marks the 65th anniversaries <strong>of</strong> the Battle <strong>of</strong> Maryang San and the Battle <strong>of</strong> Kapyong;<br />
(b) the Battle <strong>of</strong> Maryang San took place on 3 October when the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the 28th British Commonwealth Infantry Brigade, took part in Operation Commando, which included the capture <strong>of</strong> Hill 317,<br />
where 20 Australians were killed and 89 wounded—noted as the most significant Australian action <strong>of</strong> the Korean War;<br />
(c) in the Battle <strong>of</strong> Kapyong on 22 to 25 April 1951, the 27th British Commonwealth Infantry Brigade, including the 3rd<br />
Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, was instrumental in stalling the Chinese advance on Seoul, with 32 Australians<br />
being killed, 59 wounded and 3 taken prisoner;<br />
(d) more than 17,000 Australians served in the Korean War and the post armistice period, with more than 1,200 wounded;<br />
and<br />
(e) the names <strong>of</strong> 356 Australians killed in Korea are listed on the Australian War Memorial Roll <strong>of</strong> Honour; and<br />
(3) notes:<br />
(a) that although it has been called the 'forgotten war' in Australia, Korea and its people are still grateful for the significant<br />
contribution the Australian forces made in the defence <strong>of</strong> a free Republic <strong>of</strong> Korea; and<br />
(b) the service and sacrifice <strong>of</strong> those who fought in the Korean War.<br />
Australia has a long and rich military history. Many Australians are familiar with the Boer War, World War I,<br />
World War II, Vietnam and more recently the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Australians have great pride in those<br />
who have served to defend our country, our values and our interests abroad, and we honour the memory <strong>of</strong> those<br />
who have made the ultimate sacrifice every year on Anzac Day. But, sadly, our remembrance is <strong>of</strong>ten unequal<br />
and, while some <strong>of</strong> our wars are seared into the minds and imaginations <strong>of</strong> Australians, some are not—I think <strong>of</strong><br />
the movie Gallipoli which has done so much to popularise World War I in the Australian memory. Who can<br />
forget young Archie forging his documents and gluing on a fake moustache so he could enlist? And who can<br />
forget that final scene <strong>of</strong> Archie sprinting towards a young death as fast as a leopard on that battlefield?<br />
More recently, a favourite film amongst diggers these days is The Odd Angry Shot, which captures the bluff<br />
irreverence <strong>of</strong> the Aussie diggers in Vietnam. Who can forget the mateship at the heart <strong>of</strong> that film? Sadly, we<br />
have no such popular memory <strong>of</strong> the Korean War and no movies that have really captured the spirit <strong>of</strong> that<br />
conflict. We have a beautiful memorial on the western side <strong>of</strong> Anzac Parade but, if you ask most Australians, they<br />
are not familiar with the war. It is too <strong>of</strong>ten called the forgotten war.<br />
The Korean War saw the service <strong>of</strong> 17,000 Australians, with 1,200 wounded and 356 who lost their lives. We<br />
have a duty to better understand the experience <strong>of</strong> these men and women who served in one <strong>of</strong> the 20th century's<br />
greatest conflicts. Our involvement in that war, so soon after the Second World War, was largely due to our<br />
burgeoning alliance with the United States. It was that growing relationship which led the Minister for External<br />
Affairs in the Menzies government, Percy Spender, to push for Australian involvement in the Korean War as he<br />
believed that a strong show <strong>of</strong> support for the US would help formalise an alliance with the United States. That<br />
alliance, <strong>of</strong> course, found its fullest expression in the ANZUS Treaty, which was signed in September 1951. That<br />
treaty, for more than 65 years, has established the contours <strong>of</strong> our closest security relationship with one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
world's oldest democracies. And it is still the United States with its vast navy that underwrites world security and<br />
guarantees Australia's lines <strong>of</strong> trade and communication.<br />
CHAMBER
20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The Korean War was significant in several respects: firstly, it halted the advance <strong>of</strong> communism at the 38th<br />
parallel, protecting many South Koreans from the brutality <strong>of</strong> communism; and, secondly, it formalised our<br />
security relationship with the United States. It has echoes today even in this parliament. The member for Dunkley<br />
made mention <strong>of</strong> this in his maiden speech only a few months ago:<br />
Without our Korean War veterans, my wife, Grace, and daughter, Yasmin, would not be here. Grace was from South Korea,<br />
migrating to Australia with her family at three. Her dad's family only just made it across from the North Korean side, and they<br />
have not seen their relatives in North Korea since. The communists killed her mum's grandparents by throwing them alive into<br />
a well.<br />
Our Korean War veterans helped many people in ways that are unseen and unheard. The member for Dunkley's<br />
testimony reminds us that Australian acts <strong>of</strong> sacrifice on far-flung battlefields—although forgotten and sometimes<br />
unreported—can make a huge difference in the lives <strong>of</strong> people.<br />
I am therefore pleased to note the recent Korean War veterans' mission to Korea. Last month the Minister for<br />
Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, accompanied eight servicemen <strong>of</strong> the Korean War to that country: Mr Gordon<br />
Hughes DSM, Mr Graham Connor, Mr Les Hall, Mr Jack Lang, Mr John Murphy, Lieutenant Commander Les<br />
Powell RAN (Ret'd), Colonel Peter Scott DSO (Ret'd) and Mr Ray Seaver. Together they toured battlefields,<br />
cemeteries and memorials and participated in commemorative services. One <strong>of</strong> those men, Mr Jack Lang, is a<br />
constituent <strong>of</strong> my electorate. He lives in the small town <strong>of</strong> Coolup, central to Canning and a place well known for<br />
its green pastures, friendly general store—the only store—and horses. Today I want to share with you some <strong>of</strong><br />
Jack's experience <strong>of</strong> the Korean conflict.<br />
Jack was born in Harvey WA in 1931 and left school before he turned 14. Within a few years he had a good job<br />
at the Bullfinch mine. One day he and his mates were enjoying a beer at the pub when an Army recruiter pulled up<br />
outside. It seemed like a pretty good idea at the time, so Jack signed up. Being 17 he was underage, so he gave the<br />
recruiter his aunt's name, Olsen, as his own.<br />
Jack hoped to be a bricklayer upon enlistment but, following basic training, found himself listed as 'general<br />
duties'. This meant, as he put it, 'They gave us a bloody tin hat, a pair <strong>of</strong> boots and a rifle and said, "Righto, you're<br />
<strong>of</strong>f to Japan!"' A rifleman <strong>of</strong> 67th Battalion C Company 9th Platoon, Jack spent his first year <strong>of</strong> service as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. The 67th Battalion was planning to return to Australia<br />
until the United Nations called for the defence <strong>of</strong> South Korea from communist invasion. As part <strong>of</strong> the BCOF<br />
Jack was among the first Australians on Korean soil in September 1950.<br />
The BCOF landed in Pusan on the southern tip <strong>of</strong> Korea and pushed north with initial success. At the Battle <strong>of</strong><br />
Kujin, Jack's battalion—by this stage renamed 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, 'Old faithful', with the<br />
motto 'duty first'—had to scale a blown-up bridge on makeshift ladders. Jack remembers this engagement was<br />
particularly bad with 'bullets flying everywhere and ricocheting <strong>of</strong> the bridge. I don't know how we got up there;<br />
but we had to keep going because we were exposed and all bottled up'. His good mate Bluey Wilkinson died in<br />
that action. Bluey was among the war's first Australian casualties.<br />
The physical conditions <strong>of</strong> Korea were formidable. Jack remembers terrible freezing cold and rough terrain, the<br />
'mountains upon mountains' in which they fought. Being ill-equipped for such conditions, Jack recalls how the<br />
Australians would steal heavy winter gear from the Americans, who eventually gave up and just started giving it<br />
to them. Under such conditions, the UN forces pushed North Korea to the brink <strong>of</strong> defeat. It was only the<br />
intervention <strong>of</strong> over half a million Chinese troops that forced the UN withdrawal. The 3rd Battalion, along with<br />
other British units, took part in extensive rearguard actions while the UN forces made their retreat. Jack never saw<br />
the 3rd Battalion's most famous battles at Kapyong and Maryang San. Kapyong, <strong>of</strong> course, is significant because<br />
the 3RAR halted a Chinese division in a desperate defensive battle to protect the approaches to the capital <strong>of</strong><br />
Seoul. 3RAR were honoured for their valour over the course <strong>of</strong> several days with the US Presidential Citation.<br />
Jack missed Kapyong because, in January 1951, he took cover behind a tank that exploded. This caused<br />
permanent damage to his hearing and after several months in hospital he was ruled unfit for the infantry. Jack was<br />
discharged and back in Australia by 1952. He returned to find most people had no idea <strong>of</strong> the war he had just<br />
come from. Old friends would ask where he had been, where Korea was and what he had been doing there. It was<br />
easy to wonder what it had all been for.<br />
When asked what future generations should to learn from the Korean War, Jack said, 'People must understand<br />
that if you are going to have peace you have got to pay a hell <strong>of</strong> a price for it.' It reminds me <strong>of</strong> the RSL's motto<br />
fixed to many RSLs around this country: 'Eternal vigilance is the price <strong>of</strong> liberty.' I am reminded <strong>of</strong> Ernest<br />
Hemingway, who I quoted in my maiden speech:<br />
I have seen much war in my lifetime and I hate it pr<strong>of</strong>oundly. But there are worse things than war, and all <strong>of</strong> them come with<br />
defeat.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 21<br />
Jack describes travelling to Korea last month as part <strong>of</strong> the delegation as an honour—a good reminder that what<br />
he did over there was worth it. He says it felt good to be thanked by ordinary South Koreans who understand it<br />
was the service <strong>of</strong> men like him that protected them from the yoke <strong>of</strong> communism. To use his words, 'They were<br />
really thankful. It makes it worth it, that you have got someone who appreciates what you have done. It means a<br />
lot that the boys did not die for nothing.'<br />
To Jack Lang and all who served in the Korean War, we say: thank you. We will remember your sacrifice for<br />
our nation, for its values, and for the people <strong>of</strong> Korea. And it is upon us to tell your story and to keep that story<br />
alive.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:42): I second the motion. We have just heard from the member for<br />
Canning and I commend him for putting this motion forward. I had the great honour <strong>of</strong> joining the magnificent<br />
eight on that trip to Korea last month for the 65th commemorations <strong>of</strong> Kapyong and Maryang San. It was a great<br />
honour to join those extraordinary men. I spoke at length about them last week. For their years they are still<br />
incredibly resilient and still incredibly fit. They have very healthy appetites and very healthy drinking appetites<br />
and they were wonderful company. Like the member for Canning, I do want to honour them today: Graham<br />
Connor 1RAR, Les Hall 1RAR, Gordon 'Taffy' Hughes HMAS Sydney, Jack Lang 3RAR, John Murphy 3RAR,<br />
Les Powell 3RAR from the ACT, Peter Scott DSO 3RAR and Ray Seaver 77 Squadron.<br />
As the member has said, the Korean War is a forgotten war, in many ways, for Australians. They do not<br />
understand what actually happened there. We had 18,000 Australians serve up there and we lost, tragically, 340<br />
Australians during that war. Four million people died through the course <strong>of</strong> that war from right round the region as<br />
well. So it is a significant war and is, tragically, forgotten here. That is why I welcome this opportunity to discuss<br />
this motion. We do need to keep the contribution that Australians made to the effort in Korea alive. We need to<br />
keep having conversations on this because they made a significant contribution. It is one that lingers to this day<br />
and is one that is greatly appreciated by the Korean people.<br />
I will talk about that at the end <strong>of</strong> my speech. But because I did not get a chance to do so in my speech last<br />
week I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate DVA on the commemorative visit for the 65th<br />
anniversaries <strong>of</strong> those two significant battles. I want to thank Squadron Leader Chris Gilbert, who was the doctor<br />
there, and Jane Gallagher and Julie Howard, who were the nurses there who were up at 4 am and in bed at<br />
midnight. They were up tending to these vets, looking after them and making sure that they were fit and ready to<br />
take on the day. They were just tireless and incredibly dedicated and incredibly patient. Those women deserve a<br />
medal. They are extraordinary. I also want to thank our embassy in Korea for its contribution, particularly the<br />
charge, Ravi Kewalran, as well as the defence attache, Captain Vaughn Rixon CSC. I also thank the Federation<br />
Guard, who, as always, put on a sterling effort in their performances at the many commemorative events that we<br />
had at the Busan cemetery, Kapyong and Maryang San. They were outstanding, as always. I also want to thank<br />
the young men from 3RAR who were there. As I said in my speech last week, they told me that they were there<br />
for their good looks, but I do wonder how they got a gig! But they were there and they were incredibly respectful,<br />
and they had a number <strong>of</strong> little commemorative services around each <strong>of</strong> those graves at Busan. It was wonderful<br />
to travel with them.<br />
In my speech last week on the Korean War, I mentioned two very moving stories. I want to mention just one<br />
more today. The story is about the passage <strong>of</strong> Thelma Healy to Busan to visit the grave <strong>of</strong> her son Vince Healy.<br />
Vince volunteered and, once he had signed up, his letters to the family trickled to very little contact. His sudden<br />
death in uncertain circumstances on a frozen battlefield in 1951 plunged his mother into a deep depression. But<br />
Thelma Healy was determined to say farewell to her son. She vowed that, before she died, she would find her<br />
son's grave and say goodbye. This began a 10-year odyssey that eventually took Thelma, on her own, on a 15,000-<br />
kilometre journey halfway around the world to war-torn Busan in Korea in 1961, through a variety <strong>of</strong> transport<br />
mechanisms. Being a woman <strong>of</strong> no means, and with nine other children to feed and clothe, Thelma had to scrimp<br />
and save, sew and slave, to raise the money needed for her epic voyage. But she got there in the end to bid<br />
farewell to her much-loved son. She was an extraordinary woman. There are so many stories like this around the<br />
Korean War. Lest we forget.<br />
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (11:48): Before the member for Canning leaves, I would like to mention<br />
what a great privilege it is to follow him, a decorated former member <strong>of</strong> the Australian Defence Force, in this<br />
address. Considering the context <strong>of</strong> the matter we are discussing here today, I would also like to mention the<br />
member for Canning's service in Afghanistan. We are so blessed in this country that young men and women are<br />
prepared to volunteer their services to protect our values. I thank the member for Canning for that.<br />
CHAMBER
22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The motion before the <strong>House</strong> today is one <strong>of</strong> great importance, particularly in 2016, the 65th year since the two<br />
major battles <strong>of</strong> the Korean War. As the member for Canning mentioned, the Korean War is <strong>of</strong>ten referred to as<br />
the 'forgotten war'. Australians fought and died in Korea, yet the veterans <strong>of</strong> this conflict have not always received<br />
the recognition they deserve. But I will return to this thought in a moment.<br />
Sixty-five years ago, Australian soldiers joined British, New Zealand and American forces in the valley <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Kapyong River. Over three days in April 1951, the combined forces held their ground against a Chinese and North<br />
Korean <strong>of</strong>fensive on Seoul. The enemy's forces numbered close to 500,000. On 23 April, the 27th Commonwealth<br />
Brigade was ordered forward to the valley <strong>of</strong> the Kapyong River, where a critical route ran south through the<br />
region. Faced with a requirement to cover a seven-kilometre front, the commander <strong>of</strong> the 27th Brigade accepted it<br />
would be impossible to establish a continuous defensive line. Instead, he set about creating strong points to block<br />
and contain any enemy <strong>of</strong>fensive. One <strong>of</strong> the first battalions deployed, the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian<br />
Regiment, was sent to hold the high ground to the east <strong>of</strong> the river. The men <strong>of</strong> 3RAR halted the Chinese advance<br />
in their sector, and no further attempts were made to break through on the eastern flank <strong>of</strong> the British brigade. But<br />
the battle cost the Australians dearly: 32 men were killed, 59 were wounded and three were captured as they<br />
withstood a continuous attack by a far more numerous Chinese force for more than 24 hours.<br />
Six months later, the 3rd Battalion <strong>of</strong> the Royal Australian Regiment was again involved in one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
momentous Australian actions <strong>of</strong> the Korean War. Fighting alongside British troops, 3RAR attacked a group <strong>of</strong><br />
hills near the Imjin River. The attack was named after hill 317, the largest <strong>of</strong> those hills, also known as Maryang<br />
San. The capture <strong>of</strong> hill 317 was particularly significant because it allowed UN forces to push the Chinese troops<br />
back several kilometres. But it came at a price: 20 Australians died in this conflict and a further 89 were wounded.<br />
These two battles speak <strong>of</strong> the resounding courage and resilience <strong>of</strong> the Australian troops who fought in the<br />
Korean War. Our soldiers fought to defend democracy and the values that we treasure in Australia. Those values<br />
are now upheld in South Korea, which I consider to be one <strong>of</strong> the great success stories <strong>of</strong> the 20th century. Yet the<br />
veterans <strong>of</strong> this conflict do not always receive our gratitude to the extent that they deserve. I would like to share, if<br />
I may, the story <strong>of</strong> Richard Woodhams, better known to his friends and family as Dick. Dick Woodhams enlisted<br />
in the Australian Army in 1951 at the age <strong>of</strong> 19. A member <strong>of</strong> the 6th platoon, 3rd battalion, he fought in the<br />
Battle <strong>of</strong> Maryang San 65 years ago. Now 85, he resides in Albany, the same town where I live with my family in<br />
the electorate <strong>of</strong> O'Connor. In regard to the notion <strong>of</strong> the forgotten war, he had this to say:<br />
When I joined the RSL in 1953 and I mentioned I'd been in the Korean War, they said, 'You're joking mate, that wasn't a war.'<br />
Any veterans <strong>of</strong> the Korean War, they understand, but the old timers, they tend to think that it wasn't a 'real war'.<br />
The conflict in Korea may not be recognised as one <strong>of</strong> great significance for Australians, but for veterans like<br />
Dick the memories <strong>of</strong> this war still linger on. He still remembers the cries <strong>of</strong> the Chinese troops as the 3rd<br />
battalion sprayed machine gun fire across the hills near Imjin.<br />
Dick is one <strong>of</strong> the four Korean War veterans that live in Great Southern in O'Connor. I would like to pay tribute<br />
to Ivan Tilney and Victor Pope, also from Albany, and my old friend Ian Mangan <strong>of</strong> Jerramungup, who recently<br />
passed away.<br />
These men deserve our respect and our gratitude. Of the 17,000 Australians that fought in the Korean War, 356<br />
were killed and another 1,200 were wounded. The Korean conflict might be known as the 'forgotten war', but<br />
today we have a chance to recognise the Australians who fought for that democracy. I <strong>of</strong>fer my gratitude and<br />
respect for every soldier who served in Korea, and I am sure everyone in this chamber would join me in<br />
honouring their contribution.<br />
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (11:52): I am proud to be speaking to this motion regarding recent<br />
commemorations in Korea and I particularly want to acknowledge those who fought at the Battles <strong>of</strong> Kapyong<br />
and Maryan San in 1951. It is 65 years since those battles, as we have just heard. I want to congratulate everyone<br />
who was involved with the commemorations. I want to acknowledge my colleague and friend the member for<br />
Canberra, Gai Brodtman, who attended the commemorations along with other members from elsewhere. They<br />
were very important commemorations for very important battles that were fought by the 3rd Battalion with our<br />
UN partners.<br />
As we have heard, it is a very important and sometimes overlooked part <strong>of</strong> our military history but certainly not<br />
for me, not for my brother Daniel and not for any other members <strong>of</strong> the 3rd Battalion <strong>of</strong> the Royal Australian<br />
Regiment who fought in those particular battles or other members <strong>of</strong> various regiments that hold those battles and<br />
our conduct them in them in high esteem. It is important that we remember. I thought I could shed some more<br />
light on some <strong>of</strong> the veterans and on what that war meant. Korea was the first test <strong>of</strong> the Australian Army<br />
following World War II, particularly for our newly formed Royal Australian Regiment. We fought alongside<br />
Commonwealth countries like Canada, Britain, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations as well as<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 23<br />
America in that UN deployment. Seventeen thousand Australians served in Korea and 356 were killed in action.<br />
That was over three relatively short years <strong>of</strong> fighting so, when you compare it to other conflicts later on, it was a<br />
significant loss <strong>of</strong> life.<br />
The Australian War Memorial records that there were 11 Territorians who served in Korea: Timothy Angeles,<br />
John Cubillo, Clifton French, Francis Gaden, William Hyde, Leonard Sargent, Larry Willaroo, John Wilson, Max<br />
Heinrich and Allan Laughton, and current Territorians like my friend Jack. Also <strong>of</strong> note is that, during the war,<br />
Reg Saunders became the first Aboriginal Australian to serve as a commander <strong>of</strong> an Australian infantry company<br />
and he lead Charlie Company during the battle <strong>of</strong> Kapyong. After the battle, Reg said, 'At last I feel like an<br />
ANZAC, and I suspect there were 600 others like me.'<br />
In Darwin, on 24 April, to commemorate the Battle <strong>of</strong> Kapyong, a small gathering <strong>of</strong> ex-3rd Battalion<br />
Regiment and people who knew Korean veterans gather at the Darwin cenotaph. We do it each year to remember<br />
the extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance <strong>of</strong> the 3rd Battalion and all our Korean war veterans. The<br />
3rd Battalion was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, the blue swimming pool, which is worn still to this day<br />
by members <strong>of</strong> 3rd Battalion.<br />
The Battle <strong>of</strong> Kapyong was a fierce battle. Thirty-two Australians were killed and 59 were wounded. Just<br />
months later, the 3rd Battalion, under the command <strong>of</strong> Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hassett, fought the battle <strong>of</strong><br />
Maryan San. This time it was advancing not defending but it was again costly with 20 killed and 104 wounded.<br />
The Royal Australian Regiment Association recently held its annual dinner in Canberra where the Hassett<br />
Trophy was awarded for outstanding junior leader in the Royal Australian Regiment for that year. This year it was<br />
awarded to mortar section commander, Corporal David Day, from 8/9 RAR. Congratulations, mate. Every year,<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the regiment and the wider Australian Defence Force and their families and parliamentarians travel to<br />
Korea to attend commemorations and to solemnly reflect on those lost in the Korean War.<br />
One veteran <strong>of</strong> World War II, who is also a Korean war veteran and a Vietnam war veteran, Brigadier Jim<br />
Shelton, told us that he and all Korean War veterans are always very appreciative <strong>of</strong> the support and assistance<br />
they receive from the South Korean people whenever they visit South Korea. They remember as we should always<br />
remember the Korean War. Lest we forget.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta): I thank the honourable member for Solomon and I welcome him to<br />
the 45th Parliament.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
BILLS<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Assistance Alignment and Other Measures) Bill<br />
2016<br />
Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016<br />
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (New<br />
Governance Arrangements) Bill 2016<br />
Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and<br />
Other Measures) Bill 2016<br />
Returned from Senate<br />
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.<br />
MOTIONS<br />
Domestic and Family Violence<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (11:59): by leave—I move:<br />
That the Parliament:<br />
1. Acknowledge that violence against women is a national issue that requires a whole <strong>of</strong> community response.<br />
2. Acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 34 times more likely to experience violence.<br />
3. Call on all men to take action, call out violence, and link arms and say "No More" to domestic violence.<br />
4. Stand united in its commitment to eliminate violence against women.<br />
Today I ask all members to get behind the NO MORE Campaign. I acknowledge the Ngunawal people and I thank<br />
Tyronne Bell for his welcome to country this morning. I acknowledge the Rirratjingu people in the chamber<br />
today, especially the Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Rirratjingu Aboriginal Corporation, Mr Bakamumu Marika, and all<br />
Rirratjingu men and women from Arnhem Land who have flown to Canberra to share their message with all<br />
CHAMBER
24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Australians. Thank you, Laklak Marika and your sister Kathy Marika, who led the Djan'kawu ceremony, the story<br />
<strong>of</strong> two sisters, a story <strong>of</strong> creation. Your dance brings a message from the beginning <strong>of</strong> time, a message <strong>of</strong> love, a<br />
message <strong>of</strong> respect, a call to men to respect women—the mothers who gave them life, the wives who give their<br />
children life, the sisters who carry their culture through thousands and thousands <strong>of</strong> years, from time out <strong>of</strong> mind.<br />
Your dance is more powerful than the words we can speak here. You are using the strength <strong>of</strong> your culture to seek<br />
to stop this violence. You are using the power <strong>of</strong> your dance, your tradition, your culture, to communicate our<br />
need, our duty, to respect women, and we thank you.<br />
As a parliament and as a nation, we no longer avert our gaze from the horror and the shame that is domestic<br />
violence. We looked clear-eyed at this appalling failure and we are resolved to stop it. It is the strong women who<br />
talk bravely about their tragic personal experiences who help us confront the shocking realities <strong>of</strong> the crimes<br />
against them. Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are hospitalised for family violence related<br />
assaults at over 30 times the rate <strong>of</strong> non-Indigenous women. We can and we must do better. Charlie King founded<br />
the NO MORE Campaign, a simple message that sprang from within communities and has since spread from<br />
community to community, by simply saying: 'Enough, no more. We draw a line in the sand and stand up for the<br />
women and children, who have the right to be safe.' As Charlie said this morning in the forecourt, his campaign<br />
was inspired by the old men in the Western Desert who said, 'No more, no more.' They recognised that this was an<br />
issue for men to own, to take responsibility for and to stop, and they recognised we must do it together. So we say,<br />
'No more,' and we link arms, showing we are united.<br />
It is a team effort, so Charlie works with sporting clubs, encouraging coaches to drop players who abuse their<br />
partners, as a recognition and an admonishment <strong>of</strong> their failure to live up to the values <strong>of</strong> their community. In<br />
Arnhem Land they have reduced domestic and family violence by 27.9 per cent in one year by adopting the NO<br />
MORE principles, which have at their heart the respect for women that we must uphold. According to Charlie,<br />
sport is the embodiment <strong>of</strong> fairness and equality, and family violence is a clear violation <strong>of</strong> those ideals. We know<br />
that fairness and equality come from respect. These values are communicated in our domestic violence action<br />
plan, an important statement <strong>of</strong> both intent and action that helps sporting clubs take a stand against domestic<br />
violence.<br />
Not all disrespect <strong>of</strong> women leads to violence against women, but that is where all violence against women<br />
begins. Charlie's NO MORE Campaign says 'no more' to violence, 'no more' to the disrespect from which it<br />
springs. White Ribbon Ambassadors and Our Watch Ambassadors say it too. There is a big cultural change<br />
underway, driven by awareness, amplified by leadership and campaigns like NO MORE and, indeed, Stop It at the<br />
Start, and all <strong>of</strong> us recognising that this cultural shift starts at home, ensuring our sons and grandsons respect the<br />
women in their lives, starting with their mothers and their sisters. But, while long-term change is vital, so is urgent<br />
action. On Friday, White Ribbon Day, there were reports <strong>of</strong> 16 incidents <strong>of</strong> domestic violence in the Northern<br />
Territory alone. In one <strong>of</strong> those incidents, a woman's jaw was broken. Domestic and family violence is<br />
preventable. We all have a part to play—all levels <strong>of</strong> government, all leaders. We must work together to provide<br />
the prevention, the strong safety and security measures and the penalties for those who commit this crime. We fail<br />
victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence if we do not talk about the reason some people are imprisoned. To stop incarceration,<br />
we need to stop the violence.<br />
The cashless debit card operating in Ceduna and the East Kimberley is a practical measure that is reducing<br />
violence. The number <strong>of</strong> domestic violence incident reports received in July this year was 13 per cent lower<br />
compared to April 2016 in Kununurra. As the Aboriginal leader Ian Trust said, unlike other reform methods<br />
undertaken by government, it has been the Indigenous leaders <strong>of</strong> the East Kimberley who have led this reform—<br />
doing things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not doing things to them, as Chris Sarra so wisely<br />
observed and as I have so <strong>of</strong>ten quoted.<br />
Our specialist domestic violence unit and health justice partnerships are on the frontline, working to reduce<br />
violence. Women can access the services needed in domestic and family violence, family law, discrimination,<br />
victims <strong>of</strong> crime, child protection and housing issues. The women's safety package that I announced in 2015<br />
provided $3.6 million for the cross-border domestic violence intelligence desk. This helps police protect victims<br />
and hold perpetrators to account across the Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australian borders,<br />
where I was earlier this month, in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, the APY lands. By working<br />
together, 14 high-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders were tracked across jurisdictions between January and June 2016. Of the 14<br />
<strong>of</strong>fenders, 13 were arrested and have been processed, convicted or are currently before the courts.<br />
This morning, linking arms was a powerful sign to the women who have been affected by this violence and a<br />
powerful sign to the men who are taking a stand against it, and the sign was that this parliament, your parliament,<br />
is with you; we are standing with you. This morning, members <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> and the Senate were prepared to put<br />
aside our differences on politics and policy to create a moment <strong>of</strong> unity, a wall <strong>of</strong> humanity that showed the<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 25<br />
victims <strong>of</strong> domestic and family violence that we have heard their cries for help and we say with Charlie and<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> others: No more! We ask all Australians to join with us and with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
Islander brothers and sisters and say again, as Charlie King has shown us, has taught us and has led us: 'Enough;<br />
no more, no more!'<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (12:08): I thank the Prime Minister for his words<br />
and for working with the opposition to bring this motion to parliament. All <strong>of</strong> us were moved by the Rirratjingu<br />
dancers from Yirrkala who performed out the front <strong>of</strong> Parliament <strong>House</strong> this morning. I understand they all paid<br />
for their own trip here. Last Friday, in Nhulunbuy, I understand that they had raised thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars for White<br />
Ribbon and NO MORE. We are graced in this parliament by Aboriginal leaders who were walking the walk. The<br />
dance this morning was beautifully performed and told a story <strong>of</strong> two sisters, two strong women, who set about<br />
creating country and creating clan. It was a special dance dedicated to women and children, dedicated to the<br />
notion <strong>of</strong> strong women, because traditional culture has always respected and revered women and children. The<br />
problems we face now are more modern ones.<br />
A bit over three months ago at the Garma Festival in East Arnhem I had the privilege <strong>of</strong> meeting with Marcia<br />
Langton and Josephine Cashman and listening to their panel discussion with local hero and much-loved<br />
Grandstand footy commentator Charlie King. On that hot day, 4,300 kilometres from here, each <strong>of</strong> those leaders<br />
spoke with a burning honesty and urgency. They told us that it was time for men to stand up against violence to<br />
women and children. Their words carried authenticity, passion and the clarity <strong>of</strong> people who will stand up to<br />
injustice, who fought disadvantage up close and who have witnessed the inhumanity that violence exhibits. With<br />
every uncomfortable and confronting truth they told, it became clear to all <strong>of</strong> us in that spellbound privileged<br />
audience that this was no tale <strong>of</strong> hardship and no plea for empathy; it was simply a call for action. When they<br />
finished, everyone rose as one, black and white, elders and children, to link arms and to promise 'No more'. Today<br />
we bring that pledge to this place, to the house <strong>of</strong> the Australian people. Let us bring something <strong>of</strong> that<br />
unflinching honesty, too, and the courage to face facts, to recognise our failures and to realise that we must do<br />
more than listen; we must act.<br />
Violence against women does not discriminate. It is no respecter <strong>of</strong> postcode, religion, race, ethnicity, culture<br />
or income. Yet, by any measure and on every indicator, the rates <strong>of</strong> family violence suffered by Aboriginal and<br />
Torres Strait Islander women and children are the source <strong>of</strong> national shame. The Prime Minister detailed the<br />
shocking numbers to the <strong>House</strong> earlier. When it comes to family violence, we are two Australias. Aboriginal<br />
women endure family violence more <strong>of</strong>ten. They go without legal assistance more <strong>of</strong>ten. They are unable to find<br />
secure accommodation more <strong>of</strong>ten. They are hospitalised because <strong>of</strong> their injuries more <strong>of</strong>ten. And they die more<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten. Children from homes broken by violence carry the invisible scars <strong>of</strong> neglect. Many end up in out-<strong>of</strong>-home<br />
care, where the Aboriginal population has grown by 440 per cent in the last 20 years. They lead different lives to<br />
their peers, lives <strong>of</strong> trauma—and this is intergenerational injustice.<br />
We in this place do not have the luxury <strong>of</strong> shrugging our shoulders and just dismissing such inequality as<br />
inevitable. We are not entitled to be complacent and say that one Australian's misfortune is someone else's<br />
responsibility. We cannot choose to pass by on the other side <strong>of</strong> the road. We owe it to ourselves, to the nation we<br />
imagine ourselves to be and the nation that we want our children to see in the mirror, to right this wrong. From the<br />
communities themselves, from the mouths <strong>of</strong> elders, has come the call: Link up; no more! Violence has no place<br />
in culture and it must stop. Women and children must be cherished, respected and honoured.' These words have<br />
been repeated on local ovals and echoed in national stadiums, arms joined, linking up from the northern tip <strong>of</strong> our<br />
nation to here in the capital, for promise, an acceptance <strong>of</strong> responsibility and an acknowledgment that violence<br />
against women is perpetuated by men and, until men change—change our attitudes, change our actions, change<br />
our example—nothing will change. This morning, all <strong>of</strong> us linked arms in a demonstration <strong>of</strong> common purpose, as<br />
pro<strong>of</strong> that we are unified in our determination to eliminate family violence from every corner <strong>of</strong> this country and<br />
to work together—Liberal, Labor, National, the crossbench, the First Australians and all who have followed—<br />
until family violence truly is no more.<br />
I congratulate Charlie King on his pursuit <strong>of</strong> an endeavour which has taken 10 years. Like all <strong>of</strong> us who<br />
participated today, when we have these moments <strong>of</strong> standing together, we wonder sometimes why it took so long<br />
to arrive at that point. But that moment cannot be the end <strong>of</strong> the matter. This motion cannot go into the Hansard to<br />
simply gather dust. The nice words we used today cannot simply vanish into an archive <strong>of</strong> ritual sentiment to use<br />
at another time.<br />
We owe our first Australian—we owe all Australians—more than mere words, more than a vague promise to<br />
do better. Women and children must have the same rights and the same access to justice no matter who they are or<br />
where they live. That means working in every community at the grassroots with locals to support programs like<br />
the NO MORE campaign to change behaviour, attitudes and social norms. We must throw our powerful national<br />
CHAMBER
26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
support behind the men and women in each community who are driving this change and setting the example—like<br />
Uncle Alfred Smallwood, Gail Mabo and, <strong>of</strong> course, Charlie King. The commissioner <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory<br />
Police, Reece Kershaw, who is here in Canberra today, will tell you that because <strong>of</strong> Charlie and the community<br />
leadership and that program there has been a 25 per cent plus reduction in police call-outs related to family<br />
violence in Yirrkala.<br />
We should look at every program that the federal government administers and its effect on women and<br />
children. We do this in international development with 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> the programs we fund through DFAT<br />
because we know it works. We should be prepared to use a gender lens when we look at investments in<br />
Indigenous affairs to see the effect on women and children. Today, let us extend the meaning <strong>of</strong> NO MORE to this<br />
chamber: no more deaths, no more women driven from their homes, no more children forced into out-<strong>of</strong>-home<br />
care, no more communities broken by violence, no more cuts to legal aid and family violence shelters, no more<br />
ignoring the voices from the front line, no more talking about Aboriginal people without listening to Aboriginal<br />
people, no more excuses for inaction. No more.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Reference to Federation Chamber<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:17): by leave—I move:<br />
That the resumption <strong>of</strong> debate on the motion relating to domestic and family violence be referred to the Federation<br />
Chamber.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee<br />
Report<br />
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (12:17): I present the report <strong>of</strong> the Privileges and Members' Interests<br />
Committee in connection with the claim <strong>of</strong> parliamentary privilege by a member in relation to material seized<br />
under a search warrant.<br />
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).<br />
Mr BROADBENT: by leave—On 11 October 2016, the <strong>House</strong> referred to the Committee <strong>of</strong> Privileges and<br />
Members' Interests an inquiry into a claim for parliamentary privilege by the member for Blaxland in relation to<br />
material seized from Parliament <strong>House</strong> by the Australian Federal Police under a search warrant. The reference<br />
requires the committee to consider the member's claim and make a recommendation to the <strong>House</strong> about its ruling<br />
on the claim.<br />
Many members will be familiar with the background on the matter. On 24 August 2016, the AFP executed a<br />
search warrant on the Department <strong>of</strong> Parliamentary Services. In accordance with the AFP National Guideline for<br />
Execution <strong>of</strong> Search Warrants where Parliamentary Privilege may be involved, the member for Blaxland advised<br />
the AFP that he would be claiming parliamentary privilege in respect <strong>of</strong> all the material seized under the warrant.<br />
The seized material has been held securely in the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the Clerk <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> since that time.<br />
The committee has now considered the matter. I present today a report setting out how the committee has<br />
conducted its inquiry, the committee's analysis on the law applying in this case and its findings and<br />
recommendations. In summary, the committee has found that in all the circumstances <strong>of</strong> this matter the material<br />
seized under the search warrant was held by the member for Blaxland in connection with his parliamentary<br />
responsibilities as a member and that the material relates to 'proceedings in parliament' as defined in the<br />
Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. As a result, the material is subject to parliamentary privilege and need not be<br />
produced under the search warrant.<br />
Accordingly, the committee recommends that the <strong>House</strong> rule to uphold the claim <strong>of</strong> parliamentary privilege by<br />
the member for Blaxland in relation to the seized material. The committee further recommends that the AFP be<br />
advised <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>'s ruling on the matter and that the seized material be returned by the Clerk to the member for<br />
Blaxland.<br />
I would like to thank the members <strong>of</strong> the committee—the members for Shortland, Menzies, Hunter, Scullin,<br />
Moore, Swan, Capricornia, Barker, Lingiari and Lilley—for their work on this inquiry. I commend the<br />
committee's report to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 27<br />
MOTIONS<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (12:20): I seek leave to move:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes:<br />
(a) revelations the Attorney-General acted against the interests <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth by entering into a corrupt deal to<br />
give $300 million <strong>of</strong> taxpayer funds to the WA Liberal Government;<br />
(b) the Attorney-General made this decision despite clear legal advice that the $300 million rightfully belonged to the<br />
Australian taxpayer;<br />
(c) further revelations that other Ministers in the Prime Minister's Cabinet have been implicated in this scandal,<br />
including the:<br />
(i) Minister for Revenue who was named in the WA Parliament for her involvement in the scandal when she was<br />
Assistant Treasurer;<br />
(ii) Minister for Social Services who was named in the WA Parliament for his involvement in the scandal while he was<br />
Assistant Minister to the now former Prime Minister and Member for Warringah; and<br />
(iii) Treasurer and the Minister for Finance who have direct portfolio interest and who have not yet explained their<br />
involvement in the scandal; and<br />
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Revenue, the Minister for Social<br />
Services, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to attend the <strong>House</strong> and provide a full account <strong>of</strong> their <strong>of</strong>fices' involvement in<br />
this scandal.<br />
Leave not granted.<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (12:22): I move:<br />
That so much <strong>of</strong> the standing orders and session orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business<br />
from moving the following motion forthwith:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes:<br />
(a) revelations the Attorney-General acted against the interests <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth by entering into a corrupt deal to<br />
give $300 million <strong>of</strong> taxpayer funds to the WA Liberal Government;<br />
(b) the Attorney-General made this decision despite clear legal advice that the $300 million rightfully belonged to the<br />
Australian taxpayer;<br />
(c) further revelations that other Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet have been implicated in this scandal,<br />
including the:<br />
(i) Minister for Revenue who was named in the WA Parliament for her involvement in the scandal when she was<br />
Assistant Treasurer;<br />
(ii) Minister for Social Services who was named in the WA Parliament for his involvement in the scandal while he was<br />
Assistant Minister to the now former Prime Minister and Member for Warringah; and<br />
(iii) Treasurer and the Minister for Finance who have direct portfolio interest and who have not yet explained their<br />
involvement in the scandal; and<br />
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Revenue, the Minister for Social<br />
Services, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to attend the <strong>House</strong> and provide a full account <strong>of</strong> their <strong>of</strong>fices’ involvement in<br />
this scandal.<br />
We know that there was corruption. What we do not know yet is how many <strong>of</strong> them were involved. We do not yet<br />
know how many <strong>of</strong> them were involved, but as you go through the evidence that has been provided already<br />
representative after representative, minister after minister have their fingerprints all over this. At the core <strong>of</strong> what<br />
we are talking about is a Liberal government pretending that $300 million <strong>of</strong> taxpayers money is their personal<br />
piggy bank, as though they are allowed to just dole out taxpayers money to any Liberal government they so<br />
choose.<br />
The WA Treasurer, Mike Nahan, in the WA parliament made clear they would not have proceeded without the<br />
support—<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:24): I move:<br />
That the Member be no longer heard.<br />
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business be no further heard.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [12:28]<br />
CHAMBER
28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Christensen, GR (teller)<br />
Coleman, DB<br />
Crewther, CJ<br />
Dutton, PC<br />
Evans, TM<br />
Fletcher, PW<br />
Frydenberg, JA<br />
Gillespie, DA<br />
Hartsuyker, L<br />
Hawke, AG<br />
Hogan, KJ<br />
Hunt, GA<br />
Joyce, BT<br />
Kelly, C<br />
Landry, ML<br />
Leeser, J<br />
Littleproud, D<br />
McCormack, MF<br />
Morrison, SJ<br />
O'Brien, LS<br />
O'Dowd, KD<br />
Pitt, KJ<br />
Prentice, J<br />
Pyne, CM<br />
Robert, SR<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
Ayes ...................... 74<br />
Noes ...................... 72<br />
Majority ................. 2<br />
AYES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Bishop, JI<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK<br />
Entsch, WG<br />
Falinski, J<br />
Flint, NJ<br />
Gee, AR<br />
Goodenough, IR<br />
Hastie, AW<br />
Henderson, SM<br />
Howarth, LR<br />
Irons, SJ<br />
Keenan, M<br />
Laming, A<br />
Laundy, C<br />
Ley, SP<br />
Marino, NB<br />
McVeigh, JJ<br />
Morton, B<br />
O'Brien, T<br />
O'Dwyer, KM<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sudmalis, AE<br />
Taylor, AJ<br />
Tudge, AE<br />
Van Manen, AJ<br />
Wallace, AB<br />
Wilson, RJ<br />
Wood, JP<br />
Zimmerman, T<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Claydon, SC<br />
Conroy, PM<br />
Dick, MD<br />
Elliot, MJ<br />
Feeney, D<br />
Freelander, MR<br />
Giles, AJ<br />
Hammond, TJ<br />
Hayes, CP<br />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<br />
Kelly, MJ<br />
Khalil, P<br />
King, MMH<br />
Leigh, AK<br />
Marles, RD<br />
NOES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<br />
Collins, JM<br />
Danby, M<br />
Dreyfus, MA<br />
Ellis, KM<br />
Fitzgibbon, JA<br />
Georganas, S<br />
Gosling, LJ<br />
Hart, RA<br />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Keay, JT<br />
Keogh, MJ<br />
King, CF<br />
Lamb, S<br />
Macklin, JL<br />
McBride, EM<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 29<br />
McGowan, C<br />
Mitchell, RG<br />
O'Connor, BPJ<br />
O'Toole, C<br />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
NOES<br />
Mitchell, BK<br />
Neumann, SK<br />
O'Neil, CE<br />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Rowland, MA<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
The SPEAKER: Is the motion moved by the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business seconded?<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (12:32): I second the motion. This<br />
Attorney-General is a disgrace. Senator Brandis has failed in his duty to the Commonwealth. He has failed—<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:33): I move:<br />
That the member be no longer heard.<br />
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I caution the member for Isaacs. I asked him to<br />
resume his seat. He continued to debate the matter without his microphone being on. Not only is it pointless; it is<br />
in defiance <strong>of</strong> the chair. Let me just say that, through the course <strong>of</strong> this week, it will not happen again. The<br />
question is that the member for Isaacs be no longer heard.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided [12:34]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Christensen, GR (teller)<br />
Coleman, DB<br />
Crewther, CJ<br />
Dutton, PC<br />
Evans, TM<br />
Fletcher, PW<br />
Frydenberg, JA<br />
Gillespie, DA<br />
Hartsuyker, L<br />
Hawke, AG<br />
Hogan, KJ<br />
Hunt, GA<br />
Joyce, BT<br />
Kelly, C<br />
Landry, ML<br />
Leeser, J<br />
Littleproud, D<br />
McCormack, MF<br />
Morrison, SJ<br />
O'Brien, LS<br />
O'Dowd, KD<br />
Pitt, KJ<br />
Prentice, J<br />
Pyne, CM<br />
Robert, SR<br />
Ayes ...................... 74<br />
Noes ...................... 72<br />
Majority ................. 2<br />
AYES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Bishop, JI<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK<br />
Entsch, WG<br />
Falinski, J<br />
Flint, NJ<br />
Gee, AR<br />
Goodenough, IR<br />
Hastie, AW<br />
Henderson, SM<br />
Howarth, LR<br />
Irons, SJ<br />
Keenan, M<br />
Laming, A<br />
Laundy, C<br />
Ley, SP<br />
Marino, NB<br />
McVeigh, JJ<br />
Morton, B<br />
O'Brien, T<br />
O'Dwyer, KM<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sudmalis, AE<br />
CHAMBER
30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
AYES<br />
Taylor, AJ<br />
Tudge, AE<br />
Van Manen, AJ<br />
Wallace, AB<br />
Wilson, RJ<br />
Wood, JP<br />
Zimmerman, T<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Claydon, SC<br />
Conroy, PM<br />
Dick, MD<br />
Elliot, MJ<br />
Feeney, D<br />
Freelander, MR<br />
Giles, AJ<br />
Hammond, TJ<br />
Hayes, CP<br />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<br />
Kelly, MJ<br />
Khalil, P<br />
King, MMH<br />
Leigh, AK<br />
Marles, RD<br />
McGowan, C<br />
Mitchell, RG<br />
O'Connor, BPJ<br />
O'Toole, C<br />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
NOES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<br />
Collins, JM<br />
Danby, M<br />
Dreyfus, MA<br />
Ellis, KM<br />
Fitzgibbon, JA<br />
Georganas, S<br />
Gosling, LJ<br />
Hart, RA<br />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Keay, JT<br />
Keogh, MJ<br />
King, CF<br />
Lamb, S<br />
Macklin, JL<br />
McBride, EM<br />
Mitchell, BK<br />
Neumann, SK<br />
O'Neil, CE<br />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Rowland, MA<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
The SPEAKER (12:37): The question is that the motion moved by the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business be<br />
agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [12:37]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Claydon, SC<br />
Ayes ...................... 71<br />
Noes ...................... 74<br />
Majority ................. 3<br />
AYES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<br />
Collins, JM<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 31<br />
Conroy, PM<br />
Dick, MD<br />
Elliot, MJ<br />
Feeney, D<br />
Freelander, MR<br />
Giles, AJ<br />
Hammond, TJ<br />
Hayes, CP<br />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<br />
Kelly, MJ<br />
Khalil, P<br />
King, MMH<br />
Leigh, AK<br />
Marles, RD<br />
Mitchell, BK<br />
Neumann, SK<br />
O'Neil, CE<br />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Rowland, MA<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
AYES<br />
Danby, M<br />
Dreyfus, MA<br />
Ellis, KM<br />
Fitzgibbon, JA<br />
Georganas, S<br />
Gosling, LJ<br />
Hart, RA<br />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Keay, JT<br />
Keogh, MJ<br />
King, CF<br />
Lamb, S<br />
Macklin, JL<br />
McBride, EM<br />
Mitchell, RG<br />
O'Connor, BPJ<br />
O'Toole, C<br />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Christensen, GR (teller)<br />
Coleman, DB<br />
Crewther, CJ<br />
Dutton, PC<br />
Evans, TM<br />
Fletcher, PW<br />
Frydenberg, JA<br />
Gillespie, DA<br />
Hartsuyker, L<br />
Hawke, AG<br />
Hogan, KJ<br />
Hunt, GA<br />
Joyce, BT<br />
Kelly, C<br />
Landry, ML<br />
Leeser, J<br />
Littleproud, D<br />
McCormack, MF<br />
Morrison, SJ<br />
O'Brien, LS<br />
O'Dowd, KD<br />
Pitt, KJ<br />
Prentice, J<br />
Pyne, CM<br />
Robert, SR<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
NOES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Bishop, JI<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK<br />
Entsch, WG<br />
Falinski, J<br />
Flint, NJ<br />
Gee, AR<br />
Goodenough, IR<br />
Hastie, AW<br />
Henderson, SM<br />
Howarth, LR<br />
Irons, SJ<br />
Keenan, M<br />
Laming, A<br />
Laundy, C<br />
Ley, SP<br />
Marino, NB<br />
McVeigh, JJ<br />
Morton, B<br />
O'Brien, T<br />
O'Dwyer, KM<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sudmalis, AE<br />
Taylor, AJ<br />
Tudge, AE<br />
Van Manen, AJ<br />
Wallace, AB<br />
Wilson, RJ<br />
Wood, JP<br />
Zimmerman, T<br />
CHAMBER
32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Question negatived.<br />
BILLS<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (12:43): Before continuing on in my remarks in relation to the Competition and<br />
Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016, I also pay tribute to and recognise the wonderful advocacy<br />
efforts <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> those Indigenous Australians in relation to the No More campaign.<br />
This time 12 months ago, I was privileged to be touring through remote Aboriginal communities in the northwest<br />
<strong>of</strong> Western Australia, undertaking a fight for justice on behalf <strong>of</strong> plaintiffs, who were Aboriginal Australians<br />
who had been the victims <strong>of</strong> road trauma, <strong>of</strong>ten in circumstances through no fault <strong>of</strong> their own. In the course <strong>of</strong><br />
the mediation conference tours that started as far north as Kununurra and Wyndham and Junee through the<br />
Kimberley south to Broome, I was very privileged to be invited into numerous communities along the way. I was<br />
struck by the resilience, dignity and determination <strong>of</strong> Aboriginal Australians who are fighting incredible battles<br />
that I can barely comprehend—being as close as I am to the services that I am so lucky enough to have access to.<br />
It is an incredibly challenging environment and I would as honoured to be able to play a very small part in<br />
ensuring that Aboriginal Australians get justice in the context <strong>of</strong> compensation claims and access to the courts. I<br />
pay tribute to those families and the men and women that I represented. I understand that there are similar<br />
informal conference tours happening at the moment. To those mums and dads and kids who I was lucky enough to<br />
represent in my old life before making the transition to this place, I want to pass on the message that my transition<br />
here does not diminish my voracious appetite to make sure that the quest for a just outcome in the context <strong>of</strong><br />
Aboriginal communities prevails.<br />
Returning to this bill, my previous remarks went to the heart <strong>of</strong> the bill in the context <strong>of</strong> our support for the<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin matters and notes that the bill also governs the use <strong>of</strong> country-<strong>of</strong>-origin marks such as the 'made<br />
in Australia' gold kangaroo in a green triangle. It defines the idea <strong>of</strong> a good being substantially transformed. It<br />
makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product <strong>of</strong>' or<br />
'grown in' labels. It also mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed<br />
to have the country <strong>of</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> the dehydrated ingredient irrespective <strong>of</strong> the actual origin <strong>of</strong> the water. Whilst the<br />
steps taken as reflected in this bill are not perfect, what they do do is indicate country <strong>of</strong> origin for imported<br />
ingredients, to take an example. These requirements are certainly a constructive and good step forward.<br />
Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainly for businesses, particularly Australian food<br />
manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australia consumer law are aligned with the new country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
requirements. More importantly, this new regime will make it easier for consumers when making<br />
decisions about what groceries to buy for their families to identify and then purchase locally-produced products.<br />
I now turn to the amendment as circulated in my name in this matter. I do not believe it would be reaching too<br />
far to say that most Australians want to buy seafood that is sourced from local and sustainable fisheries.<br />
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that almost 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> seafood consumed in Australia is imported,<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten unbeknowns, to those who are purchasing the seafood. Globally, we have seen a decline in fishstocks due to<br />
overfishing and the destruction <strong>of</strong> natural habitats.<br />
But Australians currently have few options if they want to ensure they are eating local, sustainable seafood.<br />
This is not just a concern from a sustainability point <strong>of</strong> view; it is also relevant to people seeking to make healthy<br />
decisions. Some species <strong>of</strong> fish and shark carry high levels <strong>of</strong> mercury but, due to the current lack <strong>of</strong> labelling<br />
requirements, it is hard to know what you are eating. Without an effective and well-regulated seafood labelling<br />
scheme, Australians cannot have any confidence that the seafood they are eating is local or sustainable or even<br />
that it is what they paid for. It is an outcome that is suboptimal both for Australian consumers and for our local<br />
fisheries. Quite frankly, Australian consumers deserve better.<br />
This amendment calls on the government to bring forward regulations that will apply a country-<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling regime to the sale <strong>of</strong> seafood in the food services industry—that is, at restaurants, cafes and fish-andchip<br />
shops. And it is also consistent with Labor's platform and our dedication towards giving consumers more,<br />
rather than less, information about the products they are seeking to purchase.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 33<br />
A scheme for seafood country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling in the food services industry has been in place in the Northern<br />
Territory for many years. We know that it works. It is very successful and should serve as a model for a regime<br />
that could be rolled out all across the country. Interestingly, where the consumers <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory are<br />
given the choice between local and imported seafood, at their local chippie for instance, they have been shown to<br />
be, by a big margin, willing to pay more for locally sourced fish. But consumers elsewhere do not have access to<br />
that information. I do not think it is unreasonable for Australian consumers to expect to know where their seafood<br />
comes from. I will move the amendment as circulated in my name and, for the sake <strong>of</strong> completeness, I will read<br />
the amendment. I move:<br />
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:<br />
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes:<br />
(a) widespread community concern around seafood labelling;<br />
(b) that Australian consumers want to know where their food originates; and<br />
(c) the specific circumstances <strong>of</strong> seafood as a fresh food; and<br />
(2) calls on the Government to act to improve country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling for fresh, cooked and pre-prepared seafood sold in<br />
the food services industry".<br />
I commend the amendment to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Goodenough): Is the amendment seconded?<br />
Ms Burney: I second the amendment.<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:51): I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill, the Competition and<br />
Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. Before I was elected to parliament, I spent a good part <strong>of</strong><br />
two decades involved in the design, manufacture and marketing <strong>of</strong> consumer products, and I can assure you that<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin representations are a most important part <strong>of</strong> that process. If we are able to label something<br />
'Made in Australia', it carries extra weight. Consumers, I believe, are prepared to pay a higher price for goods with<br />
that 'Made in Australia' label. Conversely, with other products, especially food products, where someone sees<br />
'Made in China' on a food product, they would be less prepared to pay a higher price. That is a competitive<br />
advantage that our nation has—and it has come at a cost. It has come at the cost <strong>of</strong> the regulations and inspection<br />
processes that we have had in place over decades. The 'Made in Australia' name and label are trusted by<br />
consumers and they will pay more for them. Conversely, in China we have seen food product scares and health<br />
risks. We saw the melamine contamination <strong>of</strong> baby powder. Because China has not had that regulation in place, it<br />
pays the price <strong>of</strong> country-<strong>of</strong>-origin representation. Therefore, it is very important that, if the market is to work as<br />
effectively as it possibly can, we ensure that we have regulations in place that guarantee those representations are<br />
correct—and for many decades we simply have not.<br />
I can remember a few years ago, when the Labor Party were in government and we were trying to get<br />
something done on this issue, that Coles put out a product in their select range, a tin <strong>of</strong> pineapple. It carried the<br />
Coles name, which, <strong>of</strong> course, portrays an Australian company. The label on the tin was brightly coloured in green<br />
and gold, the Australian colours. It had a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl on the front <strong>of</strong> the label saying how<br />
wonderful the pineapple product was, again giving that suggestion that it had something to do with Australia. But,<br />
when you picked up the tin, turned it around and used a magnifying glass, you found that the product was actually<br />
made in Indonesia. That was so close to the wire <strong>of</strong> being a misrepresentation, and it gave a perfect example <strong>of</strong><br />
why the coalition government needed to act in this place. The laws have allowed that you could label a food<br />
product as 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This is a completely ambiguous term that<br />
means nothing, but, worse, it is terms like that that can hide countries <strong>of</strong> origin, the products <strong>of</strong> which consumers<br />
would pay less for.<br />
That is why I am pleased to rise to support this bill. It amends the Australian Consumer Law—schedule 2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Competition and Consumer Act 2010—to alter the definition <strong>of</strong> what is called 'substantial transformation' as it<br />
applies to the safe harbours provisions <strong>of</strong> the act. The bill simplifies the tests to justify a country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claim<br />
<strong>of</strong> 'Made in' by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means by removing the 50 per cent production cost<br />
tests. Previously, it was a simple 50 per cent production cost. So, if you added value <strong>of</strong> 50 per cent, for example<br />
by packaging or by labelling, you were able to claim the product was made in Australia without true substantial<br />
transformation <strong>of</strong> the product. That is what this bill addresses.<br />
Another reason why this bill is so important is that we have to protect our nation's competitive advantage. It has<br />
been very hard fought for. If we are to have a prosperous society and be able to provide health and education—all<br />
those costs <strong>of</strong> government—we can only do it if our nation has competitive advantages over other nations, and <strong>of</strong><br />
course one <strong>of</strong> those advantages is in our food-labelling area. If a product is made in Australia, that is a competitive<br />
CHAMBER
34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
advantage. But, so <strong>of</strong>ten, we have seen that speakers from the Labor Party and from the other side <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
either are slow to protect our competitive advantage or actively undermine it. That is why I am pleased it took the<br />
coalition to fix up our labelling laws where Labor failed to do so.<br />
Also when it comes to our competitive advantage, contrast Labor's actions in the area <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> energy. On<br />
this side <strong>of</strong> the parliament, the coalition have set a renewable energy target, and the Minister for the Environment<br />
and Energy has admitted today in a piece in The Australian that this will cost each household $55 extra on their<br />
electricity bill. This will put us at a slight competitive disadvantage. But, if we look at Labor's plans for a 50 per<br />
cent renewable energy target, Bloomberg New Energy Finance has run the numbers. It has put Labor's plan at $48<br />
billion. That is $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country and represents $8,000 extra cost for every<br />
household <strong>of</strong> four. That is putting our nation at a competitive disadvantage that undermines everything that we are<br />
trying to do to create wealth in this nation and provide the social services that we need. We have seen<br />
Queensland's 50 per cent renewable energy target and the Queensland government boasting that this would have<br />
no cost for consumers and create no competitive disadvantage. The Grattan report last week blew that out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
water. The Grattan report said it is an 'economic illusion' to pretend it would have no price impact. These are<br />
things we need to guard like treasures. Our competitive advantage is a national treasure that we should protect<br />
with everything we have, and to see members <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party undermine it time after time is a disgrace. When<br />
it comes to maintaining and sustaining a competitive advantage, it was wonderful to see, when it came to the<br />
backpacker tax, that the Labor Party were out there saying, 'Oh, we have to have our tax rates internationally<br />
competitive.' That was absolutely right.<br />
Mr Taylor: What about the rest <strong>of</strong> the taxes?<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Correct, as the member for Hume notes. If we have to have our tax rates competitive,<br />
what about our company rate <strong>of</strong> tax? How much longer can our nation continue with a rate <strong>of</strong> company tax that is<br />
internationally uncompetitive? Our rate <strong>of</strong> corporate tax at the moment is 30 per cent, in the UK it is 20, in<br />
Canada it is 26½, in Singapore it is 17 and in Hong Kong it is 15.<br />
Mr Taylor: And the US government?<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY: The US, under President-elect Trump, has made a clear statement that they will reduce<br />
their company tax to 20 per cent. We cannot continue with an uncompetitive rate <strong>of</strong> corporate tax without it<br />
adversely affecting the prosperity <strong>of</strong> this nation. This is why everything we are doing on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> is<br />
to maintain and sustain our nation's competitive advantage. On the other side, it is just your politics and all about<br />
not caring about the things that make us a prosperous nation.<br />
Getting back to the exact provisions <strong>of</strong> the bill, I will give some examples <strong>of</strong> 'substantially transformed'. For<br />
example, if apples and spices are imported into Australia to make apple pies using other Australian ingredients,<br />
such as the pastry and the sugar, the finished product becomes an apple pie. That is fundamentally different from<br />
its imported ingredients—the apples and spices—in terms <strong>of</strong> its identity and its nature. Therefore they can be<br />
described as being substantially transformed. Likewise, when grapes are imported into Australia and converted<br />
into wine using Australian production methods, as the identity, nature and essential character <strong>of</strong> the raw grapes<br />
themselves are fundamentally different from the identity, nature and essential character <strong>of</strong> the wine, those goods<br />
can be defined as substantially transformed. Other examples that the bill gives are about what can be said: you<br />
could say 'made in', 'produced in' or 'manufactured in'.<br />
An example that would be misleading or deceptive conduct is: Australian beef is exported to Thailand, where it<br />
is combined with local ingredients to make beef stock that is put into canned beef and exported back to<br />
Australia—if that product was labelled 'product <strong>of</strong> Australia', it would not meet the safe harbours defence, because<br />
it contains significant ingredients from one country that underwent major processing in another country. A further<br />
example is: wheat that was grown, harvested, hulled and cleaned in Western Australia then exported to Italy and<br />
re-imported in the form <strong>of</strong> prepackaged frozen lasagne—if it had 'product <strong>of</strong> Australia' or 'product <strong>of</strong> Italy', it<br />
would not comply with the safe harbours defence, because it contained significant ingredients from one country<br />
that underwent major processing in another country.<br />
A further example is: bulk chocolate that was imported into Australia from the UK and then formed into<br />
smaller blocks <strong>of</strong> chocolate and packed for retail sale in Australia—if that product was labelled 'made in<br />
Australia', it would not comply with the safe harbours defence, because the chocolate was not substantially<br />
transformed here in Australia. Forming imported chocolate into smaller blocks and packaging them does not result<br />
in a product that is fundamentally different in terms <strong>of</strong> the nature, identity or essential character. The last<br />
substantial transformation <strong>of</strong> the chocolate occurred in the United Kingdom, where the processed cocoa, butter<br />
and sugar were combined with local ingredients to make a new product which is fundamentally different from the<br />
identity and nature <strong>of</strong> the chocolate.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 35<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> my good friends would argue that: 'This is an overreach. It is a little bit more red tape for business,<br />
and why should the government get involved in this?' One <strong>of</strong> the few areas where I believe the government has a<br />
rightful place to get involved, as we do in our consumer and competition law, is regarding misleading and<br />
deceptive comments. One <strong>of</strong> the things about the free market is that it operates more efficiently if the purchasing<br />
decisions are better informed. That is why we have provisions in our act that misleading or deceptive conduct in<br />
trade or commerce is against our law. Misleading and deceptive conduct can also be by omission.<br />
We want to ensure that consumers, when they go to the supermarket, can look at a product and be sure that the<br />
representation that is made on that product is accurate because it allows greater competition between brands and<br />
products, we get a more efficient market outcome and, most <strong>of</strong> all, it protects our great nation's competitive<br />
advantage. We want to ensure that, where someone uses those words 'made in Australia', 'produced in Australia' or<br />
'manufactured in Australia', which have a good reputation <strong>of</strong> consumers paying a higher price, that is protected.<br />
That is what this bill does, and that is why I commend it to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:06): The proposals before the <strong>House</strong> will have a negligible effect except to add<br />
to the cost <strong>of</strong> products on the shelves. Unfortunately, it will be a cost taken by Australian producers, the same as<br />
foreign producers. We introduced legislation, which did not get supported by either side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, where we<br />
wanted a label to go on all imported products—a cost that would only be imposed upon imported products.<br />
Australian-produced items would not have to be labelled. We wanted foreign products to have a warning label,<br />
saying: 'Warning, this product is imported. It has not been grown or processed under Australian health and<br />
hygiene standards and may be injurious to your health.'<br />
One <strong>of</strong> my Independent small-party colleagues in the Senate said, 'Well, that's really going too far! You are<br />
really posing a burden and stopping stuff from coming in.' Shock horror that I would stop product from coming in!<br />
I represent a third <strong>of</strong> Australia's sugar industry. The great free-market country <strong>of</strong> the United States allows no sugar<br />
in. The great free-market countries <strong>of</strong> Europe allow no sugar in. The new Third World Asian tiger, Thailand,<br />
allows no sugar in. The great free-trading nation <strong>of</strong> Japan allows no rice into its country. My electorate produces<br />
rice. Shock horror that I would have a position upon product coming into Australia.<br />
I will give you the dimensions <strong>of</strong> how sick the governments <strong>of</strong> Australia are. My flower growers came to me<br />
and said, 'They're charging us $300 an hour plus downtime for an <strong>of</strong>ficial to come up from Cairns,' up onto the<br />
Atherton Tableland where all the flowers are grown, 'and they insist upon 100 per cent inspection <strong>of</strong> our exports'.<br />
The imported flowers have a five per cent inspection regime, which is borne by the government. So we have one<br />
set <strong>of</strong> laws for exporters and a completely different set <strong>of</strong> laws for importers. They get charged something like a<br />
200 per cent tax, whereas the importers get no charge at all upon their product. This occurs again and again to a<br />
point where the average punter out there knows that the ALP and LNP will always be on the side <strong>of</strong> the importers.<br />
And they do not think they are.<br />
Go and tell that to the people <strong>of</strong> Orange who just had their last whitegoods factory close down and see how<br />
pleased they were with the major parties at the last election. They have had enough <strong>of</strong> your lies and kangaroo<br />
droppings. They have had enough <strong>of</strong> listening to you. Look at the polls this morning. The others are on 32 per cent<br />
now, and you people are on 36 and 38 per cent and falling through the floor. When we get another four per cent<br />
you are out. Your days <strong>of</strong> running this country will be finished. They will be taken <strong>of</strong>f you.<br />
We are different from the United States. They have locally elected representatives and local primaries. They are<br />
a constituency based society. But even they have found a way out <strong>of</strong> the brutal two-party regime that has seen all<br />
their jobs go to Asia and across the border into Mexico or, alternatively, has seen Mexicans come across the<br />
border and take their jobs <strong>of</strong>f them, legally and illegally. There are dangers, and people should know when a<br />
product is imported. They should also be told that others have different hygiene regimes from Australia.<br />
I had the very great honour <strong>of</strong> being associated with establishing the prawn and fish-farming industry in<br />
Australia. We were doing about $750 million in exports. At one stage we were down to $25 million because the<br />
government decided, in its wisdom—both the ALP and the LNP—that they would bring the prawns in from<br />
overseas with no inspections. There is supposed to be a five per cent inspection, which is a joke. There is<br />
supposed to be a five per cent inspection on everything. I doubt whether there is a 0.5 per cent, and that comes<br />
from Customs <strong>of</strong>ficers. They said, 'We doubt whether there would be a 0.5 per cent inspection.'<br />
Those prawns are coming in from countries like China, where they put raw sewage into the Yangtze River.<br />
They take the water out <strong>of</strong> the river and put it into the prawn farms. It is similar for all <strong>of</strong> the south-east Asian<br />
countries, like Thailand and Vietnam. In Vietnam they take untreated sewage water and put it into fish ponds.<br />
This has two effects. One is that the prawns and fish come in covered in bacteria, and two is that they have huge<br />
antibiotics inside their bodies to fight <strong>of</strong>f the germs and disease. The result is that Australians now eat diseaseridden<br />
prawns and fish.<br />
CHAMBER
36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
We do not know how many diseases are coming in and being contracted by Australians. It is very hard to track<br />
down where food poisoning comes from. It is very hard to track down diseases, such as hepatitis A from berries or<br />
the disease we got from imported tuna or just what product you ate that resulted in a disease. It is very hard to<br />
establish. What is not hard to establish is some <strong>of</strong> the other diseases.<br />
We said, 'If you bring the prawns in we will get IHHNV on the reef and it will be disastrous for the Barrier<br />
Reef.' The prawns were brought in and within three years we had IHHNV endemic on the reef. We said, 'Stop the<br />
prawns from coming in, for heaven's sake stop.' They said, 'No, you have IHHNV now on the reef so we have no<br />
argument to stop them from coming in.' So they used the argument <strong>of</strong> having brought the prawns in to say that we<br />
cannot stop them.<br />
White spot on prawns is such a deadly disease that when they found it in Darwin they dropped 23 tonnes <strong>of</strong><br />
poison into Darwin Harbour to destroy the white spot there. God bless them for doing it, but how much damage<br />
was done to the Australian environment with 23 tonnes <strong>of</strong> poison being dropped into the harbour, I do not know.<br />
Our banana industry, worth maybe 7,000 jobs to North Queensland—if it goes it will take down a quarter <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tourism industry, and we will lose the backpacker industry as well—is under threat from Panama disease. Panama<br />
disease was brought into Australia by imported food product and the industry is now under threat. Bananas have<br />
previously been under threat from black sigatoka from products brought into Australia.<br />
People in this place go around talking about Australia's clean, green image. We have a clean, green image<br />
because we were a hunter-gatherer society until 200 years ago, and we are an island, so we did not have any <strong>of</strong><br />
these diseases. We did not farm and we did not husband animals, so we did not have any <strong>of</strong> these diseases. But<br />
every two or three years now we get another big disease. If you want free trade, then forget about your clean,<br />
green image because, clearly, you will have the same disease levels as all the other countries on earth. We have a<br />
valid reason for keeping products out.<br />
It was the National Party that let most <strong>of</strong> this stuff in. Now, the great leader <strong>of</strong> the National Party in this place, ,<br />
Mr Warren Truss—no-one would remember his name, but I will remind you that that was his name—said in<br />
defence <strong>of</strong> himself for allowing the grapes in that it would only affect Queensland. Right, well, we do not have to<br />
worry about it because it will only destroy the grape industry in Queensland! Ours was—'was', past tense—one <strong>of</strong><br />
the biggest grape-growing areas in Australia. The Kennedy electorate in North Queensland has hardly any grapes<br />
left. The month that he decided to bring the grapes in from California was the same month that the Californian<br />
industry announced that 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> their entire industry had been destroyed by the glassy-winged sharpshooter.<br />
Only the Americans could think up that sort <strong>of</strong> a name, but that was the name <strong>of</strong> the disease. Ten per cent <strong>of</strong> their<br />
industry had been wiped out by the glassy-winged sharpshooter, but Mr Truss and the National Party had no<br />
difficulty in deciding that the grapes should come in. I was still in the National Party then, and 13 <strong>of</strong> the 15<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficial LNP government committee reviewing the proposal said, 'You've got to be joking.' He<br />
said, 'We'll be taken to WTO.' All <strong>of</strong> us said, 'Let them take it to WTO. For once, we might be able to convince<br />
our own farmers that we are fighting for them.' So 13 <strong>of</strong> the 15 people at the meeting wanted us to be taken to<br />
WTO so we could be seen to be fighting for our farmers. But that was not to be.<br />
The oranges and orange product coming in from Brazil has streptomycin in it. We are not allowed to use<br />
streptomycin in Australia, and yet we allow our people to eat streptomycin because it is an imported product.<br />
There is one set <strong>of</strong> rules for Australians and another set <strong>of</strong> rules for the importers.<br />
We have a certain acceptable poison level that has been decided by the health department <strong>of</strong> Australia for<br />
cadmium in potatoes. Again, the National Party, in the portfolio, decided that it was all right to let in potatoes<br />
from the other countries. They could not come in because they have higher cadmium levels. 'Oh well,' he said,<br />
'we'll just raise the allowable cadmium level.' I quote from the minister's press release:<br />
To allow the potatoes in from Texas in America and from China, we will vary the cadmium levels.<br />
So Australians will now eat more cadmium poison in their potatoes to look after the farmers <strong>of</strong> China and Texas.<br />
We can die in Australia. When I say 'die', this was a decision <strong>of</strong> the health department. The health department said<br />
that a safe cadmium level is that level. He raised that level and allowed us to eat much more cadmium. Did he<br />
know more than the health <strong>of</strong>ficials? No, he did not. What he was saying was, 'Our free trade principles are more<br />
important than whether people die in Australia.'<br />
We had the papaya fruit fly, which cost the industry a couple <strong>of</strong> hundred million dollars. We had the citrus<br />
canker, which cost $200 million or $300 million to the Queensland economy. We had the black sigatoka outbreak,<br />
which cost us, maybe, $200 million. We have the Panama disease race 4. Individual farmers have each had to put<br />
in a million dollars worth <strong>of</strong> installation with Panama race 4. Every single one <strong>of</strong> them was brought in from food<br />
product coming from overseas. Nobody cares.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 37<br />
With hepatitis A in the berries there were two deaths, and nobody cares. With imported tuna that was carrying<br />
disease there were two deaths, and nobody cares.<br />
The best we can do is to put it on a disk, which does not discriminate between Australian product and foreign<br />
product. I am sure every housewife brings along a magnifying glass, and she is really going to worry about that<br />
disk, which she actually will not be able to interpret the meaning <strong>of</strong>—and I have had a look at the pr<strong>of</strong>ormas; I<br />
might not be very bright, but I am sure that I stand with most Australians in saying I am a bit confused by the<br />
disk—but she will not be worried about the disk; she will be worried about the price. Of course, our product costs<br />
infinitely more because our prawn farmers have to not only take in perfect water but allow perfect water to go out.<br />
(Time expired)<br />
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:21): Australian country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling has proved to be a proverbial<br />
weeping sore, eroding consumer confidence, imposing excessive compliance costs and failing to provide fair and<br />
transparent safe-harbour defences to Australian farmers and food processors for far too long. It has been one <strong>of</strong><br />
those perennial problems that has confounded successive governments, where almost everyone agreed there was a<br />
problem and that change was overdue, but the detail <strong>of</strong> the doing proved just too elusive, too complicated and just<br />
too damn hard. So down that time honoured road yet another can was kicked, but not by this coalition<br />
government. In its first term, it navigated a solution to country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling that comes to us today in this<br />
bill, together with the information standards that came into effect from 1 July 2016. And it is a solution that<br />
includes a consistent, highly visible, easy to interpret label with a logo, bar chart and text<br />
In other words, what we see in this bill are the quintessential hallmarks <strong>of</strong> a coalition government: a willingness<br />
to tackle problems that others have happily thrown into the too-hard basket; an ability to find a solution that is<br />
fundamentally practical, neither overcooked nor ideological but based on good old fashioned pragmatic common<br />
sense; and a capacity to build consensus among the community, consumers and industry, key stakeholders and<br />
across the political divide. And what a great solution it is.<br />
My nearly 25 years in business has been spent predominantly overseas, mainly in the Asia Pacific and<br />
emerging markets. For the first dozen or so <strong>of</strong> those years, I was in the food game working for Australian food<br />
companies, breaking into new markets and exporting Australian product, from commodities such as rice and<br />
wheat flour to more value-added fast moving consumer goods. Having therefore been a practitioner in the field, I<br />
want to commend the architects <strong>of</strong> this bill for settling on the kangaroo logo. Even though this bill relates to food<br />
sold domestically in Australia, it is important that mandatory food labels reconcile with our image <strong>of</strong> brand<br />
Australia. And, in my experience, there is no more recognised symbol that speaks to our identity <strong>of</strong> our country<br />
than the kangaroo and its symbol <strong>of</strong> quality, cleanliness, consistency and reliability.<br />
As you know, the seat <strong>of</strong> Fairfax lies at the heart <strong>of</strong> Queensland's Sunshine Coast where food and agriculture<br />
are sectors that help drive the local economy. In consulting on this bill, I ran half a dozen public information<br />
booths at the Yandina market and at the Maroochydore Fisherman's Rd market and also a series <strong>of</strong> roundtables<br />
with local growers and other foodies. It was at these roundtables where the most meaningful contributions were<br />
made, due to intellectual giants <strong>of</strong> the Sunshine Coast food industry such as Julie Shelton, innovators like Tania<br />
Hubbard, producers like Steven Jeffers <strong>of</strong> Jeffers Markets and leaders from various sectors like: George Walker,<br />
eggs; Matthew Trace, dairy; Blake Nicolle, salads; and Jeremy Atkins, beef.<br />
While most people with whom I consulted were overwhelmingly supportive <strong>of</strong> the county-<strong>of</strong>-origin reforms,<br />
local strawberry growers raised a concern. Their concern was with the transition period presented in an earlier<br />
iteration <strong>of</strong> the proposal that we debate today in the bill. You may not be aware, but the greater Sunshine Coast<br />
region accounts for at least 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> Queensland's strawberry crop, which equates to approximately 50<br />
million punnets <strong>of</strong> strawberries and is perhaps the most significant producer region in Australia, employing up to<br />
8,000 pickers each season. It was local strawberry grower Di West who first raised a concern that the business she<br />
runs with her sister Jodi risked losing tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars' worth <strong>of</strong> plastic punnets stored in their<br />
warehouse unless the proposed transition period was extended. This led to significant consultations between them,<br />
the minister, his <strong>of</strong>fice and me, and also other growers such as the famous Twist Brothers <strong>of</strong> Chevallum.<br />
And how pleasing it was to see that the solution that we found for Di, Jodi, the Twists and other growers to<br />
mitigate the risk <strong>of</strong> too short a transition period now finds forms in part <strong>of</strong> the bill before the <strong>House</strong>. On a personal<br />
level and as a relatively new MP in this Chamber, seeing the input that came from the grassroots <strong>of</strong> my electorate,<br />
from roundtables in Palmwoods to market stalls in Yandina and Maroochydore lead directly to legislative<br />
outcomes inspires great confidence in me in the process <strong>of</strong> parliamentary democracy.<br />
There is an additional point that is worth making here, which puts this bill into a broader context. Many<br />
Australian growers and food manufacturing companies have been losing business in the domestic market to<br />
cheaper overseas imports. As a nation, we need to decide how to respond to this. We have a choice to make.<br />
CHAMBER
38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Either we throw in the towel as the former speaker, the member for Kennedy, suggested we do and join the<br />
populists, spruiking false hope <strong>of</strong> prosperity through turning back the clock to an era <strong>of</strong> protectionism or we<br />
embrace free trade while seeking a more level playing field, stay on the field, play hard but fair and demand those<br />
who are also on that field play by the same set <strong>of</strong> rules. It is the latter <strong>of</strong> these two options that I choose. And that<br />
is precisely the spirit in which this bill has been put today.<br />
On one hand, this bill levels the playing field by empowering consumers, by allowing them to be more<br />
informed and, on the other hand, this bill allows local players in the food industry to accentuate that which is their<br />
greatest differentiator—the fact that they, thanks to this bill, can be recognised as Australian.<br />
I commend the bill as it has been put by the coalition to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order<br />
43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS<br />
Safer Communities Fund<br />
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:30): Community safety is one <strong>of</strong> the core functions <strong>of</strong> government. It is something<br />
Labor believes in very deeply. But I rise today to raise some critical questions about the commitment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government. During the election, Justice Minister Michael Keenan went around the country with Liberal<br />
candidates promising millions <strong>of</strong> dollars in funding for local community safety projects. He promised $860,000 to<br />
the citizens <strong>of</strong> Cowan, $205,000 to the citizens <strong>of</strong> Dobell, $225,000 to the citizens <strong>of</strong> Brand, $100,000 to the<br />
citizens <strong>of</strong> Perth and $635,000 to the citizens <strong>of</strong> Solomon. Voters went to the polls on election day with those<br />
promises in mind.<br />
Since the election, those local communities are being told a very different story. They have received a letter<br />
saying that they must now apply for funding. We do not know the criteria that they will have their applications<br />
assessed under. Most critically, they have been told that their funding application will now be 'considered as part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the budget process'. I have been around long enough to know what 'considered as part <strong>of</strong> the budget process'<br />
means. The Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, is clearly trying to weasel out <strong>of</strong> his commitments. Perhaps he<br />
is trying to punish these local communities for electing Labor members <strong>of</strong> parliament. But these Labor MPs are<br />
fighters and they are not going to allow this to happen. The members for Cowan, Dobell, Brand, Perth and<br />
Solomon today will be standing up for their constituents in this chamber. (Time expired)<br />
LGBTI Children: Bullying<br />
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:31): Today we remember the all-too-short life <strong>of</strong> Brisbane teenager<br />
Tyrone Unsworth. As members may be aware, last week it was reported in The Courier-Mail that Tyrone's<br />
mother, Amanda, said <strong>of</strong> his recent suicide that it was a result <strong>of</strong> a lot <strong>of</strong> people starting to pick on him because <strong>of</strong><br />
his sexual orientation. Every day, around the country, children in Australia are bullied. I cannot speak with<br />
authority on the different bases <strong>of</strong> the bullying, but we are aware that many children who are lesbian, gay,<br />
bisexual, transgender or intersex do face serious issues <strong>of</strong> bullying from others. Schools, <strong>of</strong> course, should be a<br />
sanctuaries and places <strong>of</strong> empathy and support for everybody, regardless <strong>of</strong> who they are. But what <strong>of</strong>ten is not<br />
appreciated is that many young LGBTI youth also experienced bullying from within—from fear that they should<br />
not be themselves because they will not achieve acceptance from their family and may experience social isolation.<br />
That is why suicide rates are so high. Young people cannot see their future, because <strong>of</strong> negativity that comes from<br />
within and from without. I hope all members will agree that there is no place for bullying and harassment <strong>of</strong><br />
people in schools, workplaces and the community. For all young LGBTI children who are experiencing bullying<br />
and harassment, we should work to stop it and encourage resilience, because your life will be incredible and filled<br />
with incredible experiences and people who love you and care about you. You will realise your ambitions and<br />
dreams, because every day <strong>of</strong> your life you will— (Time expired)<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Tasmania: Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths Facility<br />
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:33): I rise today to support the University <strong>of</strong> Tasmania's proposal for a science,<br />
technology, engineering and maths facility in the Hobart CBD. This is an incredibly worthwhile project, and the<br />
$400 million required would be a small price to pay for a revitalised and reinvigorated Hobart. Indeed we need to<br />
boost our investment in STEM to keep up with our region, as the percentage <strong>of</strong> graduates with a STEM<br />
background is only 18 per cent in Australia, compared to 35 and 47 per cent in Singapore and China respectively.<br />
The UTas proposal is for a brand new STEM precinct on 23,000 square metres. It would create 700 construction<br />
jobs and generate $3.3 billion in economic activity as well as providing a home for over 5,200 staff and students.<br />
It would also provide UTas medical researchers in Liverpool Street with ready access to physicists and engineers<br />
to help with the development <strong>of</strong> medical equipment and biotechnology. This proposal is on Infrastructure<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 39<br />
Australia's priority list, and I am heartened by the personal interest the Prime Minister showed about this project<br />
in question time a few weeks ago. The business case is now with the government, and I truly hope that they get on<br />
board and fund this much-needed Tasmanian project.<br />
La Trobe Electorate: Crime<br />
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:34): In my electorate <strong>of</strong> La Trobe, people are sick and tired <strong>of</strong> being a victim or<br />
the prospect <strong>of</strong> being the next victim. Just outside the electorate, we had an awful and disgusting incident recently,<br />
where Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman was at home with his wife and children, and young <strong>of</strong>fenders broke into<br />
his house. His wife actually tried to stop them getting in, even trying to give them the car keys so they would just<br />
leave. Instead, one <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fenders decided to stab the senior constable in the face with an object. I know Daniel's<br />
father, Dave Yeoman.<br />
This is the state it has got to. It is very, very disturbing. Each week in Victoria at least two police cars are<br />
rammed by young <strong>of</strong>fenders. In my day in the police force, it was rare to ever see this happen. An article in The<br />
Age, written by Craig Butt and Cameron Houston, dated 14 November this year, states that aggravated burglaries<br />
across the state are 6.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> all burglaries, but a truly disturbing statistic is that in Berwick, in my electorate,<br />
one in five burglaries is a burglary where the victims are in some way assaulted. It is an absolute crying shame<br />
that the Daniel Andrews government has let it get to this stage.<br />
Brand Electorate: Safer Communities Fund<br />
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:36): Like my colleague the member for Hotham and many others, I am<br />
concerned that the Turnbull government have failed to keep their promises to the people <strong>of</strong> Brand. During the<br />
2016 federal election campaign, the government committed $225,000 to the City <strong>of</strong> Rockingham for five mobile<br />
CCTV cameras, through Minister Keenan's Safer Communities Fund. But, with the election over, the government<br />
have backflipped and are asking the City <strong>of</strong> Rockingham to jump through hoops to get the funding they were<br />
promised. The council have already paid for the cameras and are now left in the lurch, waiting for the government<br />
to follow through.<br />
It is important that the people <strong>of</strong> Rockingham and Kwinana feel safe in their community, and this initiative<br />
increases better behaviour. What we have seen in Western Australia is that crime has steadily increased the<br />
Barnett Liberal government. The Turnbull government were happy to stand with Rockingham during the election<br />
campaign, but now that they are elected, they no longer care.<br />
The people <strong>of</strong> WA are sick <strong>of</strong> being used as a political football to further the interests <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party. The<br />
latest farce involves dirty deals between the attorneys-general <strong>of</strong> Australia and Western Australia, to cheat<br />
Australian taxpayers <strong>of</strong> Bell Group litigation funds purely because the Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-National<br />
government will not put real expenditure into Western Australia. This is a shameful example <strong>of</strong> the depths these<br />
Liberals will sink to to save themselves. These dirty deals between Liberal governments are nothing short <strong>of</strong> a<br />
national disgrace.<br />
Western Australians deserve safety, they deserve respect and, like all Australians, they deserve at least a<br />
competent government. But, sadly, Liberal governments at federal and state levels are incompetent at best and<br />
morally bankrupt at worst. (Time expired)<br />
Capricornia Electorate: Job Creation<br />
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:37): I rise today with some further good news on<br />
job creation in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Capricornia. BMA has awarded a local firm a $31 million contract to remove<br />
decommissioned marine infrastructure from the Hay Point Coal Terminal, near Sarina. Central Queensland<br />
business, Walz Construction Group has won the contract and the project will employ up to 20 people. The<br />
company will remove the original trestle and conveyor that have transported coal from a land terminal to waiting<br />
bulk carrier ships for more than 40 years. This infrastructure dates back to 1971 and has since been replaced by<br />
new technology. I was on hand with BMA Asset President, Rag Udd, at Hay Point recently to announce details <strong>of</strong><br />
the project. Starting next month, December 2016, crews will work from barges to dismantle the 1.8 kilometre<br />
trestle. About 6,500 tonnes <strong>of</strong> steel will be transferred ashore for recycling. The project is scheduled to take 18<br />
months.<br />
This project follows further good news that I touched on in the <strong>House</strong> previously. Adani Energy Company will<br />
invest $200 million into construction <strong>of</strong> a solar farm near Moranbah, creating up to 1,000 new jobs over various<br />
phases <strong>of</strong> the project. This is at a time when coal prices are also on the rise.<br />
Cowan Electorate: Safer Communities Fund<br />
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:39): I too am especially concerned that the government have failed to keep their<br />
promises to the people <strong>of</strong> Cowan, who continue to be ignored by this government. During the 2016 election<br />
CHAMBER
40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
campaign the government promised CCTV cameras and infrastructure in Kiara, Beechboro and Lockridge. Crime<br />
in Kiara has almost doubled in the last year, and the CCTV cameras are necessary to create a safer community for<br />
the residents there. Despite making a commitment to the funding during the election campaign, the government<br />
are now asking the City <strong>of</strong> Swan to apply for the funding. They are getting the city to jump through hoops to get<br />
funding through an application process that has not even opened yet.<br />
I may be new to politics but, even as a new person to this chamber, I simply do not accept that a government<br />
can make promises during an election campaign and be friends to the people during the election campaign and<br />
then turn around and completely ignore them once they are elected. I simply do not accept this. I do not think it is<br />
going too far to suggest that Australians want their leaders to earn their confidence. How does this government<br />
expect to foster strong relations with people they serve when they cannot even follow through on the promises that<br />
they made? Treat the voters with some respect and be honest with them about what you can really achieve and<br />
stand by your commitments. (Time expired)<br />
Bennelong Electorate: Armenian Community<br />
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:40): On Monday, 7 November, I had the honour <strong>of</strong> welcoming a<br />
delegation from the Armenian National Committee <strong>of</strong> Australia to Canberra to speak about the Armenian-<br />
Australian community's issues and concerns. ANC Australia was joined by the chairman <strong>of</strong> the Armenian<br />
National Committee <strong>of</strong> America, Mr Raffi Hamparian, who is a well-known name around Capitol Hill in<br />
Washington D.C. for the great work he does on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Armenian community in the United States.<br />
The Armenian National Committees around the world, including here in Australia, do a great job <strong>of</strong><br />
representing their community and providing us with the materials necessary to determine positions <strong>of</strong> importance<br />
to Armenians. A recent example <strong>of</strong> such material was a book titled Armenia, Australia and the Great War, by<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Peter Stanley and Vicken Babkenian, which examines the deep connection between Australia's history<br />
<strong>of</strong> humanitarian relief and the greatest tragedy that befell the Armenian people, the Armenian genocide.<br />
We have a rich historical connection with the Armenian people, yet the facts are unknown to many. For<br />
example, I would imagine that many <strong>of</strong> us here are unaware that our Diggers were among the first witnesses to<br />
describe the Armenian genocide, which became our nation's first major international humanitarian relief effort.<br />
My electorate is proud to be the home <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Armenian-Australians, who all take part in our diverse<br />
community. I would like to thank the ANC for their efforts in helping this community and in the ongoing fight to<br />
have the Armenian genocide recognised around the world.<br />
Dobell Electorate: Safer Communities Fund<br />
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:42): I am deeply concerned. The Toukley and District Senior Citizens Club is a<br />
regular target for vandalism and antisocial behaviour. When I was there on Friday I was shown damage to the<br />
building, including vandalised windows, fire damage and graffiti. Recently, the club spent almost $8,000 <strong>of</strong> their<br />
own funds upgrading lighting to improve security, and members are regularly required to fix damage to the<br />
building themselves, which Rex does almost every single day. They were excited when, during the recent election<br />
campaign, their club was included in the government's promise to deliver $205,000 to Central Coast Council for<br />
CCTV across the electorate <strong>of</strong> Dobell. In addition to the Toukley and District Senior Citizens, the promised<br />
funding would install fixed cameras at Cottage Youth Centre, Tumbi Community Hall and Sohier Park, and<br />
mobile cameras at the boat ramp car park in Norah Head—a project I know that Norah Head Marine Rescue are<br />
keen to see help them keep people safe on our waterways this summer.<br />
The government now appear to be backing away from this promise and have sent a letter to Central Coast<br />
Council advising that there is no certainty around the funding and that they will now have to apply for the money<br />
under a grant program that has not even been set up. On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Toukley and District Senior Citizens, the<br />
Norah Head Marine Rescue and the Central Coast community, I call on this government to keep their promise to<br />
our community and provide this necessary funding.<br />
Menzies Electorate: Sporting Achievements<br />
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:43): I rise to commend a number <strong>of</strong> local sporting champions from my<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Menzies. Firstly—and this may come as a surprise to some <strong>of</strong> my rural colleagues in this chamber—<br />
the new world woodchopping champion resides in suburban Doncaster. Lawrence O'Toole led the Australian team<br />
to victory in the world championships in Germany, claiming two world records in the process. In fact, he joins his<br />
father and his grandfather as a third-generation world champion woodchopper. Secondly, I congratulate Bronwyn<br />
Butterworth, from Lower Templestowe, who won the World Taekwondo Championship in Lima, Peru. This<br />
follows her wins in both the US and the Canadian open championships. Thirdly, I congratulate Jade Vella-Wright,<br />
who won a gold medal in the Victorian Gymnastics Championships and, indeed, followed up with a bronze medal<br />
in the Australian championships. I would especially like to congratulate two Warranwood Primary School<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 41<br />
Students, Cooper and Rhys, both <strong>of</strong> whom have cerebral palsy, who will compete in multiple sports in this year's<br />
National Track and Field Championships. To each <strong>of</strong> them at different levels <strong>of</strong> athletic competition, to Lawrence<br />
O'Toole, Bronwyn Butterworth, Jade Vella-Wright and, <strong>of</strong> course, Cooper and Rhys: we salute you and commend<br />
you for your sporting prowess.<br />
Solomon Electorate: Infrastructure<br />
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:45): In the last week <strong>of</strong> the election campaign, the coalition government made<br />
an announcement that funding would be granted to the Darwin City Council from the Safer Communities Fund for<br />
five new CCTV cameras and that those cameras would be managed and monitored by the police. However, now<br />
we are hearing that the coalition government has backflipped from this funding announcement and wants the<br />
Darwin City Council to make an application for the funding.<br />
To Territorians, this sounds familiar. The same process is happening with our cancer scanner, which was<br />
promised by the current foreign minister six years ago. We know what these processes and applications are. They<br />
are code for 'delay' and 'not fair dinkum'. We have heard from the Darwin City Council that they are no longer<br />
interested in receiving the money because it is completely insufficient to meet the ongoing maintenance,<br />
monitoring and management costs, as well as the fact that they need to go through a new grant process that does<br />
not even exist yet. It is yet another example <strong>of</strong> the coalition's complete failure to stand by commitments made<br />
during the election campaign. That is why Territory Labor is moving ahead with funding for our PET scanner<br />
infrastructure—we cannot depend on the Commonwealth. I fought for an extra $40 million for the Palmerston<br />
Regional Hospital because there were more games being played there. The coalition are big on games and rhetoric<br />
but low when it comes to delivery.<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Crossway LifeCare<br />
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:46): In unity and humanity we recognised White Ribbon Day, Australia's<br />
campaign to prevent violence against women. Domestic violence is not a private thing; it is a crime.<br />
Many women in my electorate have shared with me their stories <strong>of</strong> domestic violence, and, in a previous life as<br />
a legal practitioner, I provided legal representation for women who were victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence. The sheer<br />
anguish and fear and the physical hurt <strong>of</strong> the blows, and the acute psychological trauma <strong>of</strong> not really feeling safe<br />
and not being able to make their children feel safe, was <strong>of</strong>ten palpable.<br />
Our greatest strength is in what unites us rather than what divides us. This is a bipartisan matter. Domestic<br />
violence penetrates our society and, in acknowledging the courage and suffering <strong>of</strong> all victims <strong>of</strong> domestic<br />
violence, I also acknowledge the people at Crossway LifeCare, located in Burwood East, in my electorate.<br />
Gail Thannhauser, COO; Dale Stevenson, CEO; Pastor Toby Baxter; Christina Lim and Debbie Uy—together<br />
with highly qualified psychologists, social workers and 100 volunteers—do amazing work, including counselling<br />
services, financial counselling and training, and community mentoring. Their aim is purely to see women<br />
transformed so they can live safely and achieve their potential and participate fully in the community. The<br />
LifeCare Women's Empowerment Centre is a safe haven for women and children who are recovering from<br />
traumatic violent experiences. The centre provides programs in a supportive environment to assist women to<br />
rebuild their lives and flourish.<br />
Perth Electorate: Safer Communities Fund<br />
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (13:48): The question I have is: when is a campaign promise not a campaign<br />
promise? That might sound like a trick question, but when it came to the 2016 federal election in my home town<br />
<strong>of</strong> Perth I can tell you right now, as far as the Liberal government is concerned, things were not all that they might<br />
have appeared to be.<br />
In the course <strong>of</strong> that campaign, my opponent, flanked by the Minister for Justice, made it very clear that they<br />
purported to be investing in community safety. They purported to the good people <strong>of</strong> Bassendean to have turned<br />
up to commit $100,000 for CCTV at the Jubilee Street reserve, where it is badly needed to combat a rising drug<br />
problem. They then turned around and went to the city <strong>of</strong> Bayswater to purportedly contribute $150,000 to try to<br />
make it safer around the Noranda shops and sporting complexes. Now it appears that both <strong>of</strong> these so-called<br />
promises are the subject <strong>of</strong> a grant application and the funding is indeed uncertain. It completely lets down the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> Bassendean. It lets down the people <strong>of</strong> Bayswater. It does not give them the certainty they required in<br />
relation to keeping the suburbs safe.<br />
Throughout the entire country and the world, communities are growing increasingly disillusioned with the<br />
conduct <strong>of</strong> the major parties. What they see from the Liberal government is more <strong>of</strong> this giving with one hand and<br />
taking with the other. With all <strong>of</strong> these broken promises, how can we possibly be expected to rise above the fray?<br />
CHAMBER
42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Mallee Electorate: Christmas<br />
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:50): This is my Christmas message to the people <strong>of</strong> the Wimmera and Mallee. Over<br />
2,000 years ago, wise men saw a light in the sky. A great event had occurred and they travelled to the little town<br />
<strong>of</strong> Bethlehem. They journeyed to see the birth <strong>of</strong> a child, poor and humble: baby Jesus—the Christmas story. But<br />
the story does not stop there. That new baby, father and mother fled in the night. They became refugees in a<br />
foreign land. That child grew up working with his hands—a tradie. He became a leader and a public speaker who,<br />
in the equivalent <strong>of</strong> one term <strong>of</strong> government—three years—changed the world. He taught concepts like 'do unto<br />
others as you would have them do unto you' and 'turn the other cheek'. He taught people to pray—his words open<br />
this parliament every day. To the people <strong>of</strong> the Wimmera and Mallee, and to Australia: wise people still seek out<br />
the words <strong>of</strong> that man who was born in Bethlehem. Merry Christmas to you all.<br />
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:51): The Deputy Prime Minister's bid to relocate the APVMA out <strong>of</strong><br />
Canberra into his electorate <strong>of</strong> New England has got the green light. This is a shameless and blatant display <strong>of</strong><br />
pig-headed pork-barrelling which has never had a shred <strong>of</strong> merit around it. On Friday, we learnt what we long<br />
suspected: it is all cost and no benefit. The cost to the taxpayer will be $25 million to relocate the agency. The cost<br />
to the Canberra economy will be $157 million a year and the 365 jobs that will be ripped out <strong>of</strong> it. The cost to the<br />
agency and the sector will be the loss <strong>of</strong> expertise, which will take years and years to replace and will add years to<br />
the approval time frame <strong>of</strong> new chemicals. But what I am most concerned about is the cost to the Canberra<br />
community and the cost to the 175 families whose kids must now be pulled out from their schools, whose partners<br />
must now resign from their jobs here in Canberra and who must now say goodbye to their friends and relatives<br />
and their lives here in Canberra.<br />
The Deputy Prime Minister floated an obscene proposal—and it is an obscene proposal—that will cost the<br />
sector, the city, the staff and my community, all to help himself. And the Turnbull cabinet ticked it <strong>of</strong>f. What an<br />
absolute disgrace—to sign my name and say, 'I don't care who it costs or what it costs, as long as it benefits the<br />
Deputy Prime Minister.' (Time expired)<br />
McMillan Electorate: Thanksgiving<br />
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:52): On Sunday morning I was blessed to be at the thanksgiving and<br />
gratitude service at St Paul's Anglican Church to thank all those who selflessly give their time and effort to keep<br />
us safe and healthy when things go wrong or when we are in danger or are threatened—to let them know what<br />
they do is much appreciated by our community.<br />
We thanked, for their work in crisis and in tragedy, our police force, our doctors and nurses, the ambulance<br />
drivers, our local hospitals and their ever available staff. We thanked: those who work behind the scenes in giving<br />
welfare and encouragement, medicines and practical assistance; the SES volunteers and neighbours who provide<br />
help and emergency care when the need arises; the CFA for their 24-hour a day availability; those who work<br />
quietly behind the scenes to raise the finances necessary for church and community so that they will function well<br />
and help those in need; the service clubs who work together; the many volunteers who work together to make both<br />
church and community a better place to live in. We thanked the Lord for all those things. Especially, we thanked<br />
our army <strong>of</strong> volunteers at the Parish Mine Road Op Shop.<br />
I say to them all: you really are the keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs that make the community work. You really are the<br />
keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs that allow us to have communities like the Korumburra St Paul's Anglican Church and the<br />
motion like we have in this parliament for thanksgiving and gratitude. We thank you all. You are the keepers <strong>of</strong><br />
the springs.<br />
Schools<br />
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:54): Today in this chamber I wear a brooch—a brooch that I know does not<br />
have the same monetary value as quite a bit <strong>of</strong> the bling that we have seen in this place, but it is priceless. This<br />
particular brooch has been made by NETschool students. Who are NETschool students? They are students who do<br />
not fit into mainstream schooling. They are students who, if it was not for NETschool, would not be engaged in<br />
schooling. They are students who, through their arts program, participated in the making <strong>of</strong> these brooches, as part<br />
<strong>of</strong> an art exhibition. This exhibition was successful at the recent Bendigo show, taking out first prize in both the<br />
fashion and school awards.<br />
Despite the success <strong>of</strong> this program and <strong>of</strong> these students continuing to be engaged in schooling, the program is<br />
under threat. It is under threat because this government has cut funding—the Gonski funding. This is how schools<br />
in the area <strong>of</strong> the Bendigo electorate, as well as a number <strong>of</strong> other regional areas, help to fund these programs—<br />
school programs that ensure that young people not engaged in school get back enrolled in school and stay in<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 43<br />
education. Gonski funding, or equity funding, in my state is critical to keeping these young people involved in<br />
school.<br />
I call on the government to restore the Gonski funding. Put it back! Give it back to the students <strong>of</strong> NETschool.<br />
Working Holiday Visa Program<br />
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:55): This morning's announcement <strong>of</strong> a<br />
negotiated tax rate <strong>of</strong> 15 per cent for backpackers is good news and brings certainty to farming communities. The<br />
15 per cent rate is a good outcome for farmers, backpackers and Aussie workers. I have always supported a rate <strong>of</strong><br />
between 15 and 19 per cent because that is what farmers in my electorate told me what was needed. The Bowen<br />
Gumlu Growers Association in North Queensland proposed a rate <strong>of</strong> 15 percent, but I know farmers generally<br />
accepted our position <strong>of</strong> 19 per cent originally.<br />
Aside from that position, it is important to find the right balance between competing interests on this issue—<br />
that is, the interests <strong>of</strong> foreign workers and their willingness to work on Aussie farms against the competing<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> Aussie workers who work alongside them. Aussie workers doing the same job on the same farm<br />
should not take home less pay than foreign workers who work alongside them. It would be grossly unfair for an<br />
Aussie worker to pay tax while a foreign worker paid none at all.<br />
Farmers did not come to me saying that the tax rate should be zero. Even backpackers accept they should pay<br />
some tax. So it is perplexing to see Labor even today still saying they are happy with foreign workers paying zero<br />
tax. Labor never has and never will represent the farmers. Labor long ago gave up on representing Aussie<br />
workers. The only people Labor is representing on this issue is foreign workers and their own political selfinterests.<br />
Working Holiday Visa Program<br />
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:57): It is appropriate that I follow that nonsense from the member for Dawson<br />
just now because members <strong>of</strong> this place will know well that there is plenty <strong>of</strong> nonsense spouted on the website<br />
Twitter.com. Crazy people can say anything they want on this platform, especially in the so-called alt-Right—the<br />
anti-establishment right-wing conservatives that have taken over the platform in recent times. And I came across a<br />
cracking example <strong>of</strong> this today from a Twitter account called @Barnaby_Joyce—the Deputy Prime Minister, I<br />
believe, not a parity account. This tweet said:<br />
Backpacker tax would never be 32%. We fought to take it to 19%. We said it would be resolved by Christmas. Welcome 15%<br />
break-through.<br />
This was said despite the Deputy Prime Minister being a member <strong>of</strong> the Expenditure Review Committee that<br />
approved this measure; despite him being a member <strong>of</strong> the cabinet that approved this measure; despite him being a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> this parliament that debated this in the last budget.<br />
This is beyond alt-Right; this is alt-reality. This is what we have come to expect from those opposite. But they<br />
cannot pretend that this shambolic, nonsensical policy-making process did not occur. They cannot mislead the<br />
Australian public and pretend that this embarrassing shambles <strong>of</strong> a policy-making process never occurred. They<br />
need to take responsibility for their actions. This would not have occurred if they had not initiated it in the first<br />
place. They should be honest with the Australian public and they should clean up their act in the future.<br />
Non-Resident Nepali Association<br />
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:58): I want to thank and congratulate the Non-Resident Nepali Association for<br />
their sixth annual Grand Nepal Festival, held very successfully on Saturday at Darling Harbour in Sydney. The<br />
NRNA are a group which represents the community <strong>of</strong> Nepali citizens all around the world. They are nationals<br />
living outside <strong>of</strong> their nation. The Grand Nepal Festival is a fantastic event held every second year at Tumbalong<br />
Park in Darling Harbour. On Saturday it was good to meet Nepal's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Prakash<br />
Sharan Mahat, who was the chief guest at the festival. It was good to discuss issues <strong>of</strong> mutual concern between<br />
Australia and Nepal with him.<br />
We have a very strong and vibrant Nepalese community in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Banks and, indeed, right around<br />
Australia, with more than 40,000 Australians tracing their heritage back to Nepal. I would like to congratulate the<br />
entire community for this traffic event held on Saturday, including the acting president <strong>of</strong> the association, Mr<br />
Dinesh Pokharel. I thank him for his hospitality. I look forward to continuing to work further into the future with<br />
the Non-Resident Nepali Association.<br />
The SPEAKER: It being just past 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members'<br />
statements has concluded.<br />
CHAMBER
44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. The<br />
Western Australian Treasurer has told his parliament that the agreement was with the then Treasurer, the Hon. Joe<br />
Hockey. I refer to this letter which details an agreement between the federal government and the state Liberal<br />
government. Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the Australian people to believe that there was no<br />
agreement between the federal and Western Australian governments on the WA kickback scandal?<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my right; members on both sides. Before I call the Prime Minister: obviously, I<br />
am allowing the question, but it was not particularly clear what the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition was referring to at<br />
the start when he talked about an agreement. But the question is in order, and the Prime Minister has the call.<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition has not simply taken<br />
leave <strong>of</strong> his senses; he has taken leave <strong>of</strong> reality. The Attorney-General in the Senate set out in a very detailed<br />
statement all <strong>of</strong> the correspondence that relates to this. He has made it perfectly clear what occurred.<br />
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: All <strong>of</strong> the issues are dealt with there. This is a matter where there was a case determined in<br />
the High Court—and, I might say, fairly predictably—on section 109 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution and resolved, consistent<br />
with that section, in favour <strong>of</strong> the federal legislation. The conspiracy theories and the falsehoods that are now<br />
being spread by the opposition are all at one with their general approach. Earlier today, before the Attorney-<br />
General had even got through the statement he was making to the Senate, the opposition were on their feet calling<br />
for him to be sacked, and leading among them, <strong>of</strong> course, was the shadow Attorney-General. I hope a future Labor<br />
government does not ever appoint him to the bench. He will dispense with the trial and go straight to the<br />
execution. There will be no need for any rule <strong>of</strong> law or due process.<br />
We are seeing now the absolute embodiment <strong>of</strong> post-truth politics and falsehoods from the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition. We saw him telling falsehoods last week about the NBN, we saw him scandalously and shamefully<br />
stirring up racial dissent and racial hatred by misrepresenting the remarks <strong>of</strong> the immigration minister and now we<br />
see him talking about kickbacks. He is talking about bribery. And what is he now doing? He is accusing the<br />
Attorney-General <strong>of</strong> some crime. His imagination is as boundless as his recklessness when it comes to dealing<br />
with the truth. The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition cannot be trusted on any matter <strong>of</strong> fact. Whether his statements are<br />
accurate or not is entirely a matter <strong>of</strong> coincidence. He does not care whether what he is saying is true or not. Again<br />
and again he will make things up. He will conjure up conspiracies. He has no regard for the facts. A leader, or<br />
would-be leader, who has no regard for the facts, has no respect for the people.<br />
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—<br />
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—<br />
Ms Keay interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen! The member for Isaacs I have asked to cease interjecting, and the<br />
member for Braddon will as well.<br />
Mr Shorten: I seek leave to table the document from the Treasurer to Mike Nahan, the Treasurer <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia and the Hansard <strong>of</strong> the Western Australian parliament, where the Treasurer <strong>of</strong> Western Australia<br />
confirms there was an agreement between the two governments.<br />
Leave not granted.<br />
Economy<br />
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the<br />
Prime Minister update the <strong>House</strong> on the government's economic achievements, including how the Australian<br />
Building and Construction Commission will help to reduce the cost <strong>of</strong> construction and support hardworking<br />
Australians?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for her question.<br />
Shortly after the election, I said in this place that the 45th Parliament will be a term <strong>of</strong> delivery. I made it clear<br />
that we were committed to making the parliament work in delivering the important reforms we took to the people<br />
during the election that will continue to drive strong economic growth and the jobs that flow from it and to<br />
preserve our standard <strong>of</strong> living. Only months into the new parliament, that is exactly what we are doing. We are<br />
delivering on our election commitments, and we are providing the strong and stable economic leadership that<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45<br />
Australians deserve. That is the leadership that enables us to meet and beat the economic headwinds that we face<br />
in the world today. The opposition, on the other hand, are determined to spread a miasma <strong>of</strong> fear and gloom with<br />
falsehoods; their imagination boundless in terms <strong>of</strong> the way they avoid the truth. They will never let the truth<br />
stand in the way <strong>of</strong> a political attack. But we will continue to get on with the job.<br />
Since the election, we have delivered $20 billion in gross budget repairs. We have passed important changes to<br />
Australia's superannuation system, which make it more sustainable and much fairer. We have delivered tax cuts<br />
for half a million middle-income Australians, and we have passed the registered organisations bill, which ensures<br />
that union bosses are now accountable to their members in the same way that company directors are accountable<br />
to their shareholders. You would think that the union movement would have embraced it, but, no, Labor and the<br />
Greens fought tooth and nail against it. You would think that the Australian Building and Construction<br />
Commission legislation would also have the backing <strong>of</strong> Labor and the Greens. You would think that they would<br />
get behind it because, after all, what does it do? It restores the rule <strong>of</strong> law to the construction sector. And here in<br />
parliament what are we pledged to uphold? The rule <strong>of</strong> law?<br />
Mr Shorten interjecting—<br />
Mr TURNBULL: The Constitution, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition says. Fair enough—that is the foundation<br />
document <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law. And so we seek to uphold it. We do, but the Labor Party opposes it, and they oppose<br />
it because they are wholly owned subsidiaries <strong>of</strong> militant unions who want to continue defying the law, want to<br />
continue their bullying, their thuggery, the way in which they add billions <strong>of</strong> dollars to cost to construction around<br />
Australia, fleecing taxpayers, fleecing homeowners, fleecing businesses. The rule <strong>of</strong> law must be restored, the<br />
thuggery must stop and the parliament should pass the bill to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction<br />
Commission.<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. In<br />
the Senate today the Attorney-General said about the WA kickback scandal 'there was never any agreement or<br />
understanding', so why on Friday did The West Australian newspaper report, 'Senator Brandis told Mr Gleeson an<br />
understanding had been reached between the Federal and WA governments,' and why is the Treasurer <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia insisting that there was an understanding agreement between the Western Australian and federal<br />
governments? Who is telling the truth? (Time expired)<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): Based on his track record, there is absolutely no<br />
prospect that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition is telling the truth. He has no regard for it. It is, as I said, a simple<br />
coincidence whether one <strong>of</strong> his statements is true sometimes. It may be he gets the date right or the day <strong>of</strong> the<br />
week right, but in any matter that relates to his political self-interest he will prefer to say what suits him rather<br />
than what is factual.<br />
The reality is this: the Attorney-General has dealt with all <strong>of</strong> these matters in a very lengthy statement in the<br />
Senate and he has tabled the correspondence, which is not as represented by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. But the<br />
Attorney-General's statement speaks for itself. It is comprehensive, it deals with the issues and the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition should stop misleading the <strong>House</strong> and focus on the factual matters set out by the Attorney.<br />
Budget<br />
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the <strong>House</strong> on the<br />
progress made to repair the budget and arrest debt? What needs to be done to keep the budget on its path to<br />
balance, protect Australia's AAA credit rating and create jobs for hardworking Australians?<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:10): I thank the member for Canning for his question and his keen<br />
interest in restoring the budget to balance, which is a goal shared and a practice which everyone on this side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>House</strong> is pursuing with great gusto. Under the budgets <strong>of</strong> those opposite in the six years they were in power, their<br />
deficits were 78 per cent—almost 80 per cent—higher than the budgets that were being brought down by those on<br />
this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. We know that the rate <strong>of</strong> growth and expenditure under those opposite under their budgets<br />
was 4.2 per cent and, under the budgets brought down by this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, that rate <strong>of</strong> growth has fallen to<br />
1.6 per cent. So we are getting expenditure under control and we are returning the budget to balance. It is<br />
currently projected to achieve that in 2021.<br />
Already in this term <strong>of</strong> parliament, following the election, as the Prime Minister has just reminded the <strong>House</strong>,<br />
we have been able to secure the passage <strong>of</strong> more than $20 billion in budget improvement measures, and today we<br />
will be making further progress on that front—but not with the help <strong>of</strong> those opposite.<br />
Ms Plibersek interjecting—<br />
CHAMBER
46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Mr MORRISON: I hear the interjection from the member for Sydney saying, 'You're welcome.' They are not<br />
supporting the government in budget repair, They stand as a bulwark against budget repair, and the evidence on<br />
point today is their absolute commitment to try to give foreign workers in this country a zero per cent rate <strong>of</strong> tax<br />
while forcing Australians to pay for that. In the 2015-16 budget, there was a measure which would have<br />
contributed to the budget some $540 million on the backpacker arrangements. In the 2016-17 budget, that was<br />
upgraded to $760 million because <strong>of</strong> the addition <strong>of</strong> a year. As a result <strong>of</strong> the measures that this government has<br />
been able to agree with the crossbenchers in the upper house, we will achieve $640 million <strong>of</strong> the $760 million<br />
that was set out in the 2016-17 budget.<br />
Those opposite were prepared to write <strong>of</strong>f $760 million in revenue despite coming in here every other day and<br />
wanting to jack up taxes on homeowners, investors and small business. When you want to tax foreign workers,<br />
'Oh no, we can't do that,' says the federated union <strong>of</strong> foreign worker representatives sitting opposite. They say,<br />
'No, we want Australians to pay $760 million in higher taxes' so they can have a foreign worker free-for-all on the<br />
taxpayer. Those opposite have worked against the government tooth and nail to protect the tax rights <strong>of</strong> foreign<br />
workers and they still insist to this day that they should pay no tax. (Time expired)<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:13): My question is to the Prime<br />
Minister. Did the Attorney-General verbally instruct the Solicitor-General not to run a particular argument in the<br />
Bell case in the High Court? Prime Minister, this is not covered by the Attorney-General's statement in the Senate<br />
today, and the Attorney-General has said on Sky News today, 'I'm not going into that matter.'<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:13): During the motion that was raised earlier today<br />
denouncing the Attorney-General over this matter—which was being moved, <strong>of</strong> course, before he had even<br />
completed his statement to the Senate on it, showing the shadow Attorney-General's high regard for due process<br />
and natural justice—I was turning to talk to my colleagues and I heard the words, 'The Attorney-General is a<br />
disgrace.' I did not need to turn around to see who had said that; it is always the member for Isaacs.<br />
Not since Rumpole spilt claret on Guthrie Featherstone QC MP's jabot has there been such a shameful sort <strong>of</strong><br />
enmity in the bar common room. It is relentless. You can set your clock on a denunciation <strong>of</strong> the Attorney-<br />
General. The fact <strong>of</strong> the matter is the Attorney-General has set out a comprehensive statement <strong>of</strong> events. The<br />
shadow Attorney-General is asking me what transpired in a conversation between two distinguished members <strong>of</strong><br />
the bar at which I was not present. Obviously I do not know what transpired between them, but the Attorney-<br />
General has set out his account <strong>of</strong> the events. It is completely comprehensive and I refer honourable members to<br />
it. I really hope that, in the spirit <strong>of</strong> Christmas and goodwill, the member for Isaacs will find something good<br />
about the Attorney-General and perhaps may think kindly <strong>of</strong> his fellow QC. Surely there must be something that<br />
can bring them together at this happy time <strong>of</strong> year.<br />
Ms Keay interjecting—<br />
Ms Butler interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Braddon is now warned! And the member for Griffith will cease<br />
interjecting.<br />
Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, this morning in this<br />
place I introduced a private member's bill, the Charter <strong>of</strong> Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia<br />
Statements) Bill 2016, and this bill calls on the government to release with each budget or MYEFO regional<br />
Australia statements that outline the impact <strong>of</strong> fiscal policy on those <strong>of</strong> us who live outside the city. My question,<br />
Mr Prime Minister, is: can you give the assurance to the <strong>House</strong> that this bill will be brought on for consideration<br />
and, to demonstrate to those <strong>of</strong> us who live in rural and regional Australia, that our issues are taken account <strong>of</strong> by<br />
the government in preparation <strong>of</strong> its fiscal policy?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the honourable member for her question and<br />
I acknowledge her and my colleagues' very keen interest in regional Australia and the impact <strong>of</strong> budget measures<br />
on it. I note for all honourable members' benefit that in every budget there is a statement, and I have in my hand<br />
the one from the last budget, Investing in Regional Growth. It is a statement which is presented by the Minister for<br />
Regional Development, Senator the Honourable Fiona Nash, and it sets out the key Australian government<br />
initiatives in regional Australia by each portfolio. I think this statement would largely meet the matters raised by<br />
the honourable member. But I can say to her that we will nonetheless closely look at the amendment she is<br />
proposing to see how we can continue to strengthen our support for and understanding <strong>of</strong> regional Australia in all<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 47<br />
<strong>of</strong> our government's decisions. It is an absolutely key focus <strong>of</strong> the government. Most <strong>of</strong> the regional Australian<br />
seats, as the honourable member knows, are represented by members <strong>of</strong> the coalition—<br />
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro is warned!<br />
Mr TURNBULL: so it is always clearly in our thoughts. I want to remind honourable members that six <strong>of</strong> my<br />
cabinet colleagues are from rural and regional Australia. They provide a very strong voice on all government<br />
policy in the cabinet. We are backing regions through a $297 million Building Better Regions Fund. We are<br />
supporting regions to drive sustainable growth and employment through our $220 million Regional Jobs and<br />
Investment Packages, including $20 million for the Goulburn Valley—a particular interest to the honourable<br />
member. We are committed, as the honourable member knows, to a $10 million road upgrade package for her<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Indi. We are rolling out 30 new or upgraded mobile base stations in Indi under the Mobile Black<br />
Spots Program. I might say, on the matter <strong>of</strong> the NBN—an issue the honourable member is very enthusiastic<br />
about—there are 7,382 active NBN services in Indi and over 34,000 premises are able to order an NBN<br />
connection if they wish, including <strong>of</strong> course access to the Sky Muster satellite. The honourable member and the<br />
coalition will no doubt have differences at election time, but we are absolutely united in our commitment to<br />
regional Australia and our determination to ensure that the budget and every element <strong>of</strong> our policy delivers for<br />
regional Australians. We will have a very close look at her bill and I thank her for raising it.<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman on a point <strong>of</strong> order.<br />
Mr Laming: I would ask that the member withdraw the comment regarding coming after the Prime Minister<br />
with a meat axe.<br />
The SPEAKER: No.<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! There is a long history in the practice.<br />
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—<br />
Mr Watts interjecting—<br />
Mr Champion interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: I am not going to address the <strong>House</strong> while the members for McEwen, Gellibrand and<br />
Wakefield interject. There is a long history in the practice that robust terms are used, but it was not meant literally;<br />
it is all in the context. I am calling the member for Parkes.<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission<br />
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (14:20): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and<br />
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the <strong>House</strong> why the<br />
restoration <strong>of</strong> the Australian Building and Construction Commission is necessary to protect the agriculture sector<br />
and our hardworking farmers?<br />
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources)<br />
(14:20): I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that this is an incredibly important issue. After<br />
Dyson Heydon's findings in the trade union royal commission, the CFMEU, which has donated over $11 million<br />
to the Labor Party since 2000, is seen to have 113 representatives before the courts and 1,129 breaches <strong>of</strong> law. I<br />
also note the member for Parkes' interest in this, especially because <strong>of</strong> the Dubbo cancer centre that is about to be<br />
constructed. One might easily draw parallels between the Dubbo cancer centre that is being constructed and the<br />
Melbourne Comprehensive Cancer Centre which was being constructed. At the Melbourne Comprehensive<br />
Cancer Centre, when being constructed, CFMEU members stopped subcontractors from entering the Victorian<br />
Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Parkville and another building site in Footscray. The CFMEU <strong>of</strong>ficials and<br />
union members attended at both <strong>of</strong> these sites and prevented Grocon subcontractors from going on the sites.<br />
Supreme Court injunctions were in place restraining the CFMEU from preventing, hindering or interfering with<br />
free access to and free egress from all Victorian sides, but <strong>of</strong> course it did not stop them. This is a body who<br />
believe they are above the law.<br />
All we are trying to do with the ABCC is remove the law <strong>of</strong> the jungle and return the rule <strong>of</strong> law. The member<br />
would be interested, because he wants to get the inland rail built. We saw with the Lendlease sites, especially with<br />
the Sunshine Coast hospital, the CFMEU, once more, being ordered to cease a week-long strike blitz that is trying<br />
to force the builder, Lendlease, to sign a deal in breach <strong>of</strong> the federal government rules covering multimillion<br />
dollar projects. They use their power to bully. They use their power to try and create a mechanism where it is not<br />
the rule <strong>of</strong> law that runs the place but them.<br />
CHAMBER
48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The effect <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU can be seen all the way through here. Just lately we have seen the minister for<br />
agriculture up in Queensland lose her job. When she became the minister for agriculture she said <strong>of</strong> her<br />
experience, 'I grown my own vegetables occasionally.' So the CFMEU rep gets the job there. But nothing could<br />
outdo what we are seeing here with Senator Kimberley Kitching. The member for Isaacs is actually laughing now.<br />
The member <strong>of</strong> Isaacs is going to stand by the bold commitment he has to so many facets <strong>of</strong> proper process, but<br />
we cannot see the member for Isaacs standing up at the moment for this complete imbroglio which is Senator<br />
Kimberley Kitching, because he knows that it stinks to high hell.<br />
And up stands the member who created the smell! (Time expired)<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Did<br />
the Attorney-General verbally instruct the Solicitor-General not to run a particular argument in the Bell case in the<br />
High Court? In the event that the Prime Minister is unaware, will he report back the answer to the <strong>House</strong> today?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:24): All <strong>of</strong> the matters concerning this issue are set out in<br />
the statement and the correspondence, and I cannot assist the honourable member with respect to further details <strong>of</strong><br />
conversations to which I was not a party.<br />
Building and Construction Industry<br />
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the<br />
Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain what the trade union royal commission recommended with<br />
respect to the referral to the Commonwealth Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions <strong>of</strong> soliciting <strong>of</strong> corrupt payments?<br />
Why is it important that the union movement run honestly on behalf <strong>of</strong> hardworking Australians?<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:25): I thank the member for<br />
Moore for his question, and I can tell him that the trade union royal commission referred certain payments from<br />
Victorian businesses to AWU Victoria to the Commonwealth DPP for potential prosecution—<br />
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.<br />
Mr PYNE: under the <strong>of</strong>fences <strong>of</strong> solicitation <strong>of</strong> a corrupt commission and giving <strong>of</strong> a corrupt commission.<br />
One particularly egregious example concerned a payment <strong>of</strong> $100,000 from Thiess John Holland to AWU<br />
Victoria in financial year 2005-06—so, $100,000 went from Thiess John Holland to the AWU in financial year<br />
2005-06. In the same year, 2005-06, a sum <strong>of</strong> $99,426 was donated by AWU Victoria to the ALP in Victoria—so,<br />
only $574 difference, which I guess was a handling fee or a small administrative charge taken by the AWU in<br />
handing that $100,000 on to the ALP in Victoria. This was the only year in which such a donation was made when<br />
one person held the positions <strong>of</strong> National Secretary <strong>of</strong> the Australian Workers Union, Victorian Secretary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Australian Workers Union, Victorian president <strong>of</strong> the Australian Labor Party and—just for good measure in that<br />
financial year, holding all three <strong>of</strong> those positions when that donation was made—was also preselected for a very<br />
safe seat in Victoria to represent the Labor Party in the federal parliament.<br />
Mr Tehan: Who was that?<br />
Mr PYNE: Indeed: guess who it was? It was our old mate Bill.<br />
The SPEAKER: The Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> will refer to members by their correct titles.<br />
Mr PYNE: It was our old charmer the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, National President <strong>of</strong> the ALP, National<br />
Secretary <strong>of</strong> the AWU and state secretary to the AWU when these payments were made.<br />
It was probably all very coincidental. There is every chance that it was just a coincidence. But the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition could put that all beyond doubt by supporting the Australian Building and Construction Commission.<br />
This week in the Senate the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition could show that he is not the cat's paw or a wholly owned<br />
subsidiary <strong>of</strong> the union movement. He could support the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He<br />
missed his chance on the Registered Organisations Commission but he still has the chance this week to prove that<br />
all <strong>of</strong> those unfortunate matters unveiled by the trade union royal commission had absolutely nothing whatsoever<br />
to do with him by putting his money where his mouth is and supporting reform <strong>of</strong> building and construction in<br />
Australia.<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. I<br />
refer to the Prime Minister's earlier answer where he claimed the relevant correspondence had been tabled. In the<br />
Senate today the Attorney-General said <strong>of</strong> the Minister for Social Services:<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 49<br />
He told me that on 2 March 2016 his <strong>of</strong>fice had received an email from the Western Australian State Solicitor containing a<br />
summary briefing and slide show <strong>of</strong> the history <strong>of</strong> the matter …<br />
Why were these materials not tabled in the Senate today, and will the Prime Minister undertake to table these<br />
documents in the parliament today?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:28): The documents that were appended to the Attorney-<br />
General's statement, the correspondence between the WA government and the Treasurer, was the correspondence<br />
I was referring to. You have asked me about some other correspondence that was sent to the government. I will<br />
certainly inquire about that correspondence and report back to the <strong>House</strong> as to whether it can be tabled. It may be<br />
that it has important issues <strong>of</strong> confidentiality as between the WA government and the Commonwealth<br />
government.<br />
I just want to put this in context. The Bell Group litigation, as I think honourable members know, has been<br />
going on for over 20 years. It is a modern version <strong>of</strong> the Jarndyce and Jarndyce litigation immortalised in<br />
Dickens's novel Bleak <strong>House</strong>, where the lawyers are basically chewing up the assets <strong>of</strong> the estate. And what the<br />
Western Australian government sought to do was to deal with that. The legislation that they passed had a fatal<br />
flaw in it—it may have had others—which was that it was inconsistent with provisions <strong>of</strong> the federal taxation act,<br />
a point which was raised by a number <strong>of</strong> parties in the litigation, including the Australian Taxation Office, and<br />
which was the basis for it been struck down. I am prepared to accept that the Western Australian government's<br />
desire to bring the litigation to a close and ensure that the assets were fairly distributed was a reasonable one, but<br />
it was, from their point <strong>of</strong> view, flawed from a constitutional point <strong>of</strong> view. The Australian Taxation Office was<br />
represented, the Commonwealth was represented, the section 109 argument was put, I understand, by number <strong>of</strong><br />
other parties, and if you read the High Court's judgement, their decision on that was very emphatic. That is the<br />
fact <strong>of</strong> the matter.<br />
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Member for Gorton.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: The Commonwealth's interest was thoroughly protected, but the consequence <strong>of</strong> that, I am<br />
afraid to say, is that this litigation appears to be continuing without end. No doubt, it is much to the benefit <strong>of</strong> the<br />
legal pr<strong>of</strong>essionals involved as it continues to diminish the proceeds <strong>of</strong> the liquidator and the proceeds <strong>of</strong> the<br />
estate.<br />
Trade<br />
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment.<br />
Will the minister update the <strong>House</strong> on how the government has opened new export opportunities for Australian<br />
businesses, how are these new opportunities creating jobs for hardworking Australians and is the minister aware<br />
<strong>of</strong> any risk to these jobs?<br />
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:31): I thank the member for Wide<br />
Bay for his question. Like all members on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, he is deeply passionate about creating jobs for<br />
Australians and recognises that one <strong>of</strong> the ways that we create jobs for Australians is through the coalition's<br />
resolute focus on the free trade agreements which have seen Australian businesses gain preferential market access<br />
to help them grow their business and help create more jobs for local Australian workers. We are certainly proud <strong>of</strong><br />
the record <strong>of</strong> delivery that we have. We, <strong>of</strong> course, have the trifecta <strong>of</strong> free trade agreements—with the North<br />
Asian powerhouse economies <strong>of</strong> China, Japan and South Korea—that were put in place by this coalition<br />
government, some <strong>of</strong> which have seen exporters increase their exports to China by over 200 per cent. We are not<br />
just limiting it to that; we are also focusing on what we have been able to do with Singapore. And, <strong>of</strong> course, I am<br />
putting a very strong focus on putting in place a comprehensive deal with Indonesia as well.<br />
There are many examples <strong>of</strong> successes <strong>of</strong>f the back <strong>of</strong> it. Lively Linseed in New South Wales, a Aromababy in<br />
Victoria, Grove Juice in Queensland in the member for Bonner's seat and Australian Honey Products in Tasmania<br />
have all stated that the coalition's North Asian FTAs mean more local jobs and more investment in new facilities.<br />
But I note the member for Wide Bay asks about risks. Unfortunately, there are some risks to Australian jobs.<br />
Despite the rhetoric that we hear from the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, the fact is we have to look at the Labor Party,<br />
in particular, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's form, when it comes to Australian workers and Australian jobs.<br />
Because I have made the point before, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, and the Labor Party more generally, say one<br />
thing in this chamber and a different thing out there on the street.<br />
Look at, for example, the long-term Australian workers <strong>of</strong> Chiquita Mushrooms in Victoria. This was at a time<br />
when the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition was the Victorian state secretary <strong>of</strong> the AWU. He was the man in charge when<br />
it came to the AWU in Victoria and, as leader, he then put jobs at risk, and he did it because he followed the<br />
orders <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU in relation to, for example, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. But more recently,<br />
CHAMBER
50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
we know from the royal commission into trade unions that they uncovered a grubby deal that was brokered<br />
between the AWU, which was reported to have cost 157 mushroom pickers to lose their jobs and 120 workers to<br />
suffer wage reductions. And, in fact, when the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition was Victorian secretary <strong>of</strong> the AWU, he<br />
made sure that Chiquita did an EBA with a union-friendly Oneforce, as the Labor hire company to supply workers<br />
to Chiquita. They bypassed the tender process; they did not worry about going to tender. They just went straight to<br />
their union-friendly mates at Oneforce because they knew that that was where they were going to get their<br />
support, and it also meant that 157 Australian workers lost their jobs and 120 Australian workers got wage<br />
reductions. That is the process <strong>of</strong> delivery from this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. (Time expired)<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for<br />
Revenue and Financial Services, and refers to her continuing ministerial responsibility for the Australian tax<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice. In state parliament, the West Australian Treasurer has said that the ATO acted in the Bell Group litigation<br />
'contrary to the direction or advice <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer'. What direction or advice did the<br />
minister give to the ATO on this matter?<br />
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:35): I thank the member for her<br />
question. As the former Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, and now Minister for Revenue and<br />
Financial Services, I do have ministerial responsibility for the Australian Taxation Office. As such, I receive<br />
updates from Treasury and from the ATO regarding matters that concern the ATO. When I was made aware <strong>of</strong><br />
assertions being made by WA ministers regarding dealings with former Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey, regarding<br />
the Bell litigation, I sought briefing from the ATO. The ATO advised me that it had a legal obligation and a sound<br />
case to intervene in the proceedings in the High Court <strong>of</strong> Australia to protect the interests <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth. I<br />
fully supported the ATO position and so advised the Attorney-General <strong>of</strong> the joint position <strong>of</strong> myself and the<br />
ATO, to which the Attorney-General actually refers to in his detailed statement in the Senate. This position was<br />
subsequently vindicated by the High Court in a unanimous decision.<br />
Ms Plibersek: Can I ask that the minister table the document from which she was reading?<br />
The SPEAKER: Was the minister reading from confidential documents?<br />
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The minister was reading from confidential documents.<br />
Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games<br />
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for<br />
Sport. Will the minister update the <strong>House</strong> on the upcoming Commonwealth Games, to be held on the Gold Coast<br />
in 2018? Is the minister aware <strong>of</strong> any concerns arising in the games' preparation?<br />
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:37): I thank the member for<br />
Fadden, representing the northern part <strong>of</strong> the beautiful Gold Coast, for his question. I have already detailed in this<br />
<strong>House</strong> the shameful way in which the CFMEU has delayed the construction <strong>of</strong> hospital and aged-care facilities for<br />
elderly and vulnerable Australians. Unfortunately, the news gets worse.<br />
We are incredibly proud to be hosting the Commonwealth Games on the beautiful Gold Coast in 2018. It is an<br />
opportunity to showcase our hosting talents, and it is the first time a Commonwealth Games in Australia has been<br />
held outside a major city. It is very exciting. We are providing the lion's share <strong>of</strong> the funding: the Commonwealth<br />
government is providing $154 million towards a successful Commonwealth games; clearly, there are massive<br />
infrastructure spends associated with that. So how disappointed are we to hear—yet again—that on the<br />
construction sites associated with the Commonwealth Games, the bullies, louts, thieves, thugs and perjurers—not<br />
my words but those <strong>of</strong> Justice Heydon—are at work, if you can call it work, yet again. The Australian reported<br />
back in June developments that transpired on the building site for the Carrara Stadium. Carrara Stadium is where<br />
the opening and closing ceremonies are going to be held. It is where the athletics finals will be held: we hope to<br />
see Sally Pearson run a 100-metre-hurdle gold medal there; we hope to see Kurt Fearnley win the wheelchair<br />
marathon as he comes into that stadium. You would think the workers <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU would make a bit <strong>of</strong> an<br />
effort—actually, Mr Speaker, it is not the workers; I have no truck with the workers. It is the bosses—it is the<br />
bosses and their relationship with members opposite. We have no issue with the workers, who are being led to<br />
this. As The Australian said, the Federal Court heard that workers at the Commonwealth Games site clocked on at<br />
6.30 am for c<strong>of</strong>fee and a toolbox meeting until 7.30, before the first two-hour, union-led communication meeting.<br />
That flowed straight into a half-hour smoko until 10 am, then an hour <strong>of</strong> very little work, until the second union<br />
meeting from 11 am to 1 pm. A half-hour lunch break was followed by about an hour <strong>of</strong> work, before the workday<br />
finished as early as 2.30 pm. Is it any wonder that the cost <strong>of</strong> construction has been estimated to be at least 30 per<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 51<br />
cent higher than it should be? And long-suffering taxpayers are bearing that cost. We are not prepared to let an<br />
event like the Commonwealth Games on the world stage be held to ransom by the Labor Party's henchmen and -<br />
women in the CFMEU. We know that Labor needs to stop running a CFMEU protection racket and bring back the<br />
ABCC.<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. I<br />
refer to the statement by the Attorney-General in the Senate today, and to the answer just given by the Minister for<br />
Revenue and Financial Services. Is it seriously the position <strong>of</strong> the government that the only person to blame for<br />
the WA kickback scandal is the former Treasurer in the Abbott government?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for his questions.<br />
And, while we admire his persistence, his determination to misrepresent the facts—to use this chamber as an<br />
opportunity for smearing—is relentless. The matters have been dealt with in my earlier answers.<br />
Skilled Migration Program<br />
Mr DRUM (Murray) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the<br />
minister update the <strong>House</strong> on steps the government is taking to ensure the integrity <strong>of</strong> the 457 visa program? Is the<br />
minister aware <strong>of</strong> any alternative approaches?<br />
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:41): I thank the honourable<br />
member very much for his question. This is a very important issue, because it brings into focus the credibility <strong>of</strong><br />
the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. This is a man who at every turn—and there are many people behind him that could<br />
attest to this—he has doublecrossed most people in his public adult life. This is a leader <strong>of</strong> the opposition who<br />
says one thing outside <strong>of</strong> this chamber and a very different thing inside <strong>of</strong> this chamber. The Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition is here, saying that he wants to introduce a bill in relation to 457 visas. The whole idea <strong>of</strong> the 457<br />
program is that, if the company or the employer cannot find an Australian worker, they can advertise for an<br />
overseas worker. And we heard from the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition on the introduction <strong>of</strong> a bill into this place—<br />
somehow, he wanted to change the focus <strong>of</strong> this particular 457 visa program. But when he was the employment<br />
minister—when he was a minister in the Gillard and Rudd governments—he did the complete opposite. Mr<br />
Speaker, can you imagine the surprise this morning when the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition woke up to this headline in<br />
The Daily Telegraph—<br />
The SPEAKER: The minister knows the rules on props.<br />
Mr DUTTON: I understand, Mr Speaker. 'Do you want lies with that?' goes the headline in The Daily<br />
Telegraph, a story written by Simon Benson. As it turns out, this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition signed <strong>of</strong>f on a special<br />
deal for McDonald's. There was some confusion, as I understand it, in Labor ranks at the time, because the Leader<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Opposition thought that it was actually a special dodgy deal for Joe McDonald! You could understand his<br />
confusion, Mr Speaker. He will prefer union bosses over workers every day <strong>of</strong> the week. That has been his<br />
operation; that has been the way he has conducted himself all his adult life. He has ripped workers <strong>of</strong>f, to the<br />
benefit <strong>of</strong> union bosses, on a regular basis. It has been documented in this place. It does not matter whether it is<br />
the special deal for McDonald's, or importing foreign workers and preferring them over Australian workers—it<br />
does not matter which example you to look at: this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition cannot lie straight in bed. That is the<br />
reality. It is demonstrated in case after case. This Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition cannot go to the public at the time <strong>of</strong><br />
the next election with any credibility on 457 visas. He cannot go to the Australian public at the next election with<br />
any credibility when it comes to border protection policy, because—as we know—before an election, this Leader<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Opposition will say or do anything. He will say or do anything, but the reality is that he cannot tell the truth.<br />
He has demonstrated it again in relation to this 457 issue, and the Australian public is awake to this phoney<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition.<br />
Murray-Darling Basin Plan<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:44): My question is to the Deputy Prime<br />
Minister and Minister for Water. I refer to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Will the government guarantee to<br />
acquire the additional 450 gigalitres <strong>of</strong> water through infrastructure investment?<br />
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources)<br />
(14:44): I thank the honourable member for his question and note that he, like most, would understand the plan. It<br />
was actually written by him so, obviously, any <strong>of</strong> the concerns that lie in there would have been known by him.<br />
We want to make sure that we deliver for the plan. We deliver for the plan to the word and letter <strong>of</strong> the plan, and<br />
we are now also trying to delve into how we construct and retrieve that water. I hear some <strong>of</strong> the suggestions that<br />
have been brought up thus far, and some <strong>of</strong> them quite amaze me. They bring up the Menindee storage lakes,<br />
CHAMBER
52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
which we are already doing. They bring up the Barmah Choke, which we are already doing, which is already part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the assessment. They bring up the Yarrawonga levees, which we are already doing—so the 450, as he well<br />
knows, is part <strong>of</strong> the plan. But what would be better is if he came to the despatch box with some ideas about the<br />
problems that he actually created.<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission<br />
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I ask the<br />
minister if he will advise the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> how the Australian Building and Construction Commission would support<br />
Australia's energy sector and international competitiveness, and is the minister aware <strong>of</strong> any alternative<br />
approaches that would jeopardise industry and the jobs it creates for hardworking Australians?<br />
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:46): I thank the member for<br />
Menzies for his question and acknowledge that, as a former minister for employment and workplace relations, he<br />
is absolutely committed to improving the—<br />
Dr Chalmers interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will cease interjecting.<br />
Mr FRYDENBERG: lawful activity on our building sites and increasing the productivity on our building<br />
sites.<br />
I am asked about the energy sector. It employs more than 200,000 Australians, together with the resources<br />
sector. It is worth some 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> GDP. It earns billions <strong>of</strong> dollars worth <strong>of</strong> export income and, in the gas<br />
sector alone, over the last decade, we have seen more than $200 billion worth <strong>of</strong> investment, particularly in LNG.<br />
There is more to come, because the International Energy Agency estimates that the demand for gas internationally<br />
will increase by some 48 per cent between now and 2040. But there is something that is holding back Australia<br />
from getting a bigger piece <strong>of</strong> this pie, and it is the lawlessness that we are seeing in the construction sector. It is<br />
the high prices that are being paid because <strong>of</strong> the unlawful activity.<br />
Recently the BCA, the AIG group and the Australian Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce and Industry came together and,<br />
in a joint statement, talked about how the illegal behaviour in our construction sector adds significantly to costs.<br />
We know those additional costs to be some 30 per cent—that is 30 per cent to build more pipelines, 30 per cent to<br />
build more LNG plants, 30 per cent to build more mines, 30 per cent to build more roads. That is why we need the<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission back in business. It produced a some $6 billion annual<br />
productivity dividend when it was in place and, since its abolition, there has been a 40 per cent increase in<br />
industrial disputation. We have seen that on sites like Gorgon, Wheatstone and Ichthys. On the Wheatstone site, a<br />
CFMEU member was found guilty <strong>of</strong> the Fair Work Building Construction Agency <strong>of</strong> what they termed<br />
'deplorable and obscene contraventions', and ones that had a particularly racist overtone.<br />
Members <strong>of</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> those opposite, like Martin Ferguson, have said we need a policeman back on the beat,<br />
and that it is time to bring back stability and decency to the construction sector. Those were his words. So my<br />
message to the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition is this: say no to your paymasters in the CFMEU. Say no to bullying<br />
activity. Say no to illegal behaviour. Say no to contraventions and say no to the thuggery and intimidation. And<br />
say yes to lower costs in the construction industry, better prices and a better deal for consumers, for households<br />
and for Australian businesses.<br />
Negative Gearing<br />
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:49): My question is to the Treasurer. On Friday the Treasurer said:<br />
What negative gearing is is the ability for you to deduct what is a business expense against a business income.<br />
Does the Treasurer realise that that is not actually negative gearing? Is the reason why the Treasurer refuses to<br />
reform negative gearing that he does not know what it is?<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:50): I thank the member for his second-form question. This is the<br />
same shadow Treasurer who could not nominate the tax-free threshold on Sky News to Alan Jones. As usual, he<br />
misrepresents these matters. As I was trying to point out when questioned on the matter, the way it works is that it<br />
is a very simple tax principle: when you incur costs in earning an income, you can recoup the costs in claiming<br />
deductions for those. I was drawing a comparison with businesses in that the rental <strong>of</strong> a property is like running a<br />
business. I was trying to communicate a very simple tax principle. The tax principle is where you have net rental<br />
losses, when you have gone out and you have invested in your future and you are trying to provide for the future<br />
for you and your family as so many Australians do—ordinary Australians out there, whether they are police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers or nurses or teachers or others who are the predominant users <strong>of</strong> negative gearing in this country. They are<br />
out there trying to provide for their future.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 53<br />
What those opposite are saying is that when people incur costs in the procuring <strong>of</strong> that income, when they incur<br />
costs in repairing the property or doing all <strong>of</strong> these sorts <strong>of</strong> things or incurring costs in the dead interest costs, then<br />
they should not be able to claim that back. They are saying that is some form <strong>of</strong> concession. They are wrong. They<br />
are absolutely wrong. This is a tax principle that has been around for a century. Those opposite should focus more<br />
on the things they used to support to bring the country forward—things like reducing company taxes for small<br />
businesses. Those opposite would rather see small businesses pay higher rates <strong>of</strong> tax than see foreign workers pay<br />
higher rates <strong>of</strong> tax. What they would like to see is companies struggling more and not being able to give workers<br />
more hours and more opportunity to earn more. That is what their economic plan is, as well as increasing the<br />
deficit by $16.8 billion. On this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> we are focused on constructive measures which enable<br />
Australians to get ahead. Those opposite just want to tax them more.<br />
Building and Construction Industry<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister<br />
advise the <strong>House</strong> how militant union behaviour has impacted on small business in the building and construction<br />
sector? And how will the Australian Building and Construction Commission and Registered Organisations<br />
Commission restore integrity to the sector and generate jobs for hardworking Australians?<br />
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (14:52): I thank the member for Hughes for his<br />
question. The 300,000 small businesses in the construction industry annually contribute more than $50 billion to<br />
GDP. There are 2,359 small businesses in the construction industry in the member for Hughes's electorate. They<br />
make up 20 per cent <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> small businesses in his seat.<br />
The coalition government is absolutely committed to creating an environment for these construction small<br />
businesses to thrive, not one in which they are concerned for their livelihoods. We have passed the Fair Work<br />
(Registered Organisations) Bill 2014. We have delivered on a key election commitment to improve the<br />
transparency <strong>of</strong> registered organisations.<br />
However, the most critical part <strong>of</strong> successfully creating this environment is bringing back the Australian<br />
Building and Construction Commission, to tackle the bullying and to tackle the lost productivity and the threats<br />
from disgraced union members. The most critical part, absolutely, is doing this.<br />
We heard from the minister for health, aged care and sport, talking about the Gold Coast and the<br />
Commonwealth Games construction a little earlier on. We <strong>of</strong> course remember what happened on the Gold Coast<br />
not that long ago—we heard the Prime Minister enunciate it, at this very dispatch box: the CFMEU <strong>of</strong>ficial who<br />
said: 'I know your phone number. I know where you live.' And that sort <strong>of</strong> bullying and that sort <strong>of</strong> intimidation<br />
has to be outlawed. Mind you, the swearing that he continued with I will not repeat in this chamber.<br />
The SPEAKER: No, you won't.<br />
Mr McCORMACK: That is reserved only for CFMEU <strong>of</strong>ficials and water ministers from South Australia.<br />
But I do like this particular quote: 'The list <strong>of</strong> projects affected by CFMEU lawlessness is simply staggering—<br />
everything from major gas export projects to major road and rail projects to children's hospitals, schools, social<br />
housing and community facilities. Lawlessness and dysfunction means all these facilities cost more, get delayed<br />
or both.' That was our employment minister, Senator Michaelia Cash. And you would expect her to say that.<br />
However, let me also quote from Wilhelm Harnisch, who was the CEO <strong>of</strong> Master Builders Australia:<br />
The ABCC, in particular, is what the community deserves. At its very core, the ABCC provides statutory backing that will see<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> construction for schools, hospitals and roads reduced significantly.<br />
I would have thought that the member for Grayndler, given his position, would want to see the cost <strong>of</strong> roads<br />
reduced significantly.<br />
Master Builders has backed the ABCC for over a decade.<br />
Harnisch said that. James Pearson, the CEO <strong>of</strong> the Australian chamber <strong>of</strong> commerce, also agrees. The cost <strong>of</strong><br />
infrastructure—and we have heard the Treasurer say this—is up to 30 per cent higher than it should be, due to<br />
unlawful practices. So taxpayers get less value from government spending and we all pay more. We need to<br />
reinstate the ABCC. We need to do it immediately.<br />
Negative Gearing<br />
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:55): My question is to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer has been<br />
contradicted by the New South Wales Liberal government on negative gearing, first argued there were excesses in<br />
negative gearing, then attacked Labor's reforms to negative gearing, then was rolled in cabinet when he himself<br />
argued for changes to negative gearing, and now does not know what negative gearing is, is it not plain this<br />
Treasurer is just incompetent?<br />
CHAMBER
54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:56): I thank the member opposite for his question. This is the<br />
shadow Treasurer who, at the last election, thought the right plan for Australia was to increase the deficit—<br />
Ms Burney interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Barton is warned.<br />
Mr MORRISON: by $16½ billion dollars. Under the budgets <strong>of</strong> those opposite, they had accumulated deficits<br />
<strong>of</strong> 16.9 per cent <strong>of</strong> GDP. That is what they delivered. We have kept that—under the six years <strong>of</strong> the budgets, both<br />
on the projections and the forecasts <strong>of</strong> what we have delivered—to less than 10 per cent, and we have a credible<br />
plan to bring that budget back to balance. And that is necessary for the very important reason <strong>of</strong> retaining<br />
Australia's AAA credit rating, as the agencies have warned, and they have warned this parliament that they need<br />
to support the measures that bring the budget back to balance.<br />
The biggest threat to that sits opposite, in the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. They talk<br />
about their proposals to hit middle income families who are engaged in negative gearing with higher taxes. That is<br />
what they do. They say that and they say that that is what is going to bring the budget back to balance. But they<br />
know it is not true because, on their own measures that they put to the last election, which included hitting those<br />
middle-income earners by abolishing the negative gearing opportunities they had, as well as increasing capital<br />
gains tax and abolishing the company tax plan that we put to the election; they still had a deficit that was $16½<br />
billion higher.<br />
This is a shadow Treasurer who either cannot count or thinks that the best way to improve the government's<br />
position is actually to have a higher deficit. Well, had he been the Treasurer today, the AAA credit rating would<br />
already be lost.<br />
Roads: Bruce Highway<br />
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (14:58): My constituency question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and<br />
Transport. Will the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport update the <strong>House</strong> on the government's $6.7 billion<br />
investment in the Bruce Highway? How is this investment creating jobs, improving productivity and saving lives?<br />
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:58): I do thank the member for his<br />
question and I congratulate him for carrying on the strong work <strong>of</strong> the former member for Wide Bay, Warren<br />
Truss. I recently attended with the member to the Cooroy to Curra section. It is good to see the Turnbull-Joyce<br />
government's plan for jobs and growth in action on the ground.<br />
The member for Wide Bay is the co-chair <strong>of</strong> the Parliamentary Friends <strong>of</strong> Road Safety. I know he takes that<br />
responsibility very seriously. He is also a former traffic investigator. And the member for Wide Bay has firsthand<br />
experience <strong>of</strong> what it is like to turn up at a serious accident and have to attend with the grieving families<br />
associated with those events. I take the opportunity to thank him for his work in the past, but also to recognise<br />
those first responders around our nation who will be required to do their job again this Christmas.<br />
This government is passionate about providing safer roads, as I know members on both sides <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> are.<br />
The $307 million commitment to the Cooroy to Curra section is a major commitment to a $384 million project<br />
which is going to make some significant improvements to safety in the member's own electorate around the<br />
township <strong>of</strong> Gympie in Wide Bay. We expect that the work will be completed by the middle <strong>of</strong> 2018.<br />
It is <strong>of</strong>ten said—and I have repeated it many times in this place—that when we are investing in good<br />
infrastructure we are actually changing people's lives and we are saving people's lives. It changes lives by<br />
improving productivity. In relation to the Bruce Highway in particular, it is taking away the need for closures with<br />
associated flooding, but obviously it is saving lives. The investment in the Bruce Highway is in the order <strong>of</strong> a $6.7<br />
billion commitment by the Turnbull-Joyce government for this 1,700 kilometre highway which is the arterial <strong>of</strong><br />
life along the north-south corridor <strong>of</strong> Queensland. Road safety, as members would be aware, is all about investing<br />
in safer roads, and making sure we have safer drivers and safer cars along those roads.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the work we have seen in Queensland that has been particular successful is a very cost-effective<br />
treatment: the widening <strong>of</strong> centre lines. This was introduced in Queensland in 2010. And we have seen a 43 per<br />
cent reduction in fatal crashes on those sections where the centre lines have been widened. It has been a very cost<br />
effective treatment. So I want to congratulate the member for Wide Bay for his advocacy, for the work he has<br />
done in the past in relation to road safety, but also in relation to the work he is doing now in helping to make the<br />
Bruce Highway a more efficient and safer network.<br />
Many members on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> in the LNP have raised their concerns in relation to the future <strong>of</strong><br />
funding for the Bruce Highway. The member for Fisher, the member for Fairfax, the member for Dawson, the<br />
member for Capricornia, the member for Petrie, the member for Dickson, the member for Hinkler and the member<br />
for Flynn are all very passionate about seeing the coalition's investment in better and safer roads in Queensland<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 55<br />
continue into the future. We have a record $50 billion investment in infrastructure across the nation and we need<br />
to make sure that Queensland does receive its fair share and that we deliver the infrastructure that Queensland<br />
needs.<br />
Turnbull Government<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (15:01): My question is to the Prime Minister.<br />
Yesterday, the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah said:<br />
It is good that we are no longer talking about innovation and agility because, frankly, it loses people.<br />
But, almost at the same time, the Minister for Finance said:<br />
I think innovation and agility is an important part <strong>of</strong> our economic plan.<br />
Whose lead will the Prime Minister follow today? And is agility still central to your government's policies?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:02): Nothing is more important to Australia's future than<br />
innovation. Innovation is the driver <strong>of</strong> productivity.<br />
Mr Hill interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce can leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: And without continued growth and productivity, Australians cannot be competitive, our<br />
living standards cannot be maintained, and we will not be able to maintain a high-wage, generous, social-welfarenet<br />
first-world economy. So it is no accident that innovation is at the core <strong>of</strong> every G20 government's economic<br />
policy. It is no accident that innovation was central to the communique from the G20 summit in Hangzhou.<br />
It is no accident that it was central to the communique and the discussions and the agenda <strong>of</strong> the APEC<br />
meeting in Lima. Innovation is key. It ensures that our children will have great jobs in the future. It ensures that<br />
the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative, which our government is supporting, will be successful. It ensures that<br />
children who are suffering from cancer today will find cures. It ensures that our service men and women, when<br />
they go into battle, will have the best equipment, the best technology and will be best able to serve our nation, and<br />
keep us safe and preserve our freedoms.<br />
Innovation is fundamental to our success. It is fundamental to our plan. The National Innovation and Science<br />
Agenda is a critical element for our future, and its counterpart in every other country underlines the importance in<br />
this, the most rapidly changing time in human history, a time when the scale and pace <strong>of</strong> change is faster than<br />
ever. It is vital. I will quote, if I may, what I said at the APEC summit in Lima only a few weeks ago:<br />
… the fact is we know what we have to do, we have to ensure that our nations, our businesses, our cultures are much more<br />
innovative. That is the key to maintaining strong economic growth.<br />
… … …<br />
Those who resist innovation are not defending themselves against the consequences <strong>of</strong> technological change, they’re<br />
making themselves vastly more vulnerable to it.<br />
That is the government's policy. Our future depends on an innovative Australia.<br />
The SPEAKER: The Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business on a point <strong>of</strong> order?<br />
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he quoted himself.<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Petrie has the call.<br />
Taxation<br />
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker—<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my left and on my right, the member for Petrie has the call.<br />
Mr Pyne interjecting—<br />
Mr Bowen interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Member for McMahon, the member for Petrie has the call.<br />
Mr HOWARTH: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. There are many<br />
businesses in my electorate and in the region that employ many people. Would the Treasurer please explain to the<br />
<strong>House</strong> how the government took to the last election a policy to cut company tax rates for small and medium<br />
businesses, and how extending the instant asset tax write-<strong>of</strong>f will ensure there are more well-paid jobs on Petrie<br />
and right around Australia?<br />
CHAMBER
56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:06): I thank the member for Petrie for his question because, like so<br />
many other people on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> who have run a small business, the member for Petrie has employed<br />
people and given them jobs <strong>of</strong>f the back <strong>of</strong> his investment and his wife's investment. They are working together in<br />
a small family business, making sure that they can give jobs to young Australians living in Queensland in their<br />
pest control business. I want to thank the member for Petrie for the contribution that he and his wife and his<br />
family have made in running that business, along with the hundred and thousands <strong>of</strong> other small businesses<br />
around the country which this government recognised in the budget. There are some 100,000 <strong>of</strong> them, who will be<br />
able to benefit from the lifting <strong>of</strong> the small-business threshold from $2 million to $10 million, to give them access<br />
to a 27½ per cent tax rate, the instant asset write-<strong>of</strong>f, the depreciation pool provision and a range <strong>of</strong> other<br />
measures which ensure those small businesses can support the employees that work for them and ensure that they<br />
can give them more hours and they can make more investments.<br />
Those opposite jeer and sneer at the member for Petrie, as they did when he asked his question. He knows more<br />
about employing people than any <strong>of</strong> the union hacks on that side do. The member for Petrie knows about<br />
employing people. Those opposite just recognise the rights <strong>of</strong> union bosses and union thugs and bikies, who do<br />
their dirty work, turning up to the immigration minister's <strong>of</strong>fice, standing there with their signs. But we are going<br />
to represent those small businesses who want to give Australians a job. The member for Fenner says, 'Certainly<br />
you want to be looking around the world for your company tax rate.' That is what the member for Fenner says,<br />
and the shadow Treasurer has said on any number <strong>of</strong> occasions that our company tax rate needs to be competitive.<br />
The United States will be going to 15, the United Kingdom is going to 17, Malaysia is at 24, Korea is at 24.2 and<br />
New Zealand is at 28. Maybe they are looking to France, where it is 33 per cent, or Italy, where it is 31.3. They<br />
seem to know how much tax foreign workers pay in New Zealand, but they do not know what small businesses<br />
pay in New Zealand. They do not want to ensure that there is a competitive tax rate for small businesses in this<br />
country, but they want to make sure that there is a lower rate <strong>of</strong> tax for foreign workers.<br />
We are pursuing these reforms despite the opposition <strong>of</strong> those opposite and despite the fact that those opposite<br />
think small businesses should pay higher rates <strong>of</strong> tax and should be frustrated in their efforts to continue to<br />
provide jobs for Australians. As they demonstrated when the small-business man the member for Petrie asked the<br />
question, they jeered and they sneered because they just do not get small business.<br />
Mr Turnbull: After 23 questions and answers, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.<br />
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS<br />
Report No. 28 <strong>of</strong> 2016-17<br />
The SPEAKER (15:09): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 28 <strong>of</strong> 2016-17, entitled<br />
Collection <strong>of</strong> North West Shelf royalty revenue: Department <strong>of</strong> Industry, Innovation and Science.<br />
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.<br />
DOCUMENTS<br />
Presentation<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:09): Documents are tabled in<br />
accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details <strong>of</strong> the documents will be<br />
recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.<br />
BILLS<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016<br />
Second Reading<br />
Cognate debate.<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
to which the following amendment was moved:<br />
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:<br />
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes:<br />
(a) widespread community concern around seafood labelling;<br />
(b) that Australian consumers want to know where their food originates; and<br />
(c) the specific circumstances <strong>of</strong> seafood as a fresh food; and<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 57<br />
(2) calls on the Government to act to improve country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling for fresh, cooked and pre-prepared seafood sold in<br />
the food services industry".<br />
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:10): This legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong><br />
Origin) Bill 2016, is very important to a number <strong>of</strong> my constituents. I particularly want to mention the story <strong>of</strong> Mr<br />
Simon Korlaki, who has contacted me on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions, including at one <strong>of</strong> my mobile <strong>of</strong>fices, to raise<br />
with me his concerns about some <strong>of</strong> the difficulty in knowing where food comes from. I am a strong supporter <strong>of</strong><br />
making sure that people are able to find out where the food that they are buying comes from. Of course, Mr<br />
Speaker, you will have heard Labor talking a lot lately about not just employing Australian and building<br />
Australian but also buying Australian, and I know it is something that my constituents are very concerned about.<br />
Mr Korlaki has raised a number <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> foods. He contacted my <strong>of</strong>fice about walnuts. He bought a<br />
packet <strong>of</strong> walnuts and on the packet it said, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said, 'It's a packet <strong>of</strong><br />
walnuts. How can there possibly be a diversity <strong>of</strong> local and imported ingredients in that packet?' He came to see<br />
me at my mobile <strong>of</strong>fice, as I mentioned, and brought with him a packet <strong>of</strong> acai berries. I am not sure if I have the<br />
pronunciation right, but everyone in this place will have had an acai bowl with the beautiful bananas and<br />
strawberries and honey on top, and maybe with chia seeds. The berries are delicious, as I am sure you know, Mr<br />
Speaker. Trust me, they are delicious.<br />
The SPEAKER: I'm not commenting—it's okay!<br />
Ms BUTLER: He is not commenting! Well, I am here to tell you that the acai berries are delicious. My<br />
constituent bought a packet <strong>of</strong> acai berries, presumably to make himself a delicious acai breakfast bowl but<br />
perhaps for other purposes—we did not really get into that. He showed me the packet and, again, it said on the<br />
packet, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said to me, 'They're just berries. There's nothing else in the<br />
packet except for all these berries. How can they possibly be made from local and imported ingredients?' These<br />
are very good and interesting questions, but they are also very serious questions. If you want to buy Australian<br />
and you are an Australian who wishes to see money spent in Australia stay in Australia, then you do want to know<br />
where your food comes from and whether or not you are able to meet your ambition for your consumption by<br />
looking at food labelling.<br />
As you know, Mr Speaker, this bill will give us some assistance in knowing a little more about where the<br />
content <strong>of</strong> packages has come from and where it has been made. Obviously, it will not go into a detailed<br />
ingredient-by-ingredient description <strong>of</strong> every component <strong>of</strong> everything that is in a packet, but it will give<br />
consumers a bit more to go on than they have had in the past. Mr Speaker, you will be aware, <strong>of</strong> course, <strong>of</strong> the<br />
labels proposed by this bill to be used. The label will give a little diagram that will show people the proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
ingredients made in Australia in a given packet. That diagram will have your very familiar 'Made in Australia'<br />
logo on it—the triangle with the kangaroo; we have all seen that for many years in this country. Underneath the<br />
kangaroo logo, there will be a little window that will be shaded to indicate what proportion <strong>of</strong> the contents <strong>of</strong> the<br />
packet are made from Australian ingredients. The words underneath will say, 'Made in Australia from zero per<br />
cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from less than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in<br />
Australia from more than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from more than 50 per cent<br />
Australian ingredients,' and so on. That will be the 'Made in' country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claim and there will also be 'Grown<br />
in' country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claims and 'Packed in' statements. All <strong>of</strong> those three things are <strong>of</strong> concern to people in the<br />
community, and that includes my constituents.<br />
I think that these changes are a step in the right direction. Obviously, ideally constituents <strong>of</strong> mine would like to<br />
know very clearly all <strong>of</strong> those things—where things were made, where they have been packed, where they have<br />
been grown and about all the ingredients in the food that they have purchased—for a range <strong>of</strong> reasons, and they<br />
would be interested in knowing those things when they are at the supermarket. When you are at the supermarket, I<br />
do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, but I certainly do pick up the packets and find out where<br />
things have been made or where they have been grown to the extent that the information is currently available<br />
because, as a consumer, I do want to be able to make a choice.<br />
We have so much choice available to us, so we do want, when selecting between different goods, to be able to<br />
make an informed choice, and we—whether it is because <strong>of</strong> patriotism, whether it is because we have known<br />
people who have lost their jobs in Australia through redundancies when work has dried up or whether it is because<br />
we have friends or family who have been in that situation—want a situation where we buy Australian first. That is<br />
certainly something that a number <strong>of</strong> people in my electorate worry about, so a piece <strong>of</strong> legislation like this one is<br />
very important.<br />
Food labelling seems like it is quite a mundane thing; it seems like it is quite an everyday question, but it is<br />
really important to the informed choice <strong>of</strong> consumers, to the money that is spent in Australia and to the question<br />
CHAMBER
58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
<strong>of</strong> whether the money does stay on our shores. I do believe that Australians are entitled to know exactly where<br />
their food comes from and, accordingly, I take this issue very seriously, as does Labor.<br />
You would also be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, in government, Labor conducted a comprehensive review<br />
<strong>of</strong> labelling laws, and that we worked very closely with the states, through the Council <strong>of</strong> Australian<br />
Governments, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. We also recognised that consumers are not<br />
the only people participating in the market in Australia when it comes to Australian food. Producers are also<br />
participants, and it is really important that, when we think about the rights <strong>of</strong> consumers, we do make sure we are<br />
not putting an undue burden on Australia's food processors for many reasons: nobody wants to see people have<br />
undue burdens placed on them, and it would be counterproductive if it meant that food processing and<br />
manufacturing ended up going <strong>of</strong>fshore.<br />
The food-processing industry is an industry that is very important to Australia, and it is something we are good<br />
at because we are a safe country, we are not a corrupt country and we are a country where there are very highquality<br />
standards, and those things are all very important for contributing to the quality <strong>of</strong> Australian-made<br />
products. Australian consumers benefit from food being produced, made, grown and packed here in Australia, and<br />
so I certainly support the importance <strong>of</strong> not placing an undue burden on Australia's food processors and thereby<br />
avoiding the possible perverse effect <strong>of</strong> sending manufacturing <strong>of</strong>fshore.<br />
Labor committed to funding a bipartisan solution on food labelling in February 2015. We called on the<br />
government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. In doing so, we did highlight the<br />
need to get all <strong>of</strong> the relevant ministers together to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to<br />
supporting Australia's food industry. We also said that the government should start by addressing the<br />
recommendations <strong>of</strong> the bipartisan <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> report on food labelling, and that we stood ready to<br />
constructively consider any positive policy processes that might result from this process.<br />
Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food, and Labor remains willing to work with the Prime<br />
Minister and his colleagues to improve the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling requirements. We also strongly urge the<br />
government to think a bit more broadly about biosecurity and we also strongly encourage the government to do<br />
what it can to encourage and support Australian manufacturing.<br />
It is unfortunate that we have not really seen that strong commitment to Australian manufacturing from this<br />
government since it took <strong>of</strong>fice in September 2013. You only have to think, when it comes to manufacturing more<br />
broadly, <strong>of</strong> the way that the car industry was goaded into leaving Australia or you only have to think about what<br />
happened with SPC, for example. More broadly, what is really lacking from the discussion in this <strong>House</strong> is a<br />
serious industry policy aimed at reinvigorating Australian manufacturing. There are some people who say, 'Oh<br />
well, Australian manufacturing cannot be reinvigorated,' and they are absolutely wrong. In fact, if you look around<br />
this country you will see amazing examples <strong>of</strong> advanced manufacturing and what is possible through technology,<br />
through systems innovation and through leveraging that really high quality that we have. A good example, in my<br />
view, is the company Swiss that does the supplements—a really interesting firm, a really innovative firm. They<br />
manufacture here in Australia, because it gives them an advantage in overseas markets to be able to say that they<br />
produce their products here in Australia where there are those high-quality standards.<br />
I also had the benefit recently <strong>of</strong> getting to know a little bit about some <strong>of</strong> the other manufacturing that is<br />
happening onshore. In fact, Johnson & Johnson stopped by my <strong>of</strong>fice, as I am sure they did many <strong>of</strong>fices in this<br />
place recently, and mentioned their view in the course <strong>of</strong> the conversation that Australia is a great place for<br />
manufacturing, particularly for advanced manufacturing.<br />
I would like to see more from this government in terms <strong>of</strong> Australian manufacturing, promoting Australian<br />
manufacturing and talking up our ability to be a great place for manufacturing to occur. That goes for food<br />
manufacturing, but it also goes for so much more when we are talking about what is possible in manufacturing,<br />
including advanced manufacturing, in this country.<br />
We all know, everyone in this place knows very well, that there is a great big challenge for this parliament and<br />
for the government when it comes to Australian jobs, because Australian jobs need to be better. We need more<br />
jobs, and we need our jobs to be more secure. There is a real set <strong>of</strong> problems in our economy at the moment.<br />
There are 700,000 people in the unemployment queues, people who cannot even get a single hour <strong>of</strong> work. There<br />
are 1.1 million people who are underemployed, who want more work or who want more secure work. The<br />
underemployment rate is the highest it has been since the records started being kept in 1978, the year after I was<br />
born. That is a very worrying thing, and it should be worrying for all <strong>of</strong> us because that sometimes more hidden<br />
element <strong>of</strong> underemployment is really contributing to a range <strong>of</strong> the problems we have in this country—problems<br />
like really low wages growth; wages growth is at its lowest level since 1997 when the Wage Price Index<br />
commenced being kept.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 59<br />
It is a problem for the Commonwealth government budget—slow income growth affects revenue negatively—<br />
but also it is a problem for those households. They are not seeing wages growth. They are not seeing their living<br />
standards increase at the rate that economic growth in this country is increasing. It is not a problem that we want<br />
to import. It is a US style problem and they have had this issue for a number <strong>of</strong> years. We should not be importing<br />
that into Australia.<br />
We need a jobs focus. We also need to remember that there are around one million people in Australia on<br />
temporary work visas <strong>of</strong> one kind or another. That should be concerning to people, particularly <strong>of</strong> that group. We<br />
should be particularly concerned about those who are here on visas that are designed to fill skills shortage gaps,<br />
the 457 visas. We should be particularly concerned about that because those numbers have been stubbornly high.<br />
Why should it be that we have had the occupation <strong>of</strong> bricklayer on the temporary skilled migration list for<br />
longer than it takes to train bricklayers in this country? Fair cop that there was a sudden lack <strong>of</strong> bricklayers in<br />
Australia and we needed to get a bunch <strong>of</strong> them in to overcome that lack, but why in the years since then have we<br />
not trained enough bricklayers so that we can make the 457 visa for bricklayers obsolete? There are plenty <strong>of</strong><br />
occupations on the 457 visa list, and that is something that should be <strong>of</strong> concern to us. That means we do need to<br />
be worried about jobs. We do need to talk about jobs in this place. And when we talk about jobs we mean jobs for<br />
locals, jobs that are secure, jobs that are available and jobs for which training and skills development are<br />
available. They are very important things.<br />
These issues do not just affect the households <strong>of</strong> people who do not have work but also they affect the whole<br />
economy. If people are in secure work, if people have high levels <strong>of</strong> private debt, which we have in Australia, and<br />
they are worried about their capacity to service that debt, if people cannot get work in the first place, those things<br />
as well as affecting the household budget also affect the Commonwealth government budget and the national<br />
economy. This is because they have a detrimental effect on consumption, on aggregate demand. Those things<br />
should be worrying for all <strong>of</strong> us wondering where we are going to get the economic growth from that our country<br />
needs.<br />
I would say that in talking about a bill that relates to issues on manufacturing we do need to be constantly<br />
mindful <strong>of</strong> making sure that there are jobs for Australian kids when they grow up and that people who are already<br />
in the workforce and employed, in the workforce and employed but underemployed, or seeking work,<br />
participating in the workforce but not having work, are able to get the jobs they need and the jobs they should be<br />
able to, in a country like ours with strong economic growth.<br />
For all <strong>of</strong> those reasons as well as for the consumer-driven reasons I mentioned earlier, it is important and<br />
relevant for us to be talking about buying Australian, building Australian and employing Australian. Those three<br />
things are important when it comes to this bill. We do want to help consumers be in a position where they can be<br />
confident, when making a choice, that they are buying Australian, if that is what they wish to do. Accordingly, I<br />
am very pleased there has been some progress on the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling. I know my constituent Mr<br />
Korlaki will also be very pleased that there has been some progress, although I suspect he would have liked a bit<br />
more progress. I commend the built the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:25): I rise to speak on the<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. I would also say how pleased I am that it<br />
is finally coming to fruition, after some time. I am sure you are very well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, coalition<br />
MPs and senators, particularly those such as John 'Wacka' Williams—and many others—have been fighting for<br />
more accurate country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food labelling for more than a decade. In fact, Senator Williams, I think,<br />
attributes his somewhat declining and receding hairstyle to beating his head against a wall for more than 10 years<br />
over just this issue.<br />
Over the years there have been numerous inquiries and reports. I will not go into the specifics <strong>of</strong> every single<br />
report or review but between 2003 and 2013 there were four inquiries, four reports tabled two reviews. In March<br />
2014 the parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry agreed to undertake another one. The<br />
committee released its report A Clearer message for consumers in October last year. This committee was <strong>of</strong> the<br />
opinion that any country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food-labelling regime should not present an impediment to importers and/or<br />
provide non-tariff trade protection to our industries but it should provide clear information to consumers who wish<br />
to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers. The report also<br />
highlighted consumer support for local produce, stating:<br />
The Committee acknowledges that many consumers want to support Australian businesses by purchasing Australian made<br />
products—consumers express a strong preference to support local industries including food processing and manufacturing.<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> berries in 2015 increased public awareness and support for something that the farming and fishing<br />
industries have been long calling for: a level playing field when it comes to labelling. The coalition government<br />
CHAMBER
60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
has taken action to support our farmers and they give consumers real choice. At the end <strong>of</strong> the day, it is quite<br />
simple: Australians deserve to be able to make informed decisions and to know exactly what it is they are buying<br />
at their local supermarket. We want Australians to have confidence in knowing where their food is coming from.<br />
Research commissioned by the Department <strong>of</strong> Industry, Innovation and Science in 2015 looked at the value<br />
Australian consumers place on country-<strong>of</strong>-origin information when purchasing food. It found that being able to<br />
identify the country <strong>of</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> food was either important or very important to 74 per cent <strong>of</strong> consumers<br />
surveyed. Many consumers are interested in not just where something was made or packed but also how much <strong>of</strong><br />
the food was grown in this country. Consumers want—and they deserve—peace <strong>of</strong> mind about labels. A claim<br />
that a product is 'made in' or is 'a product <strong>of</strong>' Australia in the new system will ensure that that is the case. In saying<br />
the product is made from 'local and imported ingredients' will, quite simply, not cut it.<br />
Consumer dissatisfaction in the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling system has been evident for many years. Most<br />
recently, the response to a Colmar Brunton online survey mirrored that <strong>of</strong> the CHOICE campaign earlier in 2015,<br />
which generated over 26,000 responses. It found that almost three-quarters <strong>of</strong> consumers believe that changes to<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling were necessary. That is almost as many, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you get to<br />
your online surveys. However, the importance <strong>of</strong> easy-to-find labels was indicated, in the Colmar Brunton<br />
research, by the clear preference <strong>of</strong> participants for the labels that included visual elements, particularly the label<br />
option that combined text statements with visual representations via the kangaroo logo and bar chart.<br />
The participants in the same study were asked to estimate the proportion <strong>of</strong> time they spent during a regular but<br />
hypothetical 60-minute grocery shop, reading the back <strong>of</strong> the label to find where products have been made or<br />
processed or where ingredients come from. Their time amounted to eight per cent <strong>of</strong> shopping time, or five<br />
minutes in a typical hour-long shop. This is time that could potentially be saved if label information was more<br />
easily identifiable. Thankfully, the new food labelling system will quickly and easily show consumers where<br />
products are made, grown or packaged. The new labels for food will include a bar chart and words to indicate the<br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients in the food.<br />
All food for retail sale in Australia requires a country-<strong>of</strong>-origin statement, but there are additional graphic and<br />
information requirements mandated for labels for priority food. Importing ingredients and simply slicing or<br />
packing them here will no longer qualify for a 'made in Australia' claim. The bill will simplify the tests used to<br />
justify a country <strong>of</strong> origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and removing the<br />
50 per cent production cost test. The changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about<br />
what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. They will make it clear that importing<br />
ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance <strong>of</strong> imported goods are not<br />
sufficient to justify the 'made in' claim.<br />
The 50 per cent production cost test is an unnecessary burden on businesses and it means little to consumers.<br />
The test is difficult to administer, given the complexities <strong>of</strong> sourcing components through the global supply chain<br />
and the fluctuations in input prices and exchange rates. The removal <strong>of</strong> the 50 per cent production cost test will<br />
significantly reduce the regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses. It is the main regulatory<br />
<strong>of</strong>fset against the added costs imposed on food businesses by the information standard. The decision regulation<br />
impact statement estimated the total savings from removal <strong>of</strong> the production cost test at $49 million per year, or<br />
$550 million over a 20-year period in present value terms.<br />
Research has shown that identifying the country <strong>of</strong> origin is the most important piece <strong>of</strong> information for<br />
consumers when it comes to food, and it can influence buyers' decisions. The value consumers place on origin<br />
information can vary between food types, depending on the level <strong>of</strong> processing. Country-<strong>of</strong>-origin information is<br />
valued more for fresh and less processed food. This is supported by an international literature review <strong>of</strong> country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
food labelling, which cited different studies in which country <strong>of</strong> origin was shown to be one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
important cues demanded by consumers on meat products.<br />
A comprehensive consultation with consumers, growers and businesses meant there was ample opportunity for<br />
people to have their say on the proposed labels. The green and gold triangle design was the overwhelming<br />
preference <strong>of</strong> more than 17,800 respondents to the government's food labelling community survey. I thank those<br />
people who completed the survey and had their opinions heard. After all, the labelling is supposed to make it<br />
easier for consumers, not more confusing.<br />
Importantly, the new food labelling system will not impose an excessive burden on businesses. At June 2014,<br />
there were over 17,300 food retailers in Australia, including almost 10,000 supermarket and grocery stores;<br />
around 4,700 fresh meat, fish and poultry retailers; and 2,500 fruit and vegetable retailers. There are also over<br />
13,000 food and beverage manufacturing businesses in Australia. Bakery product manufacturers make up the<br />
largest proportion at some 45 per cent, followed by beverage manufacturers at 19 percent. Each <strong>of</strong> the other sub-<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 61<br />
sectors accounts for one to 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> food manufacturers, including meat manufacturers, fruit and vegetable<br />
processing, dairy product manufacturing, sugar and confectionery manufacturing, grain mill and cereal, seafood<br />
processing, and oil and fat manufacturing. Agricultural food production is the other key player in the food<br />
industry, with over 133,000 businesses.<br />
While the reforms began on 1 July 2016, businesses will have up to two years to transition to the new<br />
arrangements and incorporate them into routine label changes, and all stock in trade can see out its shelf life. The<br />
government has developed an online self-assessment tool for businesses specifically to help them determine their<br />
new labels. Businesses can download the new labels using this tool. There is also a style guide and other<br />
information available to help businesses understand the changes.<br />
To support the effective implementation <strong>of</strong> the reforms, the coalition government has provided the Australian<br />
Competition and Consumer Commission with additional funding <strong>of</strong> $4.2 million over five years to undertake<br />
compliance and enforcement activities in relation to these new requirements. The government is also funding<br />
$15.2 million for an information campaign to ensure consumers and businesses understand the revised framework.<br />
However, the consumer benefit from the time saving that will be generated from the visual elements <strong>of</strong> the label is<br />
estimated to far outweigh the cost to industry <strong>of</strong> providing them with that information.<br />
The new labels are expected to appear on shop shelves later this year, so keep an eye out for them; they are<br />
around. But Australians also have to get on board. You should always 'shop local' and always read the label. I<br />
always encourage constituents in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Hinkler to 'shop local' wherever possible, and why wouldn't<br />
they? There is so much on <strong>of</strong>fer from our local businesses, whether it is macadamia nuts, avocados, tomatoes,<br />
sweet potatoes, limes, watermelons, pumpkins, rockmelons or strawberries, just to name a few. I even have a note<br />
here saying I can expand on this list if I wish.<br />
We have several major food processing facilities in my electorate, including AustChilli, which has been<br />
featured on My Kitchen Rules; Simpson Farms, which was recently featured on ABC Landline with Pip Courtney;<br />
the Australian Ocean King Prawn Company in Hervey Bay and Urangan Fisheries. Those businesses export to the<br />
world and they employ hundreds <strong>of</strong> our local people. They, like other local companies around this great nation,<br />
deserve our support.<br />
Australian food producers exporting their products can also use the new domestic label overseas, and they can<br />
do so proudly. The reforms to country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling comply with Australia's international trade obligations.<br />
The coalition government has consulted with trading partners throughout the development <strong>of</strong> the reforms and will<br />
continue to work closely with them.<br />
There is no doubt that our domestic product is in high demand. You only have to look at the success <strong>of</strong> free<br />
trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. Recently, I hosted a seminar on the Sunshine Coast to<br />
inform businesses <strong>of</strong> how they can take advantage <strong>of</strong> those FTAs. I would like to thank my colleagues the member<br />
for Fisher, Andrew Wallace, and the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, firstly for their hospitality and secondly for<br />
their attendance and keen interest in the FTAs and what they can do for businesses in their electorates. The CEO<br />
<strong>of</strong> Sunshine Coast exporter Nutworks, Kylie Watson, spoke about her company's experience following the<br />
reduction in Chinese tariffs on Australian macadamias. This was mandated, <strong>of</strong> course, under CHAFTA, the<br />
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. She told the seminar that there had been an increase in demand for<br />
Australian macadamia products in China and if it were not for the FTA the costs would make it impossible for her<br />
compete with other countries.<br />
I can also say that, most recently, this year my own electorate in the region has become the biggest producer <strong>of</strong><br />
macadamia nuts in this country. They have far outstripped expectations. They are going incredibly well and,<br />
significantly, they are going very, very well because <strong>of</strong> the FTAs with those three countries.<br />
I also recently had the opportunity to visit the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative facility in North Fremantle,<br />
Western Australia, which is a long way from home and which is the world's biggest exporter <strong>of</strong> rock lobster—<br />
right here in Australia, in the west. With a membership <strong>of</strong> 200 fishermen, the co-op employs 350 Australians and<br />
currently sells around $450 million worth <strong>of</strong> rock lobsters each year. Australia's free trade agreement with China,<br />
in force since December last year, has seen the tariff for fresh or chilled rock lobster cut to nine per cent this year<br />
and it will fall again to six per cent in just four more months, on 1 January 2017. For the first six months <strong>of</strong> 2016,<br />
direct Chinese imports <strong>of</strong> live, fresh and chilled Australian rock lobster more than trebled compared to the same<br />
period last year to reach $20.7 million. Continuing tariff cuts under ChAFTA for these and many other Australian<br />
exports will boost trade opportunities leading to sales growth for Australian businesses abroad and increased jobs<br />
here at home to meet this demand.<br />
A little closer to my own electorate, my colleague the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, and I visited<br />
tropical fruit farmers in Central Queensland who are interested in new market opportunities in Asia. Mangoes are<br />
CHAMBER
62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
an important fruit export for Queensland, and the China-Australia FTA has already cut the tariff for Australian<br />
mangoes from 15 per cent to nine per cent. The trade data shows that, in the early part <strong>of</strong> this year, Chinese<br />
imports <strong>of</strong> fresh Australian mangoes more than doubled compared to the previous growing season. This meant<br />
that Australia overtook Thailand as China's principal supplier <strong>of</strong> mangoes in the first half <strong>of</strong> 2016. I am sure you<br />
will agree this is a fantastic result.<br />
Elsewhere, under the Korea-Australia FTA, the 30 per cent tariff which Korea charges on shelled macadamias<br />
is down to 12 per cent already. These tariff cuts contributed to a tripling <strong>of</strong> macadamia exports to Korea in the<br />
first half <strong>of</strong> 2015 compared to 2014 and that higher export level has been maintained into the first half <strong>of</strong> this year.<br />
While it might have taken a while to get to this point, consumers will be the overall winners in having the new<br />
country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling systems and I cannot wait to see those on the shelves. When we talk about FTAs, when<br />
we talk about Australian products, there is no greater reflection, there is no greater introduction to an Australian<br />
product than actually using it, seeing it, tasting it.<br />
On my most recent visit to China, I walked through the Guangzhou airport, which is obviously a very busy<br />
airport in China. There was a small fruit stall at the Guangzhou airport and I thought to myself 'Here is an<br />
opportunity just to see what it is that they are selling in China, in Guangzhou.' Much to my surprise, I picked up a<br />
mandarin from 2PH Farms, which is a very large citrus farm in Queensland. There were 2PH products, mandarins,<br />
right there in Guangzhou China. Through an interpreter, we took the opportunity to have a discussion with the<br />
vendor, who informed us that Australia products sell out not in two hours, not in one hour but in 30 minutes. They<br />
last just 30 minutes on the shelves. I would just like to say that this is a great bill for consumers and I commend<br />
the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:40): As a member <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> Standing Committee on<br />
Agriculture and Industry which inquired into food labelling only two years ago, I welcome the opportunity to<br />
speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. As a result <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> that<br />
committee and some subsequent events which followed, the government did make some changes to country <strong>of</strong><br />
origin labelling which I welcome. Those changes in essence came into effect from 1 July 2016, and I understand<br />
that there will be a transition period for about two years whilst the changes take effect. Under those changes, I<br />
believe, there will be some improvements made to consumers' ability to understand where food is coming from,<br />
particularly with the labelling itself being changed and with the use <strong>of</strong> the Kangaroo, the triangle and the bar<br />
graph, which shows how much <strong>of</strong> the food is actually produced or made here in Australia. Those are indeed<br />
welcome changes.<br />
The inquiry followed an earlier inquiry carried out by Dr Neal Blewett that was commissioned under a Labor<br />
government back in 2011 and his report came up with, from memory, over 60 recommendations which went to the<br />
very issues that many members have been speaking about today on this legislation.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the issues that is constantly debated and discussed out in the community is the fact that we could have a<br />
clearer and better to understand food labelling system in Australia. Having spent months speaking to people from<br />
around Australia as part <strong>of</strong> the committee, I accept that it is not always that simple and that easy to change the<br />
labelling system as people would sometimes have us believe. Indeed, having listened to many <strong>of</strong> the arguments<br />
both for and against the changes that were made by the government and which start in 2016, I understand the<br />
complexities and the difficulties associated with food labelling laws, not just in this country but indeed around the<br />
world.<br />
I very much acknowledge that when America tried to do something similar with their beef and pork some three<br />
or four years ago, they were taken to that WTO court in breach <strong>of</strong> WTO agreements they had entered into with<br />
both Canada and Mexico, which highlighted that the issue <strong>of</strong> food labelling and the questions that need to be<br />
resolved are not solely questions for each individual country but in fact do have and can have implications for<br />
trade agreements that have been entered into in good faith by countries over the years.<br />
I believe it is <strong>of</strong> concern that any country—and I hope Australia does not find itself in a similar situation to<br />
America—can be taken to court over trying to protect its own interests as America was trying to do with its own<br />
food labelling. It seems to me that any government entering into an agreement that would mean Australia was no<br />
longer in control <strong>of</strong> the labelling that it legislates for products here in Australia would be a retrograde step. I recall<br />
that, when we were discussing this issue in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, compliance with<br />
World Trade Organization obligations and any free trade agreements that we had entered into was one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
possible stumbling blocks about Australia changing its own labelling laws. But, in the end, the government <strong>of</strong> the<br />
day found ways <strong>of</strong> doing that, and I believe we have come to the right decision with respect to it.<br />
Food labelling is an important issue for Australians. It is important to Australian food producers because it can<br />
affect their viability. It is important to consumers who want to know where their food comes from. And it is<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 63<br />
vitally important to consumers who, for health reasons, need to know what they are consuming. I say that with a<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> concern, because knowing what they are consuming goes to the heart <strong>of</strong> consumers' fears about food,<br />
because many Australians are allergic to a particular type <strong>of</strong> food. According to the latest ABS figures, almost<br />
four million Australians avoid a food because <strong>of</strong> allergy or intolerance to it. Of those, about 560,000 are children<br />
aged between two and 18 years. Allergic reactions can be traumatic to both the person affected and to other family<br />
members. In the worst-case scenarios—although not <strong>of</strong>ten in Australia—death can result. Indeed, there was a<br />
front-page newspaper story about a death related to a food allergy only last week. So, for the four million people<br />
in Australia and their families, knowing what is in food is indeed vital, and they need to be confident about the<br />
information on the labels. Not surprisingly, consumer information on food packaging is important and has been a<br />
priority issue for people for many years in this country.<br />
Whilst this legislation is heading in the right direction, I believe that we can do more. This legislation amends<br />
the provisions relating to the safe harbour <strong>of</strong> food labelling and makes those provisions consistent with the new<br />
laws that came into effect on 1 July this year. It is clear that the 'Australian made' and 'Australian produced' tags<br />
provide a marketing advantage. If they did not, they would not have been so widely abused prior to certain laws<br />
being in place. The growers know that, the food processors know that, the resellers know that, the overseas food<br />
importers know that and the unethical food industry operators also know that.<br />
I want to make some other comments about the unethical food industry if time permits, but I will say that<br />
dishonest claims about food origins are <strong>of</strong>ten made with respect to both the food sold in Australia and the food<br />
sold overseas. In fact, I suspect the dishonesty is probably more prevalent overseas, where food that may not be<br />
Australian is marketed as being Australian because that adds value to it. I accept that it is not possible for us to<br />
control what happens in overseas jurisdictions, but I do not accept that it is not possible for us to control what<br />
happens in the Australian market, and that is perhaps where this legislation is particularly focused.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> my concerns is that, whilst we have labels, there is little oversight to ensure that the labels are actually<br />
correct. There is little oversight to ensure that the ingredients and contents <strong>of</strong> a food match what is said on the<br />
label. Generally it is only when a rival supplier raises a concern or puts in a formal complaint about a food that<br />
does not match up to the labelling on it that it is exposed, and then the relevant authorities step in. So it seems that<br />
one thing we could do better in this country with respect to food sales is not simply to change the labelling system<br />
but to make sure that the labelling system is also provided with some oversight and there are some compliance<br />
mechanisms in place that would give consumers the confidence to know that what is on the label is actually also<br />
in the food.<br />
The situation is even more problematic with respect to processed food. After all, if processed food contains<br />
certain ingredients that are claimed to come from Australia, once the food is processed it is almost impossible to<br />
prove that the ingredients indeed do come from Australia and not from another country. So there has to be some<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> reliance on the honesty <strong>of</strong> the manufacturer. But nevertheless the issue remains that it is difficult and<br />
problematic to be guaranteed that the food sources are where the label claims they are. I think we could do better.<br />
I hope that in future there might be other ways <strong>of</strong> us being able to do that.<br />
I want to turn for a moment to Labor's amendment with respect to this legislation, and that is about the<br />
consumption <strong>of</strong> seafood in this country. One <strong>of</strong> the matters that was raised with the Standing Committee on<br />
Agriculture and Industry when we were inquiring into food labelling was the need to ensure that all seafood that is<br />
sold in Australia is also properly labelled. While Australian consumers have some certainty about seafood they<br />
consume, there are some exemptions to that with respect to seafood sold at supermarkets and fresh fish shops. It<br />
has to have country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling, but the exemption is for cooked and preprepared seafood. If you buy fresh<br />
fish from a supermarket or a fresh fish shop, it should be labelled, and consumers should know where it comes<br />
from. If, however, you go into a restaurant or a takeaway food shop and buy cooked or preprepared seafood, then<br />
you do not know where that fish comes from. The effect <strong>of</strong> the exemption is that restaurants and cafes do not have<br />
to label the seafood they sell. That is a fairly serious matter, and I will come to that in just a moment, but one <strong>of</strong><br />
the objections raised at the time by restaurant people across Australia was that it would become too difficult to<br />
correctly label where seafood comes from.<br />
In 2006, the Northern Territory brought in their own laws, requiring cooked and pre-prepared fish to also be<br />
labelled, and I understand that New South Wales now plans to do the same. My understanding is that the Northern<br />
Territory's experience, which has now been in place for nearly 10 years, has showed that it has worked very well.<br />
Indeed, it probably increased sales <strong>of</strong> restaurant fish, because the consumers were more than happy to buy the fish<br />
if they knew where it came from. That is what we were told from people who made submissions to the<br />
committee's inquiry. Conversely, the justification for the exemption that currently exists appears to have little<br />
substance, given that the system has now worked successfully in the Northern Territory and New South Wales, as<br />
I understand, is about to do the same.<br />
CHAMBER
64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
It has been estimated that about 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> all fish consumed in Australia is consumed in a restaurant<br />
setting. When consumers go into a restaurant most <strong>of</strong> them, according to the surveys, believe they are being<br />
served Australian fish. It is also estimated that 70 per cent <strong>of</strong> all fish consumed in Australia—about 370,000<br />
tonnes—is imported. So, whilst Australian consumers believe that, when they go into a restaurant or a cafe, they<br />
are most likely to be served Australian fish, the reality is that it is not Australian fish. It would <strong>of</strong>fer a huge growth<br />
opportunity for the Australian fish industry if consumers knew that they were going to be getting Australian fish.<br />
It would clearly make a difference, as the experience in the Northern Territory has already shown.<br />
That is where we get back to the proposition that properly labelling food is good for producers in this country.<br />
The reason that Australian products—not just food but Australian products broadly—are <strong>of</strong>ten labelled as being<br />
made or produced in Australia is that consumers around the world generally accept that we have good standards<br />
here in Australia. I have spoken to people who have spent time overseas. Indeed, I spoke to one person who had<br />
spent several years in another country—which I will not name. He was very familiar with the way food was<br />
produced in that country and he was also very concerned with the way the food was produced in that country in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the how it was grown, the chemicals and the products used to grow it and then process it.<br />
Those concerns equally resonate with people I speak to about the food that we consume in this country. If<br />
people know that the food is genuine Australian food, they are more likely to buy it—I always look for the<br />
'Australian made' or the 'Australian produced' tag on products that I buy, if it is at all possible—and that in turn<br />
would create more demand for the Australian product. And, if we can create more demand for the Australian<br />
product, it is definitely good for Australian manufacturers, Australian producers, Australian growers and<br />
Australian industry generally, because there are very large flow-on effects from the food industry to a whole range<br />
<strong>of</strong> other industries. So it is good for the consumer; it is good for the economy; and it is good for the country. With<br />
those comments, as I said from the outset, Labor will be supporting this legislation, albeit that we would like to<br />
see more done with the fish sales in this country.<br />
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:56): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Makin in this<br />
debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. He was a member <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry in the last parliament—a committee I<br />
was the chair <strong>of</strong> and I delivered the report that he referred to, which I will be speaking about in a moment—and so<br />
was the minister at the table, the member for McPherson. It was indeed a very interesting inquiry, but I will come<br />
to that in a moment. The government amendments to the bill before us are relatively straightforward. In reality, it<br />
is a bit <strong>of</strong> a tidy-up <strong>of</strong> the original legislation that follows the commissioning <strong>of</strong> our new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin foodlabelling<br />
system. I will refer to those amendments later on in my speech.<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I am sure you would be very aware <strong>of</strong> the saying, and many similar to it, that<br />
success has a million fathers, and I will claim some responsibility for the nation's new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin foodlabelling<br />
system. In my mind, this was an issue that, for years, had deserved a better answer. While much <strong>of</strong> the<br />
legislation previously had been done bit by bit and incrementally, so it was with country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food-labelling,<br />
where we had finally arrived at a place where labels were confusing, difficult to find and almost impossible to<br />
understand. The poor information was frustrating to consumers and producers alike—and we are still waiting for<br />
those labels to be phased out. I recognise that a couple <strong>of</strong> manufacturers are using the new labels—and good on<br />
them—and I very much look forward over the next two years to all the rest <strong>of</strong> the manufacturers getting on board.<br />
In early October 2014, as chair <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> Standing Committee on Agriculture and<br />
Industry, I sought ministerial approval from Ministers Macfarlane and Joyce to pursue this inquiry. This space<br />
was populated by a plethora <strong>of</strong> previous reports that had not been acted on, and I thought that it was very<br />
important that this one be different. Rather than just recommending that the government study or adopt a new<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food-labelling system, I thought it was very important that we actually mapped out a path and<br />
provided the answer to government. After this committee, we did not need another inquiry to go out and work out<br />
how to do it; we actually had the gumption to stand up and say, 'This is the way that it should be done,' and we<br />
delivered a report in October 2014—I must have confused the earlier date—entitled A clearer message for<br />
consumers.<br />
In early 2015, when I was lobbying ministers for a positive response to the committee's findings, we had the<br />
frozen Chinese berries incident during February. Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that enough was<br />
enough and that this area <strong>of</strong> consumer information and protection must be addressed. It was perhaps a little lucky<br />
in some ways, because the Chinese berries were clearly identified as Chinese—but it is a very black cloud indeed<br />
that has no silver lining. Reports do not always get immediate attention from governments—and I am quite happy<br />
to tell people that many reports are picked over for certain facts and positions that committees have arrived at—<br />
but, in this case, the Prime Minister declared that there should be alterations and they looked around for the most<br />
recent report and, as luck should have it, it was ours. We were in the right place at the right time.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 65<br />
I thank the Minister for Industry <strong>of</strong> the time, Ian Macfarlane, for inviting me to join the consultative committee.<br />
I believe I was able to bring some wisdom learnt through the process <strong>of</strong> the inquiry to the table on a number <strong>of</strong><br />
occasions. There were a few suggestions that got thrown around that I was quite opposed to. I said, 'No, we<br />
discussed this. We took clear evidence on that particular issue. You need to go back and read the report and<br />
understand how the committee arrived at that position.' On two a three occasions, my advice was heeded. I was<br />
very pleased with that.<br />
I thought the report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry was fairly finely balanced on<br />
how we can provide information the consumer wants without that violating our international trade commitments.<br />
It is worth remembering that Australia exports far more food than we import, so those international trade<br />
agreements are very, very important to us. We then had to provide information on what it was the customers really<br />
wanted to know. Some proposed that every ingredient and the country from which it came be identified. The<br />
committee's view was that that was far too prescriptive, particularly for Australian manufacturers who use<br />
complex global supply lines which may or may not be able to certify and substantiate exactly where every<br />
molecule <strong>of</strong> that food has come from to the manufacturer. Of course, to the manufacturer, the biggest sin in<br />
labelling is to mislead the public, either knowingly or unintentionally, with its information. That meant we needed<br />
to be very mindful <strong>of</strong> not making the cure worse than the disease.<br />
It is patently clear that not all consumers are particularly stressed—in fact, I would say most consumers are not<br />
particularly stressed—about where their food comes from. Many simply do not have enough money to be choosy,<br />
and they are driven by price. Others just have no interest. But there is a strong consumer group—and I think a<br />
growing consumer group—in Australia that cares about safety and quality, and they rate Australian-produced food<br />
as some <strong>of</strong> the world's best in both areas. Some make a conscious decision that they want to support Australian<br />
farmers and Australian food-manufacturing jobs—and this is a great thing. It is one <strong>of</strong> the strongest reasons why<br />
our labels should easily, quickly and clearly identify the Australian content in the product. That is exactly what<br />
our new laws do.<br />
The most important thing the recommendations gave to us, and, consequently, the legislation, was to separate<br />
the concept <strong>of</strong> 'grown'—where the food is sourced—from where it is manufactured. The label 'made in Australia<br />
from local and imported produce', which you can still see on your shelves, is virtually meaningless to the layman.<br />
I must say that I am quite good at reading labels. What is unsaid is as powerful as what is said on one <strong>of</strong> those<br />
labels. Having immersed myself in this subject for over six months, I find trying to buy Australian-grown and<br />
Australian-processed ham can still be quite a challenge, let me tell you. I understand how to read that system, but<br />
only because I spent six months living, eating, breathing and sleeping it. Clearly, it was not good enough to give<br />
the information, so we made a clearer message on that.<br />
The first <strong>of</strong> those two things is manufacturing, and this government amendment goes to the point <strong>of</strong> what<br />
transformation is. That is a very important point. The other half <strong>of</strong> the message is the source country. In this case,<br />
we could have specified every country in the world, but we chose just to specify Australia so as not to make it too<br />
complex and to provide the information that we believed the Australian consumer was looking for: is this<br />
Australian? They can pick up the packet—it is in bigger writing than it has ever been in—and there clearly is the<br />
green and gold kangaroo and the bar graph, which will give them specific information. I think this will be<br />
welcomed by consumers and, in the end, it will be welcomed by producers.<br />
I now come to the issue <strong>of</strong> the opposition's amendment. It would be fair to say that I have been approached by a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> people in the Australian seafood industry as to why we did not recommend that the new legislation<br />
around the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food labelling be applied to the final point <strong>of</strong> sale <strong>of</strong> seafood, as it is in the Northern<br />
Territory—with that final point <strong>of</strong> sale referring to a cafe or a restaurant. It is a point <strong>of</strong> view that I have some<br />
personal sympathy for. However, there were a number <strong>of</strong> reasons why the committee did not recommend it.<br />
Firstly, if we had, it would have been the only foodstuff that was required to identify its point <strong>of</strong> origin at the<br />
tertiary retail point. We do not force that level <strong>of</strong> disclosure on beef, processed meats, salad, cheese or any other<br />
product, so to do so would mean you would have to make a special case for seafood only. I am not saying that<br />
case cannot be made, but it requires some very careful consideration before you would get to that point.<br />
Secondly, the committee only took evidence on this particular issue from the Northern Territory seafood<br />
industry and from Australian restaurateurs. Those views were not in concurrence; they were totally opposed. One<br />
<strong>of</strong> the reasons that the Northern Territory has this system is historical. In the Northern Territory—and no-one was<br />
quite too sure why—every shop at any level that sells fish must be licensed to do so. That is not the case in the<br />
rest <strong>of</strong> Australia, but in the Northern Territory they have a special fish licence. It would be a brave government<br />
that would come out and say, 'We're going to put a new licence on every restaurant and fish outlet in Australia,'<br />
without having a very good understanding <strong>of</strong> what the parameters are and what the repercussions might be <strong>of</strong> that<br />
particular recommendation.<br />
CHAMBER
66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
When the committee considered its recommendations, one <strong>of</strong> the things that I was very keen on, and the rest <strong>of</strong><br />
the committee was keen on, was that we actually have a report that government acted on. In my mind, had we put<br />
recommendations around seafood in we would have almost certainly had a report that government would not have<br />
acted on, because it would have become a political football very, very quickly and something that a minister—and<br />
I would not blame them—throw their hands in the air and say, 'This is all too hard; everybody is fighting with<br />
each other.' So we avoided the issue.<br />
What the committee did recommend—and this is where I take a small issue with the opposition's amendment,<br />
which I know is proposed in good faith, and I take it that way; but I think the cart is a little before the horse—was<br />
that COAG should consider forming an Australian-wide legislation surrounding fish retail, if it so choose to. I<br />
would not be beyond the government recommending that the current standing committee for industry look at this<br />
issue in more depth. Certainly, the committee that I chaired did not have enough information to make those kinds<br />
<strong>of</strong> recommendations.<br />
I understand the drivers and why the Labor Party has made that amendment, but I do think that they are putting<br />
the horse a little bit in front <strong>of</strong> the cart. The lesson here about the successful adoption <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
recommendations <strong>of</strong> our report was that we had done a lot <strong>of</strong> spadework. We actually understood exactly where<br />
we were going and we knew what we wanted to do. I think that building-block process is a better way <strong>of</strong> getting<br />
there.<br />
In returning very briefly to the specific government amendments in this bill, what the bill does is clarify the<br />
safe harbour clauses referring to significant transformation. That in itself was something that the committee spent<br />
some time on—firstly, understanding what safe harbours were and then, secondly, getting our mind around the<br />
concept <strong>of</strong> significant transformation. Some <strong>of</strong> the examples used are: dicing tomatoes, to use another food term,<br />
will no longer cut the mustard; and reconstituting dehydrated goods. The amendment removes the 50 per cent<br />
production costs clauses. So it is an effort to make things more understandable and clearer for industry to use.<br />
What we want is a simple process that industry embraces because it works.<br />
As has been alluded to many times in this debate, while it was not the primary reason we inquired to advantage<br />
Australian farmers are manufacturer, I have no doubt that good information, in this world where our global supply<br />
chain is sometimes questioned, will work in our favour and for our farmers and manufactures, but not in such an<br />
overt way as to <strong>of</strong>fend those international trade obligations that I spoke about earlier that are so important to our<br />
farming and manufacturing businesses.<br />
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:10): It is with great pleasure that I speak both to the amendments made to<br />
the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016 and also to Labor's amendment talking<br />
about the importance <strong>of</strong> labelling <strong>of</strong> seafood. This issue around proper country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling has been an<br />
issue close to my heart for some time. Indeed, I was pleased to have moved a private member's motion in this<br />
place in October 2010, really putting a focus and highlight about how important country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling was to<br />
my electorate—not only the importance <strong>of</strong> having very clear labels about where food comes but also the<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> the misleading labels that were <strong>of</strong>ten attached to food.<br />
There has been a lot <strong>of</strong> talk about how influential the committee process was in developing this policy. I am<br />
very pleased that, while I was not on that committee, I made my own submission on behalf <strong>of</strong> residents in my<br />
electorate to the <strong>Representatives</strong>' Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry inquiry into the country-<strong>of</strong>origin<br />
labelling system. I was very pleased to have been able to make that on behalf <strong>of</strong> my constituents. Indeed, I<br />
have written and spoken many times about it.<br />
The reason this issue is so important to people in my electorate is: quite fundamentally, people want to know<br />
what they are eating. The want to know what they are eating and they want to know where that food was grown. It<br />
is a very, very simple proposition, and it is something that people have raised with me many, many times. When<br />
we saw labels such as 'Made from local and imported ingredients', people were very confused. People are<br />
confused about what that actually means. If you pick up some sort <strong>of</strong> tin <strong>of</strong> product and you read that, it is very<br />
hard to decipher what that means and where the local produce comes from.<br />
After this was raised with me on numerous occasions—in fact, many, many times—we actually had a look into<br />
this. What we found is what has been highlighted and what this bill takes steps to address: if you transform a<br />
product here in Australia then you can say it is made in Australia. That means that product may well have been<br />
grown in a different country, but, because <strong>of</strong> the transformation that it goes through—as the previously speaker<br />
said it may be dehydrated and rehydrated back here in Australia; or, indeed, I had issues around a range <strong>of</strong><br />
different processes that the food went through—it then allowed a 'Made in Australia' label to be put on. Now, if<br />
you think it is made in Australia, then you would assume—and it would be a simple assumption to make—that,<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 67<br />
indeed, that food was also grown in Australia as well. Many people, when they found this not to be the case, were<br />
very upset. It was regularly raised with me about this type <strong>of</strong> labelling.<br />
Also, when I looked into the definition <strong>of</strong> 'Made in Australia', 'Manufactured in Australia', 'Made from local<br />
and imported ingredients', there was no consistent way to communicate what was actually grown in Australia for<br />
consumers to make informed decisions. Then there was the 'Australian owned' label as well. As it was being<br />
accompanied by the Australian flag on that label, it meant that the company only had to be Australian owned. In<br />
fact, none <strong>of</strong> the food had to be grown or manufactured in Australia.<br />
The lack <strong>of</strong> consistency and the lack <strong>of</strong> definitions have been a problem for a significant amount <strong>of</strong> time. I think<br />
we are now taking steps in the right direction, both with this piece <strong>of</strong> legislation and with the new labelling<br />
process that will, over the next two years, phase in the percentage that is grown in Australia and that is made in<br />
Australia, so that people have very clear information but also a visual context in which to make that decision.<br />
I am still disappointed that, where the product is not grown in Australia, where it was actually grown will not<br />
necessarily be identified on the product. I heard the previous speaker talk about how complicated it can get, and I<br />
recognise that it is not an easy thing to work through, especially when—with tinned food, for example—you may<br />
have ingredients coming from a variety <strong>of</strong> places. However, other countries have worked out how to identify the<br />
origin <strong>of</strong> products, or the majority <strong>of</strong> products used—obviously, not for every single product used in a tin <strong>of</strong><br />
canned food, but for a significant proportion <strong>of</strong> them. I will keep advocating to make sure that as much<br />
information as possible about where the product comes from, where it was grown, where it was manufactured and<br />
how it came to be on the shelves in this country is provided to consumers. Ultimately, an informed consumer is<br />
the best consumer, and it does give consumers the confidence to make those informed decisions. It is something I<br />
know that CHOICE has campaigned for for a long time, and I have to say they have done a good job when it<br />
comes to food labelling by regularly bringing this issue into the public sphere.<br />
As I mentioned, it is in the national interest that we get on top <strong>of</strong> this. That is why Labor will be supporting<br />
these changes to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill as it amends the<br />
Competition and Consumer Act, altering the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling safe harbour provisions under the<br />
Australian Consumer Law.<br />
Safe harbour provisions are designed to provide businesses with certainty about the types <strong>of</strong> claims they can<br />
make regarding country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling without breaching the Australian Consumer Law. I think some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
examples that have been brought to me by consumers have sailed pretty close to the wind when it comes to the<br />
Australian Consumer Law; however, these issues have not been taken up and have not been prosecuted. I hope<br />
that this legislation, through really tightening and amending these provisions, will make it much clearer about<br />
when claims can and cannot be made.<br />
Changes to the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling requirement for food sold in Australia were announced—as<br />
mentioned—in July 2015 and came into effect on July 2016, with that two-year transition period for industry. I<br />
know that people in my electorate and growers alike are looking forward to this transition period being over, so<br />
we can start seeing these labels everywhere on our shelves as we walk up and down the shopping centre aisles. I<br />
really think that consumers are a lot more aware about where their food is grown. There are issues around<br />
health—we saw that with the hepatitis scare that affected this country very recently. It was something that I think<br />
jolted us all into action, but people in my electorate were already talking about this issue. They were already<br />
raising it with me and were already concerned.<br />
When it comes to the changes, this may be an example <strong>of</strong> the parliament catching up with the people <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia. I think consumers are very conscious about their health and want to know where their food comes from<br />
but, equally, I think Australians want to support Australian farmers. They want to support locally grown products,<br />
and that can <strong>of</strong>ten be seen through the large numbers <strong>of</strong> people turning up at farmers markets. I know there are<br />
farmers markets in and around my electorate selling local produce, and people like to go there and support local<br />
farmers.<br />
I will pick up the member for Grey on one issue: he said that people want the cheapest food possible, and<br />
sometimes that is not the food grown in Australia. I have to say that, if he goes down to some <strong>of</strong> the farmers<br />
markets in or near my electorate, you can get a bargain—it is a lot cheaper than perhaps going to your local<br />
supermarket or indeed buying a can <strong>of</strong> food. There is some really good, cheap, fresh produce available straight<br />
from the farm gate, and I would encourage people who have not been to the Willunga Farmers Market to get<br />
down there and enjoy that, as well as the Adelaide Farmers' Market or the Adelaide Central Market. We have<br />
some wonderful produce on <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
It is an important issue that we need to get on top <strong>of</strong>. That is why I think that, once this two-year transition<br />
period is over, people will be cheering about the fact that they will now know the percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian<br />
CHAMBER
68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
produce within products. Labor has made an amendment to this that would see labelling go further when it comes<br />
to seafood, and I will continue to advocate for much clearer labelling <strong>of</strong> food, particularly identifying not only the<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian-made food or Australian produced and grown food but also where the majority <strong>of</strong> the<br />
food may have originated from. We need to continue to push that. This is a step in the right direction, but we need<br />
to do more.<br />
Finally, I would say that this is an important amendment. It is something that my constituents have been<br />
pushing for for some time. It is something that, as I said, I have made representations on, whether it be private<br />
member's motions, submissions to the committee or speeches in this place, and I am very, very pleased to see<br />
some movement. I commend this amendment, as well as Labor's amendment, to the <strong>House</strong>, look forward to the<br />
new labelling regime coming in and still will this <strong>House</strong> to do better.<br />
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (16:22): I rise to<br />
speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. This is a good news bill. If<br />
you are a consumer like me, you most likely read food packaging to better understand where the product and its<br />
ingredients originate. I want to identify the origins <strong>of</strong> the product and ingredients so I can use this information to<br />
help make an informed decision to support local produce. Too <strong>of</strong>ten, consumers are faced with meaningless<br />
claims on labels like, 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This probably means that the food<br />
may have been only minimally processed, packaged, sliced or canned in Australia.<br />
As consumers, we assume that businesses undertake stringent tests to attain and illustrate their 'made in' status<br />
on their products. However, as a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Ryan, I must also<br />
acknowledge that these tests are <strong>of</strong>ten unnecessarily burdensome, complex and costly.<br />
I spoke in this <strong>House</strong> back in 2011 on this very issue—an issue that affects all conscientious consumers. In fact,<br />
at the time, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council had released the Blewett report,<br />
which sought the extension <strong>of</strong> country-<strong>of</strong>-origin laws to include that, for foods bearing some form <strong>of</strong> Australian<br />
claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific, country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing<br />
weight <strong>of</strong> the ingredients and components, excluding water, be developed. However, those sitting opposite at the<br />
time did not support this recommendation because it was all too hard.<br />
This bill, however, implements part <strong>of</strong> the coalition government's country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling reforms—reforms<br />
that benefit both consumers and businesses. Basically put, this bill will simplify country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling for<br />
consumers. It will simplify and clarify the safe-harbour provisions within the Australian Consumer Law. In doing<br />
so, this bill will ensure that minor processes, like packaging and canning, do not justify 'made in' claims.<br />
As the daughter <strong>of</strong> a farmer, like many <strong>of</strong> my constituents and, indeed, colleagues in this place I support<br />
Australian farmers. But to do this, we want to know whether the food we buy is from Australia or elsewhere, and<br />
if it was made or merely packaged here. We really want to know how much <strong>of</strong> it was grown here by our farmers.<br />
The mandatory country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling requirements for food will now be enhanced and moved from the<br />
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law.<br />
We have all seen the well-known kangaroo-in-a-triangle symbol. Under the new information standard, this<br />
symbol will be required on many foods found on retail shelves around Australia, identifying those that were<br />
grown, produced or made in Australia. This bill will see reforms that will give Australian consumers clearer and<br />
more meaningful information about the food they purchase.<br />
However, I would like to point out that these reforms do not seek to impose excessive burdens on businesses to<br />
conform to country-<strong>of</strong>-origin laws. These reforms will not only provide further consistency <strong>of</strong> labelling for<br />
consumers but also support businesses to use terms like 'made in' and 'product <strong>of</strong>' with greater certainty.<br />
Businesses will be less inclined to make those meaningless origin claims like 'made in Australia from local and<br />
imported ingredients' that currently confuse consumers.<br />
As a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Ryan and, indeed, a former small business owner<br />
myself, I understand firsthand the impact that regulatory burden has on their operations. I mentioned before the<br />
excessive red tape <strong>of</strong> complex production cost tests that are also difficult to administer. These tests strain<br />
businesses with unnecessary regulatory burden. Most notably, this amendment removes the production cost test<br />
and simplifies the testing regime used to justify country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claims by clarifying what 'substantial<br />
transformation' means. Instead, businesses in my electorate and around Australia will now find it easier to make<br />
reliable country-<strong>of</strong>-origin representations through a clarified substantial transformation test.<br />
And the good news does not end there. In present value terms, the removal <strong>of</strong> the production cost test will<br />
realise total savings <strong>of</strong> $49 million per year or an enormous $550 million over 20 years for businesses. Given that<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the themes <strong>of</strong> this reform is simplicity, it is quite clear that these savings will allow businesses to better<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 69<br />
focus on their core activities, invest in their future and create jobs. Through interaction with my local chambers <strong>of</strong><br />
commerce and business owners, I hear firsthand that these beneficial reforms will be welcomed.<br />
The government is also working with industry to digitise food product information in order to better position<br />
consumers and businesses in the future. These are reforms that consumers and businesses want.<br />
This is yet another way that the coalition government is supporting business and taking into account the voices<br />
<strong>of</strong> consumers in Australia. It is important that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity to ensure the best<br />
possible outcomes for consumers and businesses alike. I congratulate the Turnbull government for listening to the<br />
issues and concerns <strong>of</strong> Australian consumers and businesses regarding this key issue. I commend this bill to the<br />
<strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:29): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
This bill is the key element <strong>of</strong> a broader package <strong>of</strong> measures to implement the government's working holidaymaker<br />
reform package. This government has been committed to getting the policy right on working holidaymakers.<br />
It is important that our agricultural sector receives certainty. The government will therefore today put<br />
forward a bill which will propose working holiday-makers pay 15 per cent tax on their earnings from the first<br />
dollar they earn up to $37,000, after which ordinary marginal tax rates will apply. The government thanks<br />
coalition members and senators for their constructive contributions in resolving this matter as well as Senate<br />
crossbenchers with whom the government has reached agreement to deal with this matter.<br />
Working holiday-makers are an important source <strong>of</strong> Australia's international tourism and a key source <strong>of</strong><br />
seasonal labour in regional areas, particularly in the agriculture, horticulture, tourism and hospitality sectors. We<br />
have listened to stakeholders about declining numbers <strong>of</strong> working holiday-makers in areas that rely on their<br />
seasonal labour. The government wants to ensure that we have the workforce to meet these seasonal labour needs.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> our negotiations in the Senate, this bill will set the tax rate to apply to working holiday makers at 15<br />
per cent from their first dollar <strong>of</strong> income up to $37,000, rather than the 32.5 per cent announced in the 2015-16<br />
budget. Ordinary marginal tax rates apply after $37,000. The new tax rate will apply from 1 January 2017.<br />
Taxing working holiday-makers at 15 per cent tax from the first dollar <strong>of</strong> income up to $37,000 is<br />
internationally competitive in terms <strong>of</strong> after-tax income. Even after taking cost-<strong>of</strong>-living differences into account,<br />
this change will mean that after-tax incomes for working holiday-makers in Australia are considerably higher than<br />
key competitor countries, such as New Zealand, Canada and the UK.<br />
This bill gives both working holiday-makers and employers certainty about the tax arrangements that will<br />
apply. The Turnbull government's package <strong>of</strong> reforms to working holiday-maker arrangements addresses<br />
stakeholder concerns about the taxation <strong>of</strong> working holiday-makers and makes other changes to increase<br />
Australia's attractiveness as a destination for backpackers, while being conscious <strong>of</strong> its impact on the budget.<br />
Full details <strong>of</strong> this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons): I call the member for Grayndler, on indulgence.<br />
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:31): Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am somewhat concerned about the<br />
implications <strong>of</strong> legislation being introduced before the parliament, as outlined by the Treasurer, that seeks to bind<br />
not just future budgets—<br />
Mr Morrison interjecting—<br />
Mr ALBANESE: That's the next one?<br />
Mr Morrison: Yes.<br />
Mr ALBANESE: Okay. I will deal with it then.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
CHAMBER
70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:31): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 gives effect to the government's commitment that<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> the passenger movement charge <strong>of</strong> $60 applying from 1 July 2017 will not increase for a minimum<br />
period <strong>of</strong> five years from this date. This commitment was made to One Nation senators during passage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 which was passed by the Senate last week. That bill<br />
increased the passenger movement charge from $55 to $60 from 1 July 2017. This is the first time the passenger<br />
movement charge has been increased since 2012. The five dollar increase is broadly in line with the increase in<br />
the consumer price index between 2012 and 2017.<br />
This measure—combined with the other measure, regarding the departing Australia superannuation<br />
arrangements, as well as the measures that I have just referred to in the introduction <strong>of</strong> the other bill relating to the<br />
15 per cent tax on backpackers—ensures that, <strong>of</strong> the $760 million that was set out in the budget in May <strong>of</strong> this<br />
year, some $640 million or thereabouts <strong>of</strong> that will be achieved by the combination <strong>of</strong> these measures. These are<br />
important to ensure that no further diminution <strong>of</strong> the revenue is resulting from the conclusion <strong>of</strong> this matter. It has<br />
been important to resolve this matter. We are keen to ensure that this matter is resolved this week, for the<br />
backpacker market into Australia and for the horticultural industry in particular, who have raised significant<br />
concerns about this. But, equally, the budget measures have to be addressed as well, to ensure that taxpayers are<br />
no further impacted by these arrangements. I commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate must now be adjourned. Member for Grayndler?<br />
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:34): Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker—on indulgence perhaps—I note that the<br />
Treasurer has outlined the changes he seeks to make to a bill that was carried by the parliament on its last sitting<br />
day, last Thursday, and we will have a full debate about those issues when the bill is considered. But I am raising<br />
on a point <strong>of</strong> order about whether indeed it is in order for the parliament to consider legislation that seeks to bind<br />
not just this parliament but the next parliament as well with a so-called 'freeze' <strong>of</strong> five years, and indeed whether it<br />
is competent for this parliament to consider this legislation.<br />
Governments come and go; budgets come and go each year. The suggestion that a government can be bound<br />
and that it cannot be undone by future legislation that would override this legislation seems to me to be selfevidently<br />
wrong in law. Therefore, this parliament should not debate legislation that is not in accordance with the<br />
competence <strong>of</strong> this parliament to consider it—that is, this attempt to bind future governments as per this<br />
legislation. I wonder about the status <strong>of</strong> the legal advice on this bill.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will take his seat and I will call the minister.<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:36): On similar indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I note the learned<br />
contributions from the member for Grayndler 'QC', but these matters obviously can be dealt with in debate and I<br />
look forward to that being the case.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the minister. The debate must now be adjourned. I have sought advice<br />
from the Clerk and the Clerk has said that this can be debated during—<br />
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:37): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not adjourning the debate. I have raised a<br />
point <strong>of</strong> order and asked for a ruling, effectively, as to whether this proposed legislation is competently before the<br />
<strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk has indicated to me that the debate must be adjourned. We can seek a<br />
ruling, but we cannot give it to you right at this moment. We will adjourn the debate and your request for a ruling<br />
can be addressed.<br />
Mr ALBANESE: I do not want to create an undue difficulty, but I do think that it would be appropriate that a<br />
determination <strong>of</strong> my point <strong>of</strong> order, as to whether this is legislation that is competent for the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Representatives</strong> to debate, be dealt with before we proceed to the further debate <strong>of</strong> this legislation. On that basis, I<br />
move:<br />
That the debate be adjourned.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 71<br />
But I do think it would be appropriate for there to be a ruling from the Speaker prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
further debate on this legislation.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
BILLS<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
to which the following amendment was moved:<br />
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:<br />
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes:<br />
(a) widespread community concern around seafood labelling;<br />
(b) that Australian consumers want to know where their food originates; and<br />
(c) the specific circumstances <strong>of</strong> seafood as a fresh food; and<br />
(2) calls on the Government to act to improve country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling for fresh, cooked and pre-prepared seafood sold in<br />
the food services industry".<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:39): I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer<br />
Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016 in support <strong>of</strong> the amendment moved by the member for Perth.<br />
Australian people deserve to know where their food comes from. They deserve clear and concise food labels to<br />
ensure that they can make informed decisions regarding the food that they and their families are consuming. The<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> this bill is to amend the Australian Consumer Law to simplify the test that is used to justify a claim that<br />
certain foods were made in Australia in a specified manner. The bill achieves this by amending one <strong>of</strong> the safe<br />
harbour provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.<br />
The Trade Practices Act was the first Commonwealth statute to contain consumer protection provisions. In its<br />
earliest form, the consumer protection provisions contained in the TPA were: a general prohibition against<br />
misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce, a broad prohibition against making a false representation<br />
about the country <strong>of</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> goods, and a prohibition against engaging in conduct which was liable to mislead<br />
the public as to the nature, including any country <strong>of</strong> origin, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the<br />
suitability for their purpose or the quantity <strong>of</strong> any goods. Australia's country-<strong>of</strong>-origin laws have continued to<br />
develop in line with domestic judicial determinations and consistent with Australia's emerging international<br />
obligations as a member <strong>of</strong> the World Trade Organization. The Trade Practices Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin<br />
Representations) Act 1998 inserted what were colloquially known as 'safe harbour' provisions into the trade<br />
practices laws, establishing the regime for determining when goods would and would not be regarded as made in,<br />
produced in or substantially grown in Australia.<br />
The TPA was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act with effect from 1 January 2011, codifying the safe<br />
harbour provisions as defences. Under the current law as it sits before the introduction <strong>of</strong> this bill, if businesses<br />
are to rely on the general country-<strong>of</strong>-origin safe harbour defence, they must satisfy two separate criteria: the goods<br />
must be substantially transformed in the country <strong>of</strong> origin being claim—this is known as the substantial<br />
transformation test—and 50 per cent or more <strong>of</strong> the total costs to produce or manufacture the goods must have<br />
occurred in that country. This is known as the cost <strong>of</strong> production/manufacture test. If a business makes a country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
claim for a product and it is alleged to be misleading, deceptive or false, that business has an automatic<br />
defence to the allegation if it can show that the product meets the safe harbour defence for that claim. This<br />
amendment bill simplifies the tests used to justify a country <strong>of</strong> origin 'Made in' claim by clarifying what<br />
substantial transformation means and altering the definition <strong>of</strong> substantial transformation as it applies to safe<br />
harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law.<br />
This legislation also removes the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food<br />
products with the introduction <strong>of</strong> labels showing the percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients. That is the great benefit<br />
<strong>of</strong> what is proposed in this bill. Australians will now be able to get a clear indicator on labels on the backs <strong>of</strong><br />
products <strong>of</strong> the percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian based ingredients that make up that product. This will end some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
confusion that has historically existed with this issue not only in our domestic produce market but also<br />
internationally with our exports. It is important that a delicate balance is achieved that provides Australians with a<br />
thorough and accurate understanding <strong>of</strong> where their food comes from, while not overburdening Australia's food<br />
processors, which could lead to their relocation <strong>of</strong>fshore.<br />
CHAMBER
72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
In February 2015, the Labor Party committed to finding a bipartisan solution to food labelling. We saw what an<br />
important issue it was for the Australian public, and we committed to working with the government on achieving<br />
a sustainable and indicative program that provided reliable data and information for Australia's consumers. It also<br />
highlighted the importance <strong>of</strong> bringing relevant ministers and industry leaders together to develop a consistent<br />
approach to the food industry. This bill sets out that new regime. The elements <strong>of</strong> it are that goods can be<br />
represented as being grown in Australia, if each significant ingredient or component has been grown in Australia<br />
and all processes involved in the production or manufacture <strong>of</strong> the goods happened right here on domestic soil.<br />
This is much the same as the previous regime but, in terms <strong>of</strong> the legislation, there is a much greater clarification.<br />
The rules around goods having a 'Produce <strong>of</strong> Australia' label are not changing. Importantly, the ingredients <strong>of</strong><br />
goods with a 'Made in' or `Manufactured in' or 'Originating from' Australia label are changing, and they are as<br />
follows: the goods must have been substantially transformed in Australia, and no representation must be made that<br />
the goods were grown or produced in that country.<br />
Further, the bill also governs the use <strong>of</strong> country-<strong>of</strong>-origin marks, such as the 'Made in Australia' gold kangaroo<br />
in the green triangle, which has been the symbol <strong>of</strong> Australian produce and Australian-produced products for<br />
many decades now. It is something that is well-known to the Australian public—although I did meet a Chinese<br />
businessperson who recently expressed to me his view that the label was confusing on food products for many<br />
people in China, who, when they saw it, believed that the package contained kangaroo, because <strong>of</strong> the gold<br />
kangaroo in the triangle. Maybe that is something for future governments to consider in respect <strong>of</strong> the Chinese<br />
market and the growing middle class in China and their food-consuming habits.<br />
Nonetheless, this bill also defines the area <strong>of</strong> goods being substantially transformed, makes it clear that<br />
packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'Product <strong>of</strong>' or 'Grown in' labels<br />
and mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed to have the country<br />
<strong>of</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective <strong>of</strong> the actual origin <strong>of</strong> the water.<br />
While these indicators and this new regime are not perfect—they do not indicate country <strong>of</strong> origin for imported<br />
ingredients, for instance—the new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling ingredients have been described by CHOICE as:<br />
… a big step towards ending the confusion around country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know<br />
how much <strong>of</strong> a product was manufactured or grown locally.<br />
The Australian Food and Grocery Council have also been supportive <strong>of</strong> these reforms, stating that it is:<br />
… a recognition <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> Australian jobs in the food production and processing sector<br />
In government, Labor worked to ensure Australians conducted a comprehensive review <strong>of</strong> labelling laws and<br />
worked closely with the states, through COAG, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. As I<br />
mentioned earlier, Labor has demonstrated a constructive approach to working with the government on this<br />
issue—a very important issue for Australian consumers. I am pleased to say that we now have a much clearer<br />
regime with better information for Australian consumers about the origins <strong>of</strong> the food they consume, and that is a<br />
positive step for our nation. I am happy to commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong> with the amendment moved by the<br />
member for Perth.<br />
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:49): I welcome the<br />
opportunity to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. Country-<strong>of</strong>origin<br />
labelling is an issue that has vexed successive governments for many years. Country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling has<br />
been compulsory in Australia for many years, but consumers have <strong>of</strong>ten found the information unclear, confusing<br />
or, in some cases, misleading. Australians want clearer, more meaningful and easier to find country-<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
information so they can make more informed choices when purchasing food and other products.<br />
These sound like simple goals, but implementing a system that meets those objectives is complex and<br />
challenging. But the coalition is determined to make progress on this issue and, in July last year, we announced a<br />
new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling scheme. Under the new system, food labels will carry a statement about where the<br />
food was produced, grown, made or packaged. Most Australian food will carry the familiar kangaroo symbol and<br />
an indication <strong>of</strong> the proportion <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients by weight through a statement and a bar graph. This is a<br />
key piece <strong>of</strong> information that consumers want. Many consumers find it very frustrating when they are confronted<br />
with labels like 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. That does not say which ingredients are<br />
imported, which ingredients are Australian and in what proportion. The new system will also have clearer rules<br />
around claims that a product was 'Made in' or 'Packed in' Australia.<br />
It has been a long road to get to this point. We want a system that gives consumers more information without<br />
imposing a whole new set <strong>of</strong> regulations and red tape on our food producers. We believe we have the balance<br />
about right, and the bill before the <strong>House</strong> today is another step to fine-tuning the system to ensure that it is easy to<br />
understand for consumers and businesses.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 73<br />
The bill before the <strong>House</strong> today amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the test used to justify a claim<br />
that a particular product is made in Australia or another country. In effect, this bill makes it easier for producers<br />
and consumers to determine whether a product may legitimately be labelled as 'Grown in Australia', 'Produced in<br />
Australia' or 'Made in Australia'. The bill also clarifies the definition <strong>of</strong> 'substantially transformed'. This is<br />
important because it clarifies that minor processing activities like packaging should not be considered substantial<br />
transformation. A producer can claim that goods are made or manufactured in a particular country, if they were<br />
substantially transformed in that country. As an example, a producer will not be able to import all the ingredients<br />
for a product in bulk, chop them up and put them into individual packages in Australia, and then market the<br />
product as 'Made in Australia'.<br />
The bill also removes the 50 per cent production-cost test, which was the source <strong>of</strong> considerable concern for<br />
many industry stakeholders. It was seen as an unnecessary burden on businesses and provided very little<br />
information to consumers. Removing the 50 per cent production-cost test is expected to save Australian<br />
businesses around $48.5 million per year in reduced red tape. As you would expect, the bill has received support<br />
from industry. The Australian Food and Grocery Council said it 'supports the urgent passage <strong>of</strong> the bill to provide<br />
certainty for industry'.<br />
In conclusion, the new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling scheme will be fully implemented over the coming years. It<br />
will provide Australian consumers with clearer, more meaningful, easier-to-find information on the origin <strong>of</strong><br />
products sold in Australia. My electorate is home to a growing horticulture industry with a high range <strong>of</strong> quality<br />
produce, including blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, cucumbers and avocados. Of course, we are also home to<br />
excellent milk and dairy products, quality beef and goat meat, and excellent seafood. I have no doubt that produce<br />
from the New South Wales mid-North Coast is as good as any produce around the world.<br />
I know that Australian consumers want to buy clean, green, Australian produce and like that it is produced in<br />
their local electorate. But consumers need clear, easily accessed information to know that they are buying<br />
Australian produce and not some vague mix <strong>of</strong> local and imported ingredients. I strongly support the new country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling system, and I commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:54): I too rise in support <strong>of</strong> this Competition and Consumer Amendment<br />
(Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. I welcome efforts to simplify our labelling laws and improve Australia's country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling. Consumers have every right to know where a particular product comes from—where it<br />
originated, where it was grown and where it was packaged. As consumers, when you have as much information as<br />
possible in front <strong>of</strong> you, you can make an informed choice when purchasing a particular product. Therefore I<br />
support any efforts to not only simplify but also improve product labelling.<br />
I have raised this issue on many occasions, both in this place and in the media, because constituents continually<br />
raise it with me and have a keen interest in it. People want to know what they are buying and where it was grown,<br />
and the label has to identify those things. It is a very important step in helping our consumers better identify where<br />
their groceries come from and make those informed decisions regarding what they wish to purchase.<br />
Most importantly, this legislation will address consumer concerns while also supporting food manufacturers in<br />
Australia. When I think <strong>of</strong> food manufacturers in Australia the first one that comes to mind is Arnott's Biscuits,<br />
which is in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Hindmarsh—I am very proud to have my electorate as the home <strong>of</strong> the Tim Tam. I<br />
have visited Arnott's many times over the years, and we have discussed labelling and how it affects them.<br />
In some cases, it is not that simple to just label products with where the products have come from. For example,<br />
with chocolate biscuits you can only source cocoa from overseas. So it does make it difficult, in some cases. I am<br />
very proud that Arnott's manufactures and produces biscuits right there in the middle <strong>of</strong> the western suburbs. It<br />
employs over 200 people and exports its products all over the world.<br />
We know that the best way to secure quality local food is for people to buy Australian-made products. I know<br />
many other places that support Australian-made products, such as Drake Foodland and the Romeo's Foodland<br />
group in my electorate. Drake has major supermarkets at West Lakes, West Beach and Torrensville, which is my<br />
local supermarket. Romeo has supermarkets in my electorate at Glenelg and Brooklyn Park. I shop there as well<br />
occasionally. They love to have local products on their shelves. They do all they can to try and sell Australian<br />
produce and I commend them both for that. This, in turn, supports local manufacturing—our food manufacturers<br />
and our reputation for very high quality food and produce.<br />
This legislation does so by ensuring clarity <strong>of</strong> definition and supporting consumer choice based on informed<br />
decisions. Australian laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with their country<br />
<strong>of</strong> origin. This is designed to minimise the potential for false or misleading claims about a product's country <strong>of</strong><br />
origin. You can see that in many instances over the years <strong>of</strong> particular products claiming to be Australian products<br />
CHAMBER
74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
but, when you scratch the surface a bit, you discover that the country <strong>of</strong> origin is thousands <strong>of</strong> kilometres away<br />
from these shores.<br />
Before these changes came into effect, provisions in the Australian Consumer Law stipulated three<br />
classifications <strong>of</strong> label. One is that any product label made in Australia had to have been substantially transformed<br />
in Australia, with at least half <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> production or manufacture occurring in Australia. That may sound<br />
pretty simple and straight forward but consider the packaging, the wrapping, and a whole range <strong>of</strong> other things. If<br />
you have a very small product and the majority <strong>of</strong> it is packaging and wrapping, can you claim that as an<br />
Australian product? Products labelled 'Product <strong>of</strong> Australia' had to have all significant ingredients or proponents<br />
originating in Australia and virtually all <strong>of</strong> the manufacture or production <strong>of</strong> the goods happening here in<br />
Australia.<br />
Products labelled 'grown in Australia' had to have every significant ingredient grown in Australia, and virtually<br />
all processes involved in production or manufacturing had to have happened here in Australia. So, it has been very<br />
confusing. It is not the labelling itself that is confusing, but the way things are labelled and when and why they<br />
can be labelled. It is the fact that it has left heaps <strong>of</strong> room for interpretation, meaning that, while the interpretation<br />
may have fitted the letter <strong>of</strong> the law in the legal requirements, at times it went against the spirit <strong>of</strong> the law and also<br />
against the will <strong>of</strong> the Australian consumer.<br />
As I said, Australian consumers want to know where a particular product came from, where it was sourced and<br />
what is in it and then make informed choices about whether to purchase that particular product or not. For<br />
example, fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, bottles and labels could have been labelled as<br />
'made in Australia', yet the fruit juice might have been from foreign fruit. This is very important for South<br />
Australia with all our Riverland orange growers and fruit growers. It has been an contentious issue for a long time<br />
that sometimes concentrate from Brazil may get mixed with in our orange juice and then it is called 'Australian<br />
made'. The situation as it was before the changes to the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin legislation came into effect in July 2016<br />
meant that consumers could be misled as to where their product came from. I just gave the example <strong>of</strong> orange<br />
juice, which was raised with me many times over the years.<br />
The new requirements make it a great deal easier for consumers to navigate and understand the labelling. The<br />
new labels are consistent, clear and simplified. They include an easily identifiable kangaroo triangle symbol, a bar<br />
chart and a text statement to show the proportion <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients, ranging from zero per cent to 100 per<br />
cent Australian ingredients. What we want to aim for is to see 100 per cent Australian ingredients on as many<br />
products as possible that we buy here in Australia. Food that is only packed in Australia will have the text and bar<br />
chart showing the percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients. Imported food will clearly show the country <strong>of</strong> origin.<br />
This is very important. For example, I heard the member for Kingston speaking about her electorate earlier. I<br />
know a few years ago there was an issue where lots <strong>of</strong> olive growers in her electorate were rightly complaining<br />
about foreign olive oil coming in with claims it was 100 per cent virgin olive oil. There were also claims it was<br />
Australian because it was mixed with a small part <strong>of</strong> Australian olive oil. These are some <strong>of</strong> the complex scenarios<br />
that have existed.<br />
Under these amendments, the last substantial transformation <strong>of</strong> a product carrying the label 'made in',<br />
'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia must have happened here in Australia. This means that an<br />
imported product cannot claim it was made in Australia if it has only undergone minor processing such as slicing,<br />
canning, crumbing, reconstituting or repackaging in Australia. The amendments also remove the current 50 per<br />
cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction <strong>of</strong> labels showing the<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian ingredients. In addition, the amendments make it clear that packaging materials are not<br />
treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product <strong>of</strong>' or 'grown in' labels. The amendments also<br />
stipulate that water, when used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients, is deemed to have the<br />
country <strong>of</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective <strong>of</strong> the actual origin <strong>of</strong> the water.<br />
It is a very complex area and it is very important for consumers to have faith in the products they buy.<br />
Consumers need to have as much information as possible to make those informed choices, so that, when they are<br />
making a choice, they know what they are purchasing and they know if they want to support an Australian-made<br />
product or if they want to buy something from overseas. It is also very important when you are buying specific<br />
types <strong>of</strong> ingredients. Sometimes, you may wish to purchase something from overseas because it is the best you<br />
can get in that area and it may something that we do not grow or do here. You also want to make sure that you are<br />
purchasing the correct product, even if it is from outside <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
Consumers cannot be expected to read the fine print. Currently, it is so complicated. All <strong>of</strong> us have been to the<br />
supermarket, picked up a product and tried to work out where it was made or where it originated from. The print<br />
is so fine on every product that you have to have an in-depth knowledge <strong>of</strong> the labelling system in order to work<br />
out whether a product is right for you, your family or the consumer who is buying it. Everyone is so busy, and we<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 75<br />
understand that people want to make good and informed decisions quickly and easily. If you are anything like me,<br />
you want to run into the supermarket, grab what you need and do it as quickly as possible. The last thing I and the<br />
Australian public need is to look at very complicated labelling and not be able to understand it. But this should not<br />
undermine people's ability to make informed decisions. It is so important.<br />
Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from, and Australians have told us—me in my<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong>fice; others in hearings and different inquiries that have taken place—how important this is to them.<br />
This is why I welcome these changes, and it is great to note that these changes have also been welcomed by the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> producers and manufacturers, as well as industry and consumer groups. In fact, the consumer group<br />
Choice has described these changes as:<br />
…a big step towards ending the confusion around country <strong>of</strong> origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know<br />
how much <strong>of</strong> a product was manufactured or grown locally.<br />
However, I understand that consumer choice and information should not come with associated excessive cost to<br />
producers. This would be counterproductive, <strong>of</strong> course. It is also critical that consumers are protected without<br />
putting an undue burden on Australian food processors, which would simply have the effect <strong>of</strong> sending more<br />
manufacturing <strong>of</strong>fshore. On this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, we are committed to supporting consumers and businesses. As<br />
I said, this is a very topical issue. It is constantly raised with me at shopping centres and everywhere I go because<br />
people want to know what they are purchasing.<br />
Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainty for businesses, particularly Australian food<br />
manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with the new<br />
requirements. This is why I welcome the fact that these new rules will make it clearer for businesses to know<br />
when certain claims can and cannot be used. It is also why we welcome the two-year transition period, to enable<br />
industry to move to these new labelling regulations.<br />
The opposition, the Labor Party, has long been committed to these reforms. I have been long-time committed to<br />
reforms to better labelling, which, as I said, have been raised many times with me. In fact on many occasions I<br />
have mentioned it on local radio's 5AA in South Australia on the Leon Byner show because it is a topical issue<br />
and it comes up regularly. When we were in government, we conducted a comprehensive review <strong>of</strong> labelling laws<br />
and worked closely with the states through COAG to improve guidance for both consumers and industry.<br />
Labor was very clear that we were committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling. At the time, we<br />
called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We understood then<br />
the need to work across government and with industry and consumer groups to develop a comprehensive and<br />
consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. This will make it much clearer for consumers and it<br />
will support local produce. We heard earlier others speak about their local markets and local farmer's markets.<br />
This is a good thing. For these reasons, I support this bill and I commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr HOGAN (Page) (17:09): It is great to rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment<br />
(Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016 because it is a great example <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull-Joyce government delivering. This is a<br />
government that keeps delivering on election promises and commitments. I note the previous speaker's<br />
contribution to this. I am glad he is a supporter. It is a pity we had to wait for our government to deliver it, and<br />
deliver it we will.<br />
I was just noting to myself how this bill will improve or do good for my electorate. I just wrote down in about<br />
30 or 60 seconds what food my electorate contributes to this economy. It contributes fish, beef, macadamias,<br />
dairy, blueberries, sugar, avocados, many other stone fruits, bananas, c<strong>of</strong>fee and I could go on. They are just some<br />
<strong>of</strong> the examples <strong>of</strong> the food that my electorate produces and contributes to this economy. What we have always<br />
said and what the previous speaker noted was that the previous country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling was inadequate. It was<br />
something that since we have been in government in the last three years we have been committed to delivering—<br />
clear, simple country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling. Simple, you would think, but it has been quite an exhaustive process.<br />
What we have delivered are reforms that are going to provide consumers with very clear and easy to find country<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling information so that they can make informed choices.<br />
As many speakers before me commented, you could walk in and look at some labels on some processed food<br />
and it might have had no food that originated in this country but just have had some processing component that<br />
completed it in Australia and it could have an Australian label on it. This new labelling is going to show very<br />
clearly where the food is from, how much <strong>of</strong> the food content is from Australia and how much <strong>of</strong> it was processed<br />
here or elsewhere. This will give consumers great choice. It is good for our farmers and good for our food<br />
producers because we know that Australian consumers will buy Australian food even if it costs a little bit more<br />
than overseas food because they trust it. They trust our food, they trust our farmers and they trust our food<br />
CHAMBER
76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
producers. There was an example <strong>of</strong> frozen berries a couple <strong>of</strong> years ago, where people were made quite ill from<br />
eating food that had been processed elsewhere.<br />
The substantial transformation test currently is inadequate. 'Made in Australia from local and imported<br />
ingredients' is when food is only minimally processed in Australia. Research has shown that the current<br />
framework is ineffective, particularly for food. Some origin labels and rules are still confusing and unhelpful. The<br />
proposed changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do<br />
not constitute substantial transformation. It will make clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor<br />
processes that merely change the form or appearance <strong>of</strong> imported goods such as dicing or canning are not<br />
sufficient to justify a 'made in' claim. On top <strong>of</strong> the confusion to consumers, it is clear that the '50 per cent<br />
production cost' test that is currently used is an unnecessary burden on business and means little to consumers. I<br />
know that people across my electorate and indeed across the whole country have been calling for these changes on<br />
food labels.<br />
The changes in this bill will make food labelling clearer, more meaningful and more accurate. This bill will<br />
help consumers identify the difference between descriptions like 'made in' and 'product <strong>of</strong>'. It is the aim <strong>of</strong> the new<br />
labels to be easier to understand. We are all time poor. When a consumer is walking down the aisle <strong>of</strong> a<br />
supermarket and they have a choice <strong>of</strong> different products, the labelling and the diagrammatic labels will be easy<br />
for the consumer to very quickly make an informed decision.<br />
The changes will also assist with the reduction <strong>of</strong> red tape by removing the '50 per cent production cost' test.<br />
The regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses will decrease. The regulation impact statement<br />
estimated the total savings from that will be close to $50 million per year and will increase for however many<br />
years it goes on. I know, Deputy Speaker Irons, you are very aware; you are a very informed member <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament. I note you are very aware that there was an exhaustive, extensive consultation process with these<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin label changes. There were discussions with businesses and community representatives. State and<br />
territory governments were involved. Our trading partners were involved. It is particularly important to note that,<br />
through this process, the government secured broad state and territory support for this.<br />
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the thousands <strong>of</strong> people who took the time and trouble to<br />
contribute their views and to work with us during the development <strong>of</strong> these reforms. Their participation helped us<br />
to achieve our goal <strong>of</strong> providing consumers with the information that they want. The government is also going to<br />
provide the ACCC with additional funding to help undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to<br />
the new requirements. The government has also agreed to fund a $15.2 million information campaign so that<br />
consumers understand the changes and are able to work with them. Australian Consumer Law will also be<br />
involved, obviously, with people who try to not do the right thing with this.<br />
It is lovely to have three <strong>of</strong> my Nationals colleagues in the chamber with me—the Minister for Small Business<br />
is sitting over on the other side; I am sure temporarily—because within our party room we were very passionate<br />
about the issue that the law on country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling change. It was not a simple process. As I said,<br />
exhaustive consultation happened, and it was a very laborious process to get state and territory governments,<br />
business and our trading partners on board. But it was something that our communities, our food-producing<br />
communities, were passionate about. We wanted the good-quality, clean food that we process to be very<br />
identifiable to the Australian consumer, because the Australian consumer wants to support the Australian farmer.<br />
It is great for us in the Nationals, together with our coalition partner, to be able to do this. The other side had been<br />
talking about it and said they agreed with it, but we, like on many things, are delivering it. It has been a pleasure<br />
to talk to this bill.<br />
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:17): As those in this place know, food labelling is an issue that I take very<br />
seriously. The Minister for Small Business just popped over to have a quick chat to me about food labelling. It is<br />
something we have debated quite a lot, particularly in relation to Chiko Roll food labelling! I have stood in this<br />
place before and said that the National Party and members <strong>of</strong> the cabinet should read the label for the Chiko Roll<br />
and learn firsthand—<br />
Mr McCormack: Truth in labelling!<br />
Ms CHESTERS: truth in labelling—that on the back <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll it says, 'Born in Bendigo'. Bendigo is<br />
the home <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll. We have a bit <strong>of</strong> a laugh about it, but it is actually a very serious issue. It is the<br />
serious issue we are talking about here today, which is country-<strong>of</strong>-origin and region-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling. We will<br />
leave the debate about the origins <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll to one side. It is not the only food that is produced in our<br />
region.<br />
This issue about food labelling does come up a lot. A lot <strong>of</strong> people have laughed for a long time about the label<br />
'Made from local and imported products'. What does that label tell us? What is the point <strong>of</strong> putting 'Made from<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 77<br />
local and imported products' on the label <strong>of</strong> the produce that people consume? The extensive research that was<br />
done in the field to find out what would be best has produced a new set <strong>of</strong> labelling. The new labelling, whilst it<br />
will inform consumers more about the amount <strong>of</strong> 'made in Australia' or local product and content in what they are<br />
buying, raises a number <strong>of</strong> other questions. This is the area where I believe that the government has a bit <strong>of</strong> work<br />
to do in enforcing truth in food labelling. I know that the back <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll is true, that the Chiko Roll was<br />
born in Bendigo. It is not just folklore. And I know that the member for Riverina, who covers Wagga Wagga,<br />
cannot produce his own Chiko Roll labelling and say that the Chiko Roll is from Wagga Wagga, because it is just<br />
not true. How do we enforce that, though? That is where we come back to making sure that, for any labelling <strong>of</strong><br />
food, we have the necessary resources and requirements to ensure that what is on the label is what people are<br />
getting.<br />
I can understand why people in our community might be a bit sceptical when it comes to the government's track<br />
record, because it was on this government's watch that we had berries enter this country that had not been tested<br />
properly, and a number <strong>of</strong> people became quite ill. A number <strong>of</strong> people contracted hepatitis. The country <strong>of</strong> origin<br />
was not clearly listed on some <strong>of</strong> the products as China. The berries were contaminated, and a number <strong>of</strong> people<br />
became quite ill. Why this is relevant to this debate is that it speaks to this government's capacity to enforce its<br />
current regulations around food and the importation <strong>of</strong> food.<br />
If these labels are to mean anything, I want to see the resources invested to make sure that the products that<br />
people are buying are in fact 100 per cent or 75 per cent or 50 per cent Australian made. I think about product that<br />
is produced in Victoria where this labelling will help, and I think <strong>of</strong> canned tomatoes. Whilst there are not a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
tomatoes grown in my part <strong>of</strong> the world, just to the north <strong>of</strong> the Bendigo electorate there are. When you meet with<br />
Kagome—who not only manufacture tomato products; they also grow tomatoes—they talk about how<br />
MasterFoods, who are just next door, will quite <strong>of</strong>ten have some <strong>of</strong> their own crushed tomatoes in their<br />
MasterFoods food products but the bulk <strong>of</strong> the product comes from overseas. Therefore Kagome and the other<br />
growers in that part <strong>of</strong> the world feel a little bit like they have been cheated, in that, just by having a small amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> local Australian-produced tomatoes, MasterFoods are able to claim the catch-all title, 'Made from local and<br />
imported goods'. The labelling that has been put forward will help us to understand that.<br />
Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from. Australian law requiring all imported<br />
and domestic products to be labelled with the country <strong>of</strong> origin is important to ensure that people know what they<br />
are eating. We know, through consumer surveys, that, when people are in the deli and they see fish which is<br />
imported and the country <strong>of</strong> origin is on the label, they are less likely to buy it, because people know the clean,<br />
green image <strong>of</strong> Tasmanian salmon versus fish that might be from Thailand or Vietnam. People want to make an<br />
informed choice. Whilst people know that the price may be a little bit more expensive, Australians, like the rest <strong>of</strong><br />
the world, are willing to pay for the quality and the peace <strong>of</strong> mind that they are eating food which is healthy and is<br />
meeting Australian standards.<br />
It is critical that consumers are protected, without putting undue burden on the food processors. This is another<br />
important point. Today I met with Australian Pork. Pork is an industry that we have in the Bendigo region. On this<br />
issue, they said that they are waiting to see what happens. They have invested a lot in their Australian Pork logo,<br />
which is easily identified in our supermarkets—not just on our basketball teams. Australian Pork sponsored the<br />
Bendigo Spirit for a while, and you could not miss them with their bright pink square logo that they have<br />
developed. You cannot miss that logo when you are in the shopping centre. Australian Pork themselves invested<br />
in their own branding.<br />
Pork is one <strong>of</strong> those industries which has, in the past, struggled with this issue <strong>of</strong> Australian made and local<br />
food and ensuring that we have the labelling right. There have been breaches in the past that have been followed<br />
up. The kind <strong>of</strong> pork product you buy can dictate whether or not it is Australian pork. In the Bendigo electorate,<br />
we have one <strong>of</strong> the biggest producers <strong>of</strong> bacon, at Don KR, and we are also one <strong>of</strong> the biggest producers <strong>of</strong> ham<br />
on the bone. It is coming up to Christmas, and I know that lots <strong>of</strong> people will be standing in the deli and making a<br />
choice. What most Australians do not realise is that, unless they read the label closely, the bacon product that they<br />
buy could actually be Canadian pork or pork from Europe. But the ham on the bone that they buy and bake<br />
themselves is actually Australian pork.<br />
Truth in food labelling will also allow us to start educating consumers and encouraging consumers to buy<br />
Australian made and Australian grown. With that growth, we can hope to see more investment in these industries<br />
to help them expand. If we know that people are willing to pay for more when it comes to Australian made, those<br />
brands as well as those products have a good future. We can help to educate consumers about why buying<br />
Australian made is not only good for the grower but also good for local jobs. Food labelling is one area where we<br />
talk about 'Ag is the new black' and 'Ag is where the future jobs will come from,' but what is critical within that is<br />
making sure that everything that underpins it is focused on that 'Made in Australia' logo.<br />
CHAMBER
78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
I recently met with the VFF Chicken Meat Group. They are concerned about some rumours that were flying<br />
around about looking at chicken coming into our country. Whilst fresh meat must be Australian chicken, because<br />
<strong>of</strong> our strict rules, they are concerned about products that might contain chicken that are processed overseas<br />
coming into our country and the impact that that might have on their market. They support these regulations<br />
because, whether it is chicken that you crumb yourself or chicken that is crumbed overseas, people want to know<br />
that what they are eating is Australian made and Australian grown.<br />
Whilst Labor support these amendments because they provide certainty for business, particularly Australian<br />
food manufacturers, it is important to note that the government needs to do more to ensure that there is proper<br />
education around food labelling in our community and that there is also proper compliance to make sure that<br />
product coming in and product on our shelves has truth in labelling. We need to make sure that the product that<br />
consumers are eating and consuming does in fact live up to the label. I also hope that the 25 to 50 and 55 to 75 and<br />
then 100 per cent will encourage our food manufacturers to use more Australian grown, locally produced produce<br />
in their products. We know that Australians, if educated and engaged, will choose Australian over alternate<br />
brands.<br />
This has been a long time coming. It is something that the community has talked about for a long time. It is<br />
something that Australians expect their government to keep an eye on. Australians want to know that the produce<br />
that they are buying in the shopping centres or at their local markets are safe. They want to know that it is what is<br />
on the label.<br />
Mr McCormack: The Chiko Roll.<br />
Ms CHESTERS: The member again interrupts with talk <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll. Let's just put it on the record<br />
again. If we are serious about truth in labelling and making sure that we have country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling, I suggest<br />
the minister and his colleagues read the back <strong>of</strong> the label <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll. Perhaps we can say that they helped<br />
set the benchmark for country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling, in that they printed on the back, 'Born in Bendigo'. Let's just<br />
relive a bit <strong>of</strong> the history <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll, why it was born in Bendigo and why we claim to be the home <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Chiko Roll.<br />
Three brothers, Frank, Leo and Gerard McEncroe, who were dairy farmers, decided that they wanted to go into<br />
the catering business. Frank was the entrepreneur. He was a boilermaker who invented the equipment for, and<br />
who first designed, the Chiko Roll. Anybody who knows how to cook a Chiko Roll knows it could fall apart quite<br />
quickly in hot oil if it is not made effectively. What these brothers did—and I am putting this in the Hansard so<br />
that our friend, Mr McCormack, can respond if he wishes to—was that Frank, the boilermaker, invented a<br />
machine that basically created the Chiko Roll, they froze the Chiko Roll and then it was fried so that it would not<br />
fall apart. So it was invented in Bendigo by the McEncroe brothers. The McEncroe brothers first called the Chiko<br />
Roll the 'snack roll'. The 'snack roll' was sold at local sporting clubs, at the QEO and at agricultural shows. They<br />
travelled with the Chiko Roll. Through their catering business, the McEncroe brothers did take the Chiko Roll to<br />
the Wagga Wagga show. The ingredients were slightly different, because it depended upon what they had growing<br />
in their vegie patch at the time. They had run out <strong>of</strong> cabbage, so they replaced the cabbage with lucerne. Those<br />
were the Chiko Rolls that were at the Wagga Wagga show.<br />
The origin <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll is clearly based in Bendigo with the three McEncroe brothers who had the catering<br />
business. Perhaps this is too much detail for food labelling—perhaps people do not need to know the full history<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll—but I will state very clearly and loudly again for the benefit <strong>of</strong> members and the minister that<br />
labelling is important. Even if it is just to dispel myths about the home <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll, food labelling is<br />
important. While we may make humour about the Chiko Roll, and I claim that the back <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll helps<br />
dispel the terrible myths being put forward by some <strong>of</strong> those opposite about the Chiko Roll, it does go to an<br />
underlying issue, which is that people do read the label. They do care about what is on the label. Knowing what<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> the produce you are eating is locally made and produced is important to Australians. I encourage the<br />
government to ensure that there is investment in making sure that people live up to what the label says.<br />
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (17:32): I hope the member for Bendigo is not<br />
planning on leaving the chamber. When she first entered parliament in 2013, I reached over the great divide, I<br />
reached over to the other side <strong>of</strong> the chamber, to bring her into a conversation about the origin <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll.<br />
Colin Bettles from Farm Weekly was wanting to do a story as a promotion out the front <strong>of</strong> the chamber to talk up<br />
this wonderful product. I am glad the member for Calare is not in the chamber, because he would be claiming it.<br />
The fact is, in talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016, we can all<br />
talk about the Chiko Roll, because it is currently manufactured by Simplot in Bathurst in the Calare electorate. It<br />
has been since Simplot took ownership <strong>of</strong> the Chiko Roll brand in 1995. As the member for Bendigo quite<br />
correctly pointed out just a moment ago, it first saw the light <strong>of</strong> day at the Wagga Wagga agricultural show in<br />
1951. I agree with her, the McEncroe's originally came up with the idea—they invented it—in Bendigo. However,<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 79<br />
as I have always said, it is not where you were thought <strong>of</strong>, it is not where you end up, it is where you were born<br />
that makes such a difference. It saw the first light <strong>of</strong> day in Wagga Wagga.<br />
The Chiko Roll's filling, even though the name might suggest it is chicken—and I am sure you have enjoyed a<br />
Chiko Roll from time to time, Deputy Speaker Kelly—is primarily cabbage and barley, as well as carrots, green<br />
beans, beef, beef tallow, wheat cereal, celery and, indeed, onion. This legislation is important for all <strong>of</strong> those items<br />
because they all need proper labelling. They are all items which need truth in labelling, irrespective <strong>of</strong> where we<br />
might think that the Chiko Roll was invented. I know Wagga Wagga has a claim, I know Bathurst has a claim and<br />
I appreciate that Bendigo has a claim. When the member for Bendigo came to that little bit <strong>of</strong> social media<br />
interaction out the front <strong>of</strong> Parliament <strong>House</strong>, I just wish that she had handed me a Chiko Roll that was cooked.<br />
She handed me a frozen one, and I took a great bite out <strong>of</strong> it and nearly broke my teeth.<br />
Getting on to the important matters before the <strong>House</strong> today, this bill has a simple proposition: consumers<br />
should have the best possible information to rely on when they go to the supermarket to shop. In rising to speak on<br />
this very important bill, I do so noting that this bill presents something <strong>of</strong> an article <strong>of</strong> faith for country people,<br />
and especially for the Nationals. I am so glad that the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler, the<br />
assistant minister, are beside me to support the passage <strong>of</strong> this important legislation through the <strong>House</strong>. For<br />
decades, the idea that consumers should be able to have an easy-to-use reference <strong>of</strong> whether the produce on<br />
supermarket shelves is Australian has dominated conferences, branch meetings and, indeed, discussions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Nationals right across the country. So, too, the more than 5,000 farmers, many <strong>of</strong> whom are small businesses—in<br />
fact, I would say almost all <strong>of</strong> whom are small businesses—whom I represent in this place, have made the case<br />
that Australian producers want Australian consumers to buy Australian food and fibre. It almost goes without<br />
saying. This is exactly what this bill proposes and delivers upon. I am so glad that the minister, Mr Hunt, is here,<br />
because he also knows just how important this legislation is.<br />
As a country member <strong>of</strong> parliament, I can say this is a matter which has dominated the conversations and<br />
interactions I have had with people right across the Riverina and the Central West for years. Many constituents <strong>of</strong><br />
mine have written and called over the years. I know they are pleased that the government is listening to their<br />
feedback and enacting sensible and meaningful change through this particular legislation. Country-<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling should provide Australians with access to reliable information about where their food comes from so that<br />
they can make informed choices about the product they purchase. That is exactly, precisely and deliberately what<br />
this legislation does.<br />
When this legislation was first proposed, the Nationals, as part <strong>of</strong> the coalition government, indicated we would<br />
reform the system for country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling. My electorate had the Snowy Mountains and the Murrumbidgee<br />
Irrigation Area, so this is a matter <strong>of</strong> vital importance to many <strong>of</strong> my constituents and, indeed, many <strong>of</strong> my former<br />
constituents. A survey that I conducted <strong>of</strong> my electorate midway through last year demonstrated not only the<br />
widespread support for these changes but the opportunity they create for our primary producers.<br />
As the minister responsible for consumer affairs—and I appreciate my shadow is opposite—I hear stories every<br />
day, and I am sure the member for Perth does, too, about how consumers want better access to information on<br />
supermarket shelves at a glance to make more informed decisions about purchases. It is why these changes have<br />
been top <strong>of</strong> mind since parliament resumed. State and territory and Commonwealth consumer affairs ministers<br />
agreed on 31 March this year to reform the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling system for food to give consumers clearer<br />
and more meaningful information about the food they buy. They should expect nothing less. This is a critical<br />
reform. It is something on which the government has focused following extensive consultation with consumers<br />
and industry. And that word—'consultation'—keeps cropping up whenever we talk about legislation before this<br />
<strong>House</strong>, because that is what a responsible government does. That is what the Liberals and Nationals do. With<br />
every piece <strong>of</strong> legislation that comes before the <strong>House</strong>, we consult key stakeholders, industry groups, the various<br />
sectors affected and ordinary, everyday Australians—'Mr and Mrs Average', my mother-in-law <strong>of</strong>ten calls them.<br />
And she is right—as always.<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
Mr McCORMACK: No—she is! I love my mother-in-law. She is—she is so right. She always talks about<br />
'Mr and Mrs Average'. When it all boils down—and we can talk about all <strong>of</strong> the important things in this <strong>House</strong>—it<br />
does boil down to what the average man and woman, the average family, the average boy or girl need, want and<br />
expect from government. This is something which is so critical. For the mums and dads who are going shopping,<br />
and for the single people who are going shopping, they need to be able to go into those wonderful IGA<br />
supermarkets—I will give them a plug—and look at the labels on the shelves and know that what they are getting<br />
inside that can or bottle is in fact what they are paying for. This legislation is just another example <strong>of</strong> how the<br />
government is delivering on its promise to put small business at the forefront <strong>of</strong> decision-making and listening to<br />
CHAMBER
80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
consumers and producer demands—listening to what, as my mother-in-law says, 'Mr and Mrs Average' would<br />
want.<br />
I just want to talk quickly about some <strong>of</strong> the aspects <strong>of</strong> this bill. These reforms give Australian consumers, as I<br />
have said before, clear and more meaningful information about the food they buy. It does not impose excessive<br />
burden on business. That is so important. I have heard you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, a number <strong>of</strong> times in this<br />
<strong>House</strong>—almost on a daily basis—talk about lifting the load from business, particularly small business. You<br />
understand, we on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> understand, that it is important to not overload small businesses, in<br />
particular, with burdensome regulation. Cutting through the red tape! We just heard an earlier speaker—the<br />
member for Page—talk about ensuring that we did not overload small business with more regulatory burden. This<br />
is the most significant change in this contentious area—and it has been a very controversial area for decades.<br />
Many foods found on Australian retail shelves will be required to include a kangaroo in a triangle logo if they<br />
have been made, produced or grown in Australia, and a bar chart to indicate the percentage <strong>of</strong> Australian<br />
ingredients in the food. This reform will also make it clearer that 'made in' means more than just packaging or<br />
performing minor processes on imported food. That is so important.<br />
I know a farmer at Rankins Springs, Ian Munro—better known as 'Jock'—who is <strong>of</strong>ten texting me very early in<br />
the morning—<br />
Mr Broad: Go Jock!<br />
Mr McCORMACK: The member for Mallee says, 'Go Jock!' Don't give him your mobile number; he will<br />
text you every morning at 5 o'clock. But we has got it, member for Mallee, because he is always talking about<br />
making these changes not just because they sound good or because they are funky but to make sure that we make<br />
them so that they are meaningful.<br />
The country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling reforms will be implemented by the new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin food labelling<br />
information standard under Australian consumer law—an area that I am responsible for as the Minister for Small<br />
Business. This legislation amends the existing safe harbour defences for country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claims. The amended<br />
legislation will apply to country-<strong>of</strong>-origin claims on all products, not just food. The reforms started on 1 July. The<br />
first labels are expected to appear in stores—and some already have. Businesses have two years to transition to the<br />
new labels. All stock in trade at the end <strong>of</strong> the period can see out its shelf life. To complement the reforms the<br />
government is also working with industry to digitise food product information to better position business and<br />
consumers for the future. That is so important. As I said, there has been stakeholder consultation. That is<br />
something that we as a coalition government always does.<br />
The government understands that this bill needs to get through. It needs to get through because it is so<br />
important. It is important for farmers, it is so important for 'Mr and Mrs Average', it is so important for consumers<br />
going to supermarkets to know what they are buying is in fact what it says on the label. Truth in labelling is so<br />
important.<br />
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (17:43): I am delighted to sum up the<br />
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016. Let me begin by acknowledging all <strong>of</strong><br />
those who have contributed on the side <strong>of</strong> the opposition and those who are in the <strong>House</strong>. We have the member for<br />
Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Riverina. I want to acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> people, such as the<br />
member for Bowman, who have campaigned over many years, and the member from Reid, the assistant minister<br />
who has held carriage <strong>of</strong> this bill since the election. He has done a sterling job in working with the states, the<br />
opposition and all <strong>of</strong> the different industry groups that have interest in this space.<br />
As the assistant minister said during the second reading speech, this bill forms part <strong>of</strong> the country-<strong>of</strong>-origin<br />
labelling reforms championed by the government. It is about truth in advertising. It is about allowing Australians<br />
to know Australian and to buy Australian. It is nothing more than a measure for full accountability so as those<br />
who make choices at the supermarket and at other retail venues are able to do so with full knowledge. It is about<br />
making sure that the kangaroo and the triangle, and the bar chart showing the percentage <strong>of</strong> produce from<br />
Australia, are clear, relevant and easily accessible.<br />
Country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling reforms therefore represent a policy response to the growing demand by Australian<br />
consumers to know the origin <strong>of</strong> their food and to assist them in making informed choices about the product they<br />
purchase. This could be for reasons <strong>of</strong> health, confidence, economic consideration or national patriotic duty. The<br />
reforms, therefore, provide consumers with clear, meaningful and easier to find country-<strong>of</strong>-origin information so<br />
that they can make informed purchasing decisions. It is about personal preference informed by genuine, reliable<br />
information. The country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling reforms have bipartisan support. They have been worked through<br />
carefully with the opposition on a consultative basis and, until this moment, have been done entirely in<br />
collaboration. I hope—notwithstanding the late news <strong>of</strong> a second reading amendment—they will continue to have<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 81<br />
full bipartisan support. I also note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee considered the bill and<br />
recommended that it be passed. We all thank them for that.<br />
As Australians, what we want to know is whether or not the food we buy is from the country we live in or, if it<br />
is from elsewhere, where it is from, in what percentage and whether it was made here or packaged here. We also<br />
want to know how much <strong>of</strong> it was grown by our Australian farmers—clearly, unequivocally, the best in the world.<br />
The country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling reforms—fondly known as the 'cool reforms' by my assistant minister—are not<br />
only about labelling but also about removing regulatory impost on industry. Importantly, this bill, for instance,<br />
when passed by the parliament, presuming it does find favour in both houses, will allow for some significant<br />
changes to the Australian Consumer Law country-<strong>of</strong>-origin safe-harbour defences. These defence provisions<br />
provide certainty for business. If specific criteria are met, a business will have certainty that its approach to<br />
country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling is not misleading or deceptive. The proposed changes to Australian Consumer Law<br />
will simplify these defences and ensure they better reflect consumer expectations and international practice. They<br />
will make it clearer that minor processes such as packaging, slicing, diluting, crumbing or canning are not<br />
sufficient to justify origin claims such as 'made in', consistent with consumer expectations and international<br />
reforms. They will remove unnecessary burdensome or redundant revisions and amend and align remaining<br />
provisions with the new country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling standard made on 13 April this year.<br />
The last issue I want to deal with which has been raised in passing by some government members and senators<br />
such as Senator Back and the member for Leichhardt, in consultation with some members <strong>of</strong> the fisheries<br />
industry, as well as, I acknowledge, by the member for Perth, is in relation to the origin labelling for seafood sold<br />
in the food services sector. It is what my assistant minister has described 'as dealing with the seafood basket<br />
question'—how you deal with an ever-changing product that has a multiplicity <strong>of</strong> sources without imposing an<br />
unnecessary burden on the restaurant and catering sector; something that none <strong>of</strong> us would want to do. That<br />
question has been raised through a second reading amendment.<br />
I would note that the ministers <strong>of</strong> the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs decided in<br />
March 2016—this was from all states and territories and from people <strong>of</strong> both persuasions—not to extend<br />
mandatory country-<strong>of</strong>-origin labelling to the food services sector at this time, essentially for the reason <strong>of</strong> cost and<br />
complexity. That was a decision taken in consultation with the jurisdictions in March <strong>of</strong> this year, where the state<br />
and territory jurisdictions themselves—irrespective <strong>of</strong> their political leanings or their party—were concerned<br />
about an unnecessary burden on the sector. However, in good faith, recognising that there are views in both<br />
directions, I propose, in order to take forward the work <strong>of</strong> the parliament, whilst we cannot support this<br />
amendment without the work and cooperation <strong>of</strong> the states and territories—that would be a breach <strong>of</strong> the COAG<br />
commitment—I will undertake to include consideration <strong>of</strong> improved origin labelling for seafood sold in the food<br />
services sector through a working group on food services within the fisheries and seafood sector.<br />
We would invite not just the states and territories but both the seafood sector and the restaurant, catering,<br />
hospitality and small business sectors to be involved. I will ask the assistant minister to lead the process, to report<br />
within 12 months and to invite the opposition to be part <strong>of</strong> the process. It is a genuine, good faith recognition <strong>of</strong> an<br />
issue that has been raised both by the sector and by some on our backbench as well as by the opposition. I think<br />
that is the way not to create a process <strong>of</strong> bad faith that accepting this amendment now would represent, and would<br />
be in breach <strong>of</strong> our COAG process and commitment. Having won the support <strong>of</strong> the states and territories, I would<br />
not want to do anything that lost the support <strong>of</strong> the states and territories. I hope that step forward is a constructive<br />
one and it acknowledges that parliamentary debate can advance an issue. I think that is the way this parliament<br />
should work at its best.<br />
Having said that, I particularly want to thank my predecessor, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, and I want to<br />
acknowledge the commitment <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister and the leader <strong>of</strong> the National Party, both <strong>of</strong> whom have been<br />
staunch advocates <strong>of</strong> this bill and these reforms. I would like to thank all <strong>of</strong> those people who have contributed,<br />
particularly those in the chamber at the moment: the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and my assistant<br />
minister, the member for Reid who have advanced this cause. The Competition and Consumer Amendment<br />
(Country <strong>of</strong> Origin) Bill 2016 is a genuine national reform. It is about truth in labelling, information for<br />
consumers and a better shot for Australian farmers to compete equally and on merit. With those comments, I<br />
thoroughly commend this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable<br />
member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting<br />
other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [17:56]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
CHAMBER
82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Claydon, SC<br />
Conroy, PM<br />
Dick, MD<br />
Elliot, MJ<br />
Feeney, D<br />
Freelander, MR<br />
Giles, AJ<br />
Hammond, TJ<br />
Hayes, CP<br />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<br />
Kelly, MJ<br />
Khalil, P<br />
King, MMH<br />
Leigh, AK<br />
Marles, RD<br />
Mitchell, BK<br />
Neumann, SK<br />
O'Neil, CE<br />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Rowland, MA<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Ayes ...................... 71<br />
Noes ...................... 75<br />
Majority ................. 4<br />
AYES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<br />
Collins, JM<br />
Danby, M<br />
Dreyfus, MA<br />
Ellis, KM<br />
Fitzgibbon, JA<br />
Georganas, S<br />
Gosling, LJ<br />
Hart, RA<br />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Keay, JT<br />
Keogh, MJ<br />
King, CF<br />
Lamb, S<br />
Macklin, JL<br />
McBride, EM<br />
Mitchell, RG<br />
O'Connor, BPJ<br />
O'Toole, C<br />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK<br />
Entsch, WG<br />
Falinski, J<br />
Flint, NJ<br />
Gee, AR<br />
Goodenough, IR<br />
Hastie, AW<br />
Henderson, SM<br />
Howarth, LR<br />
Irons, SJ<br />
Keenan, M<br />
Laming, A<br />
Laundy, C<br />
Ley, SP<br />
Marino, NB<br />
McGowan, C<br />
Morrison, SJ<br />
O'Brien, LS<br />
O'Dowd, KD<br />
NOES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Bishop, JI<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Christensen, GR (teller)<br />
Coleman, DB<br />
Crewther, CJ<br />
Dutton, PC<br />
Evans, TM<br />
Fletcher, PW<br />
Frydenberg, JA<br />
Gillespie, DA<br />
Hartsuyker, L<br />
Hawke, AG<br />
Hogan, KJ<br />
Hunt, GA<br />
Joyce, BT<br />
Kelly, C<br />
Landry, ML<br />
Leeser, J<br />
Littleproud, D<br />
McCormack, MF<br />
McVeigh, JJ<br />
Morton, B<br />
O'Brien, T<br />
O'Dwyer, KM<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 83<br />
Pasin, A<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sudmalis, AE<br />
Taylor, AJ<br />
Tudge, AE<br />
Van Manen, AJ<br />
Wallace, AB<br />
Wilson, RJ<br />
Wood, JP<br />
Zimmerman, T<br />
NOES<br />
Pitt, KJ<br />
Prentice, J<br />
Pyne, CM<br />
Robert, SR<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
Question negatived.<br />
Original question agreed to.<br />
Bill read a second time.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (18:02): by leave—I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a third time.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Bill read a third time.<br />
Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (18:03): Labor has worked with the financial advice sector to deliver better advice and<br />
fairer outcomes for consumers and we are supportive <strong>of</strong> any measures to improve the quality <strong>of</strong> financial advice<br />
and minimise harm caused by financial advice remuneration structures. However, there is more to do in protecting<br />
consumers from misconduct in the life insurance industry. Labor's Future <strong>of</strong> Financial Advice reforms banned<br />
many forms <strong>of</strong> conflicted remuneration for financial advisers, including for life insurance policies held inside<br />
group life policies and superannuation. However, other life insurance policies remain exempt from the Future <strong>of</strong><br />
Financial Advice ban on conflicted remuneration.<br />
Life insurance is a critical product that consumers use to manage risk for themselves and their families. Good<br />
financial advice can help consumers identify their life insurance needs and find appropriate and affordable<br />
products that meet those needs. Good advisers ask the right questions about a person's situation and ensure clients<br />
can confidently purchase a product that is good value for money. Should the worst happen, the quality <strong>of</strong> that<br />
advice determines when and how a customer receives the financial support they paid for.<br />
But it is an unfortunate fact that far too many Australians have suffered the consequences <strong>of</strong> inadequate and<br />
unreliable financial advice. Media reports at the start <strong>of</strong> this year indicated that life insurance related disputes had<br />
a spike in 2014-15, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Across the board, disputes rose by six per<br />
cent, while disagreements over lump-sum payouts for claims <strong>of</strong> total and permanent disability rose by 20 per cent.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> will remember that less than two years after Commonwealth Bank head made an unreserved apology<br />
for the bank's financial planning division using forgery, fraud, management cover-ups and inappropriate advice—<br />
practices which led to thousands <strong>of</strong> customers losing their life savings—came the CommInsure scandal.<br />
According to reports, during the last six months <strong>of</strong> 2015 the bank's life insurance branch made a pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately $200 million, while medical reports were manipulated, files went missing, doctors were<br />
cherrypicked or leaned on by claims managers to change their opinions, old policy definitions <strong>of</strong> heart attacks and<br />
rheumatoid arthritis were deliberately kept and prioritised to deny claims, and unethical policies were adopted to<br />
delay or deny total and permanent disability payments to terminally ill patients and claimants. When these<br />
allegations were raised by a whistleblower, the whistleblower was sacked.<br />
It was reported in October this year that Westpac's life insurance arm rejected 37 per cent <strong>of</strong> total and<br />
permanent disability claims. This is an extremely grave concern for an industry that Australians rely on and for<br />
which Australians should expect the highest standard <strong>of</strong> ethics. That is why Labor will continue to argue for a<br />
banking royal commission to examine the culture <strong>of</strong> the industry and ensure Australians can tell their stories.<br />
CHAMBER
84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
A series <strong>of</strong> reports have shown the need for reform to the method <strong>of</strong> remuneration for life insurance advisers.<br />
ASIC Report 413: Review <strong>of</strong> retail life insurance advice identified a strong connection between up-front<br />
commissions, policy lapse rates and poor consumer outcomes. It found, among other things: 45 per cent <strong>of</strong> advice<br />
provided under an up-front commission model failed to comply with the law, as opposed to only seven per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
non-upfront advice; and 82 per cent <strong>of</strong> industry uses an upfront commission model and that up-front commissions<br />
for advisers are generally between 100 to 130 per cent <strong>of</strong> the product premium. The industry-commissioned<br />
Trowbridge review recommended several reforms to adviser remuneration, including a significant reduction in upfront<br />
commissions. Finally, the Financial System Inquiry recommended the abolition <strong>of</strong> up-front commissions and<br />
a move to level commissions, which means that the commission remains the same year after year.<br />
According to ASIC, the up-front commission model is the main remuneration structure for life insurance. ASIC<br />
also found that up-front commissions have a 'statistically significant' bearing on the likelihood <strong>of</strong> an adviser who<br />
is working on commission giving advice that does not comply with the law. According to ASIC:<br />
High upfront commissions give advisers an incentive to write new business. The more premiums they write, the more they<br />
earn. There is no incentive to provide advice that does not result in a product sale or to provide advice to a client that they<br />
retain an existing policy unless the advice is to purchase additional covers or increase the sum insured.<br />
Because life insurance commissions are tied to selling, not giving advice, an incentive is created to sell insurance<br />
rather than provide strategic advice. This can lead to clients receiving poor value for money.<br />
It was because <strong>of</strong> these concerns that Labor supported the life insurance framework bill when it was first<br />
introduced to parliament earlier this year, before the election, and that remains our position. But, as we noted then,<br />
we have some reservations about the reforms. Industry has been engaged in a long process <strong>of</strong> consultation and,<br />
while there is broad industry agreement on the need to reform the structure <strong>of</strong> commissions, some groups have<br />
voiced concerns or feel their voices have not been heard in the process. The Association <strong>of</strong> Financial Advisers has<br />
stated that 'the vast majority' <strong>of</strong> its members are supportive <strong>of</strong> the reforms, but a small group <strong>of</strong> financial advisers,<br />
known as the Life Insurance Consumer Group, has been vocal in its opposition to the bill. We also acknowledge<br />
concerns <strong>of</strong> consumer groups that the bill could go further in protecting consumers. CHOICE Chief Executive<br />
Officer Alan Kirkland has said:<br />
Commission-driven churn is one <strong>of</strong> the major problems in this industry and we think that provisions to claw back<br />
commissions should extend for at least three years as originally proposed.<br />
While this bill goes some way to reducing the incentives that can encourage financial advisers to recommend<br />
inappropriate life insurance products to consumers, it does not address misconduct on the part <strong>of</strong> the insurers<br />
themselves. For example, it would not address the poor claims-handling practices publicised in the CommInsure<br />
scandal and recently detailed in ASIC's Report 498: Life insurance claims: an industry review.<br />
The first version <strong>of</strong> the Financial Services Council's Life Insurance Code <strong>of</strong> Practice, released in October this<br />
year, aims to improve consumer outcomes in the life insurance sector. But there is too much that it does not cover<br />
and much more work to do in this area. I note that the minister for revenue and financial services, Senator<br />
Gallagher, has stated that Treasury is looking into further amendments to the Corporations Act in response to the<br />
ASIC report.<br />
Mr McCormack: Shadow minister.<br />
Dr LEIGH: The shadow minister. Thank you. I appreciate the interjection.<br />
First <strong>of</strong> all, this bill does not guarantee that new standards will be enforced. It also does not address concerns<br />
with the way the life insurance industry handles claims. It does address issues <strong>of</strong> conflicted remuneration for<br />
financial advisers selling life insurance products, but it ignores extant concerns about conflicted remuneration for<br />
claims handlers, who have a role no less important than that <strong>of</strong> financial advisers, since they are required to make<br />
fair and appropriate decisions about the merits <strong>of</strong> a life insurance claim. So, I note with some disquiet ASIC's<br />
recent report demonstrating that at least two life insurers were still paying remuneration with incentives based on<br />
how many claims were denied.<br />
Finally, the bill as a whole does not seek to remedy the clear cultural and operational concerns that have<br />
become obvious and destructive within the banking and financial services sector. Nonetheless, Labor will support<br />
the modest reforms in this bill in the hope that they can improve consumer confidence in the quality <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
advice on life insurance. But we do note that this bill stops short <strong>of</strong> the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Financial System<br />
Inquiry and the Trowbridge review to remove up-front commissions. The package still allows for up-front<br />
commissions but caps them.<br />
Unfortunately, because the start date has been pushed back from mid-2016 to the beginning <strong>of</strong> 2018, the 60 per<br />
cent cap will not be reached until 2020. This is a long lead period for a modest reform that was agreed to by<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 85<br />
industry in 2015. Had the government been well organised to progress it, the bill could have been law well before<br />
1 July 2016.<br />
In addition to the limits on the quantum <strong>of</strong> up-front commissions, the package introduces a two-year 'clawback'<br />
<strong>of</strong> up-front commissions. This means that up-front commissions will have to be paid back to the life insurer by the<br />
financial adviser in the event that the policy lapses. It will not be until 2020 that these reforms are fully<br />
implemented. We think that the ASIC review, now scheduled for 2021, will be important in making sure that<br />
these reforms improve consumer outcomes.<br />
We welcome the implicit endorsement <strong>of</strong> the Future <strong>of</strong> Financial Advice framework from those opposite that<br />
this bill represents. It represents steps to better align the standard protocols <strong>of</strong> financial advisers with the interests<br />
<strong>of</strong> consumers, and it addresses concerns about advisers 'churning' clients through products. Labor will help the<br />
government pass this bill and we will watch carefully as it is implemented. We will also scrutinise the bill as it<br />
begins operation and look forward to ASIC's review at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the next decade.<br />
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:12): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important bill,<br />
dealing as it does with an issue that has been contentious for some time, namely remuneration in the life insurance<br />
industry. The Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016 amends the<br />
Corporations Act 2001 to better align the interests <strong>of</strong> financial advisers who sell life insurance products with those<br />
<strong>of</strong> the consumers to whom they sell those products. As you will be aware, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, back in<br />
2012 the FOFA reforms prohibited conflicted remuneration, but life insurance sold outside <strong>of</strong> superannuation was<br />
exempt from those changes at the time. This bill seeks to address that issue.<br />
Currently, there are very few restrictions on how life insurance remuneration is put in place, and that does make<br />
life insurance somewhat different to the other areas within the broader wealth management area. There have been<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> reports that have looked into this issue: ASIC's review <strong>of</strong> retail life insurance advice, the industrycommissioned<br />
Trowbridge report and the Financial System Inquiry (FSI). Of course, in recent years one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
themes in the area <strong>of</strong> life insurance and financial advice more generally has been conflicted remuneration and<br />
regulation seeking to ensure that the interests <strong>of</strong> consumers are aligned with the interests <strong>of</strong> those who advise<br />
them.<br />
Interestingly, when ASIC looked into this they found that in cases where there was a heavy bias in favour <strong>of</strong><br />
up-front commissions, with advisers getting a large proportion <strong>of</strong> their remuneration in the very early stages <strong>of</strong> a<br />
life insurance policy, the clients tended to get a disproportionately low level <strong>of</strong> advice. So the high up-front<br />
commission was, in fact, correlated with a lower standard <strong>of</strong> advice. The basic principle that underpins this<br />
legislation is that the remuneration to advises should be run out over a number <strong>of</strong> years whilst the policyholder<br />
continues to hold that policy, rather than being perhaps more skewed to an up-front commission, which does not<br />
align the interests <strong>of</strong> the two parties. Advisers can currently receive up-front commissions <strong>of</strong> up to 130 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
the premium and trailing commissions <strong>of</strong> about 10 per cent, which can be very high. The ASIC report did find<br />
significant examples <strong>of</strong> churn as a consequence, where policies were perhaps held for a short period <strong>of</strong> time,<br />
nonetheless the adviser received the large commission.<br />
Both the Trowbridge report and the FSI recommended some reform in this area and the industry itself, in late<br />
2015, also agreed that reform was required, and this bill gives effect to that. One <strong>of</strong> the key principles here is that<br />
the commissions must be level across the years, so a consistent amount each year rather than having that bias<br />
towards up-front commissions, which is a disincentive to align the interests <strong>of</strong> both parties. Importantly, under<br />
these provisions, by 2020 the maximum level <strong>of</strong> commission that an adviser can receive as prescribed by ASIC is<br />
about 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total premium, which is about half <strong>of</strong> the current amounts. This is also subject to various<br />
penalties: up to $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for corporate entities if these arrangements are not<br />
followed. The bill also includes our clawback arrangements so, if a client does not actually stay with that policy<br />
for a substantial period <strong>of</strong> time, that some <strong>of</strong> that adviser remuneration is clawed back. Again, that provides the<br />
incentive to the adviser to ensure that they are providing products to consumers who actually want them and will<br />
use them and will keep them, as opposed to just a very hard sell to obtain an up-front commission. By reducing<br />
those up-front incentives, it is expected that the level <strong>of</strong> churn in the industry will decline and there will be better<br />
correlation between both parties.<br />
In 2021, ASIC is going to have a review <strong>of</strong> these new arrangements and see how they are working in practice.<br />
If the changes are not working to the degree that the government is seeking, it would then move to mandate level<br />
commissions across the industry, and this bill puts in place the arrangements to enable the collection <strong>of</strong><br />
information for that purpose. So basically from 1 July, up-front commissions starting at 80 per cent on 1 January<br />
2018—a maximum <strong>of</strong> 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> a policy—will drop by 10 per cent per year to January 2020 until they reach<br />
60 per cent. And ongoing commissions—trail commissions—will need to be a lower rate, <strong>of</strong> course, than up-front<br />
commissions and capped at 20 per cent from 1 January 2018. As I say, there are a number <strong>of</strong> clawback<br />
CHAMBER
86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
arrangements in place for situations where a client gets out <strong>of</strong> their policy soon after they are sold it. The<br />
government wants to ensure that, in effect, advisers pay a penalty and do not maintain that full up-front<br />
commission if it turns out that the client did not actually want to stick around with that policy for a reasonable<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time.<br />
These are very important initiatives in this area <strong>of</strong> life insurance and there are aware, a number <strong>of</strong> other<br />
activities taking place in this area. Just recently, ASIC released its report into the life insurance industry and you<br />
will recall, Acting Deputy Speaker Kelly, that when the commissioner, Mr Medcraft, appeared before the <strong>House</strong><br />
economics committee we discussed a range <strong>of</strong> the conclusions coming out <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> insurance policies that<br />
were published by ASIC at that time. That was the first publication <strong>of</strong> this kind and it is intended in the future that,<br />
on an annual basis, there will be a full and transparent reporting <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> the life insurance industry,<br />
in order to give consumers a better understanding <strong>of</strong> how that industry is functioning and also identifying any<br />
particular issues <strong>of</strong> concern.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the things ASIC noted in its report was that the rates <strong>of</strong> declined claims were highest for total and<br />
permanent disability cover with about 16 per cent <strong>of</strong> claims denied, and a very large variation between insurers<br />
with one insurer having a denial rate as high as 37 per cent for TPD insurance. That obviously piqued ASIC's<br />
attention, as no doubt it did many other people, including myself. You would think, logically, that given many <strong>of</strong><br />
the standards and definitions for insurance products are reasonably standard, you would not expect a wide<br />
variation in the level <strong>of</strong> claims being paid. But, in fact, what that report did reveal was a significant variation, and<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the best ways to address a problem is to shine a public light on it and that is what ASIC will be doing in the<br />
future with its annual report on the life insurance industry.<br />
It was also notable in that process that ASIC did say there were some insurers where there were financial<br />
incentives for employees, within those insurers, based on the percentage <strong>of</strong> claims which were denied. Again, that<br />
is a troubling fact because you would be familiar with the term 'perverse incentive', and it is a fairly perverse<br />
incentive to say to a claims assessor, 'Effectively, you will get paid more the more claims you deny.' The role <strong>of</strong> a<br />
claims assessor should be to objectively and pr<strong>of</strong>essionally assess a claim against the relevant criteria. An<br />
incentive <strong>of</strong> that nature is clearly something that raises concerns, and ASIC identified that in a couple <strong>of</strong> the<br />
insurers on which it reported. Annual reporting <strong>of</strong> the life insurance industry is a very strong initiative from this<br />
government. Of course, it was the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, or Assistant Treasurer as she then<br />
was, who asked ASIC to report back, for the first time in quite a public fashion, about the performance <strong>of</strong><br />
industry. They did that last month and they are going to be doing that every year. That is a very important reform<br />
and it is something that was done by this minister and this government.<br />
There are a number <strong>of</strong> related issues that I want to touch on. Similarly to the life insurance industry, the wealth<br />
management industry has had some significant issues in recent times, with significant numbers <strong>of</strong> bad experiences<br />
for clients, and cases <strong>of</strong> customers not being treated well. It is my view, and the view <strong>of</strong> the house economics<br />
committee in its report last week, that something similar to the annual reporting regime <strong>of</strong> the life insurance<br />
industry should be put in place for the wealth management industry, so that consumers have the capacity to have a<br />
look, to see and to understand the relative performance <strong>of</strong> the different wealth management providers—and, if<br />
there are public complaints about those bodies, or if perhaps they breach their licence conditions, or if perhaps the<br />
executives <strong>of</strong> those entities fail in their respective responsibilities to their clients, it is entirely reasonable for<br />
consumers to want to know about that. That is what this annual reporting regime will do. It is something which I<br />
think is very consistent with the approach that the government is taking already in life insurance.<br />
There is so much activity on a regulatory front in this area, Deputy Speaker, and you would be familiar with the<br />
actions <strong>of</strong> the government in relation to raising standards <strong>of</strong> financial advisers. When we entrust our savings with<br />
financial advisers, we want to make sure that those financial advisers have the right skills, the right aptitudes, the<br />
right ethical standards and the right education to do the right thing. Again, the government has moved very<br />
strongly in this area.<br />
In fact, just last week, the minister introduced the Corporations Amendment (Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Standards <strong>of</strong><br />
Financial Advisers) Bill, and there are a number <strong>of</strong> very important areas in that bill. Again, it is all on the theme <strong>of</strong><br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism, <strong>of</strong> transparency, <strong>of</strong> giving consumers the tools with which to make informed judgements about<br />
the people from whom they seek their financial advice. That bill includes compulsory education requirements for<br />
new and existing financial advisers: I think it is fair to say that those education standards, on occasion, can be<br />
lacking at present. That bill will address this. It also includes greater supervision requirements for new advisers, a<br />
code <strong>of</strong> ethics for the industry that everyone buys into, an exam that represents a common benchmark <strong>of</strong><br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional performance, and also an ongoing pr<strong>of</strong>essional development component—because people can<br />
entrust, literally, their entire life savings with financial advisers. And, just as when somebody visits a legal<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional or a medical pr<strong>of</strong>essional, they do so in the expectation that that person has the training and the skills<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 87<br />
and ascribes to a set <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional standards that will protect the individual in the event that there are problems.<br />
To be frank, that has not always existed in the financial advice industry. The overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
advisers do the right thing. It is a very large and important industry, and I have some familiarity with it, having<br />
previously been on the board <strong>of</strong> Yellow Brick Road. But it is an area where there is an opportunity for the<br />
government to provide a clearer and better framework, with better standards and with the overarching goal <strong>of</strong><br />
putting the power back into the hands <strong>of</strong> the client—the consumer—and ensuring that they have the appropriate<br />
protections. So, from January 2019, when these new measures come into place, there will be a whole range <strong>of</strong><br />
requirements around advisers holding an appropriate degree, and the exam, from January 2024, will be an<br />
important new initiative to protect consumers in this most critical <strong>of</strong> industries.<br />
So there are a wide range <strong>of</strong> initiatives in this area. The life insurance changes that we introduce today are a<br />
very important part <strong>of</strong> these initiatives. I commend this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance<br />
Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016, to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (18:27): I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Life<br />
Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016. More than half <strong>of</strong> all Australians have some form <strong>of</strong> life<br />
insurance. I know it is an important part <strong>of</strong> the way people make personal arrangements. I acknowledge all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
workers in the insurance industry generally. I got to know them a lot better during the 2011 floods—not so much<br />
the life insurance industry but the general insurance industry—after my electorate was hammered by the floods,<br />
and then I was Chair <strong>of</strong> the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which conducted two<br />
inquiries into insurance more generally, and I got to see behind the call centres, and see behind the policies and<br />
the processes, and to acknowledge the large number <strong>of</strong> people who make a contribution through the insurance<br />
industry.<br />
The life insurance industry specifically generates more than $56 billion annually in premiums; it is very<br />
significant and very substantial. There are around 28 registered life insurers operating in Australia at the moment.<br />
The Future <strong>of</strong> Financial Advice, or FOFA, reforms implemented by the Gillard government provided a general<br />
ban on financial advisers being <strong>of</strong>fered remuneration when they sold a financial product to a consumer—not<br />
something that is familiar to lawyers. I see the member for Perth is in the chamber; certainly in his former life as a<br />
lawyer, I guess, the idea <strong>of</strong> giving legal advice when you are 21 and still being remunerated for that when you are<br />
61 has a certain appeal!<br />
Mr Sukkar: Hear, hear!<br />
Mr PERRETT: but it is not something that lawyers were able to achieve—and I will take that interjection<br />
from the other side <strong>of</strong> the chamber. Obviously, as lawyers, you are paid for the advice you give when you give it<br />
and that is the end <strong>of</strong> the matter but, with financial advice, there is the potential for your advice to be remunerated<br />
in the future. Then, in fact, you could sell your books in a way, and give that advice that you had given to<br />
someone else to still take payment for that in the future. That is not something that lawyers are familiar with but,<br />
as I said, the Gillard government brought in the FOFA reforms that ended much <strong>of</strong> that practice. Those reforms<br />
protected consumers from financial advisers who would act against their client's interests in order to gain<br />
remuneration on the sale <strong>of</strong> a product—or, I should stress, the possibility <strong>of</strong> that. There were some exemptions to<br />
that general ban, including where the benefit related solely to a life insurance product that was not part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
superannuation scheme.<br />
Several recent reports have made it clear that further reform is needed to ensure that the consumer's interests<br />
are not being disregarded in the pursuit <strong>of</strong> greater remuneration for the financial adviser. The ASIC report Review<br />
<strong>of</strong> retail life insurance advice found that 82 per cent <strong>of</strong> the life insurance industry provides upfront commissions<br />
to advisers which are generally between 100 per cent and 130 per cent <strong>of</strong> the product premium. The Trowbridge<br />
review, which was commissioned by the industry itself, recommended a significant reduction in upfront<br />
commissions, and the Financial System Inquiry recommended to abolish upfront commissions altogether. I know<br />
this is a significant issue. I have met with seniors in my electorate, both at the regular morning teas and also at the<br />
big seniors morning tea I hold with the Macgregor Lions every year, where this has been raised as an issue.<br />
The bill that is before the chamber removes the current exemption from the ban on conflicted remuneration for<br />
benefits paid in relation to life insurance products. ASIC will be empowered to make a legislative instrument to<br />
permit benefits for life insurance products to be paid to an adviser, provided certain requirements are met. The<br />
reforms in this bill go some way to addressing the concerns by reducing incentives for financial advisers to<br />
recommend inappropriate life insurance products, but Labor still has significant concerns that the clawback period<br />
in this bill is only two years—one year less than the original industry agreement. This means that financial<br />
advisers will get to keep their upfront commission even if they move a client onto a new product after just two<br />
years.<br />
CHAMBER
88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, from your work done in this area on the economics committee, you know that<br />
commission-driven churn is considered by consumer groups to be one <strong>of</strong> the major problems in the industry, but<br />
the bill does not address misconduct <strong>of</strong> the insurers at all. Earlier this year we were all appalled by the reported<br />
cases <strong>of</strong> people who were insured by CommInsure, the Commonwealth Bank's insurance arm, and were denied<br />
payment <strong>of</strong> their claims—and I should declare that I am a shareholder <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Bank and also a<br />
policyholder <strong>of</strong> CommInsure. One <strong>of</strong> the examples given was <strong>of</strong> a 46-year-old man who had a heart attack that<br />
was so severe his heart actually stopped, and he was revived by nurses with a defibrillator. However, his<br />
CommInsure claim was denied because his blood tests did not reveal enough <strong>of</strong> the protein troponin in his blood<br />
after the attack. The CommInsure policy included a definition <strong>of</strong> 'heart attack' that relied on a very precise<br />
measurement <strong>of</strong> troponin in the bloodstream before an attack that would be deemed to be a heart attack under the<br />
insurance policy. Experts in the field <strong>of</strong> cardiology were reported to say that it was not possible to diagnose the<br />
severity <strong>of</strong> a heart attack based on troponin levels alone. The definition was completely out <strong>of</strong> step with current<br />
medical practice but, sadly, many people were denied their claims because <strong>of</strong> this outdated definition that was<br />
inserted into the fine print <strong>of</strong> the policy.<br />
Then there was one <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Bank's own employees who reportedly was fired after suffering<br />
major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following a violent assault. In an appallingly insensitive<br />
episode, the Commonwealth Bank terminated the man's employment, relying on a psychiatrist's report which said<br />
that he was not able to function in the bank or the general workforce. When the man made a claim to the insurance<br />
arm <strong>of</strong> the same bank, it was denied by relying on the same psychiatrist's report, and insisting that he was capable<br />
<strong>of</strong> returning to work. The claim took 2½ years to assess, during which time the man, a good employee who had<br />
endured stress and damage, reportedly was forced to sleep in his own car—a sad state <strong>of</strong> affairs. It has also been<br />
reported that the family <strong>of</strong> a woman who died from an accidental overdose <strong>of</strong> prescription drugs was denied a<br />
payout on her life insurance. Despite a police investigation and a post-mortem concluding that the woman died <strong>of</strong><br />
an accidental overdose, CommInsure told the family that the claim would not be paid, because suicide was<br />
excluded under the policy.<br />
The Commonwealth Bank's Chief Executive Officer, Ian Narev, gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry<br />
earlier this year, where he told the inquiry that CommInsure have now changed their definition <strong>of</strong> heart attack.<br />
But, despite the shocking revelations <strong>of</strong> consumers being denied their legitimate claims, Mr Narev told the inquiry<br />
that not one person had been fired from CommInsure. These companies, many insurance companies, are raking in<br />
billions <strong>of</strong> dollars each year in premiums, but it appears that getting them to pay out on a claim is almost as<br />
difficult as getting blood from a stone.<br />
These are some <strong>of</strong> the systemic issues that this bill cannot possibly address. It deals with some <strong>of</strong> the culture<br />
issues in the banking and financial and insurance industry that have been a concern for many MPs on both sides <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>House</strong>. In fact, I think the MP for Dawson has recently come out in support <strong>of</strong> the idea <strong>of</strong> a closer look, and I<br />
think that the New South Wales senator, Senator Williams, has also indicated support for a royal commission into<br />
the banking and financial services industry. Sadly, we are not seeing that here in the chamber <strong>of</strong> the parliament.<br />
Australians have traditionally had confidence and trust in the fairness <strong>of</strong> our financial services industry,<br />
including the life insurance industry. We need to see that reinstated. We need to have confidence and trust in these<br />
institutions. Sadly, too <strong>of</strong>ten when we listen to the radio, we see scandal after scandal associated with the banking<br />
and financial services industries, and too many people have been affected. We have seen it in the bush, we have<br />
seen it in the city, and we have seen it in small business and in big business, too <strong>of</strong>ten. Too many people have<br />
been affected. Some have lost their savings that they have spent a lifetime accumulating. As MPs, we have all had<br />
people come and talk to us about some <strong>of</strong> those scandals—some that particularly affected those in Queensland.<br />
There is nothing more heartbreaking than hearing someone in their 60s or 70s say they made what appeared to be<br />
reasonably prudent investments, only to find out they were ripped <strong>of</strong>f by people. And, if they are being ripped <strong>of</strong>f<br />
by those associated with those major institutions, that is when good government steps in.<br />
A royal commission into the banking and financial services industry would be empowered to do things that the<br />
current set <strong>of</strong> arrangements cannot. It would be empowered to examine issues including: ascertaining just how<br />
widespread instances <strong>of</strong> illegal and unethical behaviour are within Australia's financial services industry; how<br />
Australia's financial services institutions treat their duty <strong>of</strong> care to their customers; and how the culture, ethical<br />
standards and business structures <strong>of</strong> Australian financial services institutions affect the behaviour <strong>of</strong> these<br />
institutions. A royal commission could look at whether Australia's regulators are really equipped to identify and<br />
prevent illegal and unethical behaviour. It could find out about comparable international experience with similar<br />
financial services industry misconduct and best-practice responses to those incidents and other events that may<br />
emerge over the course <strong>of</strong> investigating the above.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 89<br />
Sadly, the Turnbull government's approach <strong>of</strong> calling bank executives down to Canberra once a year to have a<br />
cup <strong>of</strong> tea will not go anywhere near addressing these significant issues that I have detailed. Sadly, I cannot expect<br />
the economics committee, which is chaired by the member for Banks—I kid you not—and where the Liberal<br />
Party have the numbers, to have any effect on banking culture beyond the questioning <strong>of</strong> executives on a yearly<br />
basis, where they will be a little bit uncomfortable.<br />
I know that many people in Moreton, not just retirees, have approached me about this issue. They have had<br />
concerns about banks. They have had concerns about the insurance industry. There is much more to be done in<br />
both <strong>of</strong> these sectors and there is much more to be done with this piece <strong>of</strong> legislation before the chamber.<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:39): I rise this evening to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Life<br />
Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016. Before I get on to some specific comments about the bill, I<br />
would just like to respond to some <strong>of</strong> the comments from the member for Moreton, because he is clearly wrong<br />
and the opposition is wrong in its insistence on a royal commission. What the member for Moreton, in his speech,<br />
identified was a series <strong>of</strong> cases where there was a dispute over whether a claim on a life insurance policy should<br />
have been paid. Someone had paid the premium and believed that they were entitled to make a claim. And there<br />
was a dispute. Commercial disputes happen.<br />
How will a royal commission sort out these disputes? It will not. This is why. The government's proposal to<br />
have a tribunal is far, far superior. At the moment the problem that we have is access to justice. If an individual<br />
believes that a large insurance company has done the wrong thing by them—and if that amount is above the level<br />
where the Financial Ombudsman Service can make a determination on that matter, as it <strong>of</strong>ten is—the only<br />
alternative, currently, that that person has is to take their claim to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, in our legal<br />
system, the cost <strong>of</strong> an individual consumer taking their claim to the Supreme Court simply rules out that<br />
possibility in its entirety. And that is where the imbalance and the problem is.<br />
A royal commission is not going to solve that problem. All a royal commission would do would be—after a lot<br />
<strong>of</strong> lawyers had run up hundreds <strong>of</strong> millions <strong>of</strong> dollars in legal fees—to come up with, maybe, a solution or a<br />
suggestion or a recommendation that there should be a tribunal to try to level the legal playing field. Our proposal<br />
is: if someone had a claim and believed that that claim should have been paid out but had been rejected by a large<br />
insurance company, they would have the ability to take that to a low-cost tribunal to have the issue determined.<br />
And why a royal commission would be so detrimental is that a royal commission would not have the power to<br />
make those decisions. A properly functioning tribunal is a step above a royal commission.<br />
I would ask members from the opposition: let us work together on this. Do not go down your one-track<br />
proposal <strong>of</strong> a royal commission and nothing else. Let us work together because, with the tribunal, the devil will be<br />
in the detail. Let us work together and try and get the details <strong>of</strong> how that tribunal will work in the best way<br />
possible so that those consumers who have had the wrong thing done by them can get true access to justice and, if<br />
there has been a breach <strong>of</strong> the contractual terms, or unconscionable conduct, or misleading and deceptive conduct,<br />
those consumers can get fair and just compensation.<br />
I will give another reason why a royal commission is such a bad idea. Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> our competition<br />
act, if there has been unconscionable conduct, or if there has been misleading and deceptive conduct, there is a<br />
six-year statute <strong>of</strong> limitations from the time the conduct was first identified. So the risk is this. Say someone had<br />
suffered an adverse consequence or was in a dispute and felt they were badly done by, by a bank or a large<br />
insurance company, and say that happened in 2013. Now it is three years plus. If we go down the track <strong>of</strong> a multiyear<br />
royal commission, then, by the time that royal commission gets around to deciding what we know now—that<br />
we need a tribunal to determine these cases on a low-cost basis—the risk is that that six-year statutory period<br />
would have expired. So the whole idea <strong>of</strong> getting these people compensation would have been ruled out and they<br />
would have been timed out because the Labor Party would have argued against this tribunal, through wanting to<br />
go for this show <strong>of</strong> a royal commission, and timed these people out from having their claim determined. That is<br />
why it is such a poor idea to have a royal commission.<br />
When it comes to talking about changing the culture <strong>of</strong> banking practice, a lot <strong>of</strong> that culture comes about now<br />
because the large insurers and the large banks know—whether it be a small business or a consumer—if they are in<br />
a commercial dispute and they know it cannot be handled by the financial services ombudsman because it is above<br />
the threshold and the only access to justice for that consumer or small business person is through the Supreme<br />
Court, they know it is not a level legal playing field, and they know they can play hardball. They know if the<br />
consumer goes, 'Well, I'm going to take you to court', they can laugh at that.<br />
If we are able to fix that problem with a functioning tribunal that levels the legal playing field, that gives<br />
someone who has a legitimate claim—and who has been unconscionably dealt with by a large bank or insurance<br />
CHAMBER
90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
company—the opportunity to have their claim determined in a low-cost, efficient and quick manner, without all<br />
the legal procedures and run-up <strong>of</strong> costs, that is what will change: the culture <strong>of</strong> the banking sector.<br />
I would hope that members <strong>of</strong> the opposition would put down their 'opposition for the sake <strong>of</strong> opposition', work<br />
with the coalition on this and let's get that tribunal. Let's make it have all the powers <strong>of</strong> a royal commission but<br />
with the additional powers to be able to make determinations and award legally binding compensation.<br />
On the specifics <strong>of</strong> this bill, I note that this bill does have bipartisan support but I must admit that I have some<br />
concerns with the bill. To start with, I was actually quite shocked at the size <strong>of</strong> the life insurance industry. The<br />
report from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority said that, as at 30 June 2015, we had 28 registered life<br />
insurance companies operating in Australia. So there is plenty <strong>of</strong> competition. We have 28 companies <strong>of</strong>fering life<br />
insurance products, and the net premium income follow-up 2014-15 alone was $60.9 billion. That is an<br />
extraordinary sum <strong>of</strong> premiums that are paid into the life insurance industry. That is the net premiums.<br />
Those 28 large life insurance companies obviously have numerous ways they can get consumers to sign up and<br />
buy one <strong>of</strong> their policies. They could have commissioned salesman or brokers—as many are. They could also<br />
have just salaried staff, working on a certain salary, working for them, selling those to consumers. They could also<br />
sell them online, with basically no commissioned sales people or no salespeople whatsoever. What this bill is<br />
actually doing is putting in a form <strong>of</strong> price control that regulates what those commissioned life insurance salesmen<br />
or financial advisers are paid.<br />
Let's just go through what is being proposed in this bill. Firstly, there are up-front commissions. Often we talk<br />
about an up-front commission and we talk about 100 or 120 per cent or higher <strong>of</strong> the annual premium. That <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
seems excessive. But whether it is 120 per cent or whatever it is should be almost irrelevant. What should be<br />
relevant is the cost <strong>of</strong> the financial service and advice that the financial adviser is giving. How many hours has it<br />
taken him to compile that advice to give to that client? That is what I see as more relevant than whether we saved<br />
120 per cent or 110 per cent—that is outrageous.<br />
Under this bill, ASIC will have the power to see the average 110 to 120 per cent commissions on a premium<br />
reduced to 60 per cent from 1 July, and permit ongoing commissions to be set at a maximum <strong>of</strong> 20 per cent. I<br />
cannot think <strong>of</strong> many other areas in the economy where the government is stepping in to reduce the payments or<br />
to set effectively a price cap on what financial advisers can be paid. I am at a loss as to why this is happening.<br />
This is a market where there is a lot <strong>of</strong> competition. There may be arguments about why that is, but that current<br />
arrangement has been negotiated by those 28 large life insurance companies with the financial services. So they<br />
are now coming to the government, saying, 'We think we're overpaying our sales staff. We want you to cut their<br />
commissions.'<br />
Second is the issue <strong>of</strong> claw-backs. Claw-backs come about with what the industry describes as churn. Someone<br />
has a policy for maybe one or two years, then they change it to another insurance company and they may change it<br />
to another insurance company. By itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Consumers should be able to change<br />
over the years if they find a better policy. If they find a better credit card <strong>of</strong>fer, they should be able to change. If<br />
they find a better housing loan, they should be able to change. They should be able to change their bank. There is<br />
nothing wrong with that. The only problem that comes about is when those large financial insurance companies<br />
have decided they would pay these large up-front commissions, and then they have to continue to pay them time<br />
after time, and that becomes an incentive perhaps for the financial advisers to sell the policies and to churn the<br />
policies over.<br />
But, again, I am at a loss to see why this is something that those 28 large registered life insurers cannot<br />
negotiate themselves with the industry. We have a long, long history throughout the world that wherever<br />
governments have tried to enter the market and fix prices it has had substantial adverse consequences to<br />
consumers. The best tool to fix any problem is to make sure that there is adequate competition. Competition is<br />
always a better tool than price fixing by governments.<br />
When it comes to competition, there are some things that we should work on—and we are—things like better<br />
disclosure. If someone signs up to an insurance policy, let them know what percentage commission the<br />
salesperson is getting. Let them know what percentage <strong>of</strong> claims are being paid by that life insurance company.<br />
That something that we know ASIC is working on at the moment—a very important step. If a particular insurer<br />
has knocked back 37 per cent <strong>of</strong> claims and another insurer has knocked back five per cent, I know where I as a<br />
consumer would want to take out a life insurance policy. That is the best indicator. The only reason I can support<br />
this bill is that there will be a review in 2018, which will look to see if there have been improvements in the<br />
industry and what the effects have been.<br />
I say in conclusion that we need to be very careful in government. It is very easy to think that government<br />
knows best—that it knows what the prices should be and should try and set fair prices. The history <strong>of</strong> economics<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 91<br />
throughout the world has shown that that fails. The other issue is that, like anything, when government comes into<br />
control something, there are many ways around it. Yes, a large insurance company may be restricted in what it can<br />
pay in commissions, but there are many ways other than financial remuneration. What is to stop one <strong>of</strong> those large<br />
insurance companies as an incentive giving a financial adviser a free trip to a conference in the Maldives? These<br />
are all issues that we need to look at. At the moment, with great reluctance, I support this bill, but we need to<br />
monitor this closely to look out for those unintended consequences, because the history <strong>of</strong> governments interfering<br />
in the market and setting prices has always been a disaster.<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:54): I speak in support <strong>of</strong> the Corporations Amendment<br />
(Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016, which builds on the strong record that Labor had when<br />
we were in government <strong>of</strong> protecting consumers in the financial services and insurance industry in Australia. This<br />
bill builds on the Future <strong>of</strong> Financial Advice reforms that were put in place by the previous Labor government in<br />
the wake <strong>of</strong> many scandals in the financial planning and life insurance industries. They included Trio Capital,<br />
Storm Financial and, in recent years, Timbercorp. In only the past couple <strong>of</strong> years we have seen the CommInsure<br />
scandal, where literally thousands <strong>of</strong> consumers have lost money and have been worse <strong>of</strong>f because <strong>of</strong><br />
unscrupulous financial planners, advisers and people who were selling to consumers products that were not in<br />
their best interests. When Labor was in government, with the FOFA reforms we introduced a ban on conflicted<br />
remunerations. We introduced a best-interest duty to ensure that consumers were protected from unscrupulous<br />
financial planners and that the financial planner had a duty, by going through a checklist, to act in the best<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> the consumer. Of course, when Labor introduced these reforms, they were opposed by the coalition.<br />
Much the same as the previous speaker did, they said that they were interference within the market and that they<br />
would leave consumers worse <strong>of</strong>f. What we have seen, <strong>of</strong> course, since that time is scandal after scandal in the<br />
financial services industry, highlighting the need for, if anything, stronger financial planning reforms and stronger<br />
reforms in the insurance industry—and this bill does that.<br />
Life insurance policies, particularly those held through group life policies and superannuation, were covered by<br />
FOFA. However, other life insurance policies remain exempt from the FOFA ban on conflicted remuneration, and<br />
addressing that is the purpose <strong>of</strong> this bill. This bill reduces the capacity for conflicted remuneration in the life<br />
insurance industry, with the aim <strong>of</strong> improving outcomes for consumers while recognising the need to lower<br />
underinsurance rates in the life insurance industry. The main provisions <strong>of</strong> the bill, which is scheduled to<br />
commence on 1 January 2018, are the phasing down <strong>of</strong> up-front commissions to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 80 per cent from 1<br />
January 2018, 70 per cent from 1 January 2019 and 60 per cent from 1 January 2020, together with a maximum 20<br />
per cent ongoing commission; and a two-year retention, or clawback, period which requires advisers to repay<br />
premiums received in the case <strong>of</strong> policy lapse in the first two years <strong>of</strong> a policy as follows: 100 per cent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
premium in the first year <strong>of</strong> the policy and 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the premium in the second year <strong>of</strong> the policy. The bill<br />
enables the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, to make a legislative instrument to permit<br />
benefits in relation to life risk insurance products to be paid, provided certain requirements are met. These<br />
requirements relate to the quantum <strong>of</strong> allowable commissions and to clawback arrangements, where a certain<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the up-front commission is paid back to the life insurer by the financial adviser in the event that the life<br />
insurance policy is cancelled or the premium is reduced. This bill introduces a ban on volume based payments in<br />
life risk products and includes transitional, or grandfathering, arrangements in the Corporations Act. The bill gives<br />
ASIC the power to create an instrument that sets the maximum permissible up-front and ongoing commissions.<br />
There will be no ban on level commissions—commissions where the same commission is paid for each year <strong>of</strong> a<br />
policy—nor will there be a ban on fee-for-service arrangements. ASIC will be required to conduct a review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
reforms in 2021.<br />
Underinsurance in Australia is, sadly, not a new concept. In 2013 underinsurance provider TAL—sorry,<br />
insurance provider TAL. Well, they are underinsuring; I think everyone is underinsuring! TAL found that only 30<br />
to 37 per cent <strong>of</strong> Australians aged 18 to 69 held some form <strong>of</strong> life insurance. Only 11 to 18 per cent held disability<br />
cover, income protection insurance, or critical illness and trauma cover. In 2014, KPMG released a research<br />
project into underinsurance in Australia for people aged 18 to 64. The report found that around 35 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
people in Australia have no disability insurance at all. Of the age group 45 to 64, nearly 77 per cent were found to<br />
be underinsured. In October this year, CANSTAR noted that Australians are underinsured to the value <strong>of</strong> about<br />
$1.8 billion.<br />
Australia needs a system that promotes insurance take-up by consumers, and the best way to promote insurance<br />
take-up, particularly life, disability and income protection insurance, is to ensure that Australians have confidence<br />
in the system and in those who are selling those products into the Australian market. That is the aim <strong>of</strong> this bill—<br />
to provide reassurance and confidence that people cannot be ripped <strong>of</strong>f, if you like, by products where<br />
commissions and other payments are being hidden from the public by those who are receiving them.<br />
CHAMBER
92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Labor supports this bill on the basis that it modestly improves protections for consumers with respect to life<br />
insurance products; however, more work is needed to be done. There is much more work that needs to be done in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> protecting consumers. This bill does not address broader issues in the life insurance industry, such as<br />
issues with claims handling and outdated medical definitions which have come to light in recent months through<br />
the banking inquiry and the CommInsure scandal. However, if we are going to be serious about tackling some <strong>of</strong><br />
the problems that exist in the insurance industry then only a royal commission will get to the bottom <strong>of</strong> exactly<br />
what is going on in banking and financial services.<br />
A series <strong>of</strong> reports have shown the need for reform in the way that insurance advisers are remunerated. ASIC<br />
Report 413 Review <strong>of</strong> retail life insurance advice identified a strong connection with upfront commissions, policy<br />
lapse rates and poor customer outcomes. The factors ASIC identified that affected the quality <strong>of</strong> advice were:<br />
adviser incentives, inappropriate scaling <strong>of</strong> advice, a lack <strong>of</strong> strategic life insurance advice, weak rationales for<br />
product replacement advice and failure to consider the relationship between life insurance and superannuation.<br />
After reviewing over 200 files, ASIC found that the way advisers were paid had an influence on the likelihood <strong>of</strong><br />
their clients receiving advice that did not comply with the law.<br />
ASIC's report found, among other things, that 45 per cent <strong>of</strong> advice provided under an upfront commission<br />
model failed to comply with the law, that 82 per cent <strong>of</strong> industry uses an upfront commission model and that<br />
upfront commissions for advisers are generally between 100 to 130 per cent <strong>of</strong> the product premium. The<br />
industry-commissioned Trowbridge Review recommended several reforms to adviser remuneration, including a<br />
significant reduction in upfront fees. Finally, the Financial System Inquiry recommended the abolition <strong>of</strong> upfront<br />
commissions and a move to level commissions.<br />
There has been a series <strong>of</strong> these reports, a series <strong>of</strong> these reviews, in the wake <strong>of</strong> all these scandals that we have<br />
seen in the industry. I have to comment on the previous speaker's comments that these will all be solved by a<br />
banking tribunal. We all know that is complete and utter rubbish. A tribunal will not have the power and will not<br />
have the expertise to get to the bottom <strong>of</strong> what exactly is going on in this industry. A tribunal has been panned by<br />
consumer advocacy groups, and all <strong>of</strong> the banks have come out over the course <strong>of</strong> the last couple <strong>of</strong> days saying<br />
that they do not support a tribunal. The government cannot explain how a tribunal will work; how people will be<br />
appointed to it—whether or not it will be in the form <strong>of</strong> a membership corporation or if it will be a judicial body<br />
established by statute with power to not only make decisions but enforce those decisions; and what an appeal<br />
mechanism will look like.<br />
Also, we have seen through the scandals that have come out in this industry that a tribunal is simply not good<br />
enough. The previous speaker made the comments that, essentially, what has gone on in the CommInsure scandal<br />
and other insurance providers with product problems with inappropriate products being sold and with medical<br />
definitions being changed are essentially just commercial disputes. They are just commercial disputes between an<br />
insurance company and the people who happen to take out those policies and did not like the way the insurance<br />
company looked at the definition and made a decision on their claim. Well, tell that to the thousands <strong>of</strong> people<br />
who have now had their insurance claims denied because some insurers use outdated medical definitions from the<br />
1940s to basically deny claims.<br />
The whistle was blown on this by medical experts who worked for these insurance companies—doctors who<br />
have an oath to provide the right advice to clients and to patients. They got uncomfortable about the fact that the<br />
definitions they were being asked to change reports on and to deny claims on were not up to date. The definition<br />
<strong>of</strong> 'heart attack' and the definition <strong>of</strong> 'rheumatoid arthritis' simply did not meet modern medical practices, and<br />
several <strong>of</strong> these doctors blew the whistle on what was going on, particularly at the Commonwealth Bank. They<br />
took their complaints to their immediate managers and they were ignored. They took their complaints to their<br />
divisional heads and they were ignored. It took Dr Benjamin Koh at CommInsure taking the issue to an<br />
independent director on the Commonwealth Bank board before action was taken and a review was conducted.<br />
In many <strong>of</strong> these cases, it takes the media getting involved before the banks and insurance companies take<br />
action. That is not simply a commercial dispute between an insurance company and its customers; it is the deepseated<br />
problems with this industry that only a royal commission will be able to get to the bottom <strong>of</strong>. I do not know<br />
why this government is siding with the banks on this. I do not know why this government is doing the bidding <strong>of</strong><br />
the banks and ignoring the pleas <strong>of</strong> the Australian people who are fed up with, and sick and tired <strong>of</strong>, the actions <strong>of</strong><br />
banks and who want a royal commission into this industry. It is only Labor that supports a royal commission. It is<br />
only Labor that can deliver a royal commission into the banking industry.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the ASIC review into the insurance industry, they will complete their reforms in 2021. The data that<br />
ASIC relies on for its reviews will be largely based on transitional commission levels and may not necessarily<br />
give a clear picture on the impact <strong>of</strong> these reforms.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 93<br />
We should note the continuing uncertainty around ASIC's resourcing as a result <strong>of</strong> the user-pays ASIC funding<br />
model and recent budget cuts, as it relates to ASIC's ability to do this review. This is a big issue and something<br />
that was identified by ASIC representatives when they appeared most recently before the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Representatives</strong> economics committee. They highlighted the fact that the government is giving them all these<br />
additional reviews to undertake, all this additional work, but no additional funding to perform those tasks. You<br />
cannot expect a regulator—and a properly well-informed regulator—to do its job if it does not have the budget<br />
and staff to complete that work.<br />
Our No. 1 priority on this side <strong>of</strong> the chamber is to ensure that customers are protected and that when they are<br />
seeking financial and insurance advice they can have every confidence that their planner and those <strong>of</strong>fering that<br />
advice are acting in accordance with their best interests. That is the basis on which we implemented the FoFA<br />
reforms and that is the basis on which we are supporting this modest reform here today. But we do need to go<br />
further: we need a royal commission into banking and insurance in this country.<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:08): I begin my remarks on this Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance<br />
Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016 by saying how important this issue is for me and how I have been touched<br />
by a number <strong>of</strong> victims in my own electorate. In 2011 I represented, in the Brisbane City Council, parts <strong>of</strong><br />
Brisbane that were devastated by the January floods. Homes, businesses and local communities were torn apart as<br />
a result. From that, and listening to the heartbreaking stories <strong>of</strong> so many <strong>of</strong> my local residents, when I saw this<br />
issue come before the <strong>House</strong>, I wanted to make sure that my voice was proudly and very strongly associated with<br />
reforms on life insurance remuneration arrangements.<br />
When you listen to victims, and the pain and heartbreak they have had to go through, it is incumbent upon<br />
every single member <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> to do whatever they can to use the instruments at their disposal. I listened to<br />
the member for Hughes talk about how government was not necessary, how you have to be careful about<br />
government. If there was ever any evidence to suggest that government does need to intervene and government<br />
does need to take a firm hand, it is in this industry. Those opposite talk a lot about government not being involved<br />
in people's lives. I am yet to meet victims and people who are suffering greatly come up to me and say, 'Gee, I'd<br />
like a little less government in my life.'<br />
We serve communities around Australia, here in this place, and we have a job to do: to make sure the most<br />
vulnerable, and those who need protection, get protection. The importance <strong>of</strong> life insurance cannot be<br />
underestimated. I know, from talking to a number <strong>of</strong> my local residents, that life insurance is ensuring a peace <strong>of</strong><br />
mind and financial protection in difficult times, not just in times <strong>of</strong> natural disaster but also in illness, accident,<br />
disability and, sadly, death.<br />
When it comes to the provision <strong>of</strong> financial advice relating to the endorsement <strong>of</strong> life insurance products we do<br />
support measures that increase quality, transparency, protections for consumers and reduction in the opportunity<br />
for people to be ripped <strong>of</strong>f. When listening to the member for Kingsford Smith, I was reminded <strong>of</strong> Labor's proud<br />
record in the area <strong>of</strong> financial advice reforms. The FoFA reforms not only increased access to quality financial<br />
advice but also gave the industry a stronger foundation for growth.<br />
This bill removes the exemption contained in the act from the ban on conflicted remuneration. It applies a ban<br />
on volume based payments to life insurance and includes grandfathering arrangements and, as we heard today, a<br />
two-year clawback period, where a portion <strong>of</strong> the up-front commission is paid back to the life insurer by the<br />
financial adviser if the life insurance policy is cancelled or the premium is reduced.<br />
In preparing for today's debate and going through the ASIC reports I know there are 14 million group life<br />
insurance policies, which are typically sold through superannuation; four million retail life insurance policies,<br />
distributed by insurance brokers and financial advisers; and around 3.9 million direct life insurance policies, sold<br />
through direct contact with a life insurer or affiliate, such as a bank.<br />
The growth in non-advised and retail policy sales is important to acknowledge in today's debate. In 2013 nonadvised<br />
policy sales totalled 3.6 million, and 3.8 million in 2014, and by 2015 it was up to 3.9 million. Retail<br />
policy sales also experienced growth over the same period. The 2013 retail policy sales totalled around 3.6 million<br />
and up to four million by 2015. These reports have indicated to Labor members why we need reform <strong>of</strong> the way<br />
life insurance advisers are remunerated.<br />
ASIC report 415 Review <strong>of</strong> retail life insurance advice identified a strong connection between up-front<br />
commissions. I refer to page 43 <strong>of</strong> the policy. Looking at the graphs, and hearing the debate today, 45 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
advice provided under an up-front commission model fail to comply with the law. At paragraph 90 <strong>of</strong> the report<br />
82 per cent <strong>of</strong> industry uses an up-front commission model, and up-front commissions for advisers are generally<br />
between 100 and 130 per cent <strong>of</strong> the product premium. A 2013 report by Rice Warner shows the average retail<br />
term life insurance product, which pays a benefit on the death <strong>of</strong> the insured, is around $246,000.<br />
CHAMBER
94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
While we support the bill we do hold some serious concerns about some aspects <strong>of</strong> it—namely, we do not<br />
believe there are enough measures in it that may reduce incentives for financial advisers to endorse inappropriate<br />
life insurance product. It would not capture misconduct on the part <strong>of</strong> insurers themselves, and we heard a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> speakers today talk about the CommInsure scandal. The two-year clawback period is one year less than the<br />
three-year period in the original industry proposal <strong>of</strong> 2015. Leading consumer advocacy group, Choice, said:<br />
We are disappointed that today's announcement will allow advisers to hang onto their upfront commissions if they seek to<br />
move a client to a new product after two years. Commission-driven churn is one <strong>of</strong> the major problems in this industry and we<br />
think that provisions to claw back commissions should extend for at least three years as originally proposed.<br />
The package we are dealing with today stops short <strong>of</strong> the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the FSI and the Trowbridge review<br />
to remove upfront commissions. The cut will initially be set at 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the first-year premium. It<br />
will go to 70 per cent in the second year to which the bill applies, before settling at 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
first-year premium up front. The package also caps ongoing commissions at 20 per cent, which I support.<br />
Due to some <strong>of</strong> the changes that have occurred, the start date has been pushed back from 1 July 2016 and will<br />
now be 1 January 2018. It appears the 60 per cent cap will now not be reached until 2020. I think that this is a<br />
long time for the introduction <strong>of</strong> what is pretty much a basic reform, but we are seeing movement in this area, and<br />
Labor will be supporting the bill. We supported the bill when it was first introduced to the <strong>House</strong> and when it first<br />
came through this place on 3 March 2016.<br />
I want to touch on some <strong>of</strong> the shocking cases that I have read about and that ASIC has outlined in its recent<br />
Report 498: life insurance claims: an industry review. When you hear about some <strong>of</strong> these shocking claims, it is<br />
nothing more than heartbreaking.<br />
I read the case <strong>of</strong> a woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and, after receiving both radiotherapy and<br />
chemotherapy treatment, was ill and could not work. The insurer had been paying monthly benefits but then<br />
informed the policyholder that it had cancelled the policy as she had not disclosed that she had experienced<br />
depression several years before. The insurer claimed that, had the policyholder disclosed her depression from<br />
several years before when she applied for the policy, it would not have <strong>of</strong>fered insurance cover under any<br />
circumstances. The policyholder observed that the non-disclosure was innocent and that she had never been<br />
depressed enough to require medication or time <strong>of</strong>f work. Thankfully, the matter was resolved between the<br />
parties, but the amount <strong>of</strong> stress that I can only imagine the policyholder would have gone through was<br />
unacceptable.<br />
The other case was where a metal object accidentally lodged in a policyholder's heart, leading to cardiac arrest<br />
and requiring open heart surgery. Apparently, this did not meet the policy definition <strong>of</strong> 'trauma' as, under the<br />
policy, only heart conditions related to congenital conditions and/or out-<strong>of</strong>-hospital cardiac arrests caused by<br />
arrhythmia were covered.<br />
These kinds <strong>of</strong> examples, when you read them, see them and hear them, are clear evidence to me about the<br />
action that we need to take. There is a need to have strong regulation and strong bodies in place to address the<br />
stress and strain that millions <strong>of</strong> Australians could perhaps face. People need peace <strong>of</strong> mind that when they pay for<br />
insurance for medical conditions their claims will be met.<br />
ASIC's analysis <strong>of</strong> the dispute data, in light <strong>of</strong> insurers' claim numbers by share <strong>of</strong> claims, indicated that for<br />
three insurers the number <strong>of</strong> disputes, particularly about heart attacks, was adversely disproportionate to the share<br />
<strong>of</strong> claims. For example, one insurer's share <strong>of</strong> heart attack definition disputes was six times their share <strong>of</strong> claims.<br />
ASIC also reports that a leading bank in Australia declined 37 per cent <strong>of</strong> claims for total and permanent disability<br />
between 2013 and 2015 and declined 31 per cent <strong>of</strong> claims made under trauma cover.<br />
There is a litany <strong>of</strong> dodgy practices that we have all seen through the media. There is the practice that we heard<br />
about today <strong>of</strong> 'twisting and churning,' which the member for Fenner made remarks about. This is where<br />
consumers are encouraged to cancel existing policies and take up new ones, <strong>of</strong>ten to their detriment. I read about<br />
the case <strong>of</strong> a man in New South Wales who was twisted out <strong>of</strong> a policy three times in a 12-month period by the<br />
same insurance agent, but when the man claimed costs for skin cancer treatment, he was told that it was a preexisting<br />
injury on his new policy and he was refused payment under the policy. Sadly, a Queensland couple, both<br />
<strong>of</strong> them pensioners, were sold a policy that excluded claims being paid to people on a pension. So, pensioners are<br />
being signed up and are giving their money over, but the policy does not apply to them.<br />
There is also a worrying practice that I have read about—the practice <strong>of</strong> 'tombstoning'—which involves agents<br />
signing up dead or non-existent clients and secretly paying for their initial premiums just to pocket larger<br />
commissions. These fraudulent applications for insurance are done simply to drive up the sales. Agents are being<br />
pressured to sell as many policies as possible to win prizes, promotions and—as we heard about earlier in today's<br />
debate—apparently, overseas trips.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 95<br />
Agents are falsifying or omitting medical, income, occupation or date-<strong>of</strong>-birth information simply to maximise<br />
commissions, making the policy worthless upon a claim because insurers may refuse to pay out a policy if the<br />
incorrect information is supplied. Agents are preying on residents in remote communities and, particularly in<br />
Queensland, some <strong>of</strong> the Indigenous communities. Of course, we know the shocking case that was revealed on<br />
Four Corners, where the whole financial services industry clearly demonstrated that it needed to be further<br />
investigated, with doctors being pressured to change their assessments <strong>of</strong> customers, payouts being delayed to<br />
terminally ill customers and, as I indicated before, heart attack claims being refused by relying on outdated<br />
definitions inconsistent with current medical practice.<br />
I have one thing to say about this: this is clearly about putting pr<strong>of</strong>its first. They are worried about the end<br />
dollar, not the end product. Everything else comes a distant second. If these cases were not warning enough, were<br />
we serious about consumer protection we would be having a royal commission into our financial and banking<br />
sector. It is not good enough for excuse after excuse. Little wonder that there have only been two speakers on this<br />
bill today. This is a serious issue. We heard the member for Hughes simply dismiss the need for a banking royal<br />
commission because—in paraphrasing—'these things happen'. They should not happen. People who live in my<br />
suburbs in the south-west <strong>of</strong> Brisbane were unfairly targeted through no fault <strong>of</strong> their own in the 2011 floods,<br />
where their homes and literally their livelihoods were washed down the street. Their records, their photographs,<br />
their lives were destroyed within a 24-hour period because people were sold incorrect policies. Some <strong>of</strong> the people<br />
selling those policies were more worried and focused on commissions because that was their livelihood; I<br />
understand that. Those who most need it, those who are vulnerable and those who need protection need quality<br />
life insurance. They need protection to make sure that insurance is what it is and that they are not being robbed. I<br />
will continue to support these reforms for a fair go for all people.<br />
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (19:23): It is quite surprising really that we are here today given that it was so many years<br />
ago that the Labor Party, in government, put forward the future <strong>of</strong> financial advice reforms, acknowledging then<br />
how important it was to tackle the link between remuneration and corruption <strong>of</strong> advice. Making sure that clients<br />
receive advice in their best interests has taken this long to resolve through this legislation.<br />
Of course after those excellent reforms were put forward by the Labor government, one <strong>of</strong> the first things that<br />
happened upon the election <strong>of</strong> the Liberal-coalition government was that the government tried to roll back the<br />
FoFA reforms. The FoFA reforms ban many forms <strong>of</strong> conflicted remuneration for financial advisers including for<br />
life insurance policies that were held as group life policies. But other life insurance policies have remained exempt<br />
from the FoFA ban on conflicted remuneration.<br />
Many speakers here tonight have spoken about some <strong>of</strong> the real world examples that have arisen from<br />
conflicted remuneration. Indeed only on Friday the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services heard<br />
evidence from ASIC dealing with the issue <strong>of</strong> conflicted remuneration. Just what does about conflicted<br />
remuneration mean? What is a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest? What is really interesting in this sector is people who are<br />
vulnerable rely on expertise. They go and seek expert advice to look after their financial future. We have not<br />
nailed down a proper definition <strong>of</strong> a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest in this sector in all areas. It is very clear in other more<br />
established pr<strong>of</strong>essions what a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest is and that is why we have and have had for centuries<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional and ethical obligations in this sector and it is why it is so important to make sure that we rid the<br />
financial advice sector <strong>of</strong> conflicted remuneration.<br />
Labor supports this bill on the basis that it modestly improves the protections for consumers with respect to life<br />
insurance products. It is a modest improvement. It reduces the capacity—it does not remove it—for conflicted<br />
remuneration. It is a good start. It is an improved outcome for consumers, this legislation. While recognising the<br />
need to lower under insurance rates in this life insurance industry, Labor also acknowledges the concerns<br />
consumer groups have raised that the bill does not go far enough. The bill does not go far enough in the two-year<br />
claw-back period, which really should be a three-year claw-back period.<br />
The bill does not address the broader issues though in the life insurance industry such as those raised this<br />
evening in respect <strong>of</strong> claims handling and outdated medical definitions, which have all come to light through the<br />
Comminsure scandal and through the many other recent inquiries. In fact, only a number <strong>of</strong> weeks back as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the economics committee we had both ASIC and APRA come to speak to us about inquiries that they had been<br />
undertaking in the life insurance industry. Some <strong>of</strong> the things that came out <strong>of</strong> that were shocking.<br />
It was not just that we had 30 per cent rates <strong>of</strong> declining claims being made on these insurance packages but the<br />
thing that actually really troubled me in all <strong>of</strong> that was that ASIC did not want to tell anyone who those life<br />
insurers were. The reason they did not want to tell anyone who those life insurers were was because they were<br />
concerned about the validity <strong>of</strong> the data that they had generated, because, when they went to speak to the life<br />
insurers, the life insurers could not give them concrete answers to the questions. The thing about that that really<br />
troubled me was people invest in a life insurance policy, a financial product, not for their future but for the future<br />
CHAMBER
96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
<strong>of</strong> their partner, for the future <strong>of</strong> their children. They make an investment over decades <strong>of</strong> premiums to make sure<br />
that when something bad happens to them, if they lose their life early, that their family will be looked after, that<br />
their home will not be taken away from them.<br />
What came out <strong>of</strong> the inquiry by ASIC and APRA—and APRA acknowledged this in our hearing—was that<br />
the records are not kept properly by these life insurers. APRA agreed and APRA is concerned. What does that<br />
mean for the potential regulation and the capacity <strong>of</strong> these life insurers to ensure that they are able to make proper<br />
actuarial assessments to make sure that if claims are made on life insurance policies that they are able to pay out.<br />
So when people have made decades <strong>of</strong> investment, paying premiums to look after not them but to look after their<br />
children, they need to know that that life insurer is able to pay out. They fundamentally need to know that. It is not<br />
just a matter <strong>of</strong>: have I complied with these strange terms that no-one would ever have predicted? It is not just a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> whether a life insurer is interpreting its policy in a capricious manner but, also, are those life insurers<br />
going to be there at the time when the people need to call on the policy?<br />
APRA tried to assure us that they have no fundamental concerns with these life insurers but they were<br />
concerned about their capacity to do their job at best practice, to manage their book. They do not actually know<br />
the rates at which they decline, the claims that are made on their insurance policies. As I mentioned, there has<br />
been a series <strong>of</strong> inquiries and a series <strong>of</strong> reports into this industry. They have shown the fundamental need to<br />
reform the way that life insurance firms are regulated.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will be allowed to continue his contribution at a later date.<br />
ADJOURNMENT<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton) (19:29): I propose the question:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong> do now adjourn.<br />
Youth<br />
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (19:30): I rise tonight to speak <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the issues facing young people both in<br />
my electorate and right throughout the country. In particular, I want to address the Turnbull government's ongoing<br />
attacks upon our young people, whether they are young people studying, at TAFEs, schools or universities, or<br />
planning to go to university or looking for work. I also want to speak about the government's cruel plans to cut<br />
penalty rates, which will particularly impact on young workers, and the government's failure to address high youth<br />
unemployment and the lack <strong>of</strong> training for young people.<br />
Our younger generation, our country's future, have been left behind and forgotten by this government. We can<br />
look at some <strong>of</strong> the facts. As <strong>of</strong> 2014, 42 per cent <strong>of</strong> people in the 20 to 24 age bracket were engaged in some<br />
form <strong>of</strong> education and training—a very large amount. This group, these young Australians, are most at risk from<br />
the Turnbull government's very vicious cuts to schools, TAFEs and universities, which make it very difficult for<br />
them to access the quality education they need and deserve, and policies such as the government's $100,000<br />
university degrees. That policy particularly impacts regional Australia very harshly. It means many <strong>of</strong> those<br />
younger kids just cannot get to uni. Of course, in our regions, we blame the National Party for these rather harsh<br />
cuts and harsh plans for universities.<br />
It is hard to understand how the Liberal-National party, who go around shutting down local TAFES and<br />
underfunding schools and universities, supposedly have plans for Australia to become an 'innovation nation'. How<br />
can we do that when your cuts are so widespread? In opposition to all the government's very vicious attacks on<br />
our young people, at the last election Labor was very proud to present a long-term plan for the future <strong>of</strong> education<br />
and the future <strong>of</strong> our young people. That is because we understand that education is not just an expense to be<br />
cut—as those across think it is—but is in fact an investment, a great opportunity. We know that educating and<br />
training our younger generations, not giving tax cuts to big multinationals, is the key to our country's economic<br />
future.<br />
I and the Labor party will continue to stand in opposition to this government, which fails to understand many<br />
simple principles about providing for our younger generation. Sadly, simple cuts are not the extent <strong>of</strong> the Liberal-<br />
Nationals campaign against our young people. For over 100 years, penalty rates have long protected workers,<br />
particularly those working on weekends, and many working conditions have been protected. Those people have<br />
been compensated for the irregular hours <strong>of</strong> work that they do. It is very difficult having to work long hours and<br />
on weekends and therefore give up time that many other people spend with their families and friends. I would like<br />
to note that the Labor Party made a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing in favour <strong>of</strong> penalty rates,<br />
because we acknowledge their importance. If the Turnbull government actually cared about workers' rights at all,<br />
they would have made a similar submission.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 97<br />
This issue, as I have said, affects many workers who access penalty rates, but it disproportionately impacts<br />
young people, as many <strong>of</strong> them work in the hospitality and retail sector. We will not be holding our breath for<br />
those across to suddenly understand the need to support young people, particularly when the majority <strong>of</strong> them<br />
continue to argue that penalty rates should be cut. This is an issue that does really affect young people, and it will<br />
affect those hardworking young people who can least afford it. Many <strong>of</strong> these jobs are in the hospitality sector, as<br />
I said, where workers are already among the bottom 30 per cent <strong>of</strong> Australian income earners.<br />
Retail is another common area <strong>of</strong> employment for young people, and it features the largest proportion <strong>of</strong> lowpaid<br />
workers in Australia. A McKell Institute analysis reveals that, in rural Australia alone, retail and hospitality<br />
workers could lose between $370 million and $1.55 billion each year if the Turnbull government's plans to cut<br />
penalty rates succeed. It would really unfairly target those young workers. It should be noted that John Hart, the<br />
CEO <strong>of</strong> Restaurant and Catering Australia, has conceded that cutting penalty rates will not generate new<br />
employment and says that, rather, if penalty rates are cut, people will work more hours for the same pay. That is<br />
the reality. They will just be working a lot more hours.<br />
Labor will continue to fight for young people, who are continuously attacked and punished by the Turnbull<br />
government. We will continue to do that on many different occasions. The youth unemployment rate as <strong>of</strong><br />
October 2016 was at 12.5 per cent. That is a very big concern. We are seeing this government with many plans<br />
that are cruel to young people, such as their plans to force young people to live without any support for month,<br />
while displacing real jobs with some <strong>of</strong> their very exploitative internships. In contrast to this, Labor has been<br />
focused on getting more young people into work. Our Working Futures program, which we took to the election,<br />
would have meant much greater training for young people, which is vitally important. We will continue to fight<br />
for young people, when this government continues to attack them on all fronts.<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Community and Sports Funding<br />
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (19:35): The best part <strong>of</strong> my job as the member for Chisholm is that I get to meet so<br />
many wonderful people in Chisholm who create such warmth and generosity <strong>of</strong> spirit. It is these people in<br />
Chisholm who create the warm community ambience. Their hard work is <strong>of</strong>ten unpaid, as many work in<br />
community centres and sporting groups as volunteers. The volunteers in these centres and sporting groups can be<br />
from all walks <strong>of</strong> life. The hard work to support the sporting pursuits <strong>of</strong> the many children in Chisholm does not<br />
stop at the end <strong>of</strong> the game. Many mums and dads and grandparents work to set up the rooms, the courts, to start<br />
up the sausage sizzle after the game, cut the oranges, make sure there is ice in the ice bucket to keep the drinks<br />
cold or just roll up their sleeves and pitch in for whatever needs to get done. Every contribution, be it large or<br />
small, helps to make these community and sporting groups work better and grow and develop for our children and<br />
our children's children.<br />
That is why I am proud to be part <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull government, which has delivered on funding for several<br />
projects for the many and various sporting and community centres in my electorate. The coalition government is<br />
delivering on its promises. For example, it was great to meet Rob Nash, manager <strong>of</strong> the junior team, and David<br />
Cowell, club president, at the Nunawading Cricket Club, where the coalition government provided funds for<br />
portable cricket pitches for junior cricketers. They are two great, dedicated, passionate people who are supporting<br />
the great summer sport <strong>of</strong> cricket with all their hard work and also building and developing a girls team.<br />
At the Ceres Calisthenics Club, again we provided funding for the centre's development, which is due to be<br />
finished in March. While completion <strong>of</strong> the building is highly anticipated, the teachers and parents and friends <strong>of</strong><br />
the Ceres Calisthenics Club are so committed to enabling their children to partake in this great activity, in the<br />
context <strong>of</strong> creating wonderful costumes and making exciting preparations. On the other side <strong>of</strong> the centre at<br />
Elektra Avenue, a wonderful bridge club and the Monash Croquet Club are also run out <strong>of</strong> there—a veritable hub<br />
<strong>of</strong> people <strong>of</strong> goodwill and spirit.<br />
The Turnbull government also provided funding for a mobile vehicle, so that the pursuit <strong>of</strong> gymnastics at the<br />
Eastern Gymnastics Club, as run by the lovely Alison Dunn, can be extended and used more efficiently outside<br />
the centre's permanent place. The Whitehorse Club was founded and built over the years particularly by the local<br />
community <strong>of</strong> Italian heritage and is currently led by the warm and very friendly Pasquale, who is very<br />
appreciative <strong>of</strong> the new billiard table and refurbishment for the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> its members. Angelo Sticca, from the<br />
Mount Waverley City Soccer Club, is also very appreciative that the government provided $20,000 for an upgrade<br />
relating to the club rooms, storage and equipment. The purchase <strong>of</strong> a new hammer and discus cage at the<br />
Hagenauer Reserve in Box Hill was made possible by the Turnbull government. What a great centre this reserve<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers for the people <strong>of</strong> Chisholm, for Box Hill Little Athletics.<br />
Bernard Tanner, from the Surrey Park Senior Football Club, and Rowan Sutherland, from the Surrey Park<br />
Junior Football Club, and many <strong>of</strong> the others on the committee have been associated with the clubs and their<br />
CHAMBER
98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
families for years and years. The government support in the form <strong>of</strong> cricket net upgrades and floodlighting will<br />
undoubtedly help the club. The Waverley Blues Football Club received $20,000 for their new electronic video<br />
scoreboard, which will no doubt make life easier for the many parents and friends <strong>of</strong> the club.<br />
Happy memories <strong>of</strong> being at the Box Hill Miniature Steam Railway Station flooded back when I went and<br />
toured the site with Bill Hanks and Bruce Gilpin. I took my children there when they were young. It was an<br />
absolute joy to be there and so heart warming that this fantastic venue continues to be run and managed by<br />
volunteers. I am so delighted that the Turnbull government recently contributed $17,000 for further development<br />
<strong>of</strong> a storage shed to help the railway station's operations.<br />
Support for the Waverley District Netball Association in Ashwood for new netball courts and for the extension<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Waverley Gymnastics Centre in Mount Waverley is a testament to the Turnbull government delivering for<br />
the community <strong>of</strong> Chisholm. These clubs are more than bricks and mortar; they are about the people <strong>of</strong> Chisholm,<br />
who are using their time, effort, passion and commitment to support these community based organisations for<br />
generations to come.<br />
Representing the good people <strong>of</strong> Chisholm makes me very proud and it makes me very happy that I get the<br />
opportunity to meet with and support these wonderful organisations, underpinned by our government's<br />
commitment to support local communities, such as these in Chisholm, to prosper and grow, which will make a<br />
genuine and lasting difference.<br />
Nursing Workforce<br />
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (19:39): Today I bring to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> investing in<br />
our nursing workforce and ensuring that there is strong future for Australian nurses. There are almost 10,000<br />
Australian nurses and midwives who cannot find permanent employment; yet we are seeing thousands <strong>of</strong> 457<br />
visas for nurses being granted. In the last three years, we have seen 3,347 foreign nurses brought into this country<br />
under the section 457 temporary skilled migration system. Answering a question in the <strong>House</strong> last week, the<br />
Minister for Immigration said <strong>of</strong> the 457 visa program:<br />
The objective <strong>of</strong> the program is to find work for Australians first.<br />
The minister and the government are clearly failing their own test.<br />
If 10,000 nurses cannot find a permanent nursing job, we clearly do not have a skills shortage that justifies the<br />
high use <strong>of</strong> 457 visas. It is just not right that employers, including the NSW government, are continuing to use this<br />
visa system to bring in nurses from overseas, when there are thousands <strong>of</strong> Aussie nurses desperate to find work.<br />
The most basic point is that Australian trained nurses and midwives should be accessing employment before<br />
foreigners. That is why Labor is rightly calling for a review <strong>of</strong> temporary workers in Australia.<br />
The most recent figures from the Australian Institute <strong>of</strong> Health and Welfare, an agency <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Health, confirms that almost 10,000 nurses and midwives are looking for work in the industry. A survey <strong>of</strong> recent<br />
nursing graduates by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation revealed the following worrying trends:<br />
most graduates who did obtain employment are employed on an uncertain basis through agency, part-time or<br />
casual arrangements; many graduates go to incredible lengths to obtain work, such as moving interstate; and,<br />
finally, employers identified in the questionnaire as rejecting new graduates use 457 workers.<br />
My region <strong>of</strong> the Hunter and the Central Coast is most definitely experiencing these trends. The University <strong>of</strong><br />
Newcastle has a magnificent School <strong>of</strong> Nursing and Midwifery. Our area health services are a major employer in<br />
the Hunter and Central Coast. There are three major public hospitals that service my constituents, Wyong,<br />
Belmont and the John Hunter, which is the only trauma hospital between Sydney and Brisbane. The Hunter region<br />
also has many private hospitals and aged-care facilities. Unfortunately, we are seeing significant use <strong>of</strong> 457 visa<br />
holders at the cost <strong>of</strong> local nursing graduates. Confidential data I have seen shows that the number <strong>of</strong> local nursing<br />
graduates who secure a graduate position in the public health system in the Hunter and the Central Coast has<br />
declined from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. This is an almost 40 per cent decline in positions. The data also reports<br />
that, while some <strong>of</strong> the graduates find work in private hospitals or in aged-care facilities, most are forced to move<br />
away or find non-nursing employment. This is a massive waste <strong>of</strong> their skills and the investment taxpayers have<br />
made in developing their nursing skills and qualifications.<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> 457 visa nurses in the broader healthcare system is also <strong>of</strong> concern. I am concerned that these nurses<br />
may be exploited by being paid less than Australian nurses. Besides the basic unfairness <strong>of</strong> this, it also places<br />
Australian nurses at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, a 457 visa holder has fewer rights than Australian<br />
workers and permanent migrants in the workplace. It is much harder for these workers to blow the whistle on any<br />
issues relating to the quality <strong>of</strong> health care or treatment <strong>of</strong> patients. Let me repeat this: if a worker's residence in<br />
Australia depends upon staying with their current employer, as is the case with 457 visa holders, if they know that<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 99<br />
they have a short amount <strong>of</strong> time to find another job if they are sacked or they face deportation, it is much harder<br />
for them to risk their job by speaking out if they see something in their workplace that is unacceptable.<br />
We must prioritise employing Australians who have spent years training to be a nurse, or permanent migrants<br />
who have greater rights and are committed to making their home in this country. Unemployment on the Central<br />
Coast and in Lake Macquarie is well above the national average, and we have the perverse situation where we<br />
have qualified local nursing graduates being denied employment and the chance to contribute and make a<br />
difference in our community.<br />
Nurses, alongside all other healthcare workers, are essential to our modern, prosperous and healthy society.<br />
After significant training, they do a thankless task, working long hours in difficult conditions, <strong>of</strong>ten in situations<br />
where their personal safety is at risk. That is why I am so angry that thousands <strong>of</strong> quality-trained Australian nurses<br />
cannot obtain permanent employment because <strong>of</strong> the 457 visa program. Labor does not oppose foreign workers<br />
coming here where there is a genuine need, but in our nursing industry this is just not the case. Australian nurses<br />
deserve priority over foreign workers and I will continue to advocate on their behalf.<br />
Domestic and Family Violence<br />
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (19:44): I want to join those Australians who have come together today<br />
and last week to condemn violence against women and to stand up and act against crimes that can never be<br />
tolerated in our society.<br />
On Friday, Australians marked the International Day for the Elimination <strong>of</strong> Violence against Women, which is<br />
now better known as White Ribbon Day. Across the world, White Ribbon Day is an opportunity for all <strong>of</strong> us—but<br />
for men in particular—to recognise that too many women experience physical, mental and sexual abuse. And<br />
today this parliament recognised our own challenge in reducing domestic violence in Indigenous communities as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the NO MORE Campaign. This is an issue that is above politics—as it should be. The parliament has seen<br />
a unity <strong>of</strong> purpose to tackle a problem that, at its heart, deprives women <strong>of</strong> the dignity and safety that should be an<br />
undisputed right.<br />
In public life, we <strong>of</strong>ten talk <strong>of</strong> striving for equality <strong>of</strong> opportunity for Australians. That equality, those<br />
opportunities we want for all our fellow citizens, cannot exist if you live in fear for your own physical and mental<br />
wellbeing—even more so if that fear is found in what should be a sanctuary: our own homes and within our own<br />
families. Most <strong>of</strong> us will never witness violence in our own homes against the women we love—be it mothers,<br />
siblings or partners—and most <strong>of</strong> us are repulsed with the very thought that any person would be subjected to this<br />
kind <strong>of</strong> abuse. Yet we know that so many women, even in modern Australia, are not so fortunate. Let us have no<br />
doubt that violence, particularly in relationships at home, is overwhelmingly a crime perpetrated against women.<br />
The statistics tell the story. One in four women in Australia has experienced some form <strong>of</strong> physical violence<br />
from an intimate partner. Twenty per cent <strong>of</strong> women—one in five—have suffered sexual abuse. And today we<br />
heard that Indigenous women are hospitalised for domestic violence incidents at 30 times the rate <strong>of</strong> non-<br />
Indigenous women. Most tragically <strong>of</strong> all, on average, one woman is murdered each week by a partner or a former<br />
partner. Despite all our efforts, this number is increasing. In my own state, New South Wales police have reported<br />
a 40 per cent jump in domestic violence related deaths. It is why strong action by government remains so<br />
important. At the Commonwealth level, our $100 million domestic violence strategy—announced by the Prime<br />
Minister as one <strong>of</strong> his very first acts—is well underway and making inroads.<br />
But, ultimately, this is a problem that needs to tackled by all <strong>of</strong> us, and it is why days like White Ribbon Day<br />
are so important. Each and every one <strong>of</strong> us needs to be ambassadors for the message <strong>of</strong> White Ribbon Day that<br />
violence against women is never justified or acceptable. And men need to be at the forefront <strong>of</strong> delivering that<br />
message to their peers. Importantly, all <strong>of</strong> us must be prepared to act rather than turn a blind eye if we know <strong>of</strong><br />
domestic violence. If we saw someone being assaulted in the street, we would call the police. Yet, too <strong>of</strong>ten, many<br />
are reluctant to act if they suspect domestic violence because somehow it is considered a private matter. We need<br />
to be clear: domestic violence is crime that must be reported. The consequences <strong>of</strong> not doing so are simply too<br />
great.<br />
Domestic violence knows no boundaries: affluence, education and geography do not define its occurrence.<br />
Support for the victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence therefore needs to be available across our cities and towns. In my<br />
own electorate, I know there is a critical need for crisis support for women and children fleeing abusive domestic<br />
circumstances. There are too few women's refuges north <strong>of</strong> the harbour bridge—less than can be counted on one<br />
hand. There is the need for many more.<br />
In one positive development, earlier this month a new women's refuge opened in our region. Mary's <strong>House</strong> has<br />
come about through the work <strong>of</strong> the North Sydney Women's Benevolent Association with the support <strong>of</strong> our local<br />
Jesuit parish. It will provide physical shelter, as well as support services, to women and their children fleeing<br />
CHAMBER
100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
domestic violence. I want to acknowledge the incredible volunteer efforts <strong>of</strong> its organising committee, with the<br />
financial and in-kind support <strong>of</strong> so many individuals and businesses, from the Mater Hospital to groups like the<br />
Rotary Club <strong>of</strong> North Sydney Sunrise. I am also pleased that the federal government was able to contribute<br />
towards the cost <strong>of</strong> security.<br />
Safe places like Mary's <strong>House</strong> can make a difference, but they help treat the symptoms and not the causes <strong>of</strong><br />
domestic violence, which is why I hope that all Australians will spend some time thinking about how they can<br />
stand up or speak out and act to end violence against women.<br />
Paterson Electorate: Newcastle Airport<br />
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:49): I rise tonight to speak about the great strides being made at Newcastle<br />
Airport, in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson.<br />
The airport, which is the largest regional airport in NSW, shares a runway with RAAF Base Williamtown and<br />
is jointly owned by Newcastle and Port Stephens councils. It is where I catch my flight to Canberra each Sunday<br />
afternoon before a parliamentary sitting week and where I return home on Thursday nights—usually—a little bit<br />
weary. I usually manage a nap in both directions, actually.<br />
It is a tiny plane that I catch, but I am very, very grateful for the direct FlyPelican service, as are my Newcastle<br />
and Hunter colleagues. In fact, the pilot, Brian, and I <strong>of</strong>ten share a joke and a word, and last Sunday he quipped to<br />
me that if I got any closer I would have to share the responsibility <strong>of</strong> flying the little bug smasher—as they call it<br />
in the industry—with him. But without it we would need to drive to Canberra, or at least drive to Sydney and then<br />
fly to the capital.<br />
The convenience <strong>of</strong> our airport has certainly registered with many people in Newcastle, the Hunter Valley and<br />
Port Stephens, and the October just gone was the busiest month ever on record. There were 113,907 passengers<br />
who went through the gate in October, a figure that is two per cent higher than the previous monthly record <strong>of</strong><br />
111,757 flyers, which was achieved in October 2010. The airport is on a trajectory to achieve 1.2 million<br />
passengers this year, but it has its sights set even higher.<br />
I met last week with Newcastle Airport chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer, Peter Cock, and chairman, Peter Gesling, and<br />
they shared with me their desire for, and commitment to, even further growth. They can see an opportunity to<br />
grow passenger numbers through Newcastle, benefiting the local region while at the same time relieving the<br />
congestion in Sydney while that city waits for its second airport. They advised that passenger traffic at Newcastle<br />
Airport has been strong since the $14.5 million terminal expansion was completed in August last year. They make<br />
a solid case that even more investment will attract even more passengers.<br />
The growth in passenger volume is attributed to: the airlines that fly into Newcastle increasing capacity to the<br />
market; major events around the country; school holidays; and increased business travel. Each month for the past<br />
year passenger numbers have surpassed the month before. September and October saw particularly strong growth,<br />
with greater than seven per cent growth year on year. In October, the long weekend, the end <strong>of</strong> school holidays<br />
and the start <strong>of</strong> the spring racing carnival in Melbourne put plenty <strong>of</strong> bums on seats. That was really fantastic. The<br />
growth goes to show that Newcastle is now a true alternative gateway for New South Wales.<br />
The Hunter Regional Plan 2036 identifies Newcastle Airport as a key regional asset, highlighting the<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> creating links with international markets. And how we would all love to board a flight for our<br />
overseas adventure without the palava <strong>of</strong> a trip to Sydney! Newcastle Airport has secured its long-term future by<br />
extending its lease with the Department <strong>of</strong> Defence for 60 years, with an additional three 10-year options. The<br />
longer runway being constructed by Defence and the works to accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter also boost the<br />
case for the larger passenger aircraft capacity needed for overseas travel. Work will start next year to fit out<br />
facilities and the technology required for international processing <strong>of</strong> passengers, bringing Newcastle a vital step<br />
closer to that international dream. An expanded airport will, <strong>of</strong> course, have the capacity to attract overseas<br />
visitors, support population growth in our region and support the key areas <strong>of</strong> health and education—fields in<br />
which our region is a centre <strong>of</strong> national excellence. In addition to attracting the domestic and overseas tourist<br />
dollar, the airport has the capacity for value-added freight exports to the hungry markets <strong>of</strong> Asia and the Pacific.<br />
With increasing constraints in Sydney, Newcastle Airport has the opportunity to complement our city and<br />
further enable the growth <strong>of</strong> New South Wales. With its sights set on the Pacific, New Zealand and Asia,<br />
expansion will provide enhanced connectivity and create a true global gateway right into our own backyard. That<br />
would be very welcome.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 101<br />
Valedictory<br />
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (19:54): 'Once upon a time, a certain town grew up at the foot <strong>of</strong> a mountain<br />
range. It was sheltered in the lee <strong>of</strong> protected heights, so the wind that shuddered at the doors and flung handfuls<br />
<strong>of</strong> sleet against the window panes was a wind whose fury was spent.<br />
'High up in the hills, a strange and quiet forest dweller took it upon himself to be the keeper <strong>of</strong> the springs. He<br />
patrolled the hills and wherever he found a spring he cleaned its brown pool <strong>of</strong> silt and fallen leaves <strong>of</strong> mud and<br />
mould, and he took away from the spring all foreign matter so that the water which bubbled up through the sand<br />
ran down clean and cold and pure. It leaped sparkling over rocks and dropped joyously in crystal cascades until,<br />
swollen by other streams, it became a river <strong>of</strong> life to the busy town—a popular attraction for tourists from all over<br />
the world. Millwheels were whirled by its rush. Gardens were refreshed by its waters. Fountains threw it like<br />
diamonds into the air. Swans sailed on its limpid surface, and children laughed as they played on its banks in the<br />
sunshine.<br />
'But the city council was a group <strong>of</strong> hard-headed, hard-boiled businessmen. They scanned the civic budget and<br />
found in it the salary <strong>of</strong> a keeper <strong>of</strong> the springs. Said the keeper <strong>of</strong> the purse: why should we pay this romance<br />
ranger? We never see him; he is not necessary to our town's work. If we build a reservoir just above the town, we<br />
can dispense with his services and save his salary. Therefore, the city council voted to dispense with the<br />
unnecessary cost <strong>of</strong> a keeper <strong>of</strong> the springs, and to build a cement reservoir.<br />
'So the keeper <strong>of</strong> the springs no longer visited the brown pools but watched from the heights while they built<br />
the reservoir. When it was finished, it soon filled up with water, to be sure, but the water did not seem to be the<br />
same. It did not seem to be as clean, and a green scum soon befouled its stagnant surface. There were constant<br />
troubles with the delicate machinery <strong>of</strong> the mills for it was <strong>of</strong>ten clogged with slime, and the swans found another<br />
home above the town. At last, an epidemic raged, and the clammy, yellow fingers <strong>of</strong> sickness reached out into<br />
every home. And the tourists disappeared.<br />
'The city council met again. Sorrowfully, it faced the city's plight and frankly acknowledged the mistake <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dismissal <strong>of</strong> the keeper <strong>of</strong> the springs. They sought him out <strong>of</strong> his hermit's hut high in the hills and begged him to<br />
return to his former joyous labour. Gladly, he agreed, and he began once more to make his rounds. It was not long<br />
until the pure water came lilting down under tunnels <strong>of</strong> ferns and mosses and to sparkle in the cleansed reservoir.<br />
Millwheels turned again as <strong>of</strong> old. Stenches disappeared. Sickness waned and convalescent children playing in the<br />
sun laughed again because the swans had come back. And the tourists returned.'<br />
That was the beginning <strong>of</strong> a sermon by Peter Marshall called The Keeper <strong>of</strong> the Springs. Who are these keepers<br />
<strong>of</strong> the springs? They are those who so generously contacted me over the last couple <strong>of</strong> weeks. They are those who<br />
help me do my job behind the scenes—you know who you are. It is the clerk and the assistant clerk, and their<br />
teams. It is the committee staff, the transport staff, the library staff, the department staff, the gardeners, cleaners,<br />
security, caterers—all the best, Tim, in your new endeavours—and the ministerial staff who help us to do our job.<br />
They are the keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs. My staff—Jennifer, Prue, Millie, Laurie, Matt and Ken—and my co-chair <strong>of</strong><br />
Friends <strong>of</strong> Multiculturalism, Maria Vamvakinou: you are the keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs. My colleagues in this<br />
<strong>House</strong>—Independent, Green, Labor, Lib and Nat—help me do my job. To the Prime Minister and opposition<br />
leader, and all those who work in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the Australian people, you are the keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs.<br />
God bless you all and keep you this Christmas. Thank you to every one <strong>of</strong> you for the work you do on our<br />
behalf. You may not be seen but you are the keepers <strong>of</strong> the springs.<br />
The following notice(s) were given:<br />
Ms Rishworth: to move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
<strong>House</strong> adjourned at 19:58<br />
NOTICES<br />
(1) recognises the importance <strong>of</strong> the Murray Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) in returning the river to health;<br />
(2) condemns any plans to walk away from the MDBP that will undermine the health <strong>of</strong> the system and the rivers;<br />
(3) notes the good work <strong>of</strong> the Member for Watson in his former role as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,<br />
Population and Communities, who was able to deliver a once in a century agreement <strong>of</strong> the MDBP;<br />
(4) expresses concern that the Member for New England, as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, is walking<br />
away from the plan by refusing to return 450 gigalitres <strong>of</strong> water to the Basin;<br />
(5) recognises that:<br />
(a) removing too much water from the river is bad for irrigators and communities, and devastating for the environment in<br />
the long term; and<br />
CHAMBER
102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(b) South Australians in particular deserve the water they were promised; and<br />
(6) reinstates its commitment to implement the complete MDBP.<br />
Mr Champion: to move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong> acknowledges the:<br />
(1) important role <strong>of</strong> the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) in representing workers in the retail,<br />
fast food and warehouse industries;<br />
(2) advocacy by the SDA for national awards in industries that it represents; and<br />
(3) positive outcomes the SDA has achieved through enterprise bargaining for the workers it represents.<br />
CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 103<br />
Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz) took the chair at 10:30.<br />
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS<br />
Meals on Wheels<br />
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:31): I rise today to speak about a wonderful organisation, one that is a<br />
national organisation, but we all have branches within our electorates: Meals on Wheels. A lot <strong>of</strong> us in this place<br />
are very involved with Meals on Wheels: we visit their AGMs and we go out to assist occasionally. In South<br />
Australia we have over 88 branches across the state. I was very privileged to attend two AGMs recently. One was<br />
the West Torrens Meals on Wheels AGM. They do wonderful work in the western suburbs. Their president is Mr<br />
Robert Boyle and their secretary is Mr John Madden. They deliver hundreds <strong>of</strong> meals—I have been out with them<br />
in the past—but it is not just the meal service; it is a connection with people who perhaps have very severe<br />
disabilities, are ageing or have a whole range <strong>of</strong> illnesses. Sometimes the person delivering the meal is the only<br />
person they will see for the entire day. So on many occasions these volunteers are the first people to pick up on<br />
issues or problems that may arise and be their only contact to the outside world.<br />
Some magnificent people have served on the West Torrens Meals on Wheels committee over the years: I have<br />
mentioned President Robert Boyle and Secretary John Madden and I would also like to acknowledge Len<br />
Glastonbury OAM, who passed away a couple <strong>of</strong> years ago. Len was a stalwart <strong>of</strong> Meals on Wheels across the<br />
entire community. He received an OAM a few years ago for his wonderful work. He retired as chair in 2008 and,<br />
<strong>of</strong> course, many others have come in to fill his role. But he is missed at West Torrens Meals on Wheels—a great<br />
man who contributed so much to our community.<br />
At Meals on Wheels they acknowledged the wonderful year they have had and the number <strong>of</strong> meals they have<br />
delivered. It was followed by a wonderful afternoon tea, which was attended by the Mayor <strong>of</strong> West Torrens, John<br />
Trainer, who attended all the AGMs that I have been to over the years.<br />
Meals on Wheels is an absolutely brilliant organisation. We had a friendship group here that we co-chaired<br />
with the member for Parkes up until 2013. I would like to see that group restarted and reinvigorated, because<br />
Meals on Wheels does such good work in all our electorates and each and every one <strong>of</strong> us in this place would have<br />
been out to volunteer with them at some stage. A couple <strong>of</strong> years ago, in 2012 I think, we delivered the millionth<br />
meal here in Canberra, with Mark Coulton. (Time expired)<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your contribution on such a worthy organisation. I call the member<br />
for Swan.<br />
Swan Electorate: Schools<br />
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:34): I rise today to update the <strong>House</strong> on some great schools in my electorate that have<br />
been recent recipients <strong>of</strong> the government's Capital Grants Program. The Turnbull government is providing higher<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> school funding than ever before—a record <strong>of</strong> $73.6 billion in total funding, over the forward estimates,<br />
in all states and territories. That represents a growth in funding from $16 billion this year to $20.1 billion in 2020.<br />
This government recognises the importance <strong>of</strong> providing and improving school capital infrastructure. These<br />
grants from the Capital Grants Program ensure attention is given to refurbishment and upgrading <strong>of</strong> capital<br />
infrastructure for existing students, while also making provisions for needs arising from new demographics and<br />
enrolment trends. The non-government schools sector takes a strong interest in these grants and regard the<br />
program as an essential component <strong>of</strong> the Australian government's support for their schools.<br />
Just recently, two schools in my electorate were awarded funds under the Capital Grants Program. The first was<br />
St Maria Goretti's Catholic School, which will receive $457,000 to construct a new covered assembly area, a new<br />
lift and multi-purpose rooms. They will also refurbish existing learning areas and the canteen. This money will<br />
also be used to extend the existing library.<br />
The Kewdale campus <strong>of</strong> the Australian Islamic College will receive $235,000 for their construction <strong>of</strong> four<br />
general learning areas and two multi-purpose rooms. These construction and refurbishment projects take into<br />
account the latest education research and will see students learn more effectively and be inspired by their new<br />
facilities. I am looking forward to seeing these projects completed.<br />
Two weeks ago, I <strong>of</strong>ficially opened the new classrooms at Fountain College, thanks to the Capital Grants<br />
Program. I was more than happy to represent the education minister and my colleague the member for Tangney,<br />
Ben Morton, whose electorate Fountain College is actually in. Before the boundary redistribution, Fountain<br />
College was in my electorate so I know how great a school it is.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The secular school is very impressive. After we <strong>of</strong>ficially opened the new classrooms, I was given a tour <strong>of</strong> the<br />
school's lab, where students showed me some <strong>of</strong> their robotic projects. There was a music machine, an electronic<br />
ball you had to get through a maze and even a Rubik's Cube-solving robot, which solved a Rubik's Cube in 100<br />
seconds. What was more impressive, though, was the student who made that project: she could solve the Rubik's<br />
Cube faster than the robot.<br />
Before I finish, I want to publicly congratulate two students from Fountain College whom I presented awards<br />
to: firstly, Esra Savran for her citizenship, leadership and philanthropy work—I can see a bright future for her in<br />
politics—and secondly, to Hadi Mohd Fairouz, a year 2 student who finished first in Western Australia for both<br />
maths and English in the International Competitions and Assessments for Schools run by the University <strong>of</strong> New<br />
South Wales. To both those students, congratulations: your awards are well deserved.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Those<br />
Rubik's Cubes were always a challenge for me! You have got some clever kids in your electorate.<br />
Oxley Electorate: Domestic Violence<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:37): I rise today to be absolutely committed to do everything I can to hold this<br />
government to account to ensure we do everything in power to end violence against women. Domestic violence<br />
figures are confronting and they demand serious action from all levels <strong>of</strong> government. On average, one in three<br />
women today have experienced physical violence since the age <strong>of</strong> 15, and one woman dies at the hand <strong>of</strong> a current<br />
or former partner every week in this country. Every year, 300,000 women experience domestic and family<br />
violence.<br />
I am proud to be a White Ribbon ambassador and this is an incredibly important role that I take in our<br />
community. As we know, White Ribbon's aim is to generate understanding <strong>of</strong> domestic violence. It acknowledges<br />
that men speaking to men about stopping violence against women is a powerful catalyst for change. Through<br />
education, preventative programs and community partnerships, we will see a reduction in these horrific statistics.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the events I was privileged to attend last week was held at the St Hugh's Anglican parish in Inala, in the<br />
federal seat <strong>of</strong> Oxley. It was organised by Salome Swan <strong>of</strong> Anglicare. We were joined by Senior Sergeant Neil<br />
Gardner from the Queensland Police Service and Helen Poynton from Relationships Australia. I want to thank and<br />
acknowledge those who attended and spoke at a moving and very worthwhile event: Bevan Doyle, Bruce Manu<br />
Sione, my good friend Uncle Albert Holt, Eddie from Kiwi Daddys, Jeffrey Mwanza—who has been a White<br />
Ribbon ambassador since 2009 and a dedicated social worker—and Greg Duncan, who led a very moving<br />
smoking ceremony.<br />
It was great to see so many members <strong>of</strong> our local community engaged in standing up against domestic violence<br />
through creating understanding, sharing dialogue and encouraging men in our community to take a stance against<br />
domestic violence. I note that last week we saw significant announcements by Bill Shorten, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition, including on family violence leave in employment standards, making revenge porn a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
and, most importantly, not allowing perpetrators to cross-examine victims.<br />
We all know, in some way or other, in this <strong>House</strong> people who have been touched by domestic violence. I know<br />
in my own community this is an issue. I will continue to speak out. I note that on Friday we joined hands to<br />
change ways to make a better place for you and me and it starts with all <strong>of</strong> us taking action.<br />
Renewable Energy<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:40): Today, millions <strong>of</strong> households in developing countries are being<br />
denied access to low-cost fossil fuel generated electricity. In the name <strong>of</strong> taking action on climate change, the<br />
World Bank has said it will no longer fund coal fired power stations in poor countries. Green activists call for<br />
bans on coal exports. Celebrities, like DiCaprio, jet around the world instructing that the fossil fuel industry<br />
should be taxed out <strong>of</strong> existence. Yet fossil fuels remain the lowest cost method <strong>of</strong> generating electricity.<br />
Therefore, without access to this low-cost fossil fuel generated activity millions around the world are forced to<br />
cook and heat their homes with what is deemed renewable energy—the burning <strong>of</strong> animal dung, wood and<br />
agricultural waste—exposing them to high levels <strong>of</strong> indoor air pollution from particulate matter and carbon<br />
monoxide. According to the World Health Organisation this indoor air pollution from such renewables, killed<br />
531,000 children under the age <strong>of</strong> five in the year 2012 alone. So, this decade over five million children under the<br />
age <strong>of</strong> five will die from exposure to indoor air pollution, simply because they do not have access to low-cost<br />
electricity to cook and to heat their homes.<br />
In addition to these deaths, exposure to indoor air pollution as a child unleashes a cycle <strong>of</strong> social and economic<br />
depravation that exacerbates poverty throughout that person's life. Those five million deaths from indoor air<br />
pollution are only the numbers for children under five. From the total population the World Health Organisation<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105<br />
estimates that the number <strong>of</strong> deaths over the decade from indoor air pollution will be 30 million people. By<br />
comparison, 60 million were killed in World War II. The majority <strong>of</strong> these 30 million dead will be women and<br />
girls, as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the disproportionate time they spend at home near the family stoves, burning the<br />
renewables <strong>of</strong> wood, dung and straw.<br />
The world has the ability to end this great green genocide by assisting with the development <strong>of</strong> low-cost<br />
electricity networks around the world. But we have deemed that taking action on climate change is more<br />
important. In the belief that we can stop bad weather and prevent the seven seas from rising, we can simply shrug<br />
our shoulders and write <strong>of</strong>f these 30 million deaths as mere collateral damage.<br />
Housing Affordability<br />
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:43): With the end <strong>of</strong> the parliamentary year upon us, as a new member I<br />
want to emphasise what is important to my electorate. I have seen that what grabs the headlines is not what is<br />
important to the people <strong>of</strong> Macarthur. The Sunday papers, but not the latest ABS data, suggest Sydney is set for a<br />
housing construction boom. If it happens, a lot <strong>of</strong> the proposed construction will be in and around my electorate <strong>of</strong><br />
Macarthur, and we are up for the challenge. There will be lots <strong>of</strong> jobs for people who work in my electorate and<br />
live in my electorate. But as Badgerys Creek airport—unsupported by adequate rail services—looks more likely to<br />
happen than not, we are also primed for the predictable transport chaos that will follow.<br />
I hope also that new housing development in Sydney's south-west is not scuppered by the continuing drift in<br />
federal housing policy. Maybe the government will face up to the issue <strong>of</strong> housing affordability. It could do worse<br />
than take the lead <strong>of</strong> the member for Bennelong, who is showing remarkable tenacity in dragging his leadership to<br />
realise the importance <strong>of</strong> actually doing something about housing policy. The Treasurer too might take seriously<br />
the New South Wales planning minister's criticism <strong>of</strong> the taxation policy.<br />
Locally, our national seniors in Macarthur are wondering why there is no government money to fund the<br />
dedicated geriatric clinic that they need but heaps to subsidise property speculation and high-end tax breaks.<br />
The Macarthur community groups are bewildered by this government's inability to constrain the debate on<br />
section 18C <strong>of</strong> the Radial Discrimination Act. Most just cannot see the point <strong>of</strong> the endless chatter. Our ethnic<br />
communities are a pretty tolerant bunch, but they, like me, have had it up to here with the grandstanders on this<br />
one. Admirably, the members for Berowra and McMillan want their government to take a more tolerant line as<br />
well. I am pleased to see one <strong>of</strong> them here today.<br />
Out my way people are more interested in why they cannot afford specialist medical appointments, why they<br />
cannot afford legal services and why they struggle to get literacy support for their children. Local seniors want<br />
government to stop categorising age pensioners as welfare recipients, and to do more to help with superannuation<br />
for low- and middle-income earners, particularly women.<br />
Macarthur is a slice <strong>of</strong> middle Australia and an honour to represent. It is an increasingly diverse group <strong>of</strong><br />
people with great optimism for the future. They, I have found, are an intelligent group who are sick <strong>of</strong> politicians<br />
not telling the truth, and they are more interested in answers than arguments. From young to old, they want to<br />
work. They need our help to find work. I, like my electorate, am optimistic about our future. I have been very<br />
happy and grateful for all the support I have received from both sides in this parliament, and I thank the members<br />
present for that. I look forward to our future with optimism.<br />
Child Safety<br />
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (10:46): Everyone in this parliament, as all Australians would be, is horrified by the<br />
recent reports <strong>of</strong> unexplained child deaths, particularly in the homes and dwellings known to child protection<br />
agencies. All <strong>of</strong> the work we are doing in health in reducing the deaths <strong>of</strong> children is, at the same speed, being<br />
undone by suspicious deaths, most usually due to ice addicted households. Crystal methamphetamine is a concern<br />
for both sides <strong>of</strong> this parliament, but we have to be unified in coming up with solutions. It is not fundraising<br />
dinners, awareness days and wearing ribbons. We have had enough <strong>of</strong> that. We have had a doubling in unknown<br />
or uncertain or unexplained child deaths in Queensland in just one year. We have had 21 deaths in Queensland, <strong>of</strong><br />
which 15 were unknown, but at the same time we have the appalling falls in the investigation <strong>of</strong> these cases by<br />
child protection workers.<br />
Obviously, there is a tsunami <strong>of</strong> claims, cases and reports that this beleaguered department needs to address.<br />
But I have had enough <strong>of</strong> hearing about kids stabbed while they sleep. I have had enough <strong>of</strong> hearing about<br />
children lying on the bottom <strong>of</strong> a pool for 40 minutes before anyone was alerted. I have had enough <strong>of</strong> hearing<br />
about ruptured duodenums and ruptured anuses. All <strong>of</strong> these stories can only stop if we start doing something<br />
completely different.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
There must be zero tolerance for sending children home into the arms <strong>of</strong> ice addicted parents. In Queensland,<br />
all five cases where tragedies occurred in ice families happened when they were downgraded from statutory<br />
separation to an IPA, meaning: we will attempt all wraparound supports possible and see if this works. That kind<br />
<strong>of</strong> social experimentation is utterly unacceptable. We know about the paranoia, the violence and the agitation that<br />
comes with ice. We know that amphetamine users are moving to this pure and more aggressive form. So we need<br />
to do something. We need to make sure child protection is absolutely on the ball so that we do not have 79 per<br />
cent <strong>of</strong> cases not investigated within 10 days, as demanded. We need to make sure the kids are not sent home from<br />
paediatric units with absolutely no evaluation, with a warning sent to child protection that is simply not picked up.<br />
We need to make sure that if you want to take a child with suspicious injuries home, you will pass an ice test<br />
before that child leaves our care.<br />
No child is safe in the home <strong>of</strong> an ice abuser. We can link to CrimTrac and link to Centrelink and make sure<br />
that every adult in that household is clear <strong>of</strong> ice, or we do not release their child. You can stay with your child, but<br />
you will stay there until you are clean and clear, because these parents are not spending their money on their<br />
kids—covered in nappy rash and excrement. The money, which is public money, is going on drug debts. And that<br />
will only end with a unified Labor, Liberal and crossbench approach to cracking down on ice and not leaving<br />
children in these parents' care.<br />
Wakefield Electorate: Bushfires<br />
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:49): On 25 November last year, my electorate suffered through some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
worst fires in South Australia in living memory: more than 80,000 hectares burnt; a fire front <strong>of</strong> around 200<br />
kilometres long; and two people, sadly, died in the blaze. In its aftermath there were dust storms and many<br />
devastated communities and farms; there were burning hay bales and hay sheds. A big clean-up and a big<br />
recovery effort was needed. Of course I want to extend my condolences to both the Hughes and Tiller families,<br />
who suffered the worst loss as a result <strong>of</strong> these fires.<br />
The towns affected—which included Pinery, Mallala, Pinkerton Plains, Wasleys, Owen, Hamley Bridge,<br />
Stockport, Roseworthy, Templers, Freeling, Daveyston, Greenock, Kapunda, Tarlee, Marrabel, Allendale North<br />
and Eudunda—tell you about the extent <strong>of</strong> this fire. It tells you the communities affected are part <strong>of</strong> South<br />
Australia's great farming communities—very productive farmland, very beautiful farmland. The fire burnt right up<br />
to the edge <strong>of</strong> the Barossa Valley. It was really only the wind that stopped it going into the valley or going into<br />
Gawler or Lyndoch. It was a truly terrible event.<br />
I know many people, some I went to school with, who did not see this as an anniversary to be remembered, and<br />
who politely said on Facebook that they were very happy that everybody had contacted them, but they were going<br />
<strong>of</strong>fline for a little while to digest the year just gone, the one we are remembering.<br />
I do want to thank the Plains Producer for doing such a wonderful spread in their paper. Of all the community<br />
events and the things that have gone on since that time, to mark the anniversary <strong>of</strong> what was a devastating fire—it<br />
is important that we remember it; it is important that we prepare for a new bushfire season. We have had a very<br />
wet winter in South Australia, so the fuel loads will be quite large. There is already an explosion <strong>of</strong> snakes in the<br />
Barossa Valley. I had one in my front yard the other day. We are seeing that increased fuel load, and we will need<br />
to be very cautious about the fire season ahead. I encourage everybody to prepare and to have their fire evacuation<br />
plans in place.<br />
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization<br />
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:52): Today I stand to condemn the recent push through the United Nations<br />
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, for removing Jewish ties to the Temple Mount<br />
complex. This comes after a vote on 26 October, where UNESCO voted to refer to Jerusalem holy sites by only<br />
their Muslim names, through its resolution on occupied Palestine. This is not acceptable. Prime Minister Benjamin<br />
Netanyahu rightly slammed the vote, stating:<br />
The theatre <strong>of</strong> the absurd continues at the UN … denying the Jewish people's connection to the Temple Mount, our holiest<br />
site for more than 3,000 years.<br />
To say Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall <strong>of</strong><br />
China or Egypt has no connection to the pyramids … But I believe the historical truth is stronger and that truth will prevail.<br />
And today we are dealing with the truth.<br />
I would like to state on record today that I believe strongly in the statement <strong>of</strong> Prime Minister Netanyahu and that<br />
that is the truth.<br />
Religious freedom must always be accommodated in the rights and freedoms <strong>of</strong> all, but we must recognise the<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> the Jewish people should be respected, including proper respect for their faith, culture and cultural ties<br />
to significant and important sites. This resolution segregates the Jewish people further. It is utterly shameful.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107<br />
Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have made it known to<br />
the world that they are prepared to stand up for religious freedom and for the enduring connections <strong>of</strong> the Jewish<br />
people to Temple Mount—and so should we. This decision to dishonour and disrespect the enduring connection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Jewish people to the Temple Mount makes a mockery and undermines some <strong>of</strong> the fundamental principles that<br />
this country should stand for.<br />
In a much broader context, I am concerned about some <strong>of</strong> the trends we are now seeing. According to reports in<br />
The Australian today, it has been alleged by Israeli authorities that our government has indirectly and<br />
unintentionally been one <strong>of</strong> the biggest funders <strong>of</strong> the Hamas terrorist organisation in Gaza over the past seven<br />
years, through World Vision Gaza.<br />
The head <strong>of</strong> World Vision Gaza has been charged in August for funnelling money, and subsequently World<br />
Vision Gaza has suspended operations. I think that it is very important for all <strong>of</strong> us to make it clear that this is<br />
inappropriate and we expect an immediate investigation so that no Australian tax dollars are used to promote<br />
terrorism against the Jewish people <strong>of</strong> Israel as well as the Palestinian people, as so <strong>of</strong>ten the governments in those<br />
regions have sought to do. This is an opportunity for us to stand up for our values in the international sphere and<br />
continue to recognise the enduring connection <strong>of</strong> the Jewish people to Temple Mount and also ensure that our tax<br />
dollars will never go towards promoting terrorism. I am sure all members would agree with me on these<br />
sentiments.<br />
Medicare<br />
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (10:55): The federal Liberal government's plan to destroy Medicare by dismantling and<br />
limiting access to Medicare is proceeding at breakneck speed. The Liberal's strategy is now clear. By stopping the<br />
processing <strong>of</strong> Medicare claims at Centrelink <strong>of</strong>fices and progressively removing Medicare staff from Centrelink<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices, the government is forcing people to wait weeks for claims to be processed and paid. By doing this, they<br />
are removing universal access and trying to destroy Medicare's appeal to the general public. Bringing the public<br />
sector and its services into disrepute is part <strong>of</strong> this government's strategy to remove the social safety net. There are<br />
now around 130,000 patient claims in the queue for processing. And claim rebate times have increased from two<br />
days to five to six weeks.<br />
Only on Friday, Margret from Nundah called my <strong>of</strong>fice. She explained: her daughter had been waiting six<br />
weeks for a Medicare rebate. There are at least 130,000 Margrets right across this country. There will be<br />
resistance to this from the public and it will increase customer aggression. Staff are already being encouraged to<br />
mislead the public in promising claims will be processed overnight, if left. Wait times this long are not just an<br />
inconvenience. They create serious hardship for working Australians. The removal <strong>of</strong> immediate claims<br />
processing from the DHS <strong>of</strong>fices will adversely affect the poor, the sick, the technologically-disadvantaged and<br />
the chronically ill or anyone who needs to access their rebate straightaway, for example, to pay for further<br />
treatment or medication.<br />
The Medicare staff at Centrelink have a wealth <strong>of</strong> knowledge and experience, and many <strong>of</strong> these are being<br />
removed and sent to staff hubs. This will lead and represent a drastic loss <strong>of</strong> knowledge and information. The<br />
Liberal's strategy is now very clear—having failed to undermine Medicare with a series <strong>of</strong> proposals designed to<br />
eat away and undermine the framework <strong>of</strong> Medicare, they have now decided they will degrade Medicare services<br />
to the point where the public demands change to Medicare. From what I have been hearing from other electorate<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices, this is occurring right around the country. The Liberals are intent on strangling Medicare services. What is<br />
occurring now in Centrelink <strong>of</strong>fices is just part <strong>of</strong> wrecking Medicare. Australians pay a Medicare levy to ensure<br />
their access to affordable universal health care is conducted pr<strong>of</strong>essionally and efficiently. This government is the<br />
first in the history <strong>of</strong> Medicare to short-change the Australian people by not giving them the fast, reliable rebate <strong>of</strong><br />
their medical expenses that they pay into their levy. The Australian people know that this Prime Minister cannot<br />
keep his hands <strong>of</strong>f Medicare. Why can't he? This Prime Minister and the Liberals and Nationals have a 40-year<br />
project to destroy it. (Time expired)<br />
Small Business<br />
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:58): The coalition government has sought to turn the tide <strong>of</strong> economic<br />
mismanagement under successive Labor governments. We have cut red tape and taxes on small businesses, which<br />
are the lifeblood <strong>of</strong> the Australian economy. Since the coalition was returned to government in 2013, 467,100 new<br />
jobs have been created. Jobs growth has been running at 10 times the rate that we inherited from the previous<br />
government. Consumer confidence has risen. Real or nominal growth has increased. This is what comes from<br />
responsible economic management.<br />
My electorate <strong>of</strong> Berowra is home to over 15,000 small businesses. We have one <strong>of</strong> the largest number <strong>of</strong> small<br />
businesses <strong>of</strong> any part <strong>of</strong> Australia. And Berowra businesses want tax relief. They want tax relief so they can<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
invest more in their businesses. They want tax relief so they can employ more people. They want tax relief so<br />
governments can get out <strong>of</strong> their way and help turn their small businesses into bigger businesses. They want tax<br />
relief because Berowra businesses know that they can spend their own money so much better than any<br />
government can. That is why, during the election campaign and afterwards, small businesses in my electorate<br />
have told me how much they like the government's Enterprise Tax Plan.<br />
Berowra small business people know that there is a difference between revenue and pr<strong>of</strong>it. They know that<br />
businesses that have a $2.1 million turnover are not just small businesses; they are microbusinesses. It is why,<br />
during the election campaign and after, Berowra small businesses kept asking me, 'Why don't the Labor Party<br />
support the government's Enterprise Tax Plan to reduce company tax all the way to 25 per cent?' It is because<br />
Labor are playing the politics <strong>of</strong> envy. They do not want small businesses to become larger business; they do not<br />
believe in jobs and growth; and they have given up the economic reform mantle <strong>of</strong> the Hawke-Keating years—a<br />
period in government which was an anomaly in Labor's history.<br />
This was not always the case. The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition used to support company tax reform. As Assistant<br />
Treasurer, on 6 April 2011, he said:<br />
The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest.<br />
… … …<br />
Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.<br />
This recognises the benefits to investment and growth—<br />
I repeat that: 'the benefits to investment and growth'—<br />
from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over … 30 years.<br />
As Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, on 13 March 2012, he said:<br />
Any student <strong>of</strong> Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part <strong>of</strong> Australia's success was derived<br />
through the reduction in the company tax rate …<br />
… We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.<br />
And as Assistant Treasurer, in 2011, he said:<br />
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher<br />
productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.<br />
It is time Labor backed small businesses in Berowra and elsewhere. It is time Labor acknowledged that a business<br />
with a turnover <strong>of</strong> $2.1 million is not a big business. It is time Labor supported the government's Enterprise Tax<br />
Plan.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members'<br />
constituency statements has now concluded.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS<br />
Dismissal<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz) (11:02): Before calling the member for Bruce, I remind the<br />
member <strong>of</strong> standing order 88.<br />
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:02): I will be entirely respectful in relation to the appropriate address to the Queen. I<br />
move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) there is a current controversy pertaining to the so called 'palace letters' between the then Governor-General Sir John<br />
Kerr and Her Majesty The Queen in the months leading up to the dismissal <strong>of</strong> the Whitlam Government; and<br />
(b) this correspondence has been declared 'personal' and therefore secret at 'Her Majesty the Queen's instructions';<br />
(2) acknowledges that:<br />
(a) these letters are a matter <strong>of</strong> our national history which should be made available to the Australian people;<br />
(b) regardless <strong>of</strong> the merits or otherwise <strong>of</strong> the dismissal, Australians deserve to know the extent to which The Queen<br />
involved herself in the sacking <strong>of</strong> an elected Australian Government; and<br />
(c) the very notion <strong>of</strong> 'personal' letters between the Monarch and the Governor-General <strong>of</strong>fends all concepts <strong>of</strong><br />
transparency and democracy that we hold dear; and<br />
(3) call on the Australian Government to take steps to have the documents released.<br />
I am pleased to move this motion regarding the so-called palace letters, which remain hidden from the Australian<br />
people. It calls upon the government to take immediate steps to have these documents, which belong to the<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109<br />
Australian people, released. It is an intriguing affair, and I know it may seem less relevant than many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
important debates that confront our nation—the government's lack <strong>of</strong> plan for jobs, economic mismanagement,<br />
growing inequality and so on—but I do believe that these issues are also important and worthy <strong>of</strong> this 20 minutes<br />
<strong>of</strong> debate.<br />
What are these documents, and why are they not being released? The letters are between the then Governor-<br />
General and the Queen in the months leading up to the dismissal <strong>of</strong> the Whitlam government. We do not actually<br />
know how many letters there are, although informed speculation suggests there are dozens. Ordinarily, we would<br />
not even be having this debate, because they would simply be released as a matter <strong>of</strong> course through the normal<br />
FOI or Archives Act procedures. These mechanisms do not exclude Government <strong>House</strong>, but these letters have<br />
mysteriously been marked 'personal', and therefore secret, at Her Majesty's instructions; hence the ordinary<br />
procedures are not working, and this veil <strong>of</strong> undemocratic secrecy has descended.<br />
We understand that the final word on whether Australians will ever see these papers remains with the Queen's<br />
private secretary and the Governor-General's <strong>of</strong>ficial secretary, even after 2027. In my view, this is outrageous<br />
and illogical, as dispatches to the Queen are part <strong>of</strong> the Governor-General's duty. Indeed, Sir John Kerr made that<br />
clear in his book Matters for Judgement. So how on earth can they now be marked 'personal'? They should be<br />
available like other important government records.<br />
But why does it matter? Firstly, they are <strong>of</strong> great historical importance, and they are Australian documents—<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the few remaining missing pieces that relate to the greatest constitutional crisis our country has known.<br />
They may well provide the smoking gun as to how much the palace knew <strong>of</strong> Sir John Kerr's intentions to sack a<br />
democratically elected government. Whatever you think <strong>of</strong> the Dismissal, and there are a range <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
Australians do have the right to know the full story. It has been a bitter and abiding controversy for decades—to<br />
quote Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jenny Hocking, 'always with the lingering sense that there was more to be found'. It has taken<br />
decades to find out many <strong>of</strong> the basic facts, in large part due to the diligent work over many years <strong>of</strong> Jenny<br />
Hocking. Sir John Kerr, at the time and for years afterwards, provided a misleading and deceptive public account<br />
arguing that his dismissal <strong>of</strong> an elected government was necessary to break a political deadlock. Yet we now<br />
know that he was considering the possibility <strong>of</strong> dismissing the government for months and that he had certainly<br />
decided to do so some days earlier, apparently fearful for his own job.<br />
Secondly, they raise important issues about our democracy, constitution and sovereignty. The defining feature<br />
<strong>of</strong> this, our parliamentary democracy, is that the party that commands a majority in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong><br />
shall form the government. This was repudiated in 1975. The dismissal <strong>of</strong> an elected government is no small thing<br />
and history can repeat itself. So it is important that, even 40 years on, we eventually gain a full understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
what happened. I believe that this raises genuine issues about our residual relationship with the Crown. Are we<br />
really a sovereign nation if we cannot access our own national records, just down the road in the National<br />
Archives, without the permission <strong>of</strong> 'a foreign queen'—those were the Prime Minister's words.<br />
Finally, this is a matter <strong>of</strong> principle because this curious case breaks principle and practice in regard to the<br />
release <strong>of</strong> government documents. Cabinet documents will soon be released just 20 years after they were created,<br />
and there is no basis for these documents to be locked away. So how can they be released? We should not be<br />
having this discussion—but we are. The courts are one possible way. There is a current Federal Court case, on<br />
which I will not comment. I commend Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jenny Hocking, who has mounted this case on her own initiative<br />
and at considerable personal risk. But it should not be left up to a researcher.<br />
It has been reported that, in November last year, the Prime Minister said he would make a formal approach to<br />
the Queen to ask her to release what are our national records. I have heard no more <strong>of</strong> that and I do not know<br />
whether it has happened. In any event, that is not good enough. I call on the government to take firm action now<br />
and advise the Queen formally to just release these documents immediately, understanding that she is required to<br />
act on such advice. Or so we are told; if not, then that is a shocking revelation about our system <strong>of</strong> government. A<br />
one-<strong>of</strong>f request does nothing to ensure that similar documents are not hidden again. So we may need to review<br />
legislation and arrangements to stop this from happening. In summary, I believe this is an important matter <strong>of</strong><br />
historical record. These are Australian documents. What is there to hide? Why not simply release them? They do<br />
raise important issues and it breaks the general principle that government documents are released—and<br />
Government <strong>House</strong> is not exempt from this legislation.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Dreyfus: I second the motion.<br />
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:07): I thank my friend the member for Bruce for this particular motion but I have<br />
to say I disagree with it. It underscores Labor's enduring obsession with Sir John Kerr, an obsession that never<br />
really died. That is really what is at the heart <strong>of</strong> the motion today. It is understandable that there is significant<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
public interest in these documents. These documents will be released at some point in the future, but when they<br />
are released is quite properly a matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the Governor-General. I find it ironic that<br />
we get this motion from a political party that established special legislation in the case <strong>of</strong> the parliamentary<br />
committee <strong>of</strong> inquiry into the conduct <strong>of</strong> a judge. That was the Murphy papers. It was an inquiry relating to<br />
whether former High Court Justice Lionel Murphy had indeed met the test under section 72 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution<br />
that proved misbehaviour. That particular set <strong>of</strong> documents was sealed for 30 years and has only just been<br />
released. The full set <strong>of</strong> those documents is still not in the hands <strong>of</strong> the public. Instead, we have a motion like this<br />
one, which is looking at documents which in the ordinary course <strong>of</strong> events will eventually be released. But now is<br />
not necessarily the time. As the member for Bruce said, this matter is the subject <strong>of</strong> Federal Court proceedings at<br />
the moment. I think it is premature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> to have this motion at a time when those proceedings are still<br />
pending.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the things with the Labor Party's Kerr obsession is that they hounded him from <strong>of</strong>fice, they refused to<br />
attend functions with him while he was there, they encouraged protesters to 'maintain their rage' against him, they<br />
hounded him—and now there is this, beyond the grave. When does the obsession stop? The truth is that one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
biggest electoral defeats for the Labor Party occurred after the 1975 dismissal. The Australian people had their<br />
say. Sir John Kerr's duty in that election was to resolve a political and constitutional crisis by letting Australian<br />
have their say.<br />
I think there is an assumption on the other side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> that statements in these papers may well vindicate<br />
a view that Sir John Kerr acted improperly. I am not sure that it will. Opposition members should not assume that.<br />
It is clear from Sir John Kerr's unpublished book The Triumph <strong>of</strong> the Constitution that he himself wanted his<br />
correspondence to eventually be released. My successor as Executive Director <strong>of</strong> the Menzies Research Centre,<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Don Markwell, who is an expert in this area, wrote in his recent book The Constitutional Conventions<br />
and the Headship <strong>of</strong> State: Australian Experience 2016, on page 146 in reference to The Triumph <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Constitution:<br />
It is clear that Sir John Kerr wished the correspondence with Buckingham Palace made public at an appropriate time ... The<br />
clear implication <strong>of</strong> what he writes is that this will show that version <strong>of</strong> events which he record in—<br />
his book—<br />
Matters for Judgement was what he recorded at the time <strong>of</strong> events in reports to the Queen.<br />
So the eventual publication <strong>of</strong> this correspondence might not actually give members opposite what they are<br />
looking for.<br />
But there is a broader principle here, which is the principle that correspondence between the sovereign and the<br />
Governor-General is <strong>of</strong> such a high level that it would deal with the most important, most secret matters, <strong>of</strong> state,<br />
and you want to have a free and frank exchange between the sovereign and her representative here in order that<br />
both her representative can get counsel and the sovereign can be fully informed about Australian matters. I do not<br />
have any doubt that what the Queen, or the Queen's Private Secretary, wrote at the time, on 17 November 1975, to<br />
the Speaker <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> remains true, and that is:<br />
As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers <strong>of</strong> the Crown in the<br />
hands <strong>of</strong> the Governor General as the representative <strong>of</strong> the Queen <strong>of</strong> Australia. The only person competent to commission an<br />
Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and the Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General<br />
must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen <strong>of</strong> Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close<br />
interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within<br />
the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.<br />
We have a fairly clear statement that the Queen remained out <strong>of</strong> these matters, that these were always matters for<br />
her Australian representative to deal with, and that is exactly what occurred here.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the other great myths about 1975 is that the blocking <strong>of</strong> supply by the Fraser opposition was somehow<br />
completely out <strong>of</strong> whack with what had occurred previously in the Australian parliament. There were 170<br />
occasions during the life <strong>of</strong> the Gorton government where the Labor opposition in the Senate sought to block<br />
supply. Mr Whitlam and Senator Murphy, as he then was, both were architects <strong>of</strong> those occasions. I oppose the<br />
motion and hope it is defeated.<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (11:12): Transparency and probity have<br />
not been the hallmarks <strong>of</strong> the Abbott-Turnbull government, with failures from tax transparency to the refusal to<br />
release the Attorney-General's diary, marking the Abbott-Turnbull years like ink blots on a parchment <strong>of</strong><br />
otherwise inconspicuous and subpar governance. The Attorney-General failing to support the freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
information laws that he is in fact responsible for overseeing was an unedifying spectacle but one that Australians<br />
are now used to seeing under this government. Despite this government's scant regard for transparency, I speak<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111<br />
today to call on the Prime Minister to take action to require the National Archives to release the so-called palace<br />
letters—the letters between the Queen and the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr regarding the dismissal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Whitlam government.<br />
It is farcical that some 41 years after the Dismissal the full facts <strong>of</strong> the event are not known. Indeed, it is a gross<br />
disservice to the history <strong>of</strong> our great country that such a central event in Australian political history has been<br />
hidden from the public eye, and the contribution to this debate that we have just heard from the member for<br />
Berowra in fact demonstrates the point. He was prepared to engage in yet further speculation and then say, 'I don't<br />
know about the events that these letters are concerned with.' The Australian public deserves to know from these<br />
letters and from every other document relevant to this matter exactly what occurred.<br />
In 2005, 30 years after the Dismissal, the National Archives <strong>of</strong> Australia released Sir John Kerr's notes,<br />
journals, reflections and letters regarding the Dismissal. These pieces <strong>of</strong> correspondence revealed, or should I say<br />
exposed, the collusion <strong>of</strong> Sir John Kerr with Malcolm Fraser to dismiss the Whitlam government. We learned a lot<br />
from the release <strong>of</strong> these documents 30 years after they were written, but the palace letters, the central part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
puzzle, remain unreleased.<br />
The reasons that the letters between Sir John Kerr and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth were classified as<br />
'personal' is unclear, to say the least. To my mind, it is a ludicrous suggestion that they should be described as<br />
'personal'. Queen Elizabeth II was and is the monarch <strong>of</strong> Australia. Sir John Kerr was her representative in<br />
Australia. The letters between the two were written entirely because <strong>of</strong> their respective positions. They were not<br />
inviting each other to afternoon tea. The relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Sir John Kerr was a<br />
governmental and pr<strong>of</strong>essional one—one befitting the relationship between the Queen and the Governor-General.<br />
If Sir John Kerr had not been the Governor-General, these letters would not have been written. They were written<br />
to discuss a matter <strong>of</strong> governance—namely, whether the Governor-General would dismiss the democratically<br />
elected government <strong>of</strong> Gough Whitlam.<br />
The suppression <strong>of</strong> the palace letters is a complex affair. As they are still classified as 'personal letters', they are<br />
not considered to be Commonwealth records and accordingly do not fall under the Archives Act, meaning that<br />
their suppression cannot be challenged through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as could occur with other<br />
records belonging to the Archives, but instead only through the Federal Court.<br />
I acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jenny Hocking <strong>of</strong> Monash University, who has launched a legal action<br />
against the National Archives for the release <strong>of</strong> the palace letters. Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Hocking's action supports the great<br />
tradition <strong>of</strong> transparency in this country, and she is owed a debt <strong>of</strong> gratitude for her commitment to removing<br />
ambiguity and ensuring accuracy <strong>of</strong> Australian history. The palace letters are a piece <strong>of</strong> Australian history that is<br />
far too important not to be released. Any action to suppress these letters, whether through inaction or through<br />
direct opposition, is a hit on the principles <strong>of</strong> open access and transparency that all governments should support.<br />
I understand that the Prime Minister has proposed a formal approach to the Queen requesting her approval to<br />
release our country's own records. We live under a passive monarchy, where the rule <strong>of</strong> law and the principles <strong>of</strong><br />
transparency and probity are not run past the monarch for her approval but established in this parliament in which<br />
I speak today and upheld in the courts <strong>of</strong> Australia. This is not a matter <strong>of</strong> whether you are a republican or a<br />
monarchist; it is a matter <strong>of</strong> the accuracy <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the most important events in modern Australian history. The<br />
position <strong>of</strong> the Governor-General is one <strong>of</strong> public interest. Letters between the Queen and her representative, the<br />
Governor-General, are by definition governmental and pr<strong>of</strong>essional and should be treated as such by the Archives<br />
Act. I know that the Prime Minister is a keen follower <strong>of</strong> our national history, and I call on him to support<br />
Australia's great egalitarian tradition and take the appropriate steps to ensure that the National Archives release<br />
these documents.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz): Given that there are no further speakers, debate is now adjourned<br />
and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting day.<br />
Child Sexual Abuse<br />
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:18): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) recognises the actions this Government has taken to establish the Commonwealth Redress Scheme (CRS) for survivors <strong>of</strong><br />
institutional child sexual abuse;<br />
(2) congratulates this Government for leading by example by establishing the CRS for survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sexual<br />
abuse and for inviting other governments and institutions to 'opt in' to the scheme on the responsible 'entity pays basis'<br />
recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;<br />
(3) acknowledges the courage <strong>of</strong> the survivors who presented evidence to the Royal Commission and that their past and<br />
continuing advocacy for redress is vital to the successful implementation <strong>of</strong> the CRS; and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(4) recognises that this Government acknowledges that survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sexual abuse need and deserve equal<br />
access and treatment.<br />
The Turnbull government announced on 4 November this year a Commonwealth Redress Scheme for survivors <strong>of</strong><br />
institutional child sexual abuse and, on that day, invited states, territories and non-government institutions to join<br />
in the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress to the survivors <strong>of</strong> these wrongs. It was a privilege for me to be<br />
there on the day that the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, made the announcement in my home town<br />
<strong>of</strong> Perth. Much <strong>of</strong> the information that I will relay today will be information that Mr Porter included in his speech<br />
and also in documents about the redress scheme. Mr Porter said at the announcement:<br />
Today's announcement is delivering on the Coalition's commitment to strive to ensure redress is provided for survivors <strong>of</strong><br />
institutional child sexual abuse across Australia by the responsible institutions<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware that, in the time that I have been in parliament, on many occasions I<br />
have called for redress from those institutions, the churches, charities and non-government institutions who<br />
sexually abused children during that period <strong>of</strong> time, and for them to stump up, return the money that was paid to<br />
them by governments and give some redress to these people who were wronged.<br />
The government acknowledges that survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sexual abuse were abandoned and betrayed<br />
by many institutions, including governments, churches and charities. Some people may ask what the<br />
Commonwealth government Redress Scheme is. To put it simply, this scheme will provide support services to<br />
people who were sexually abused as children in Commonwealth institutional settings. It will <strong>of</strong>fer a direct<br />
personal response for those survivors who seek it, psychological counselling and a monetary payment to<br />
acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors.<br />
Along with many <strong>of</strong> my colleagues on both sides <strong>of</strong> the chamber, I think this has been a welcome<br />
announcement. I know there are some who may say it has taken too long, and there are others who will criticise<br />
the scheme and the processes. There will be others who also say that the scheme should be compulsory, but we<br />
cannot forget that this is about getting the best outcome for victims <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse. I know that some people have<br />
said, 'Can't the Commonwealth just establish a scheme for all survivors?'<br />
The fact is that we cannot force the states to be a part <strong>of</strong> this national scheme. Our desire is to achieve the best<br />
option as soon as we can, and that is for a nationally consistent approach to redress so survivors across Australia<br />
get equal access and treatment. But the states and the institutions need to be on board to achieve this. We will<br />
continue discussions with the states in the hope that we can get the best outcome for survivors.<br />
As I said earlier, while the Commonwealth is unable to force participation in a national scheme, the<br />
government will be working closely with states, territories and other non-government institutions to work towards<br />
maximising national consistency. A truly national scheme requires the support <strong>of</strong> the states and the territories. I<br />
would also look to those on the other side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> to assist the states that are led by people in their party to<br />
get on board with this Redress Scheme, as I will be encouraging the Western Australian government to get on<br />
board with the scheme as well.<br />
The Commonwealth scheme is expected to be established by 2018 and will <strong>of</strong>fer a direct personal response for<br />
those survivors who seek it, options to receive psychological counselling and a monetary payment, comprising a<br />
maximum payment <strong>of</strong> $150,000, to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon them. As I have said many times,<br />
the money will never compensate for the abuse that they received, and the psychological and ongoing support that<br />
they need is probably just as important as the payment.<br />
The government will also establish an independent advisory council as soon as possible, bringing together a<br />
broad group <strong>of</strong> specialists, including survivor groups, legal and psychological experts, to provide advice on the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the scheme. Hopefully, there will be people from both sides <strong>of</strong> this chamber—at least one<br />
representative from each side <strong>of</strong> this chamber—on that independent board. Importantly, the government is taking<br />
strong action to prevent child sexual abuse in the future, working with state and territory governments, law<br />
enforcement agencies, the community sector and researchers to keep children safe. I just happened to see the<br />
member for Bowman make a stirring speech here before, in this same chamber, about child abuse and child sexual<br />
abuse. In particular, through establishing the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children and funding<br />
a range <strong>of</strong> early intervention and prevention services such as the children and parenting support program,<br />
Communities for Children and the Intensive Family Support Service, the central thing that we are trying to avoid<br />
in all <strong>of</strong> this is re-traumatising the victims, who have already been through an enormous amount.<br />
In designing the blueprint for the Commonwealth Redress Scheme, we have exercised every available method<br />
and have endeavoured to give practical and operational effect to the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the royal commission.<br />
The design <strong>of</strong> the redress scheme operated by the Commonwealth is based on four principles. The first principle is<br />
that the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will not just be about facilitating individual monetary redress payments.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113<br />
Of equal importance to the individualised monetary redress payments is ensuring that the scheme develops and<br />
provides emotional, mental and other support mechanisms to people who are survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional abuse. So,<br />
as well as the monetary payments designed to provide some tangible recognition <strong>of</strong> the hurt and the harm that<br />
have been suffered by so many Australians, the Commonwealth scheme will also provide access for survivors to<br />
trauma-informed and culturally adapted counselling over the entire life <strong>of</strong> the scheme.<br />
It will, thirdly, also allow for something that many redress schemes have not allowed for, and that is personal<br />
and direct contact being available, if sought by survivors, with responsible institutions. To put that in more detail,<br />
it will be open for any survivor, if they wish, to be able to tell directly and in person a very senior and appropriate<br />
individual located in the appropriate organisation their story, and what actually occurred to them. That will be<br />
totally at their wish, but that will be available to them as well. So part <strong>of</strong> all this is going to be a structured and<br />
available forum for the victims <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse to direct and give their stories in a meaningful, individualised way.<br />
The second principle <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will be that the Commonwealth will continue to<br />
do absolutely everything within its power to institute a Commonwealth scheme that has maximum reach to<br />
Australians, no matter where they suffered the abuse. The government will exercise every endeavour to make the<br />
reach <strong>of</strong> our scheme as broad as possible, with the ultimate point being to try and make the system that will<br />
operate across Australia as consistent as possible for each victim, each survivor, no matter where they were<br />
located.<br />
Now to give life to this principle, and to use the direct language <strong>of</strong> the royal commission report, the<br />
Commonwealth will be the operator <strong>of</strong> a best practice redress scheme, which is open nationally for any state, any<br />
territory or any non-government institution to opt into the scheme. The government will be—and this is the<br />
second principle—the operator <strong>of</strong> an opt-in scheme. Any state, any territory, any church or any charity who has<br />
responsibility in this area will be able to opt into the scheme that the government has announced.<br />
Consistent with the royal commission recommendations, where an entity opts into the scheme—whether they<br />
be a state, territory or non-government institution—they opt in on an opt-in basis. Using again the words <strong>of</strong> the<br />
royal commission, they would opt in on a basis that they fund the cost <strong>of</strong> their own eligible redress claims in<br />
accordance with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the redress scheme operator. The description <strong>of</strong> that second principle is this is<br />
an opt-in scheme that is operated on a responsible entity-pays basis, consistent with the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
royal commission.<br />
The third principle on which the scheme will be based is that the Commonwealth, <strong>of</strong> course, as the operator <strong>of</strong><br />
this scheme, will require opting in entities, whether they are churches, charities, state governments or territory<br />
governments, to abide by the process and design rules that we, the Commonwealth, will institute. The opt-in<br />
scheme that we establish will represent the absolute best practice scheme in Australia.<br />
Central to being the best practice scheme, it will be as non-legal and as informal as all the circumstances will<br />
allow. Redress payments will be exempted from any potential Commonwealth debt recoveries that may be going<br />
on, or could in the future go on, with respect to the individual. Payments will be exempt from any income tests<br />
that are relevant to other government payments; so, if there is an income test that is relevant to a government<br />
welfare payment, the redress amount will be exempt from that assessment. The application process will be<br />
supportive, it will be simple, it will be flexible, and as much will be done as is reasonably possible to avoid the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> re-traumatisation. The scheme—and this is very important—will last for 10 years, and it will be<br />
flexible. At the end <strong>of</strong> that 10 years, there will be a review. If there is a requirement to extend the scheme, it will<br />
be extended.<br />
I have run out <strong>of</strong> time, but I really do want to speak to all the survivors who have given their stories to the royal<br />
commission and congratulate them on their valiant efforts to bring to light the sexual abuse they suffered while<br />
they were in institutions. I wish them all the best for the future, and I am proud to have been part <strong>of</strong> the process<br />
that has brought this issue to this conclusion.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz): I thank the honourable member for his heartfelt contribution. Is<br />
the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Ramsey: The motion is seconded.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.<br />
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:28): Can I thank the member for Swan for putting this motion on our agenda,<br />
and I also thank him for his engagement with this issue, which is so close to him. I cannot say I agree with<br />
everything he has said, but I do want to point to the recommendations in the royal commission. There were five<br />
key findings: firstly, that a national redress scheme should be established to process compensation claims for<br />
about 60,000 child abuse survivors; secondly, survivors with a reasonable likelihood <strong>of</strong> having been abused<br />
should receive at least $10,000 and up to $200,000 in the most severe cases; thirdly, that federal, state and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
territory governments should pay shortfall funding for institutions, which would be about $613 million or about<br />
15 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total redress funding; fourthly, religious organisations and residential facilities for children<br />
should be liable for child sexual abuse in civil lawsuits—I think that is problematic; and, fifthly, unlimited<br />
counselling and psychological care should be available episodically through the survivors' lives.<br />
In my view, the government has opted for the next best option with the 'opt in' proposal. There is real concern<br />
in the broader community about this element <strong>of</strong> an opt in. There will be a 10-year scheme, as the member said,<br />
which will commence in 2018 and could be extended past 2028 if that is required. The royal commission<br />
estimated the total cost <strong>of</strong> redress—at $200,000 for 60,000 abuse survivors—including administration costs, at<br />
about $4.3 billion, which is a significant sum <strong>of</strong> money. It is very clear that there are many, many Australians who<br />
have suffered as a result <strong>of</strong> the perversity and horrendous victimisation <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse and suffered the<br />
depravity <strong>of</strong> those who have perpetrated that abuse on them.<br />
I want to concentrate on evidence which the royal commission took from the Retta Dixon home in Darwin—<br />
one <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> institutions for the stolen generations in the Northern Territory. There were seven institutions<br />
in the Northern Territory, where over 1,000 children were placed in homes. They were run by the church and<br />
funded by the Commonwealth government. These institutions were open at various times:<br />
1. Croker Island Mission was a ‘half-caste’ mission located on the coast <strong>of</strong> Arnhem Land approximately 150kms by air<br />
from Darwin and run by the Methodist Overseas Missions …<br />
2. Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, run by the Catholic Church and is about 60klms north <strong>of</strong> Darwin.<br />
3. Kahlin Compound was on the same sight <strong>of</strong> the old Darwin Hospital over looking Cullen Bay on Myly Point—<br />
It was administered by the federal government—<br />
4. Retta Dixon Home on Bagot Road, Darwin run by the Aboriginal Inland Missions<br />
5. Emerald Mission on Groote Eylandt near Angurugu community in the Gulf <strong>of</strong> Carpentaria.<br />
6. St Mary’s near the Alice Springs Race Course run by Australian Board <strong>of</strong> Missions.<br />
7. The Bungalow the Old Telegraph Station, Alice Springs.<br />
I am indebted to Maurie Ryan and Tania Gaston for that information from their submission into the inquiry into<br />
the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.<br />
I am raising this because over the period we have done a really good thing. We have focused on the need to<br />
provide redress to those who have been harmed while in care. What concerns me though is that we, as a federal<br />
government—on both sides <strong>of</strong> the parliament—have failed to stump up to redress arrangements for members <strong>of</strong><br />
the stolen generation. What that meant needs to be understood.<br />
The Aboriginals Ordinance 1911 gave the Commonwealth the power, and gave to the protector <strong>of</strong> the native<br />
affairs, at that time—this was in 1913—the power to commit any Aboriginal half-caste to an institution in the<br />
Northern Territory until they reached the age <strong>of</strong> 18 years. That happened to so many wonderful people in the<br />
Northern Territory.<br />
It is notable that the forcible removal <strong>of</strong> children was included in the definition <strong>of</strong> the 1948 Convention on the<br />
Prevention and Punishment <strong>of</strong> Crime <strong>of</strong> the Crime <strong>of</strong> Genocide. The Bringing Them Home report concluded that<br />
the forcible removal policies were a denial <strong>of</strong> common law rights and a serious breach <strong>of</strong> human rights. However,<br />
there have been no reparations for the stolen generations. They have not been forthcoming—save through the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> payments under this redress scheme, which we are talking about here this morning. Apart from the<br />
severe suffering and trauma <strong>of</strong> the children <strong>of</strong> the stolen generation who suffered sexual abuse while in the care <strong>of</strong><br />
the state, they also suffered in the short- and long-term the affects <strong>of</strong> being simply members <strong>of</strong> the stolen<br />
generation.<br />
As Sue Roman has so eloquently written, 'The nature <strong>of</strong> loss and harm experienced by a member <strong>of</strong> the stolen<br />
generation includes the loss <strong>of</strong> identity, family bonds, relationships and difficulties with parenting skills; the loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> cultural knowledge including language and traditional inherited rights; the loss <strong>of</strong> opportunity to be recognised<br />
as a traditional owner and member <strong>of</strong> a land trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976<br />
and the Native Title Act 1993; the lack <strong>of</strong> opportunity to own land, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians priding<br />
themselves in providing inheritance to their children; the lack <strong>of</strong> opportunity to gain formal and informal life skills<br />
from their families.' And they have suffered generational cycles <strong>of</strong> homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse,<br />
domestic violence, poor health and shorter life expectancy.<br />
These people have never had redress. I think now is the time. No government <strong>of</strong> any political persuasion has<br />
accepted the need to provide reparations or a redress scheme to members <strong>of</strong> the stolen generation. They have been<br />
forced to go to the courts and, sadly, have been unsuccessful. But in this context it seems clear that the<br />
Commonwealth cannot abrogate itself <strong>of</strong> the responsibility that it has had for the welfare <strong>of</strong> children <strong>of</strong> the stolen<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115<br />
generation. The Commonwealth was responsible for the administration <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory and <strong>of</strong> these<br />
ordinances. They gave the power to people to steal these children from their parents. It seems to me that as a<br />
mature nation it is now time for us to stump up and do the right thing by these people.<br />
There is no doubt that many suffered from sexual abuse whilst in care. Of that there is no doubt. I relate just<br />
one submission from the Bringing them home report:<br />
Q: Did any girls get pregnant at Garden Point when you were there?<br />
I remember one and they actually took her <strong>of</strong>f the Island. And when I ask everyone, like even now when I ask people about<br />
her, they don't know what happened to her …<br />
Q: Who was the Father?<br />
The Priest. The same bastards who …<br />
Q: How do people know that?<br />
Well, the reason they know is, Sister A, poor thing, who's dead—I know she was upset because that priest had that young girl<br />
living in his place.<br />
This was systematic exploitation <strong>of</strong> young, defenceless people stolen from their families. Whilst these particular<br />
individuals suffered from sexual abuse and from the privations <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse, importantly, others also suffered<br />
from psychological abuse by being taken away from their family—which I think is a form <strong>of</strong> cultural genocide.<br />
It is about time we, as a nation, understood our responsibilities and took them to heart in relation to the stolen<br />
generation. I do not think it is beyond our wit and wisdom to do that. But, sadly, we force people to go to the<br />
courts. But I now understand the Retta Dixon children are class action litigants suing the Commonwealth<br />
government for lack <strong>of</strong> duty <strong>of</strong> care. Previous actions in the Federal Court have failed in Cubillo and Gunner v<br />
Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084 and Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1.<br />
Now we have a capacity to do something about this. The Commonwealth did have a duty <strong>of</strong> care to these<br />
children. Never mind the reparations that should have gone to their parents for the fact that these kids were stolen<br />
in the first place, but the suffering these people have endured over generations now is something that I understand<br />
because I know members <strong>of</strong> the stolen generation and have done for many years. But they have, for whatever<br />
reason, been sidelined. Yes, they have been given Link-Up services. Yes, they have been given counselling<br />
support. Yes, they have been given other assistance. But at no point has the Commonwealth—and I am now<br />
talking <strong>of</strong> Labor as well as Liberal—accepted the principle that these members <strong>of</strong> the stolen generation, <strong>of</strong> whom<br />
there are very few left, should be entitled to reparations <strong>of</strong> the type we are seeing here today. Why not, I ask. It is<br />
a very simple question, and I think it remains an open wound on the soul <strong>of</strong> this country.<br />
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:38): It is depressingly obvious that so many young and<br />
vulnerable people have been failed by Australian institutions, both public and private, over a very long period <strong>of</strong><br />
time. Institutions that have <strong>of</strong>ten worked to the net benefit <strong>of</strong> Australia and <strong>of</strong> those who are placed in their care<br />
have, nevertheless, failed thousands <strong>of</strong> individuals who have been wronged by the system, by society's collective<br />
neglect and by those institutions' dereliction <strong>of</strong> duty to the individual.<br />
Sadly, the sensational stories that we read about in the press—and certainly there have been plenty emanating<br />
from my home state <strong>of</strong> South Australia concerning the operations <strong>of</strong> Families SA—are telling us that even today<br />
our systems are not perfect. Monsters are either harboured or at least allowed to operate within organisations that<br />
are charged with protecting children.<br />
However, there is at least some good news. The Turnbull government has announced its intention to form a<br />
national redress system to provide support to those who have suffered sexual abuse in Commonwealth facilities.<br />
The government is determined that this should become a truly national scheme. Because it is important to have<br />
conformity across Australia, we are urging the individual states and private and religious based organisations to<br />
make this vehicle a one-stop shop for those who have suffered. Inevitably, all <strong>of</strong> the individual organisations must<br />
meet the cost <strong>of</strong> addressing the problems <strong>of</strong> those that they have failed. But I think it is very important that they<br />
come under one umbrella so at least those who have been violated know where to go to and will be getting the<br />
same type and level <strong>of</strong> attention that they would had they reported it in any state in Australia.<br />
The scheme will allow for compensation <strong>of</strong> up to $150,000 per person, bringing it in line with the schemes that<br />
now operate in Victoria and New South Wales and that some <strong>of</strong> the major non-government institutions have<br />
adopted. It remains important that the rest <strong>of</strong> the states and organisations come on board so that people know they<br />
will receive the same attention from one end <strong>of</strong> Australia to the other. An independent advisory committee will be<br />
appointed as soon as possible—and I look forward to that so that we can get on with the job. The scheme will run<br />
for 10 years. Hopefully, by that time, the backlog <strong>of</strong> issues will have been addressed. If they have not, one would<br />
assume that the government <strong>of</strong> the day will come back to the table and reassess that position. But 10 years is a<br />
very suitable period <strong>of</strong> time and I thank the government for making that commitment.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
This is not only important so that people can now receive the services and compensation that they need to try<br />
and ameliorate the damage that was done to them; it is a very important public recognition <strong>of</strong> the systems<br />
Australia-wide to deliver to individuals the care and protection that they should have. It is planned that the scheme<br />
will be operating by 2018. I look forward to that day. For the last 12 months, the government has tried repeatedly<br />
to bring all the parties on board. But we have not reached the level <strong>of</strong> cooperation that we had hoped for. That is<br />
why we have chosen to just get on with the job—to fulfil our obligations, to lead by example and to perhaps<br />
shame the stragglers to come on board. Well done to the government and the ministers responsible.<br />
We apply ourselves to the errors <strong>of</strong> the past, but as legislators in this place it is important that we remain<br />
attuned to the needs <strong>of</strong> the children <strong>of</strong> today. There are not so many children held in institutions anymore, but<br />
some are living in unsafe environments. Some are removed from their home. Some homes are plainly terrible.<br />
Sometimes I think our institutions have lost the gumption to do they what they have to do—that is, removal.<br />
Whether the children are removed and put into foster care, or however they are cared for, we must make sure it is<br />
a safe and caring environment. I commend the motion to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (11:43): The abuse <strong>of</strong> children in the care<br />
<strong>of</strong> institutions in our country has been one <strong>of</strong> the most appalling chapters <strong>of</strong> Australia's recent history. No country<br />
should stand by and let this horrifying sexual abuse and shocking violence happen, and no country should stand<br />
by and let perpetrators get away with these crimes. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child<br />
Sexual Abuse delivered its second interim report in September 2015. This report sets out the royal commission's<br />
recommendations for the establishment <strong>of</strong> a national redress scheme. Such a redress scheme, the commission<br />
found, can provide a critical part <strong>of</strong> the healing process for victims and survivors <strong>of</strong> this abuse.<br />
Labor is very proud to support a national redress scheme that will relieve some <strong>of</strong> the pain <strong>of</strong> the survivors <strong>of</strong><br />
these horrendous crimes and Labor is ready to work with the government to ensure that the sufferers <strong>of</strong> this abuse<br />
get the redress that they deserve.<br />
Labor believes that the costs <strong>of</strong> redress must be met by the institutions responsible for the perpetrators <strong>of</strong> the<br />
abuse. These institutions damaged the lives <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians, and they should pay appropriate<br />
compensation. The royal commission recommended that a national redress scheme should include a direct<br />
personal response from the responsible institution if desired, including but not limited to an apology; counselling<br />
and psychological care services; and monetary payment <strong>of</strong> between $10,000 and $200,000 per victim to recognise<br />
the wrong suffered. The size <strong>of</strong> each payment would be determined by criteria that assessed the severity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
abuse.<br />
Labor is very proud to have established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual<br />
Abuse. I am very proud <strong>of</strong> the small role that I played as Attorney-General in the establishment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
commission. This royal commission has given an opportunity to thousands <strong>of</strong> people who are the survivors <strong>of</strong><br />
these sickening crimes to be heard. For many, it was the first opportunity they had to speak in public about their<br />
ordeals. I acknowledge the extraordinary men and women who have spoken <strong>of</strong> their horrific abuse at the hands <strong>of</strong><br />
institutions at the public hearings <strong>of</strong> the royal commission and at the private sessions that it has been possible to<br />
arrange under the legislation that we passed to establish this particular royal commission.<br />
Labor understands the devastating toll that this abuse has had on thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians, including many who<br />
are no longer alive to see this royal commission's recommendations. Labor understands that thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
survivors <strong>of</strong> institutionalised abuse are seeking an apology from their abusers. These apologies must acknowledge<br />
the wrongs that were committed and accept responsibility for the harm and suffering that the institutions have<br />
caused. Many <strong>of</strong> the thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians affected by institutional abuse have a need for ongoing pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
counselling. The institutions responsible for the abuse must be held accountable and meet the cost <strong>of</strong> this<br />
counselling. Survivors whose lives have been changed by the malicious and criminal acts <strong>of</strong> their abusers should<br />
be entitled to appropriate monetary consultation. The compensation, for some, will help them to sustain their lives.<br />
For others, a monetary payment will reflect a small recompense for the mistreatment and abuse that they suffered.<br />
Labor is pleased to see that the Turnbull government has recently and at long last committed to a redress<br />
scheme, although we have serious concerns about several aspects <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull government's scheme. Under the<br />
proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt into the scheme.<br />
This means that, if the institutions that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. We are<br />
very concerned that the government appears not to have made sufficient effort to enlist the support <strong>of</strong> the states<br />
before making the announcement <strong>of</strong> the proposed scheme. This is too important for survivors. They should not<br />
have to face this extra uncertainty. This government has had over a year to do this important work, and it appears<br />
that it has not done enough. Survivors <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives for redress for the<br />
crimes perpetrated against them as children. They should not have to worry about whether states or institutions are<br />
eventually going to decide to opt into the redress scheme. Redress needs to be provided to all survivors regardless<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 117<br />
<strong>of</strong> which state or territory they were abused in or now reside in, regardless <strong>of</strong> whether the institution was a<br />
government or non-government institution, and regardless <strong>of</strong> whether the abuse occurred in more than one<br />
institution, whether the institution still exists or, indeed, the assets available to the institution. (Time expired)<br />
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:48): I too strongly support this move for redress and compensation for those<br />
who were involved in institutional sexual assault in these settings and the terrible wrongdoing inflicted on<br />
survivors that has been recognised here today. I will refer briefly to what has been a bipartisan effort, starting with<br />
the royal commission under the previous administration and then the redress scheme that was announced earlier<br />
this month.<br />
But I also want to note that, in many cases, apologising on behalf <strong>of</strong> our predecessors is a privilege that we earn<br />
by ensuring that no such injustice occurs under our own watch. While it would be quite easy to remove the words<br />
'institutional abuse' and substitute other forms <strong>of</strong> abuse that are occupying this building even as we speak this<br />
morning, we must be absolutely certain that the precursors and antecedents <strong>of</strong> this kind <strong>of</strong> abuse do not simply<br />
lead, generations later, to large redress schemes because we did not act on what was right in front <strong>of</strong> our eyes.<br />
As a politician paid to talk, I must confess many in the community are getting sick <strong>of</strong> talk. While money is a<br />
small proxy and substitute for talk, we would actually like to see these things addressed in real time and<br />
prevented. We can talk about institutional abuse, which was the issue over the last century. Right now we have<br />
complete separation <strong>of</strong> Indigenous Australia from economic and employment opportunities, leading to what we<br />
marched on today. And finally, in Queensland, we have a complete outbreak <strong>of</strong> child violence, injury and<br />
unexplained death due to an increasing use <strong>of</strong> ice and, most importantly, child protection cases not being<br />
adequately investigated at the time. It is so simple to apologise a generation later, isn't it? We do not have to look<br />
anyone in the eye who was actually there at the time except those who come and tell us a generation later. But we<br />
have exactly the same thing happening now.<br />
So I am absolutely delighted that, in our term, we can do our best to draw a line under what happened in these<br />
institutions; invite other governments to be part <strong>of</strong> that; and actually identify and talk about, as a number <strong>of</strong> the<br />
previous speakers have done, the institutions that were involved. We are acknowledging openly the suffering <strong>of</strong><br />
survivors, and <strong>of</strong> course the $550 million to $750 million compensation scheme with a per capita cap on that is an<br />
early start. But many will still have questions about how the scheme will work and whether there will be other<br />
conversations that could have come through other channels that will be denied them because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Commonwealth Redress Scheme.<br />
In Queensland we are talking about protection <strong>of</strong> children and an explosion in domestic violence. We are<br />
talking about cases that are not adequately investigated. If you go to North Queensland, where there has been<br />
some talk already, in North Queensland we have 826 substantiated cases <strong>of</strong> abuse but 2,631 unsubstantiated cases<br />
and, extraordinarily, 209 cases closed with no outcome at all. Where public notifications require an investigation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a tragic circumstance like this, 79 per cent <strong>of</strong> the cases are not seen within the required 10-day period. Where it<br />
is deemed to be incredibly urgent—and this notification requires a five-day investigation—fully 74 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
them are not investigated in the appropriate time. At the same moment as we apologise for our predecessors, we<br />
are seeing an explosion in the prevalence <strong>of</strong> family risk factors in these substantiated households. We are seeing<br />
family risk factors like, obviously, being abused as a child, criminal history in the household and domestic and<br />
family violence. But we are seeing drug and alcohol abuse increase by 12 per cent, not over a generation but since<br />
2011, as a cause for child suffering, neglect, injury and death. Of course, we have mental health issues going from<br />
37 to 49 per cent. I can see that greater recognition and identification <strong>of</strong> mental health may be a good thing even<br />
though, in a quantifiable sense, the number is increasing.<br />
In causes <strong>of</strong> death in my state <strong>of</strong> Queensland—the one that I can speak <strong>of</strong> with some authority—we had 50<br />
deaths <strong>of</strong> children at June 15 last year. It is 51 this year. Despite all <strong>of</strong> our work in accidents, halving the rate <strong>of</strong><br />
suicide in Queensland over those two small samples, and getting control <strong>of</strong> SIDS and other unrelated conditions,<br />
we have seen a doubling <strong>of</strong> unknown or yet to be determined causes from 10 to 18 children this last 12 months.<br />
These need to be addressed as much as the redress scheme is required for the generations that came before. (Time<br />
expired)<br />
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:53): I am very pleased to be speaking on this motion moved today by my<br />
friend the member for Swan. He and I have done a lot <strong>of</strong> work together on these issues, and I commend him for all<br />
that he has done. As the motion indicates, the Turnbull government announced in early November that it would<br />
implement a national redress scheme. Of course, we understand that no amount <strong>of</strong> money can make up for the<br />
pain and trauma experienced by the survivors <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse, but we believe that redress can be a very<br />
important step along the road to healing for survivors <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse. That is why Labor announced back in<br />
October 2015 that we would establish a national redress scheme for survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sexual abuse.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Of course, it was a Labor Prime Minister who, some seven years ago now, apologised to the forgotten<br />
generations. The member for Swan was very helpful in making that a very important occasion. It was Labor under<br />
Prime Minister Gillard that established, more than three years ago, the royal commission into institutional child<br />
sexual abuse.<br />
We do acknowledge the decision by the current government to fund trauma counselling and other supports. It is<br />
a very important decision they have made. We also acknowledge the decision to appoint an advisory committee<br />
made up <strong>of</strong> survivors and their supporters. We believe that these are important developments and we welcome<br />
them. However, federal Labor does have concerns about the Commonwealth government's proposed opt-in<br />
redress scheme for survivors <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse. Under the proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible<br />
for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt-in to the scheme. Labor is concerned that this means that, if institutions<br />
that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. Many survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sexual<br />
abuse have been waiting their whole lives to redress and they should not have to worry about whether or not states<br />
or institutions decide to opt-in to the redress scheme.<br />
I was at the AGM <strong>of</strong> the Care Leavers Australia Network, otherwise known as CLAN, a couple <strong>of</strong> weeks ago<br />
and I heard yet again firsthand their view that the opt-in nature <strong>of</strong> the scheme is a very big worry for survivors.<br />
The idea that some institutions responsible for these crimes might decide not to opt-in to the redress schemes<br />
<strong>of</strong>fends their sense <strong>of</strong> justice and, I would have to say, mine. As I told the 'CLANies' that day, Labor will continue<br />
to fight for them. We will fight for a fair and consistent redress scheme so that people get the compensation they<br />
deserve. We will, <strong>of</strong> course, continue to work closely with all <strong>of</strong> those involved to scrutinise the details <strong>of</strong> the<br />
scheme when it is fully release. We will do all that we can to make sure that survivors have access to one national<br />
scheme, as recommended by the royal commission.<br />
We are also very concerned that not a single state or territory has agreed to be part <strong>of</strong> the scheme. Until these<br />
negotiations are finalised and survivors have certainty that they will get what they deserve, I am sorry to say that<br />
this announcement will be <strong>of</strong> very little comfort. That is why I urge the Turnbull government to immediately<br />
secure the agreement <strong>of</strong> each state and territory government and the institutions responsible for abuse to make this<br />
a truly national redress scheme. Redress can be achieved only if perpetrators <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse are required to<br />
pay redress to survivors.<br />
I want to finish by acknowledging the extraordinary courage <strong>of</strong> survivors as they have come forward to the<br />
royal commission. The evidence given at the royal commission has shocked many Australians. I want to take this<br />
opportunity here today to acknowledge the way in which people have come forward and told their stories. For<br />
years they were not believed. I want to say to them today that you are believed. We believe you and it is time for<br />
justice. (Time expired)<br />
Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:58): I start by also acknowledging my good friend the member for Swan, Steve<br />
Irons, and the work he has done as a co-patron with me <strong>of</strong> Care Leavers Australia Network, CLAN, and in raising<br />
this issue in the parliament today. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Jagajaga, who, as shadow<br />
minister responsible for Labor's response to these issues right now, but also as minister, has been absolutely<br />
critical in seeing the apology to the forgotten Australians take place, as it did just over seven years ago today.<br />
Indeed, the member for Jagajaga, as minister, was instrumental in seeing the royal commission established. In<br />
absentia, I acknowledge Jason Clare, the Member for Blaxland, who is a patron <strong>of</strong> Care Leavers Australia<br />
Network and has been very active in this space. I am a proud patron <strong>of</strong> CLAN. The work I do in this space is as<br />
important as anything I do in this building—as anything I have done in parliamentary life.<br />
I would like to acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and Joanna Penglase, who founded CLAN and, between the two <strong>of</strong><br />
them, have been amazing in raising this issue. Their determination and their relentlessness, which we are all very<br />
familiar with, has taken this from an issue which I did not know about to one which is now very much on the<br />
national stage. It was principally their energies which led to the apology to the forgotten Australians back in 2009,<br />
and it was principally their energies which led to the former Labor government establishing the Royal<br />
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.<br />
It is important to say at the outset that the story <strong>of</strong> those who grew up in orphanages is not all about sexual<br />
abuse. There are wider dimensions to that story, but there is no doubt that the sexual abuse that occurred to them<br />
as children is a very significant part <strong>of</strong> the story, as a very significant proportion <strong>of</strong> people who grew up in<br />
orphanages suffered that fate. Like the Member for Jagajaga, I would also like to acknowledge the bravery shown<br />
by those people who were prepared to tell their stories to the royal commission. Having met a lot <strong>of</strong> 'CLANies', as<br />
I know the members for Swan and Jagajaga have both done, you realise the extent to which what occurred to them<br />
as children now impacts their lives on a daily basis. There is courage involved in being prepared to stand up and<br />
tell your story with a degree <strong>of</strong> publicity—and the fear <strong>of</strong> not being believed. But, like the member for Jagajaga, I<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 119<br />
want to make it very clear that what came from the national apology and what came from the royal commission<br />
was a statement by this country that we absolutely do believe what they have said and the veracity <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
But for them telling their stories, we would not now have this as part <strong>of</strong> the national story and we would not<br />
have the responses which we are now debating in this chamber today. In that respect, I would like to acknowledge<br />
Vlad Selakovic, who is a constituent <strong>of</strong> mine and a 'CLANie' who has done fantastic work, and also Anthony<br />
Sheedy—Leonie's brother—who passed away a few years ago. He was a constituent <strong>of</strong> mine and he was<br />
incredibly brave in the way he dealt with the lot that he had been given in his life.<br />
Back in January 2015 the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme. That was no surprise<br />
because almost from the day I met Leonie she was making it clear how important a national redress scheme was—<br />
in part, the compensation that comes from that but, most <strong>of</strong> all, the acknowledgement that comes with it <strong>of</strong> what<br />
actually did occur. I was really proud that in October last year, through the member for Jagajaga, it was Labor's<br />
position to support a national redress scheme and whilst acknowledging the government's announcement, which<br />
forms part <strong>of</strong> this resolution earlier this month, I share the member for Jagajaga's concerns about the fact that what<br />
is being proposed is an opt-in scheme. The reality is that for those who experienced this, there was no opt-in. For<br />
anyone who has been a victim <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse, it is critical that they get the recognition that comes from a<br />
redress scheme. Everybody deserves that. This needs to be a genuine national redress scheme, without the opt-in<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird) (12:03): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and<br />
the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting day.<br />
International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability<br />
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (12:04): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) acknowledges that:<br />
(a) Saturday 3 December 2016 is International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability (IDPwD);<br />
(b) the United Nations proclaimed IDPwD for the first time in 1992 as a way <strong>of</strong> promoting better understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
disability issues and as a sign <strong>of</strong> support for the dignity, rights and wellbeing <strong>of</strong> people with disabilities; and<br />
(c) each year, the United Nations chooses a theme for IDPwD and this year's theme is 'Achieving 17 Goals for the Future<br />
We Want', which draws attention to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and how these goals can create a more inclusive<br />
and equitable world for people with disabilities;<br />
(2) encourages all Members <strong>of</strong> Parliament to support IDPwD in their electorates; and<br />
(3) reaffirms its commitment to:<br />
(a) ensuring Australians with a disability get the support they need; and<br />
(b) an adequately funded and resourced National Disability Insurance Scheme.<br />
This Saturday, 3 December, will be International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability, a very important day for many<br />
people in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Lindsay, and also across the country and, indeed, around the world. As I have noted in<br />
my motion, International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability was proclaimed for the first time by the United Nations in<br />
1992 as a way <strong>of</strong> promoting better understanding <strong>of</strong> disability issues and, importantly, as a sign <strong>of</strong> support for the<br />
dignity, rights and wellbeing <strong>of</strong> people who live with disability. Paragraph (2) <strong>of</strong> the motion is incredibly<br />
important. This is a day where communities can demonstrate their support for those among us who live with<br />
disability, whatever it may be. It is a day when we can reflect on what it is that we are doing to ensure that every<br />
life has dignity and purpose, and that every person is valued and can contribute.<br />
This year, the theme <strong>of</strong> International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability asks us to consider the role <strong>of</strong> the 17<br />
Sustainable Development Goals in building a more inclusive world and a more equitable world for people with<br />
disability. Some <strong>of</strong> the key development goals include the provision <strong>of</strong> quality education and learning, so people<br />
with disability can pick up the transferable skills so vital to a sense <strong>of</strong> self-worth. Also among the development<br />
goals is an increase in decent and supported work, so people with disability can contribute to society and build an<br />
independent life for themselves.<br />
Perhaps the most important development goal relevant to those with a disability is the goal to end poverty. We<br />
know that in Australia people with disability are significantly more likely to live below the poverty line. In fact,<br />
this year's Poverty in Australia 2016 report by ACOSS shows us that more than 300,000 Australians who are<br />
severely impacted by disability live below the poverty line and a further 500,000 Australians with various levels<br />
<strong>of</strong> disability who live below the poverty line. According to ACOSS, people with a disability are between 50 per<br />
cent and 100 per cent more likely to live in poverty, compared to Australians who live without disability. That is<br />
simply unacceptable. It is a continuing injustice and it must be addressed.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The NDIS presents a remarkable opportunity to ensure all people with disability live with dignity and not in<br />
poverty. Importantly, this motion recommits us and the government to adequately funding and resourcing the<br />
NDIS, a reform from the previous Labor government that has the power to deliver life-changing benefits to people<br />
with disability, their carers and their families. We all know the preceding system <strong>of</strong> disability care in Australia<br />
created huge swathes <strong>of</strong> further disadvantage for people with a disability right across the country. In fact, the<br />
Productivity Commission labelled the past system 'underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient.'<br />
The NDIS was created to address these concerns and establish a fair and necessary system where participants<br />
are given a say in the services they use and the rigid service delivery structures <strong>of</strong> the past are broken down to<br />
make way for more flexible and personalised models <strong>of</strong> care. People with disability and their families then knew<br />
how important this reform was and they know it today. However, time and time again I hear from people who fear<br />
the NDIS is stuck in a rut, and this government is not doing all it can to ensure service providers and the National<br />
Disability Insurance Agency have the resources they need to deliver the scheme. Critically, I am hearing that care<br />
plans are <strong>of</strong>ten expiring without new plans being in place. I have spoken before about the impact <strong>of</strong> a plan<br />
expiring, leaving families without the supports their children need and leaving adults without access to the<br />
assistance they absolutely require.<br />
Of course, this scheme was created to provide long-term certainty around disability care, and it seems to me<br />
that the government is letting down scheme participants and it is letting down the service providers, who are<br />
constrained by the level <strong>of</strong> resourcing and the lack <strong>of</strong> funds flowing from this government. I am sure we can all<br />
agree that on the eve <strong>of</strong> International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability the best thing we can do as a parliament to<br />
support the dignity, rights and wellbeing <strong>of</strong> those who live with disability is to ensure the NDIS is able to live up<br />
to its promise <strong>of</strong> fairness.<br />
I encourage all members <strong>of</strong> parliament to join with me in celebrating International Day <strong>of</strong> People with<br />
Disability on Saturday, 3 December. And I extend that invitation to everyone in the wider community: visit<br />
www.idpwd.com.au and check out the community event calendar to find out what local events are being held near<br />
you. I am actually looking forward to visiting the No Boundaries Art Group, which meets in my electorate every<br />
Monday to support people living with disability and their carers to get access to creative and practical arts.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (12:09): I second the motion. I rise today to support the motion, moved by the<br />
member for Lindsay, acknowledging Saturday, 3 December as International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability. I thank<br />
her for bringing this very important motion to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
It was 1992 when the United Nations first proclaimed International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability, and they did<br />
so to promote better understanding <strong>of</strong> disability issues and to support the dignity and the rights <strong>of</strong> people with<br />
disabilities. Twenty years ago, the Australian government followed suit. I would like to make reference to the fact<br />
that over four million Australians have a disability—that is one in five Australians—so reaffirming our support for<br />
them and also reaffirming our support to achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is absolutely critical to<br />
the way we deal with this very important issue, as is, <strong>of</strong> course, this <strong>House</strong>'s reaffirming <strong>of</strong> its support for the<br />
NDIS and the work that it hopes to achieve for people with disability in Australia.<br />
I want to go to Karni Liddell, Australia's most successful Paralympian and 2016 patron <strong>of</strong> the International Day<br />
<strong>of</strong> People With Disability, who says, 'The most disabling thing about having a disability is other people's<br />
assumption about what we can and cannot do.' She says if people with disabilities can shine on the sporting stage,<br />
then they should be able to experience basic human needs and desires such as fulfilling careers and relationships,<br />
travelling, being fit and healthy and living away from their parents.<br />
Australia came fifth on the medal tally board <strong>of</strong> the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio this year. One <strong>of</strong> the gold<br />
medals <strong>of</strong> the games belongs to Nazim Erdem, a successful wheelchair rugby player who has competed in four<br />
Paralympics and, I am very proud to say, is one <strong>of</strong> my constituents. I had the pleasure <strong>of</strong> meeting Nazim this year<br />
before he took <strong>of</strong>f to Rio. At the age <strong>of</strong> 20, Nazim's life changed forever when he broke his neck in a diving<br />
accident. Nazim was told that he had a spinal cord injury and would never walk again.<br />
Nazim says a spinal cord injury changes your life forever. He says that you do not know what your future is<br />
going to be like but he wants to show disabled people all the possibilities. Through his work with Spire, the Spinal<br />
Injury Resource and Support Network, he mentors and supports those with spinal injuries and helps them adjust to<br />
their new life. He says, 'You can go back to sport, to work; you can have relationships—whatever you want. You<br />
just do it a little bit differently.'<br />
He does say that after every Paralympic Games that he has attended, there is a lot <strong>of</strong> attention on the athletes<br />
and that attention gets bigger and bigger with each games. The media attention highlights their successes, which<br />
means they then have to work even harder. Their training regime becomes more intense. They attend lots <strong>of</strong><br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 121<br />
training camps. The point is that Paralympians deserve the same accolades and attention as other athletes receive.<br />
People with disability do want to achieve what everybody else wants out <strong>of</strong> life, and they should, <strong>of</strong> course, be<br />
given the opportunity to do that.<br />
I want to say a few words about a very good friend <strong>of</strong> mine and a constituent, the wonderful Janet Curtain,<br />
who, for some time, worked in my <strong>of</strong>fice. When Janet came to work for me, I realised how restrictive life could be<br />
for a disabled person. The truth is that, in our <strong>of</strong>fice, we did not have the ability to deal with or accommodate a<br />
person in a wheelchair. There were no disabled toilets and, <strong>of</strong> course, in order to be able to allow Janet to move<br />
freely within the <strong>of</strong>fice or actually enter the <strong>of</strong>fice that had been assigned to her, we had to remove the door. It<br />
sounds very primitive, but there you are. I am happy to say that my new <strong>of</strong>fice is totally fitted out for people with<br />
disability.<br />
I want to quote Janet, because she is a very warm and passionate advocate. I asked her the other day what it is<br />
that she would like me to say to the <strong>House</strong>. These are Janet Curtain's words: 'For me, international disability day is<br />
not only celebrating people's abilities, tenacity and determination to live their lives the way they choose, but, even<br />
more so, celebrating how far society has come in its awareness <strong>of</strong> differences and diversity where people are not<br />
defined by their disability, but are seen for the people they really are.'<br />
In my electorate, we have found lots <strong>of</strong> fun ways to celebrate International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability, and I<br />
look forward to being able to share some <strong>of</strong> those events: at the bowling centre in the Watergardens; at the<br />
Broadmeadows Aquatic and Leisure Centre, a disco night is planned. I look forward to getting back home and<br />
visiting with them.<br />
Mr WATTS: It is a pleasure to rise today on the motion on the International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability<br />
before the Federation Chamber. For me, the International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability is really about ensuring<br />
that people with disability can be seen as full participating members in our society. On that note, I just want to<br />
make one minute's brief comment about a program in my electorate run by the Footscray Community Arts<br />
Centre—ArtLife. ArtLife is a program that has been running for more than 20 years. It engages artists with<br />
disability, and enables them to collaborate with pr<strong>of</strong>essional artists in the community in Melbourne's west.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional artist tutors work with artists with disability to make new works, to build capacity and, importantly,<br />
to change perceptions in our community.<br />
This has been a thriving success in Melbourne's west over the last 20 years. It has been particularly successful<br />
in engaging other community institutions, reaching out to the other institutions in Melbourne's west. I have been<br />
very proud to host a series <strong>of</strong> works that have resulted from the ArtLife program in my electorate <strong>of</strong>fice in<br />
Footscray. So all the people visiting me as a member <strong>of</strong> parliament in my constituency <strong>of</strong>fice have been able to<br />
see these works on display. I commend this program, and I will cede my time now to other speakers in this debate.<br />
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:16): I rise today to speak on the private member's motion brought to the<br />
chamber by the member for Lindsay to acknowledge International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability on Saturday, 3<br />
December. I note that this year's theme is 'Achieving 17 Goals for the Future We Want', which draws attention to<br />
the United Nations' sustainable development goals that can encourage a more inclusive and equitable world for all<br />
people.<br />
Like the member for Lindsay, and all on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, I am committed to ensuring Australians with a<br />
disability get the support they need through an adequately funded and resourced National Disability Insurance<br />
Scheme. The NDIS, developed by Labor, has been life-changing for so many people, and we will work to ensure<br />
the Turnbull government adequately funds and resources the NDIS so that many more people with a disability can<br />
achieve their goals to live inclusively and equitably; to live well. Labor remains committed to working with the<br />
government to ensure its success. It is too important to fail.<br />
The goals determined by the United Nations are worthwhile reflecting upon: to end poverty and hunger; to<br />
ensure good health and education; to ensure access to clean water and sanitation; to ensure affordable and clean<br />
energy; to stamp out inequality; to ensure decent work, economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure;<br />
to ensure sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production; and to ensure peace and<br />
justice for all. These goals build on the principle <strong>of</strong> 'leaving no-one behind', emphasising a holistic approach to<br />
achieving a sustainable world. But these goals are particularly relevant to people with a disability, as there is a<br />
strong link between disability and poverty, especially in developing countries. Even in our own beautiful country,<br />
disability can cause poverty by preventing full participation in the economic and social life <strong>of</strong> our communities,<br />
especially if the appropriate supports are not available.<br />
We are fortunate to have so many organisations that do work towards making those appropriate supports<br />
available, and today I would like to make mention <strong>of</strong> just one in my electorate. Mai-Wel in Maitland, led by an<br />
extraordinary CEO, Pennie Kearney, is one <strong>of</strong> the largest disability service providers in the lower Hunter region,<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
providing services and programs to 800 clients across nine local government areas. Mai-Wel <strong>of</strong>fers people with a<br />
disability work and training opportunities, living, leisure and lifestyle services, and a creative arts program—<br />
which comes into its own at this time <strong>of</strong> year.<br />
There are number <strong>of</strong> Mai-Wel events around International Day <strong>of</strong> People with a Disability that I would like to<br />
share with you. There was a performance last week <strong>of</strong> Destiny—The Musical—The journey starts here at a<br />
fundraising party for the launch <strong>of</strong> a disability-led arts project funded by Accessible Arts NSW and hosted by<br />
Cessnock's Royal Oak Hotel. Maitland Includes You: a summer exhibition <strong>of</strong> artworks at Maitland Regional Art<br />
Gallery featuring the works <strong>of</strong> artists with a disability. Cessnock Includes YOU is a similar exhibition at Cessnock<br />
Regional Art Gallery, which will be <strong>of</strong>ficially opened on the International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability, this<br />
Saturday. And, to take place next Wednesday, there is the Tin Pan Alleycats original songwriting album launch<br />
party celebrating the debut album <strong>of</strong> students graduating from Hunter TAFE with a statement <strong>of</strong> attainment in<br />
Certificate III in Music.<br />
Congratulations to everyone involved in these events. They truly are examples <strong>of</strong> the kinds <strong>of</strong> supports our<br />
community needs for all people to live inclusively and equitably and to live well. I for one again want to really<br />
celebrate the work <strong>of</strong> the creative arts that have been achieved through Mai-Wel. The artists, the musicians—I<br />
have sat and had chats to them, had some little jams and looked at their paintings. They truly are amazing, and<br />
they are worthy <strong>of</strong> display in some <strong>of</strong> our most reputable art galleries. That is why it is so great to think that they<br />
will be hanging in the Maitland Regional Art Gallery and in the Cessnock art gallery. Again, this is about<br />
inclusiveness for all so that we can have a better world for people with disabilities. I commend them to you: this<br />
coming Saturday, 3 December.<br />
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (12:21): I rise to support the motion by the member for Lindsay in relation to the<br />
International Day <strong>of</strong> People with Disability, and I thank the members for Calwell, Paterson and Gellibrand for<br />
their comments in relation to this motion as well. Of course, we want to see people with a disability live normal<br />
lives. They want to be able to play sport. They want to be able to work. They want to be able to have relationships<br />
like all <strong>of</strong> us. The NDIS has bipartisan support, and I think that as a parliament together we need to continue to<br />
work on that to ensure that it is delivered on time and is helping those people who need it most in all <strong>of</strong> our<br />
electorates right throughout Australia.<br />
I met a young guy just last week—on Friday, actually. He was having lunch nearby. He came to one <strong>of</strong> my job<br />
seeker boot camps that I put on a couple <strong>of</strong> weeks ago. He was looking for work. He is a young man with<br />
Asperger's. He has been on a disability support pension for two years. He really wants to go to work. I ran into<br />
him again on Friday and said, 'What is it that you really want to do?' He wants to be a baker. I encouraged him. He<br />
could get some experience now in a bakery, and perhaps in years down the track he could run his own bakery. He<br />
is putting together his resume at the moment so that in the next week or two he can get out and see all the bakeries<br />
in my electorate and ask for the opportunity to work in one <strong>of</strong> those bakeries with great customer service on the<br />
front bench, serving people, perhaps getting in really early and helping with the actual baking—when they get in<br />
at three in the morning—and everything else.<br />
I mention that because I believe, after talking to him on Friday, that that young man will achieve his goals. It<br />
goes to show that, just because you have a disability, that does not mean that you do not have goals like everyone<br />
else. I think this motion is very relevant, and I thank all the speakers involved.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the<br />
resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
Road Safety<br />
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (12:23): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) urges all Australians to drive safely and with consideration for fellow road users over the upcoming summer holidays;<br />
(2) notes the Government has made significant investments in road safety including:<br />
(a) $500 million from 2014-15 to 2018-19 in the Black Spot Program (BSP);<br />
(b) an additional $200 million from 2015-16 that makes an important contribution to reducing the national road toll under<br />
the National Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan; and<br />
(c) completing 977 projects under the BSP which has saved an estimated 116 lives and prevented 5,959 injuries from<br />
crashes over 10 years;<br />
(3) encourages all state and territory governments to address the over-representation <strong>of</strong> men in road fatalities through<br />
improved driver information and education; and<br />
(4) calls on all Australians to drive carefully over the summer period.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 123<br />
Just over a week ago, four young men were killed in a car accident on their way to work in my home state <strong>of</strong><br />
South Australia. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families at this terrible time. The families and friends <strong>of</strong><br />
these young men will face an unimaginably difficult Christmas this year. We do not know the reason for their<br />
accident, but it forms a tragic reminder that male drivers remain vastly overrepresented in our road deaths each<br />
year.<br />
I call on grandmothers, mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends to remind the men in their lives that they need to<br />
take extra care when driving. We desperately need to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the risk men face. My home state <strong>of</strong><br />
South Australia provides a stark example <strong>of</strong> the overrepresentation <strong>of</strong> male fatalities, as I discovered in 2014 when<br />
I wrote to The Advertiser about a horror few days on our roads that saw four male drivers killed in four separate<br />
accidents in the space <strong>of</strong> one short weekend. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> drivers, or 446<br />
individual men who were someone's—<br />
A division having been called in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>—<br />
Sitting suspended from 12:25 to 12:46<br />
Ms FLINT: As I was saying, in the decade between 2005 and 2015, 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> drivers, or 446 individual<br />
men—someone's husband or father or brother or uncle—were killed on South Australian roads. In comparison,<br />
148 female drivers were killed. This is even though the numbers <strong>of</strong> male and female licensed drivers were almost<br />
equal. And yet, to the best <strong>of</strong> my knowledge, our state-based road safety campaigns never focus on the fact that<br />
men are more at risk. We hear a lot about the dangers <strong>of</strong> drug driving, drink-driving, fatigue, speeding, distraction,<br />
young drivers, country driving and seat belts, but we do not hear the simple fact that more male drivers are likely<br />
to die on our roads. Our national statistics also reiterate this fact: last year men represented 73 per cent <strong>of</strong> the road<br />
toll Australia wide. Every one <strong>of</strong> us needs to do more to make men aware <strong>of</strong> the tragic fact that they are at risk.<br />
Our state governments, through their road safety awareness programs, need to do more to provide information<br />
about those facts as well.<br />
From a national perspective, a figure that is just as concerning is the fact that during the last 12 months 1,271<br />
men and women died on our roads. We need every single Australian driver and road user to be aware <strong>of</strong> these<br />
facts and to stay safe on our roads over the school, summer and Christmas holidays. Nationally, we, as the<br />
Turnbull coalition government, are doing our part to help road users stay safe. We have committed $500 million<br />
to the Black Spot Program from 2014 to 2019, which includes an additional $200 million over the two years from<br />
2015-16 to improve road safety across the nation. The Black Spot Program is estimated to be reducing fatal and<br />
casualty crashes at treated sites by 30 per cent. I am proud to say the Turnbull coalition government has provided<br />
$296,000 <strong>of</strong> blackspot funding in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Boothby to improve safety at a very busy part <strong>of</strong> my electorate<br />
<strong>of</strong> Jetty Road, Brighton.<br />
This said, it is up to every single driver and road user to make sure they are taking responsibility for themselves<br />
and their actions on the road, particularly during the summer, school holiday and Christmas period. I say to<br />
drivers in particular, 'Do the right thing'. As someone who grew up in the country and who spends a lot <strong>of</strong> time on<br />
the road in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Boothby, here are my do's and don'ts. Most <strong>of</strong> them are obvious. Do not take drugs,<br />
do not drink-drive, do not drive at dangerous speeds, do not drive when you are tired, do not tailgate, do not use<br />
your mobile phone and always use a seatbelt. Some seem to be not quite so obvious from what I have witnessed<br />
on our country and city roads, which I find astounding, particularly in the country where people are driving at<br />
speed. Drive to the conditions—if it is pouring with rain, slow down. Keep two hands on the steering wheel at all<br />
times. Pay attention and anticipate what every single driver coming towards you might do. Do not swerve to miss<br />
a bird or a kangaroo and end up killing yourself or another road user. Be a considerate road user. If you are not<br />
driving at the speed limit, or if you have no intention <strong>of</strong> overtaking the car in front <strong>of</strong> you, leave plenty <strong>of</strong> room<br />
between you and the next car so that people can travel freely and do not get frustrated. We know that is when<br />
accidents can happen: when people get frustrated and do silly things. Most <strong>of</strong> all, I want to say to all Australians,<br />
all South Australians and everyone in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Boothby: please stay safe these summer, school and<br />
Christmas holidays when you are driving on our roads.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou): Is there a seconder for the member's motion?<br />
Mrs Wicks: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:50): I begin by adding my condolences to the families <strong>of</strong> the four young people<br />
killed in the south-east recently. When former Prime Minister Abbott was elected in 2013, he wanted to be known<br />
as the infrastructure Prime Minister <strong>of</strong> Australia. He thought that, if he said it <strong>of</strong>ten enough and if his government<br />
members said it <strong>of</strong>ten enough, he would be so. But the reality is that it was all spin and the facts show otherwise.<br />
If the Prime Minister wanted to be the infrastructure Prime Minister <strong>of</strong> Australia then he needed to actually spend<br />
money on building infrastructure, and the reality is that he did not.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
The spend that occurs and has occurred since this government came to <strong>of</strong>fice has been nothing more than<br />
normal annual expenditure that governments <strong>of</strong> all persuasions do each and every year. It is what taxpayers expect<br />
governments to do with the taxes that they pay. But the reality is that we are not even getting the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
infrastructure spend that we might have got in the past. Much <strong>of</strong> it is just deferred or delayed and, whilst the<br />
government keeps talking about it, the reality is that it is saving the money by not spending it.<br />
Even worse than that, when this government came to <strong>of</strong>fice, one <strong>of</strong> the first things it did was to freeze the<br />
financial assistance grants to local governments. That meant that it was cutting $1 billion from the councils around<br />
Australia. Councils build and maintain local roads. It is a core responsibility for them, and indeed they are one <strong>of</strong><br />
the levels <strong>of</strong> government that actually do a lot <strong>of</strong> good local work in repairing and maintaining our local roads.<br />
When the government finally decided that it would give some money back to councils, it did so because <strong>of</strong> Labor's<br />
insistence that its support for the fuel excise indexation was contingent on the money raised going back to local<br />
government. So it was, indeed, Labor who ensured that that additional money went to local councils.<br />
But I say to the member for Boothby that we did not get back the $18 million <strong>of</strong> supplementary local road<br />
funding in South Australia that the Local Government Association <strong>of</strong> South Australia has for years been<br />
campaigning for and which in previous years was given to South Australia as a supplementary fund. When this<br />
government came to <strong>of</strong>fice, it was cut. We did not get it. It seems to me that, as a state that has 11 per cent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
roads, seven per cent <strong>of</strong> the population and only five per cent <strong>of</strong> the road funding, we could do a lot better.<br />
Perhaps the member for Boothby would like to stand up within her party room and see what she can do about<br />
ensuring that that is the case. It is time that funding for roads in South Australia was fairly and permanently fixed<br />
up.<br />
Road safety is affected by many factors. Bad roads in terms <strong>of</strong> both design and maintenance, poor driving, poor<br />
vehicle maintenance and driver fatigue all contribute to road accidents. When the Transport Workers Union <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia raise these legitimate concerns, government members ridicule them and dismiss the concerns that they<br />
raise. Safe Work Australia confirms that truck driving is Australia's deadliest job. Five hundred and eighty-three<br />
drivers were killed between 2003 and 2015. Yes, most <strong>of</strong> them are males, because, if we look at who most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
transport drivers <strong>of</strong> this nation are, most <strong>of</strong> them are males. In the 10 years to 2014, over 2,500 Australians have<br />
died in truck crashes, so it is not just the drivers who become our road fatalities. In fact, my understanding is that<br />
since October <strong>of</strong> this year, in less than two months, we have had 26 people die on our roads through truck crashes.<br />
Transport companies and owner-drivers widely place unreasonable and unsustainable pressure, by low-cost<br />
contracts, on drivers, forcing them to skip maintenance, to speed, to overload vehicles and to drive long hours.<br />
They do that in order to make ends meet. Not surprisingly, the industry has very high rates <strong>of</strong> bankruptcy, suicide<br />
and workplace deaths and injury. ASIC data confirms that transport operators have one <strong>of</strong> the highest rates <strong>of</strong><br />
insolvency in the country. And then we have the case <strong>of</strong> exploited migrant workers who are given shonky licences<br />
from dodgy training schools, without proper training, or are being paid low rates and are working extra hours<br />
without even being paid.<br />
The causes <strong>of</strong> all these accidents are known to this government and they should stop ignoring them, because<br />
road safety affects us all. Finally, can I say that the motion says nothing about the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> the federal<br />
government with respect to road safety.<br />
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:55): I rise to commend this motion moved by the member for Boothby and also<br />
to commend her outstanding speech. It is a timely reminder to all Australians about the need to drive safely on our<br />
roads. As the motion describes, there are at least two approaches that our communities can take to address this<br />
issue: driver education and government investment in known black spots.<br />
Driver education can, <strong>of</strong> course, come in many forms, but as the mother <strong>of</strong> two young children no example has<br />
struck me more than the one championed by the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation, an organisation <strong>of</strong> which I am<br />
proud to be patron. Michelle and David McLaughlin launched the foundation in memory <strong>of</strong> their precious son<br />
Tom. The tragic loss <strong>of</strong> Tom in a road accident at Macmasters Beach in my electorate two years ago helped<br />
Michelle and David build a legacy through child road safety initiatives and education. In their own words, Tom<br />
was a vibrant and loving young boy with a zest for life and an unforgettable smile. He loved to draw blue<br />
dinosaurs, and image that is now the logo for his foundation. Tom's message, 'Slow Down, Kids Around' is now<br />
written in colourful writing on signs at beaches and alongside some <strong>of</strong> our busiest roads on the Central Coast. And<br />
I am sure it is sinking in, because my own two young children, Oscar and Mollie-Joy, have both stopped in front<br />
<strong>of</strong> busy traffic on two separate occasions, because they remembered the little blue dinosaur and its message. I<br />
would like one day to see the 'Slow Down, Kids Around' signs displayed right around the country, especially if it<br />
means safer roads for families and young children.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 125<br />
Other driver education methods can be more direct. For example, I have met with Ronak Shah and Luke Wall<br />
from the Academy <strong>of</strong> Road Safety in my electorate. Their focus is to reach as many high school students as they<br />
can to deliver training in knowing what to do if faced with an emergency situation behind the wheel and in<br />
understanding the reasoning behind speed limits. I would encourage our young people to consider courses like<br />
this, in particular, as the Member for Boothby has outlined, our young men.<br />
The New South Wales member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, has also been a strong advocate in this area and I<br />
would like to commend his leadership in helping to make sure more young people are getting the training they<br />
need to stay safe on our roads. Two recent devastating fatal incidents in my electorate this year have demonstrated<br />
why this is so urgent. First, teenager Jackson Williams died on Willoughby Road at Wamberal. Jackson was a<br />
back-seat passenger in a car that left the road, hitting a power pole. Local resident Lindy Hewett started an online<br />
petition, which has attracted more than 5,000 signatures. It was presented to the Minister for Infrastructure and<br />
Transport here at parliament. Such an extraordinary response in just a few short days from our tight-knit<br />
community on the Central Coast is partly why I am calling for this road to be upgraded by Central Coast Council.<br />
The other incident tragically happened just three weeks later. It involved a mother <strong>of</strong> four young children,<br />
Annabelle Deall. Aged in her early 30s, Annabelle, a pedestrian, died after being struck by a car outside The<br />
Cowrie, a restaurant in Terrigal. I have also nominated this stretch <strong>of</strong> the Scenic Highway for consideration for<br />
Black Spot funding. I recently held a community morning tea in Terrigal to hear more stories from locals about<br />
why this road—which is not a highway, in the strictest definition <strong>of</strong> the word, but a suburban street—must be<br />
addressed.<br />
We still have work to do with the council and our community to ensure we get the right traffic solutions in both<br />
locations. But I welcome the response from Central Coast Council, which announced that at a public meeting to<br />
be held in the coming weeks they will reveal preliminary plans for the Scenic Highway. Council CEO Rob Noble<br />
said last week that they have inspected the site and started a detailed review <strong>of</strong> the road, which includes improved<br />
pedestrian facilities and roadworks designed to slow down traffic. I echo Mr Noble's words: 'This was a terrible,<br />
terrible tragedy, and our hearts go out to the family.'<br />
I am fighting for funding from the Turnbull government's Black Spot Program for both projects. The<br />
government has invested $500 million in this program, from 2014-15 to 2018-19, with an additional $200 million<br />
from this financial year that makes an important contribution under the National Road Safety Strategy and the<br />
National Road Safety Action Plan to reducing the national road toll. More than $2.7 million has already been<br />
delivered in my electorate since 2013, including fixing dangerous black spots at East Gosford, Green Point,<br />
Umina Beach, Gosford, Woy Woy, Narara, Kincumber, Mooney Mooney, Patonga, Avoca Beach and Somersby. I<br />
commend this motion to the <strong>House</strong> and again ask drivers to slow down and take care this holiday season.<br />
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:00): With the arrival <strong>of</strong> the holiday season comes many family road trips and a<br />
large number <strong>of</strong> people on our nation's roads. I join the member for Boothby in urging all Australian's to drive<br />
safely and with consideration for fellow road users. Road safety and road infrastructure are significant ongoing<br />
issues in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Mayo. As many members in this chamber would know, parts <strong>of</strong> the existing road<br />
network in Mayo were significantly damaged in the storms that took place in September and October this year.<br />
Several roads were damaged—with parts <strong>of</strong> these roads being washed away completely, including Montacute<br />
Road in Chain <strong>of</strong> Ponds—making what were already hazardous roads particularly dangerous. Thankfully, repairs<br />
are underway. But the fact remains that road infrastructure funding directed towards South Australia is below par<br />
and needs to change.<br />
While I acknowledge the government's ongoing financial contributions to the black spot program, I renew my<br />
call for equity in funding to be implemented to ensure South Australia gets its fair share. South Australia has 11.8<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> the nation's local road network and 7.1 per cent <strong>of</strong> the population, but currently receives less than five<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> total federal funding towards land transport infrastructure projects. To make matters worse, in 2014<br />
South Australia lost the supplementary local road funding that addressed this inequity. I have previously called<br />
upon the government to reinstate this supplementary funding and I am sure the member for Boothby would<br />
support me in that call.<br />
The lack <strong>of</strong> road funding in South Australia only exacerbates the fact that Mayo contains some <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
dangerous roads in the state. Over the last four years, there has been an average <strong>of</strong> nine fatalities on roads in my<br />
electorate each year. There has been an average <strong>of</strong> 97 serious injuries from road accidents each year in the same<br />
time. This is the highest in the state. Every one <strong>of</strong> those statistics is a person who is loved and missed. Each day,<br />
as I drive from my home to my electorate, I pass at least seven black markers, many with flowers at their feet, for<br />
people who were missed and taken too soon—people whose deaths were preventable.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Anyone who has been lucky enough to drive through the beautiful Adelaide Hills would know how treacherous<br />
some <strong>of</strong> our roads can be. They are truly rural roads with blind corners, narrow lanes and many trees. We have<br />
high speed limits and at night there is limited lighting. And we have many tourists on roads, who are vulnerable<br />
users. Many <strong>of</strong> them are not even sure which side <strong>of</strong> the road to drive on. In the southern part <strong>of</strong> my electorate, the<br />
Victor Harbor Road is notoriously dangerous. The most recent statistics from 2014 outlined that there was a crash<br />
causing damage or injury on the Victor Harbor Road every week. Unfortunately, it was also the road with the<br />
third most fatalities in the state. These statistics are shocking; but, unfortunately, they are familiar. Supplementary<br />
funding is critical to upgrade and maintain this road in an effort to drastically reduce these fatalities and serious<br />
injuries. If the Victor Harbor Road was in any other state in Australia, it would by now be a dual-lane road. On<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> my community, I will continue to advocate strongly to the federal government for this road to be<br />
upgraded.<br />
In 2014 the federal government committed $500 million to the black spot program from 2014 to 2019. Since<br />
that time the government has delivered just over $21 million <strong>of</strong> the black spot funding to South Australia, and<br />
only $3.2 million <strong>of</strong> that funding has been spent in Mayo. There is no doubt that the funding is needed in Mayo. I<br />
will continue to push for more to be spent on the dangerous roads throughout my community.<br />
This festive season many families will be travelling down to Victor Harbor to enjoy some much deserved time<br />
<strong>of</strong>f down on our pristine southern coastline. As a top tourist destination, there will also be many families taking<br />
day trips. With the increase in traffic on the Victor Harbor Road, in particular, I plead with everyone in my<br />
community to take extra care to ensure that everyone gets home safely. Better to be late than never to arrive at all.<br />
Every year we hear about families that are torn apart during the holiday season by road fatalities, and I sincerely<br />
hope that this year we have a fatality-free period right across Australia. I wish every person in Mayo and across<br />
the country, but particularly in regional Australia, a happy and safe holiday season.<br />
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:05): Can I echo those remarks in regard to every electorate across<br />
Australia. I hope they have a happy and safe holiday. There is not one <strong>of</strong> us in this place—or probably in our<br />
broader communities—that has not been directly or indirectly affected by motor accident trauma. In fact, we can<br />
all go back to somebody, where we have attended a funeral, where families have been devastated. When you lose<br />
a child, <strong>of</strong>ten the history is that the family breaks up—not because there was anything wrong with the family unit<br />
before the child was killed in the accident, but these things are pretty hard to deal with in families. In fact, it is so<br />
traumatic that it not only affects the siblings and the cousins and the friends but has long-term effects on families.<br />
I can personally attest from my own youth. People do not notice, but my left hand is quite severely smashed to<br />
pieces. It was at 16 years <strong>of</strong> age, and it was the first operation that used microsurgery at the Box Hill Hospital, to<br />
sew my wrist back on and connect up the nerves. It is not noticed that I suffered that trauma myself and lost my<br />
best friend in the process at that time, a tragic accident that affected his family so enormously that I could not<br />
explain to you the enormity <strong>of</strong> what happened at that time. So I can identify with every family who has lost a<br />
child, even in my own close family. They lost a brilliant young doctor in Western Australia who was only<br />
hurrying home to watch Collingwood on the television, and the car slipped on some gravel—tree; end <strong>of</strong> story.<br />
I do not know what message we can possibly send to the Australian people when the Victorian road toll is<br />
actually increasing after all we have done, after all the advertising programs, after, 'If you drink and drive, you're a<br />
bloody idiot,' and, 'Don't get on the back <strong>of</strong> the ute.' How many instances have you seen <strong>of</strong> kids on the backs <strong>of</strong><br />
utes in country Victoria being killed. There were those four wonderful young men in South Australia going to<br />
work at three o'clock in the morning, obviously to get there by 7 o'clock in the morning to start work in the forest<br />
industry—all killed. We do not know the background to the story or what happened, but four <strong>of</strong> them were killed.<br />
It completely changes the history and lives and generations <strong>of</strong> people.<br />
There have been 1,200 people killed across Australia this year—1,271, I think. If that were an epidemic or a<br />
sickness or something else, this parliament would be running against it. We have become immune in our heart and<br />
soul and being to what is happening in our community, because these are, in many cases, very young people—<br />
highly talented in some cases—that are a massive loss to our community, yet we say, 'There's been another road<br />
accident,' and we move on.<br />
The other road accident recently that I heard about in my area turned out to be someone very close to me; his<br />
mum was very close to me. They just make a one-second mistake or a two-second mistake—'I didn't see it<br />
coming.' In front <strong>of</strong> me the other day, there was a brown-coloured car in front <strong>of</strong> me on the way to Phillip Island,<br />
and a silver-coloured car was doing a right-hand turn. Just as the brown-coloured car came to that silver-coloured<br />
car, the silver-coloured car turned right directly in front <strong>of</strong> the car, missing it by seconds. The silver car did not see<br />
the brown car. It saw me, but in the light <strong>of</strong> that time <strong>of</strong> night they just did not see the brown car at all, or<br />
obviously they would not have turned in front <strong>of</strong> it. We are moving at such speeds these days that your life is gone<br />
in a second with one mistake.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 127<br />
The last thing I bring to you is: where is the road rage coming from? I have to say to those around me: do not<br />
respond. I wish everybody, as every member in this <strong>House</strong> does, a safe Christmas on the roads, but the only<br />
person that can protect you is yourself.<br />
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:10): I, too, rise to speak on the issue <strong>of</strong> road safety, an issue that impacts on<br />
all Australians. I was very proud to introduce the current National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
global response to this issue. It seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 30 per cent over this<br />
decade.<br />
Unfortunately, however, as we stand up to this point we have, in the last two years, headed in the wrong<br />
direction if we look at the number <strong>of</strong> fatalities on our roads. After literally decades <strong>of</strong> improvements, for a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> reasons, we are going backwards. There are three key elements <strong>of</strong> road safety: safer roads, safer vehicles and<br />
better driver behaviour. The latest figures show that to October there have been 1,081 deaths so far in this<br />
calendar year, 6.5 per cent higher than the same period last year. These figures hide the real trauma—the trauma<br />
<strong>of</strong> all those who have families and friends. There would be not Australian who has not been affected directly in<br />
losing a loved one or a friend on our roads. Every death is one too many.<br />
We do need to address safer roads. Major investments in roads such as the Pacific Highway and the Bruce<br />
Highway were a part <strong>of</strong> that. That funding needs to be accelerated, not slowed down as has occurred over the last<br />
two financial years. The motion refers to a range <strong>of</strong> programs for the government. The problem here is that a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> those programs have seen underinvestment compared with what the 2014 budget promise was. The Black<br />
Spot Program, for example, in its first two completed years—2014-15 and 2015-16—had an underspend <strong>of</strong> $34<br />
million, so 55 per cent <strong>of</strong> the budgeted amount was not spent. The Bridges Renewal program had a $25 million<br />
underspend—40 per cent <strong>of</strong> the budget not invested. Most disappointingly, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and<br />
Productivity Program, one that I was proud to introduce—basically, truckies' rest stops—had $27 million not<br />
spent, or 70 per cent <strong>of</strong> the budget not invested.<br />
I was concerned last year with the government's abolition <strong>of</strong> the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We know<br />
that fatality rates for accidents involving heavy vehicles are about 12 times the national average, and there are<br />
about 200 lives lost annually—not just heavy vehicle drivers but, more <strong>of</strong>ten than not, people in passenger<br />
vehicles impacted with heavy vehicles. We need to address it. The government abolished the tribunal but did not<br />
replace it with anything.<br />
Also, the second part <strong>of</strong> our campaign needs to be safer vehicles. Data shows that the percentage <strong>of</strong> new light<br />
vehicles sold with a five-star ANCAP rating has increased from 56 per cent to 86 per cent since 2010. That is a<br />
good thing. New technology, including smart vehicles and telematics, should also provide opportunities for<br />
increasing safety to all road users and pedestrians.<br />
The third part <strong>of</strong> the strategy is targeting driver behaviour. The strategy measures both responsible and<br />
irresponsible driver behaviour patterns, including age, type <strong>of</strong> vehicle, lack <strong>of</strong> restraint, consumption <strong>of</strong> alcohol or<br />
not holding a licence. The segmentation shows considerable difference in results between 2010 and 2014. Federal<br />
support for programs like keys2drive, which is administrated by AAA, are very important. It is a free lesson for<br />
learner drivers at a cost <strong>of</strong> $4 million per annum, but also, importantly, a lesson for those people who are training<br />
those young people—for the parents and the friends who are doing that—and making sure that good lessons are<br />
passed on.<br />
Safer roads, safer vehicles and better driver behaviour—all three need to be supported by all sides <strong>of</strong> this<br />
parliament if we are going to truly address these rising figures and turn it back to where it should be, which is<br />
reducing the number <strong>of</strong> fatalities on our roads. (Time expired)<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is<br />
adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
Marine Sanctuaries<br />
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (13:15): I move—<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that in 2012, following a comprehensive and rigorous process, the then Labor Government declared 40 marine parks<br />
in Commonwealth waters, creating the world's first and largest comprehensive national network <strong>of</strong> marine parks;<br />
(2) notes with concern that there is increasing pressure on Australia's marine environment, as indicated by frequent and severe<br />
bleaching <strong>of</strong> coral reefs across Australia's northern waters, extensive and unprecedented dieback <strong>of</strong> mangroves, and the loss <strong>of</strong><br />
large areas <strong>of</strong> kelp forests in southern Australian waters;<br />
(3) notes that Australia's marine environment is the most biologically diverse in the world according to the 2010 Census <strong>of</strong><br />
Marine Life, with our oceans spanning tropical, temperate and sub-Antarctic waters, and where at least 33,000 marine species<br />
have been identified (many <strong>of</strong> which are found nowhere else on earth);<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(4) notes that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law <strong>of</strong> the Sea and as such is required to both<br />
conserve as well as sustainably utilise its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ);<br />
(5) notes the economic opportunity that marine parks bring regional communities as evidenced by long standing marine parks<br />
in Australia, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which is worth over $6 billion to the Queensland economy, and<br />
others including Ningaloo Marine Park, the Great Australian Bight, Lord Howe Island, Solitary Islands Marine Park and<br />
Maria Island National Park;<br />
(6) notes the clear evidence that marine parks play an important economic role in accelerating the recovery <strong>of</strong> depleted<br />
fisheries, and that the long term net effect on fisheries <strong>of</strong> increased resilience and sustainability from highly protected marine<br />
reserves is positive;<br />
(7) notes that in the 1990s the then Coalition Government put in place a systematic approach for declaring a comprehensive,<br />
adequate, and representative network <strong>of</strong> marine parks in Australia's EEZ, and proceeded to declare 22 marine parks in<br />
Commonwealth waters;<br />
(8) notes with concern that:<br />
(a) in December 2013 the incoming Coalition Government suspended Labor's marine parks from operation by re-declaring<br />
the parks in order to set aside their management arrangements and commencement date, pending the conduct <strong>of</strong> a politically<br />
motivated and unnecessary review; and<br />
(b) after almost 3 years, these 40 marine parks have not been implemented, existing in statute only—leaving 5 <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia's 6 marine regions with little to no protection at a time when the threats to Australia's valuable and important marine<br />
environment are increasing;<br />
(9) notes that in the May 2016 budget the Coalition Government committed to completing the re-development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
management plans for the new parks within 12 months;<br />
(10) notes that in the recent consultation by Parks Australia, over 50,000 submissions were received from around Australia,<br />
including from more than 5,000 recreational fishers, calling for the reinstatement <strong>of</strong> the marine parks and their high level<br />
marine national park zoning, without further delay or loss <strong>of</strong> protection;<br />
(11) notes that the Expert Science Panel <strong>of</strong> the Coalition Government's own review recognises both the extensive science that<br />
went into the development <strong>of</strong> the marine parks developed by the Labor Government and the scientifically proven benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
marine national parks;<br />
(12) notes the Bioregional Advisory Panel <strong>of</strong> the Coalition Government's own review recognised the extensive consultation<br />
that has occurred in developing the marine reserves developed by the Labor Government, stating that there was in fact a<br />
considerable amount <strong>of</strong> 'consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders;<br />
(13) notes the increasing move by other countries to put in place large and highly protected marine parks in their EEZs,<br />
including action taken by the United States, Palau, Chile, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and, most recently, the<br />
declaration in October 2016 by 24 nations, including Australia, <strong>of</strong> the Ross Sea marine park in the Antarctic high seas; and<br />
(14) calls on the Coalition Government to bring the Commonwealth network <strong>of</strong> marine parks that were declared in 2012 into<br />
operation without further delay, and with no loss <strong>of</strong> marine national park protection.<br />
We have been on the brink <strong>of</strong> introducing the first national network <strong>of</strong> marine protection since the Labor<br />
government completed a careful and widely consultative process in 2013. The reason for finally establishing a<br />
system <strong>of</strong> strong and comprehensive national marine protection could not be clearer or more compelling. Across<br />
the globe and here in Australia, oceans have already suffered significant damage and marine life is under threat.<br />
We have seen very significant loss <strong>of</strong> species. We know that fragile marine ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef<br />
are being degraded by the impact <strong>of</strong> human activity. Around the world, we have witnessed catastrophic<br />
environmental disasters in the form <strong>of</strong> oil spills and we have marked the savage depletion <strong>of</strong> fishing stocks.<br />
If we keep going along this path without change, without radical improvement to marine protection and<br />
conservation, the social, economic and environmental harm will be pr<strong>of</strong>ound and, in some cases, irreversible.<br />
Everyone will lose. Our oceans and the marine life with which we share this planet and on which we depend will<br />
be subject to ever steepening pressure, harm and degradation if we do not act, and act decisively. That is a<br />
proposition we have understood and accepted for some time. That is the shining imperative behind the Save Our<br />
Marine Life campaign.<br />
Since 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull government has stalled progress on reform in favour <strong>of</strong> a questionable review<br />
process which has resulted in two work products, the expert scientific panel report and the bioregional advisory<br />
panel report. The expert review has comprehensively endorsed the process that created the network proclaimed by<br />
the Labor government. It has endorsed the science, the economics and the consultation. It confirms the value <strong>of</strong><br />
marine park national park zones, which <strong>of</strong>fer the highest value protection, within a framework <strong>of</strong> varying<br />
representative protected areas. But the report <strong>of</strong> the bioregional advisory panel has proposed some changes that<br />
defy the science and will substantially weaken marine protection in key regions.<br />
In my part <strong>of</strong> the world, this would mean moving the sanctuary away from the head <strong>of</strong> the incredible Perth<br />
Canyon, where the nutrient upwelling is strongest. This is a feeding ground for the endangered blue whale, and it<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 129<br />
is the main biodiversity hotspot between Ningaloo Reef and Kangaroo Island. The review also proposes removing<br />
inshore sanctuary protection at Bremer Bay, a zone <strong>of</strong> importance for endangered Australian sea lions and one <strong>of</strong><br />
only three calving sites for southern right whales. This wind-back is to accommodate the expansion <strong>of</strong> a trawling<br />
operation that ABARES has estimated is worth a grand total <strong>of</strong> $4,700 per annum. As the Ocean Science Council<br />
<strong>of</strong> Australia has said, the 'overall emphasis <strong>of</strong> the review' appears to have largely focused on modifying the zoning<br />
by 'eroding the critically important zones <strong>of</strong> high protection to zones <strong>of</strong> lesser protection', but without any<br />
scientific basis and, according to ABARES, minimal economic benefit.<br />
Reform is not easy, and the last thing we need is to start undermining or walking back the vital pieces <strong>of</strong> this<br />
network. I represent a fishing community. I marched through the streets <strong>of</strong> Fremantle a few weeks ago as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the 68th annual blessing <strong>of</strong> the fleet. I have close friends whose families depend on fishing, and I also know how<br />
important diving, surfing, sailing and tourism are to the local and wider Western Australian economy. Freo<br />
people, like people right around this island nation, feel connected to and responsible for the sea. As Tim Winton<br />
has said, it is part <strong>of</strong> their birthright.<br />
On this issue, all our social, cultural and economic interests are aligned. So let us not go about creating false<br />
divisions on this issue. Let us not pretend that a person who fishes for their livelihood, for their table or for fun is<br />
somehow different from a person who loves the sea, who wants to protect biodiversity and ensure that future<br />
generations live in harmony with the ocean and all its life. They are the same person. They could just as well live<br />
in Albany, Hobart, Darwin or Maroubra as in Spearwood or North Fremantle.<br />
Shaping and implementing this network <strong>of</strong> marine protection is not a contest; it is a shared endeavour. Through<br />
painstaking consultation, evidence and scientific expertise, the Labor government secured a network that reaches<br />
around this continent and represents at last a basis on which we can live in harmony with the great blue lifeblood<br />
that surrounds us. It is open for the Turnbull government to deliver on that reform and to share in that legacy<br />
achievement, but it requires them to show some steel. The bioregional advisory panel report makes<br />
recommendations that rip and tear at the fabric <strong>of</strong> a network that must be allowed to operate as a whole; that is<br />
what the science tells us. And it will be a howling failure if, by ignorance <strong>of</strong> the science or by some calculation <strong>of</strong><br />
narrow political benefit, this government caves in and carves back carefully chosen and scientifically formulated<br />
marine protection. Reform is not easy. This reform has been hard won. Let's seize the opportunity to look after our<br />
oceans while we still have the chance.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Thistlethwaite: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:20): I thank the member for Fremantle for raising his 14 points, but I<br />
point out that they are nothing but an effort to hijack the outcomes and recommendations <strong>of</strong> the recently<br />
completed Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review as an achievement <strong>of</strong> the previous Labor government. I<br />
would like to point out that this current government is proud <strong>of</strong> its record, which builds on the achievements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Howard government, in extending the protection <strong>of</strong> the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and creating the world's<br />
first network <strong>of</strong> representative marine protected areas in the southeast.<br />
Speaking specifically <strong>of</strong> my electorate <strong>of</strong> O'Connor, I am extremely proud to see the outcomes <strong>of</strong> the recent<br />
review process which will see more targeted and greater protection <strong>of</strong> marine parks along the entire southern<br />
coastline <strong>of</strong> Western Australia. I would like to refer specifically to the Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve,<br />
which, under the previous government, <strong>of</strong>fered marine national park zone protection status only to a small portion,<br />
that being the inshore leg <strong>of</strong> a vast marine reserve extending to depths <strong>of</strong> greater than 1,000 metres. With due<br />
respect to the member for Fremantle's claim that the 2012 declarations followed a comprehensive and rigorous<br />
process, I query how then have the bioregional panel and scientific expert panel both reached the conclusion that<br />
the protection should be expanded by some 70 per cent, giving greater protection to an extra 3,000 square<br />
kilometres <strong>of</strong> the Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve.<br />
I also refer to the same Labor declaration that relocated another marine park in my electorate some 70<br />
kilometres to the east and, on the basis <strong>of</strong> their 'comprehensive and rigorous process', placed parts <strong>of</strong> the new<br />
reserve over nothing but sand. In fact, the consultations leading to the 2012 declarations appear to be anything but<br />
comprehensive and rigorous, with some key stakeholders completely omitted from the process. I have<br />
documentation from one key stakeholder stating that, when the draft marine park boundaries were announced in<br />
2011, they did not affect their fishing enterprise, so they relaxed and got on with business as usual, fishing<br />
sustainably <strong>of</strong>f the south coast <strong>of</strong> my electorate. However, in July 2012, the boundaries were changed, new maps<br />
were released and this key stakeholder, the only fishing enterprise in this newly impacted area, had not been<br />
involved in any consultations, nor were they advised <strong>of</strong> the process. They related to me:<br />
We were never contacted by the Department <strong>of</strong> Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
They asserted:<br />
… the consultations were rushed ... It was like a rubber-stamping exercise.<br />
This is a truly modern fishing enterprise, one that fishes sustainably and provides valuable data to both the state<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Fisheries and the Western Australian Museum. In fact, when questioned by Senator Richard<br />
Colbeck at Senate estimates in 2013, SEWPaC representative Stephen Oxley acknowledged the department:<br />
… did not have the capacity to go, and identify and make communication with every individual fisher.<br />
SEWPaC also admitted they had done very little research on the marine environment to the southwest corner <strong>of</strong><br />
Western Australia. The recent Commonwealth marine review independent bioregional panel, on the other hand,<br />
did consult extensively with stakeholders to arrive at the management plans that would support the biodiversity<br />
values <strong>of</strong> the area better than those previously gazetted in 2012 and better support fish stocks into the future. I am<br />
proud to have conducted my own extensive consultations within my electorate <strong>of</strong> O'Connor and have fed back the<br />
views <strong>of</strong> my communities, stakeholders and conservation interests to the federal government. My outcomes<br />
concur largely with those reached by the independent investigations <strong>of</strong> the bioregional advisory panel and the<br />
expert scientific panel.<br />
I note that the member for Fremantle acknowledged the economic value <strong>of</strong> marine based tourism but pointedly<br />
avoided mentioning the fantastic outcomes that this Commonwealth marine review process will have for the<br />
Bremer area <strong>of</strong> my electorate. This is possibly because it does not fit with rhetoric peddled by the Labor Party and<br />
organisations like GetUp! who refuse to acknowledge that the coalition government is committed not only to<br />
reviewing the science around previous declarations but to responding, as it has done in the instance <strong>of</strong> the Bremer<br />
Commonwealth Marine Reserve, to the recommendations and actually increasing the protection <strong>of</strong> this marine<br />
reserve by over 70 per cent compared to the previous government's recommendations.<br />
The Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review recommendations have also taken that unprecedented step <strong>of</strong><br />
locking out all possible oil and gas exploration. On top <strong>of</strong> this, Ministers Hunt and Frydenberg have committed an<br />
additional $100,000 to exploring the recommendations made by the bioregional advisory panel to consider<br />
expanding the protections to the west <strong>of</strong> the marine park.<br />
In closing, I dispel the myth proposed by the member for Fremantle that the current Commonwealth Marine<br />
Reserves Review recommendations only underpin the findings <strong>of</strong> the previous government and note that the<br />
process towards these enhanced protections, based on thorough stakeholder consultation and sound science, is on<br />
track for completion by mid-2017.<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:25): I am pleased to support this motion. I thank the<br />
member for Fremantle for raising a very important issue. Australia's marine network is under unprecedented<br />
pressure, particularly around the Great Barrier Reef, with unprecedented levels <strong>of</strong> coral bleaching which is going<br />
to, if it is not abated, affect the domestic tourism industry and so many industries that rely on the health <strong>of</strong> the reef<br />
for people to make a living. There is little doubt that Australia is blessed with some <strong>of</strong> the world's most beautiful<br />
ocean environments. Whether it is summer trips to the beach with the family or our fierce protection <strong>of</strong> our ocean<br />
wildlife, Australians place extraordinary value on all things connected with the ocean. Given our strong feelings,<br />
Australians expect a high standard from their governments when it comes to management and conservation <strong>of</strong><br />
those marine assets.<br />
The Labor Party has an exceptional record <strong>of</strong> protecting Australia's ocean environment. The Whitlam<br />
government established the nation's first marine reserve to protect the Great Barrier Reef; Bob Hawke and Michel<br />
Rocard worked together to turn the Antarctic into the world's largest conservation area; and the last Labor<br />
government established Australia's marine park network, the largest network <strong>of</strong> marine protected areas anywhere<br />
in the world. In developing these marine reserves, Labor spent four years establishing the science, conducting<br />
more than 250 public consultations and receiving more than 750,000 submissions from Australians regarding<br />
ocean conservation. It puts to shame the claims made by the previous speaker that Labor did not consult when it<br />
established these marine reserves—750,000 submissions speak for themselves.<br />
As noted in the motion, according to the 2010 Census <strong>of</strong> Marine Life, Australia's marine environment is the<br />
most biologically diverse in the world, with our oceans spanning tropical, temperate and sub-Antarctic waters<br />
where at least 33,000 marine species have been identified. It is also important to note that Australia is a signatory<br />
to the United Nations Convention on the Law <strong>of</strong> the Sea and is required to conserve as well as sustainably utilise<br />
its exclusive economic zone.<br />
In our marine environment, we have much to be proud <strong>of</strong>, and it is a source <strong>of</strong> pride that warrants proper<br />
protection. Unfortunately, this Liberal coalition government has set aside the management plans for the<br />
Commonwealth marine parks so that it could conduct a review—a review that, as I mentioned, the Labor Party<br />
already conducted when we were in government. And now, after almost three years, the 40 marine parks have not<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 131<br />
been implemented, leaving five <strong>of</strong> Australia's six marine regions with little or no protection despite the fact that<br />
the government made a promise to implement those marine reserves within 12 months.<br />
Also noted in this very thorough motion is that, in recent consultation by Parks Australia, over 50,000<br />
submissions were received from around Australia calling for the reinstatement <strong>of</strong> the marine parks and their highlevel<br />
marine national park zoning without further delay or loss <strong>of</strong> protection. I have had numerous representations<br />
from constituents in my electorate. I have received visits here in Canberra from people who are concerned about<br />
the fact that this government is stalling and delaying the ultimate declaration <strong>of</strong> these important marine reserves<br />
The government has turned its back on a great number <strong>of</strong> Australians that are in support <strong>of</strong> protecting our marine<br />
environment and its biodiversity.<br />
Labor understands the importance <strong>of</strong> protecting our environment, particularly our marine parks, for current and<br />
future generations as well as supporting sustainable, well managed industries. Only Labor has proven that it can<br />
deliver both. With these goals in mind, I add my voice to this motion and the call for the Turnbull coalition<br />
government to bring the Commonwealth network <strong>of</strong> marine parks that were declared in 2012 into operation<br />
without further delay and with no loss <strong>of</strong> marine national protection.<br />
Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS<br />
Indi Electorate: Wodonga Gold Cup<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:00): On Friday perfect weather and a strong field added up to a record crowd for<br />
the Wodonga Gold Cup. About 7,000 people turned up for the cup, the third cup staged by the Wodonga and<br />
District Turf Club since the public holiday was moved to accommodate Wodonga's premier race. Congratulations<br />
to Racing Wodonga's general manager, Tom O'Connor, and his committee Kevin Richardson, Terry Doolan,<br />
Colin Hayes, Paul Curtis, Trevor Cutler, Brian Flanagan, Terry Maher, Reg Ryan and Mark Bowen on a day that<br />
was a huge success. Congratulations also to Racing Wodonga's staff, stewards and race day <strong>of</strong>ficials, as well as all<br />
the sponsors who made it such a wonderful day. There was a huge crowd. They were beautifully dressed and well<br />
behaved. It was a credit to everybody involved.<br />
I would also like to congratulate the connections <strong>of</strong> Michael Maroney for training the gelding Loyalty Man,<br />
who was first past the post, and Ben Hollands and Dutch media, from Wodonga, for their excellent promotion <strong>of</strong><br />
the cup. Country racing continues to be important in the north-east, where it is worth over $40 million to the<br />
economy and creates more than 350 jobs.<br />
Racing Wodonga has developed its business plan for the precinct, the master plan, and I am really looking<br />
forward to working with the turf club to get the funds that they need to make Wodonga an absolute centre <strong>of</strong><br />
excellence and functions for all around north-eastern Victoria. Congratulations to everybody for a great job and a<br />
terrific day.<br />
World AIDS Day<br />
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:01): I was unable to speak on the private member's bill in the <strong>House</strong> this morning<br />
due to some competing commitments, but I want to put on record my support for World AIDS Day, which is on 1<br />
December. This important day provides an opportunity to raise awareness for those who are suffering from this<br />
disease as well as those who tragically have lost their lives to it in the decades since the disease emerged both here<br />
in Australia and around the world. World AIDS Day is a time for considering on one hand the significant<br />
achievement in tackling the HIV epidemic around the world through unprecedented global efforts, through<br />
education and awareness and through improvements in prevention and, especially, treatment.<br />
At the same time, we must take stock <strong>of</strong> the challenges that still confront us. Of course, HIV still exists in<br />
Australia, with about 1,000 new diagnoses a year still being made on average. Obviously, there is not yet a cure or<br />
a vaccine. Despite many promising breakthroughs in both treatment and prevention, tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
Australians still have to manage their chronic conditions on a day-to-day basis. And behind such statistics are<br />
individual people, human lives and personal stories. It is worth noting in particular the challenges facing some <strong>of</strong><br />
our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. We must keep up the fight and we must do more. I want to pay tribute<br />
to the Queensland AIDS Council and all the local community groups, health groups and practitioners in Brisbane<br />
and around Australia whose efforts continue to do so much.<br />
Lindsay Electorate: Nepean Hospital<br />
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:03): The New South Wales Liberals have today been shamed into listening to the<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> my community following the announcement <strong>of</strong> the Nepean Hospital upgrade, which comes after years <strong>of</strong><br />
neglect, inaction and excuses. In his own words, the New South Wales Premier today said this has been a longfought<br />
campaign. Well, I can assure him it has—but not by those on his own team. Our community has been<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
demanding this upgrade for years. In that time, we have seen the human cost <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party's indifference to<br />
health and hospitals in Western Sydney. I had been personally fighting for this hospital well before I was elected<br />
to the parliament; and, since being elected, I have used every single opportunity to call on Malcolm Turnbull and<br />
Mike Baird to act. They have short-sheeted this hospital for many, many years. I am glad, though, that today they<br />
have finally listened—but only after far too many sick and injured people have been let down by a government<br />
that is preoccupied with greyhounds and forced local government mergers. Sadly, this announcement is based on<br />
their political survival and not on the overdue needs <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> my community—and our doctors say it is<br />
only 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> what is actually needed.<br />
While the announcement today made reference to capital upgrades, real concerns around the recurrent funding<br />
remain. According to projections in the 2014 budget, Nepean Hospital could be stripped <strong>of</strong> up to $467.3 million. I<br />
call on the government to now announce the recurrent funding to provide us with the doctors and nursing staff,<br />
keep the beds open and also commit to not privatising this hospital as Mike Baird has planned to do with so many<br />
other hospitals in New South Wales.<br />
Sargood on Collaroy<br />
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (16:04): Eight years ago, when I was elected to the Warringah council, I was<br />
approached by Rod and Liz Macqueen with the extraordinary vision <strong>of</strong> turning a vacant block on Collaroy Beach<br />
into a world-renowned resort for people living with spinal injury. Thanks to the tireless efforts <strong>of</strong> so many people<br />
in the Collaroy Basin, including Rod and Liz Macqueen, David Hurley, Wendy Harmer, Alan Jones and Greg<br />
Pearce, who enabled the Lifetime Care & Support Authority to purchase the lands, this Friday, with my good<br />
friend the Premier <strong>of</strong> New South Wales, Mike Baird, I will be honoured to open Sargood on Collaroy.<br />
In Australia, one person a day sustains a spinal cord injury. Most are young men aged between 15 and 24. The<br />
Sargood Foundation gives them an alternative to what can become a bleak reality. It helps people with spinal<br />
injuries to get back into the workforce and back into their communities and gives them a chance to socialise with<br />
other people. It gives them a life. It gives them confidence. It gives them hope.<br />
By providing training in vocational skills, health and education, Sargood on Collaroy will be a place for people<br />
living with a spinal injury to rest, recuperate and learn using the best insights and technologies we have available.<br />
This place <strong>of</strong> healing is a true reflection <strong>of</strong> an entire community's passion and dedication. From local residents,<br />
health-care providers, clubs and businesses to all three tiers <strong>of</strong> government, everyone has got involved.<br />
Techfugees Australia<br />
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:06): Techfugees is a global movement brought to Australia through a joint effort <strong>of</strong><br />
many exceptionally energetic and proud local start-up community advocates, including Annie Parker, Nicole<br />
Williamson and Anne-Marie Elias. Techfugees brings people together to develop creative tech solutions to help<br />
refugees settle and build productive lives in their new community.<br />
In early November, they held a hackathon at the Information and Cultural Exchange, in Parramatta, partnering<br />
with Settlement Services International, to come up with solutions to problems confronting young refugees. Almost<br />
a hundred people attended the event and heard five young refugees—Sarah, Arash, Sayed, Sarah and Dor—tell<br />
their stories and experiences <strong>of</strong> coming to Australia. As discussions rolled out, many themes emerged around<br />
language, employment, education and inclusion, and at the end <strong>of</strong> the event eight solutions were pitched up for<br />
support.<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> the solutions developed at previous events are now operating as tech start-ups in their own right. Take<br />
the example <strong>of</strong> Nirary Dacho and Anna Robson, who met at the 2015 hackathon. They joined together to solve the<br />
problems <strong>of</strong> refugees struggling to get their first local work experience in their new country despite <strong>of</strong>ten being<br />
skilled workers. Their solution, Refugee Talent, is now a digital platform connecting skilled refugees with<br />
companies <strong>of</strong>fering short- and long-term job opportunities. Some <strong>of</strong> their clients include the Australian tax <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
Deloitte and the ABC.<br />
Techfugees will be held next in April 2017 in Melbourne, and I encourage people to get involved in this<br />
fantastic initiative.<br />
Tucker, Mrs Nicole<br />
Road Safety<br />
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:07): Earlier today I spoke about the importance <strong>of</strong> road safety, especially during the<br />
summer, school and Christmas holiday period. But the fact is that road safety and being a responsible road user<br />
are <strong>of</strong> critical importance every single day. I know this all too well in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Boothby due to the tragic<br />
death <strong>of</strong> Mrs Nicole Tucker on 6 October this year.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 133<br />
Mrs Tucker was a dedicated mother. She was driving home after dropping <strong>of</strong>f her 16-year-old daughter when a<br />
stolen ute travelling at 160 kilometres per hour crashed into her car. I pay tribute to Mrs Tucker, her husband and<br />
two children and her family and friends, who have bravely said that they will remember her as the outgoing,<br />
bubbly and caring person that she was. Mrs Tucker was described as an extremely caring mother who put<br />
everyone else first and herself a long way second. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends,<br />
particularly over the Christmas period.<br />
Mrs Tucker's life was senselessly and tragically cut short by a criminal. Sadly, the circumstances surrounding<br />
this tragedy are not unique. I commend The Advertiser, The Advertiser columnist Mr David Penberthy and his<br />
colleague Mr Will Goodings, who on radio station FIVEaa are campaigning to have state laws governing<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> reckless, lawless misconduct on the road strengthened for the safety <strong>of</strong> our community. We must<br />
ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> our community.<br />
National Youth Sevens Championships<br />
Mr GEE (Calare) (16:09): Four <strong>of</strong> our region's finest rugby sevens talent will kit up for New South Wales and<br />
take on the best in the nation. Perth will host the 2016 National Youth Sevens Championships, with the event to<br />
be held at the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia between 10 and 11 December. Yool Yool and Hunter Ward, who<br />
both play for St Stanislaus College and also Orange city rugby union, are two <strong>of</strong> four country players selected in<br />
the 12-man squad. All Saints' College student Jakiya Whitfield and MacKillop College's Teagan Miller are two<br />
out <strong>of</strong> three country players chosen to represent their state for the youth girls squad. New South Wales will be<br />
seeking to defend both boys and girls titles it won in March this year, and the Bathurst players are confident <strong>of</strong><br />
being able to do just that, with state pride being a huge motivator for these very talented touch football players.<br />
The tournament is also an opportunity for Australian selectors to scout out potential prospects for the national<br />
side. The four students have dedicated a huge amount <strong>of</strong> time in training for this tournament, and just being<br />
selected for the team is a great honour. This <strong>House</strong> congratulates these four outstanding sportspeople from the<br />
central west, and we will all be cheering them on in Perth next month.<br />
Canberra Electorate: Little Wars Convention<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:10): A few weeks ago I had the wonderful opportunity to join with a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> men—and they were mainly men—in the Little Wars Convention that was held out at Lanyon in my<br />
electorate. The Little Wars Convention celebrates all things war gaming. It is one <strong>of</strong> those things where you get<br />
the invitation and you think, 'Gosh, how interesting will this be?' But when you go to the event, it is quite<br />
extraordinary the amount <strong>of</strong> effort and time and history that goes into setting up these war games and then actually<br />
playing them out. The war games that were featured this weekend were the Punic Wars right through to the<br />
Napoleonic Wars as well as World War I and World War II. They also had wars that were taking place in space as<br />
well as wars that were taking place in environments that are unknown, so it was a completely abstract concept.<br />
The work that goes into their little figures and villages is just extraordinary. Hours and hours and hours <strong>of</strong><br />
labour went into little elephants, into little palm trees, into little houses and villages. It is quite extraordinary. I<br />
want to congratulate and thank the organisers, particularly Leigh Crutchley and Ian Haidon for including me again<br />
this year. It was a great pleasure to see you all again. They went into great detail to explain to me what was<br />
actually happening. Thank you again for including me, and thank you again for donating all proceeds to Soldier<br />
On.<br />
Moore Electorate: Joondalup Christmas Lunch<br />
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:12): As Christmas Day approaches, I acknowledge a team <strong>of</strong> very<br />
dedicated volunteers who organise and conduct the Joondalup Christmas lunch in Central Park. The event is open<br />
to local residents who have nowhere to go on Christmas Day, have no family nearby, are lonely, experiencing<br />
hardship or are otherwise isolated on Christmas Day. On behalf <strong>of</strong> the parliament, I recognise the outstanding<br />
contributions by long-serving chairman, Steve Haskayne, as well as Tracey Haskayne, Jeff and Margaret<br />
Fullelove, Barry Sampson, Sue Blackney, Lesley DeGrussa, Ken Wallis, May Murphy, Kim Gallyer, Kylie<br />
Sampson, Pauline Sookoll and Jan Gilbert, and their team <strong>of</strong> volunteers from local churches.<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> people attending has grown from 250 at the inaugural event in 2008 to 500 guests this year<br />
sitting down to a Christmas lunch served buffet style in a decorated outdoor setting, with entertainment, music and<br />
activities to provide festive cheer. I have sponsored the event for five years now, and have met a range <strong>of</strong> people,<br />
including senior citizens living on their own, single-parent families and international students living away from<br />
their families. The Joondalup Christmas lunch unites our local community by promoting social inclusion. Let us<br />
continue this tradition.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
134 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
HMAS Parramatta II<br />
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:13): Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary <strong>of</strong> the sinking <strong>of</strong> the HMAS<br />
Parramatta II. The Parramatta II was built at the Cockatoo Island dockyards. It was 81 metres long and 11<br />
metres wide—not much bigger than the Manly ferry. In 1941, Parramatta II's main mission was known as the<br />
'Tobruk ferry run'. It would accompany other ships that were bringing supplies in and taking wounded men out <strong>of</strong><br />
Tobruk. These operations occurred at night in an attempt to avoid the German ships patrolling the area. On 27<br />
November 1941, on a very dark night, the Parramatta II was escorting a crucial ammunition ship on its way to<br />
resupply the garrison at Tobruk. At around 1 am, there was a bright flash <strong>of</strong> lightning. A German submarine<br />
caught sight <strong>of</strong> both the ammunition ship and the Parramatta II and fired two torpedoes aimed at the sinking <strong>of</strong><br />
the ammunition ship. It hit the Parramatta II, which sunk just three minutes later. Of the 161 men on board, 137<br />
lost their lives that night. The supplies made it to the besieged Rats <strong>of</strong> Tobruk.<br />
Harold Moss, the final survivor <strong>of</strong> the sinking <strong>of</strong> HMAS Parramatta II, passed away in 2011. Russell Jardine,<br />
Bruce Richens and many other dedicated members <strong>of</strong> the Parramatta subsection <strong>of</strong> the Naval Association <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia continue to hold an annual memorial, and I have been privileged to attend many <strong>of</strong> those over the years.<br />
The memorial site for HMAS Parramatta II is in a shady green patch on the banks <strong>of</strong> the Parramatta River.<br />
Yesterday the community gathered to commemorate the lives lost in service to their country.<br />
Taxation<br />
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:15): This morning we saw once again Labor's transactional petty approach to<br />
policymaking. Reform <strong>of</strong> the backpacker tax has been long awaited by the fruitgrowers <strong>of</strong> Canning. The<br />
opposition has tried to slow its passage through the <strong>House</strong>, has shunted it <strong>of</strong>f to a committee and has hobbled it in<br />
the Senate. Even now the government extended an olive branch, a compromise, so that we can get this bill passed<br />
for the sake <strong>of</strong> Australian producers, hospitality and the tourism industry. But Labor is not interested in backing<br />
these Australians. Labor would prefer to play politics to see the government bleed. Meanwhile, the Canning fruit<br />
growers <strong>of</strong> Roleystone, Karragullen and Pickering Brook continue to live with uncertainty as they lead into the<br />
new year.<br />
The hypocrisy and incoherence is astounding. The opposition spokesman for agriculture held a press<br />
conference this morning, sticking by Labor's massive tax cut for workers, at the same time the opposition leader<br />
railed in the <strong>House</strong> about protecting Australian jobs. So which is it: Australians or foreign workers? You need to<br />
make up your minds. The opposition has said that we cannot afford a company tax cut for wealth-producing, jobcreating,<br />
small to medium businesses; yet we can afford a tax cut for foreign workers. One Nation, the Nick<br />
Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch have come together with the government to craft a compromise that satisfies<br />
all parties, setting the tax rate at 15 per cent. I suggest the opposition look to their example in future negotiations<br />
with the government.<br />
Schools Spectacular<br />
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:17): Over the weekend I had the opportunity to witness some amazing New South<br />
Wales public schools participating in the Schools Spectacular—an opportunity for talented primary and secondary<br />
students to showcase their talents in creative arts. This is an event that brings kids from all over New South Wales<br />
together to perform. I would like to mention those in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Lindsay who were able to perform as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> their own talents being nurtured through New South Wales public schools, their parents and, importantly,<br />
their teachers who support them and coach them. Showcasing their ability in this way builds self-esteem,<br />
confidence and resilience in young people.<br />
I am pleased that there were kids from Kingswood High School, St Marys Senior High School, Cambridge Park<br />
High School and Glenmore Park High School, along with Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School,<br />
Samuel Terry Public School and Cambridge Park Public School. In particular I would like to mention Brooke<br />
Paulley and Elyse Sene-Lefao who were the local vocal featured artists and performed two solos in that show. I<br />
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them for their hard work. I would also like to acknowledge<br />
Telstra, University <strong>of</strong> Western Sydney, Teachers Mutual Bank, Seven Network and AEG Ogden for their support,<br />
and without whom it would not be possible to have such an event. I would like to again take the opportunity to<br />
remind the government <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> funding Gonski and school education so events like this and kids like<br />
these can be nurtured to their full potential and given opportunities such as these.<br />
Domestic and Family Violence<br />
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:18): Today, on the forecourt <strong>of</strong> Parliament <strong>House</strong>, it was my great<br />
pleasure to join with my fellow parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister and opposition leader, to link arms<br />
with the Rirratjingu people from Arnhem Land. Our joint commitment, our determination, our pledge and our plea<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 135<br />
was: 'No More'—no more family and domestic violence in Indigenous communities.' Founded by Indigenous<br />
leader Charlie King, the No More campaign is being led by elders in communities, empowering Indigenous men<br />
to recognise this is an issue for which they must be responsible. Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for family violence. In the Northern Territory, the statistics are<br />
worse.<br />
The scourge <strong>of</strong> domestic violence affects all cultures, demographics and communities. That is why combating<br />
family violence is a national priority for the Turnbull government. Last month our government outlined a $100<br />
million commitment, including $25 million to fund Indigenous specific initiatives under the Third Action Plan <strong>of</strong><br />
the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children<br />
I commend Charlie King and other Indigenous leaders, such as Marcia Langton and Josephine Cashman. For more<br />
information on the No More campaign, people can look at nomore.org.au, an incredibly important initiative for<br />
our nation.<br />
Petition: Ingram Family<br />
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:20): I rise to speak on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Blackfriars Parish in Watson, who have organised<br />
this petition to advocate on behalf <strong>of</strong> the family that they have come to accept as important contributors to their<br />
community. It is one <strong>of</strong> the strengths <strong>of</strong> our system <strong>of</strong> representative democracy that private citizens can petition a<br />
minister directly when they disagree with the result <strong>of</strong> a ministerial decision. The organisers <strong>of</strong> this petition<br />
describe a humble and hardworking family that are making a valuable contribution to the disability support sector<br />
in our city.<br />
I pay my respects to the Blackfriars parishioners and to the many members <strong>of</strong> the broader community who have<br />
joined their cause on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Ingram family. I acknowledge the value <strong>of</strong> this earnest and spontaneous<br />
expression <strong>of</strong> the community's shared values. On behalf <strong>of</strong> Jacquie Cortese, Carmel Lewis, Lucy Esau and others<br />
who have written to me about the Ingram family, and on behalf <strong>of</strong> all the signatories to this petition, I seek leave<br />
to table this document petitioning the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> regarding permanent residency for Mr Clive<br />
Ingram and Family, which was found to be in order by the petitions committee.<br />
The petition read as follows—<br />
Document was not available at the time <strong>of</strong> publication.<br />
Petition received.<br />
Page Electorate: World Masters Athletics Championships<br />
Page Electorate: China Cup<br />
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:21): Maclean resident Tom Hancock has shown that age is no barrier in athletics. At<br />
80 years <strong>of</strong> age, he has just won seven medals at the World Masters Athletic Championships in Perth. In the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> winning the seven medals, he broke four world records. He broke the world records in the high jump,<br />
discus, shot-put and throw pentathlon. Tom puts his success down to his long love <strong>of</strong> body conditioning. He<br />
started strength and conditioning routines at the age <strong>of</strong> 15 and has been doing athletics for 60 years.<br />
Congratulations to Tom. He is a fantastic inspiration to our junior athletes.<br />
Every year in Shenzhen, China, there is a sailing regatta known as the China Cup. In October this year, the cup<br />
was again contested with a fleet <strong>of</strong> 38 boats representing 25 countries from all over the world. What makes this<br />
special this year is that three sailors from Yamba were onboard the winning vessel, Wanhang Longcheer, in the<br />
Beneteau. Scott Hinton, Kieran Searle, and Joey O'Keefe were part <strong>of</strong> the 10-man crew that took out the event for<br />
the second year in a row. I congratulate them on their success and wish them all the best in the future.<br />
Moreton Electorate: Keep Me Posted Campaign<br />
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:22): I rise to thank Kellie Northwood, Colin Ormsby and<br />
Carol Sarasa from the Keep Me Posted campaign for visiting my electorate recently to talk to residents and<br />
community groups about the impact <strong>of</strong> the push for people to conduct their affairs digitally—that is, online, not<br />
just using their fingers. More and more businesses are imposing fees and restricting access to paper bills and<br />
statements, denying their customers an informed and appropriate choice.<br />
Those who attended the forum in Yeronga were worried about the widespread increase <strong>of</strong> the pay-to-pay<br />
practice <strong>of</strong> charging customers more to receive their bills by mail rather than electronically. An Australian<br />
household receives an average <strong>of</strong> seven to eight invoices per month. With an average cost <strong>of</strong> two dollars per bill,<br />
this adds up to nearly $180 a year. We heard from Kellie Griffiths, manager for St David's Neighbourhood Centre<br />
in Coopers Plain, that everyday the staff and volunteers at St David's come into contact with those who struggle to<br />
meet the pressures <strong>of</strong> day-to-day life.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
136 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Kelly talked about the concerns some <strong>of</strong> her clients expressed in this push for online billing. Many said they<br />
knew <strong>of</strong> older people who do not have computers or, if they did have a computer, did not know how to use it<br />
properly or were fearful about using the internet. Many mentioned the distrust in giving out their email addresses<br />
or losing their independence in having to rely on family members to help them work this stuff out. Kelly also<br />
talked about the length <strong>of</strong> time and the frustration experienced by centre staff trying to organise electronic billing<br />
from a local electricity company and wondered about the difficulty that those from non-English speaking<br />
backgrounds would experience in trying to navigate and understand difficult systems.<br />
Petrie Electorate: Margate Festival<br />
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:24): I rise to thank everyone who came to the Margate Festival on the weekend<br />
in Margate on the Redcliffe peninsula. There were some heavy showers in the Moreton Bay region in Brisbane on<br />
Saturday morning—I was up at about 5 am, running around in my dressing gown, trying to stop some localised<br />
flooding!—and I thought the event may be rained out, but it was a very successful event. By one o'clock, all the<br />
showers had cleared and there were many local people who came down.<br />
I thank the local people for coming down. I thank everyone who performed on stage at the Margate Festival. I<br />
was talking to a very talented young woman, Amy Dooley, who is 15 and who is from Steps Dance Centre. She<br />
performed on stage along with everyone from Steps Dance Centre. The Redcliffe City Choir was very good and<br />
performed well. There were many sponsors <strong>of</strong> the Margate Festival including Nick Tzimas from the Golden Ox,<br />
Lynn Mather from FMG Hair Salon, Roslyn Page from Silhouette Hair Design and Robert Bakker from RB<br />
Lawyers. He is also involved with CIRP, Commerce and Industry Redcliffe Peninsula.<br />
There were three levels <strong>of</strong> government involved with sponsoring, not just me but also the state member <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament and the local councillor Koliana Winchester. We all had the opportunity to light the Margate Christmas<br />
tree. Thank you everyone. Make sure this Christmas you shop locally. Margate is a great place to live, work and<br />
shop.<br />
Indi Electorate: Health Care<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:25): Wednesday, 15 November was a very special day for my region, with the<br />
opening <strong>of</strong> the $65 million Albury Wodonga Regional Cancer Centre. It was the culmination <strong>of</strong> a community<br />
campaign that began in August 2010 when 1,400 people, clad in yellow ponchos and united in the shape <strong>of</strong> a<br />
heart, gathered on the banks <strong>of</strong> the Murray River in Wodonga to seek funding for a cancer treatment centre on the<br />
border. On Wednesday, high-pr<strong>of</strong>ile cancer centre campaigner Eric Turner took centre stage, and we were so<br />
proud to acknowledge his work. I acknowledge also the work <strong>of</strong> Jenny Black, the founder <strong>of</strong> the border cancer<br />
support network, and Brave Hearts on the Murray. I acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> Dr Craig Underhill, Director <strong>of</strong><br />
Oncology at Albury Wodonga Health, who first highlighted evidence <strong>of</strong> a growing gap in cancer survival rates<br />
between rural and metropolitan areas. He really played a leading role in getting the centre established. To Lou<br />
Lieberman, chair <strong>of</strong> the board, and all the staff <strong>of</strong> Albury Wodonga Health: we know how hard and how long you<br />
have worked, particularly to balance the idea <strong>of</strong> a regional cross-border centre, including New South Wales<br />
Victoria and the Commonwealth, and make it work. Congratulations and enormous appreciation go to the<br />
volunteers. The centre at Albury-Wodonga Health is operated with a public-private partnership with Ramsay<br />
health and Genesis Care. Thank you everybody. I really appreciate your work.<br />
Bennelong Electorate: Primary School Leadership Awards<br />
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:27): Rotary clubs service in many valuable ways. The reward <strong>of</strong> paying it<br />
forward unites men and women <strong>of</strong> different backgrounds, cultures, religious and political beliefs the world over,<br />
allowing ordinary people to do extraordinary things. I can report today that Rotary certainly is paying it forward in<br />
my electorate <strong>of</strong> Bennelong. Last week I had the privilege <strong>of</strong> attending the primary school leadership awards<br />
hosted by the Rotary clubs <strong>of</strong> Eastwood and Gladesville. Meeting the students, their proud parents and the<br />
teachers was inspiring. In an age when young people <strong>of</strong>ten seem to be vilified, learning about these students'<br />
achievements in leadership was most heartening.<br />
I especially congratulate Jasmine Cochrane for being the year 7 guest speaker. Her advice to those primary<br />
school students who were about to advance was absolutely inspiring. Well done to Harrison Bowen, Tamsin<br />
Slender, Ray Chen, Emily Clugston, Hannah Lee, Ria Kapoor, Melanie Carlson, Lars Van Uden, Jenevieve Liem,<br />
Marcus Della Vedova, Samuel Meguerditchian, Rachel Manley, David Jiang, Tahnee Sparks, Isabella Whabe,<br />
Emerick Agahari, Clare Doherty, Owen Eymael, Ryan Dale, Charlotte Anderson, Andrew Tutos, Isabella<br />
McGarry, Jack Baker and Olivia Hester. Good luck to all <strong>of</strong> you as you step up to high school next year. Thank<br />
you, Narelle Barker and your fellow Rotarians.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 137<br />
Bonnett, Mr John<br />
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:28): When I ran for Labor Party preselection in 2010, two <strong>of</strong> the first people whose<br />
support I sought out were John and Kathy Bonnett. I remember the conversation in their lounge room. It was<br />
gentle and generous and focused on the big issues: the values the Labor Party stood for and whether or not I really<br />
believed that music had an important role in the good life. When I left their lounge room, it was with the support<br />
<strong>of</strong> John and Kathy, and without that, I might not be standing here today.<br />
John was born in England and, after migrating to Australia, he served in the Royal Australian Engineers and the<br />
Royal Australian Corps <strong>of</strong> Transport, reaching the rank <strong>of</strong> Lieutenant Colonel. He was a true believer and a great<br />
friend to many in the Labor Party and served as president <strong>of</strong> the Gungahlin subbranch in the years shortly after its<br />
establishment.<br />
Sadly, John lost his battle with cancer on 18 November, dying age 81. He leaves behind his widow, Kathy, and<br />
his children and children-in-law, Kevin and Catherine, Jonathan and Kate. He was the proud grandpa <strong>of</strong> Tatum,<br />
the brother <strong>of</strong> Christine and Linda. He was loved by his extended families in the United States and the United<br />
Kingdom. In the immortal words <strong>of</strong> Emily Dickinson:<br />
Let no Sunrise' yellow noise<br />
Interrupt this Ground<br />
Vale, John Bonnett.<br />
Cuba: Fidel Castro<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:30): With the death <strong>of</strong> Fidel Castro, it is tempting to follow the old custom<br />
<strong>of</strong> never speaking ill <strong>of</strong> the dead. However, I agree with the comments <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Carlos Erie, who has written:<br />
If this were a just world, these facts should be etched on Castro's tombstone;<br />
He turned Cuba into a colony <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.<br />
He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many <strong>of</strong> the worst dictators throughout the world.<br />
He was responsible for so many thousands <strong>of</strong> executions and disappearances in Cuba but a precise number is hard to<br />
reckon.<br />
He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.<br />
He forced nearly 20 per cent <strong>of</strong> his own people into exile, and prompted many thousands to meet their deaths at sea.<br />
He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority <strong>of</strong> his<br />
people.<br />
He outlawed private enterprise and wiped out Cuba's large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves <strong>of</strong> the state.<br />
He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.<br />
He censored all means <strong>of</strong> expression and communication.<br />
He establish a fraudulent school system that provided indoctrination rather than education.<br />
… … …<br />
He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps … incarcerating a higher percentage <strong>of</strong> his own people than most<br />
modern dictators ...<br />
… … …<br />
He turned Cuba into a labyrinth <strong>of</strong> ruins.<br />
As was said about Castro in a letter in the Miami Herald:<br />
He had a peaceful death, but in his final days he should have experienced a lot <strong>of</strong> suffering; he should have been dragged<br />
through the streets <strong>of</strong> Havana, like Mussolini in Italy, and then hanged.<br />
Canberra Refugee Support<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:31): I rise today to wish the Canberra Refugee Support 15 years Happy<br />
Birthday. They were established in 2001 and recently celebrated their 15th birthday at a fundraiser at the Hellenic<br />
Club and also, most importantly, farewelled their current president, Ge<strong>of</strong>f McPherson AM, who has been there<br />
from the start. His role has been very ably taken over by the new president, Doug Hynd.<br />
Canberra Refugee Support provides an invaluable service here in Canberra. It helps refugees settle into<br />
Canberra. It provides them with advocacy services. It also provides them with policy advice. It conducts training<br />
sessions and also, most importantly, settlement support. When you are transitioning into a new country, it is<br />
vitally important that you have someone there to help you make the transition into that new country and new<br />
community.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
138 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
During all those years that Ge<strong>of</strong>f has been president <strong>of</strong> Canberra Refugee Support, there have been a number <strong>of</strong><br />
achievements, and among them are the Calvary Hospital Mentoring Program, the annual CRS Scholarships and<br />
the Asylum Seeker Access Card. There is also the significant support that the group gives to the community here.<br />
It provides so much to our community, as well enriching our community. Thank you so much to Ge<strong>of</strong>f McPherson<br />
AM for your contribution to Canberra.<br />
Centrelink<br />
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:33): With Christmas just around the corner, we are truly entering the silly<br />
season, because if you are a welfare recipient with a non-attendance report because you have not shown up for<br />
your obligatory work-for-the-dole or interview requirements, you will be, as <strong>of</strong> today, reconnected to your<br />
Centrelink payments just before Christmas, no matter what you do. That is right. Twenty thousand Australians, no<br />
matter what they do with non-attendance between now and Christmas, will routinely and automatically be fully<br />
reconnected to their payments to avoid hardship over Christmas.<br />
If you read the regulations, they stipulate that there must be two working days where you cannot reconnect and<br />
get an interview, in which case hardship could be created and therefore we reconnect them. But, over Easter, the<br />
department does it again. That is right. Another bleeding heart solo flight with the Department <strong>of</strong> Employment<br />
reconnecting another 16,000 job seekers who do not turn up for work or who do not turn up for their interviews.<br />
We can do better than that. We can have a phone arrangement where these people seeking to reconnect can<br />
instantly book an appointment and be booked in, know that they have reconnected and have their payments<br />
started. But, no, the Department <strong>of</strong> Employment on this notice that I have here from 2 November, complete with<br />
typographical errors, asked jobactive providers to close down, finalise, all <strong>of</strong> their non-attendance reports. That is<br />
the ultimate in a Christmas gift over the silly season for people who do not do the right thing by the Australian<br />
people.<br />
Melbourne Electorate: Good Xmas Trail<br />
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:34): It is the final week <strong>of</strong> parliament for the year, and, as summer approaches, I<br />
know that many people in Melbourne and, <strong>of</strong> course, right around the country are going to be buying presents,<br />
attending events, organising parties for their colleagues or eating out with family and friends. I say to everyone<br />
here, not just in Melbourne but right around the country: if you are spending money, why not spend it in a way<br />
that does some good?<br />
Melbourne is leading the way when it comes to social innovation, and there are great social enterprises around<br />
my electorate where the proceeds from your purchases will go to community, social and environmental causes. If<br />
you are organising a meal or event in your workplace, why not go to one <strong>of</strong> Melbourne's great social enterprise<br />
venues, like Lentil as Anything, in Abbotsford; Charcoal Lane, in Fitzroy; Kinfolk, in Melbourne; or Feast <strong>of</strong><br />
Merit, in Richmond?<br />
If you are buying gifts, you could try clothes from HoMie, in Fitzroy, or Hosier Hoodies, in Melbourne's CBD.<br />
Handcrafts, jewellery and accessories can all be bought from SisterWorks, in Richmond, or Body Safety<br />
Australia, in Cremorne, or you can get other experiences like a gift membership <strong>of</strong> the Collingwood Toy Library,<br />
based at Victoria Park; tickets to events at the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival, featuring great organisations<br />
like Yume, Urban Seed or the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation; or classes at the School <strong>of</strong> Life in<br />
Melbourne.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> these social enterprises are supporters <strong>of</strong> the Good Xmas Trail, which works to share great ideas for our<br />
end-<strong>of</strong>-year spending that contribute to causes that make a difference. If you go to www.goodxmastrail.org to find<br />
details for these organisations, you will see how you can spend your money this Christmas to do good.<br />
Capricornia Electorate: Sarina Sugar Shed<br />
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:36): I rise today to inform the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> some good<br />
news for the northern part <strong>of</strong> my Capricornia electorate. Sugar is our second-largest agriculture industry, based<br />
around Sarina and Mackay. Sarina is home to Australia's only miniature sugar mill and distillery, the Sarina Sugar<br />
Shed. The Sarina Sugar Shed is a wonderful tourist attraction where visitors can enjoy a guided tour to see how<br />
sugar is grown, processed, milled and distilled in the unique miniature mill. It is the only distillery in Australia<br />
that produces its own syrups to produce a unique alcoholic range <strong>of</strong> liqueurs based on local sugar.<br />
The centre has taken out three major trophies at this year's prestigious Queensland Tourism Awards. These<br />
include gold in the Tourism Wineries, Distilleries and Breweries category, gold in the Excellence in Food<br />
Tourism category, and bronze in the Tourism Attractions category. It is the second time the Sarina Sugar Shed has<br />
been awarded gold in the Excellence in Food Tourism category.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 139<br />
The Sarina Sugar Shed is a popular agritourism attraction, bringing about 8,000 visitors annually to the town.<br />
This has a flow-on effect to employment and contributes to more than $1.5 million <strong>of</strong> added value directly into<br />
our local economy.<br />
Oxley Electorate: Vietnamese Schools<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:38): I rise to speak about an event that I will be attending this Saturday. This weekend I<br />
will be attending, as I have done in past years, to celebrate and recognise the achievements <strong>of</strong> our students at<br />
Vietnamese language schools in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Oxley. This weekend I will be attending the graduation services<br />
at the Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School, which is based at Darra State School, and also the Lac Hong<br />
Vietnamese language school, based at Glenala State High School.<br />
Both <strong>of</strong> these schools have been operating in my community for decades. They provide a great cohesion for<br />
Vietnamese students who are continuing to learn their language and culture, and they provide the diversity that<br />
our suburbs are much known for. I would like to recognise the volunteers, the educators, the principals and the<br />
parents who give up their time to support their students; in particular, my friend Khanh-Tien Truong, from the<br />
Vietnamese language school at Darra, and also Mr Nguyen Vu, who for decades has been providing support and<br />
inspiration for many young Vietnamese in our community.<br />
These schools provide a vital link to make sure that young Vietnamese Australians continue the traditions and,<br />
more importantly, connect with generations <strong>of</strong> their family that have called the south-west suburbs <strong>of</strong> Brisbane<br />
home. I am proud to have supported these schools for many years and will do so in the years to come.<br />
Berowra Electorate: Hornsby Rockets<br />
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:39): Last Saturday night I joined with the Hornsby Rockets tenpin bowling club<br />
for their Christmas party and presentation night at the Hornsby RSL. It was a great honour that evening to be<br />
formally inducted as one <strong>of</strong> their patrons. The Hornsby Rockets is a bowling club for people with disabilities and<br />
is run entirely by volunteers. Earlier this month the Hornsby Rockets had a fantastic national championship—<br />
coming home with 23 medals, seven trophies and achieving first place. The rockets also claimed an able-bodied<br />
record at the New South Wales state championships earlier this year. Karina Peters, Mark Milner, Warren<br />
Seymour and Nathan Constable knocked down 1,657 pins in a game <strong>of</strong> teams. It was quite an achievement!<br />
I would like to acknowledge the hard work <strong>of</strong> the Hornsby Rockets committee members including their<br />
president Lesley Constable and vice president Lucy Mandarano as well as Tony McFadden, Anna Peters, Jo<br />
Eslick and Annette Seymour. I would also like to make special mention <strong>of</strong> their captains Amy McFadden, Liz<br />
Gosson, Tim Wilson and Nathan Constable. Amy McFadden was the recipient <strong>of</strong> an encouragement award for<br />
supporting other bowlers. Paige Sammut, Jeremy Orr and Nathan Constable tied for third place, with Lauren<br />
Kerjan in second place and Louise Pond won the Clark achievement award—which is given to the bowlers who<br />
bowl the most number <strong>of</strong> games on average each week.<br />
At the dinner, I was presented with a book that showcased the team's unique history. I think it sums up the<br />
evening by saying they are a team <strong>of</strong> bowlers who have an extraordinary talent and who always express honesty,<br />
great sportsmanship, respect and support for each other.<br />
Canberra Electorate: Christmas<br />
ACT Boccia<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:41): For many <strong>of</strong> us Christmas is a time to relax, to spend time with our<br />
family and our friends, to have a little bit <strong>of</strong> a break and to swap presents. But for many Canberra families it is a<br />
difficult time. They may have the difficult choice between paying for presents and a Christmas feast or paying the<br />
bills. They are faced with that very difficult choice. That is why, in the lead up to Christmas, I am once again<br />
asking Canberrans to dig deep and help out.<br />
I have set up a giving tree in my <strong>of</strong>fice in Tuggeranong and I encourage Canberrans to drop by and give nonperishable<br />
food items. There is a broad range <strong>of</strong> items, because I have three organisations I am giving to this year.<br />
The first is St John's Care, which is based at its church in Reid. The second is the YWCA Lanyon Food Hub. The<br />
third is the Domestic Violence Crisis Service. Canberrans, please dig deep and help those most in need during the<br />
Christmas season.<br />
In closing, I would like to make a shout out the ACT boccia team, who recently participated in the Boccia<br />
Australia nationals. Congratulations to the bronze: All Stars Corena Sheridan, who was team BC1/BC2.<br />
Congratulations to the pairs BC4/BC5, who got a silver: David Primmer and James Roe. Congratulations and well<br />
done. Thank for flying the flag so proudly for the ACT. I look forward, as you patron, to seeing you soon and<br />
celebrating with a big happy photo.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
140 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Tourism Tropical North Queensland<br />
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (16:42): I rise this evening to congratulate Tourism Tropical North Queensland,<br />
which is in the final negotiations on a deal for direct flights to a new Chinese destination—and this is fabulous<br />
news for us. I thank TTNQ, tourism partners and Cairns Airport for continuing to push the envelope and focus on<br />
sustainable tourism growth, particularly in the growing Chinese market. It aligns with the commitment by Prime<br />
Minister Turnbull and the Chinese President to jointly designate 2017 as the Australia-China year <strong>of</strong> tourism.<br />
The tourism industry is growing three times faster under the coalition government than it did under the previous<br />
Labor government. New measures—such as a 10-year multiple entry visa for China, a trial <strong>of</strong> visa applications<br />
online in simplified Chinese, and a tripling <strong>of</strong> gateway capacity between Australia and China—are positioning us<br />
well to attract Chinese holiday makers.<br />
Cairns Airport is going from strength to strength, recently celebrating five million passengers in a 12-month<br />
period and helping Australia break the national record <strong>of</strong> welcoming eight million international tourists over the<br />
last 12 months. Building on the success <strong>of</strong> Silk Air's direct flights to Singapore, on 6 December Philippine<br />
Airlines will celebrate the first anniversary <strong>of</strong> its Manila to Cairns return flights. On the 15th, Cairns will welcome<br />
Jin Air's inaugural seasonal service direct from Seoul. It is certainly an exciting time for the tourism industry—<br />
(Time expired)<br />
Indi Electorate: Moyhu<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:44): I would like to tell you about Moyhu, a beautiful town in the King Valley in<br />
north-east Victoria. Moyhu has a population <strong>of</strong> around 300, but on Monday and Thursday nights over 100<br />
children come from all around the region to the Moyhu and District Youth Club for their amazing gymnastics<br />
programs. The club first started in 1943, as a boxing troupe for boys. But today both boys and girls participate in<br />
gymnastics classes each week in a Nissen hut that was built in the late 1970s. The club is working towards a new<br />
building in the next five years to provide more facilities.<br />
On a recent visit I saw children participating in activities such as balance-beam routines, spinning around the<br />
uneven bars, tumbling on the floor, swinging from the Roman rings and vaulting. The energy <strong>of</strong> the young people<br />
and their coaches was an amazing site. I am told that many <strong>of</strong> the gymnasts are now competing at state-wide<br />
events. Well done, and congratulations to the mentors and to the committee, especially to Diane and Kevin<br />
Hooper and to Alex, Amy, Anneshka, Charlotte, Donna, Emma, Jacqui, Lily and Sophie, the coaches who<br />
achieved the club's vision <strong>of</strong> encouraging physical activity and participation in our local community and our local<br />
sports. But what would truly like to acknowledge is the parents who make it all happen by getting in cars to drive<br />
the young people there. And to the young people, it is a fantastic effort. Your grace and your agility—I have such<br />
admiration for you. Keep up the good work.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has<br />
concluded.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS<br />
Australia and the Netherlands<br />
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (16:46): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) the 'Declaration <strong>of</strong> Intent on a Strategic Dialogue' between the Government <strong>of</strong> Australia and the Government <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Netherlands was signed by Foreign Minister Bishop and Foreign Minister Koenders on 2 November 2016, in Canberra;<br />
(b) the Declaration has been updated from the one signed in February 2014 by Foreign Minister Bishop and the then<br />
Foreign Minister Timmermans to reflect current events and increased closeness between our two countries through our shared<br />
commitment to achieve accountability with respect to the downing <strong>of</strong> MH17; and<br />
(c) the Declaration commits Australia and the Netherlands to enhanced cooperation on international security, trade and<br />
investment, human rights and development issues; and<br />
(2) welcomes enhanced economic and security cooperation between Australia and the Netherlands.<br />
It is with great pleasure that I rise in the <strong>House</strong> today to speak on the Declaration <strong>of</strong> Intent on a Strategic Dialogue<br />
between Australia and the Netherlands. The Declaration <strong>of</strong> Intent on a Strategic Dialogue was signed by the<br />
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and Netherlands Minister <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs Koenders on 2 November<br />
2016. The declaration has been updated, from one signed in February 2014, to reflect current events and the<br />
increased closeness between our two countries through our shared commitment to achieve accountability with<br />
respect to the downing <strong>of</strong> MH17. The declaration commits Australia and the Netherlands to an enhanced<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 141<br />
cooperation on international security, trade and investment, human rights and development issues, and welcomes<br />
enhanced economic and security cooperation between Australia and the Netherlands.<br />
The close relationship Australia and the Netherlands is shared and grounded in our common values, including<br />
democracy, human rights, free trade and a rules-based international order. It is interesting to reflect that the<br />
Netherlands is probably one <strong>of</strong> the oldest democracies in the world. As somebody who is a first generation<br />
descendant <strong>of</strong> parents who came out from the Netherlands in the 1960s, is a great pleasure to be speaking on this<br />
motion.<br />
Earlier this month we were honoured to welcome Their Majesties the King and Queen <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands<br />
during their state visit to Australia. They were accompanied by the Dutch Minister <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, His<br />
Excellency Bert Koenders. The visit provided the opportunity for our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop,<br />
to sign the new Declaration <strong>of</strong> Intent on a Strategic Dialogue, which commits us to enhanced cooperation on<br />
international security, trade and investment, as well as human rights and development issues.<br />
More than 300,000 Australians claim Dutch heritage, myself included. This new declaration <strong>of</strong> intent builds on<br />
that already close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands. Looking at my electorate, which covers<br />
both part <strong>of</strong> Logan City and part <strong>of</strong> the Gold Coast, people <strong>of</strong> Dutch heritage appear in the top 10 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
people who live in those communities—about two per cent <strong>of</strong> the population in each community.<br />
The declaration highlights the strong political, economic and cultural ties between Australia and the<br />
Netherlands. As our fourth largest source <strong>of</strong> foreign direct investment, we enjoy a healthy two-way trading<br />
relationship <strong>of</strong> over $6 billion annually. But there is the potential for us to do much more.<br />
While we talk about current-day events, the close ties between Australia and the Netherlands have developed<br />
through history, from 1606, when Dutch East India Company ship Duyfken first made contact with Indigenous<br />
Australians at Mapoon on Cape York, to the migration in the 20th century. Many Dutch migrants moved to<br />
Australia after World War II, when the Dutch government actively encouraged emigration to relieve housing<br />
shortages and economic distress. We have a shared heritage <strong>of</strong> values and a strong trade partnership.<br />
In more recent times, the relationship between Australia and the Netherlands has grown quite close in our<br />
combined efforts to seek justice for the victims and loved ones affected by the tragic downing <strong>of</strong> MH17. Our two<br />
countries have shared in our grief at the loss <strong>of</strong> so many people from our respective countries and, together with<br />
other grieving countries, we have united in our intention to hold those responsible for this tragedy to account.<br />
With the signing <strong>of</strong> the new declaration, I am confident that this already close relationship between our two<br />
nations will further deepen through close cooperation and collaboration. I commend the Dutch Minister <strong>of</strong> Foreign<br />
Affairs, His Excellency Bert Koenders, and our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, for their commitment<br />
to strengthening an enduring relationship between Australia and the Netherlands. I commend this motion to the<br />
<strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon): Is there a seconder for the member's motion?<br />
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:51): Yes, I second the motion by the member for Forde. In<br />
seconding the motion by the member for Forde about the Declaration <strong>of</strong> Intent on a Strategic Dialogue Between<br />
the Government <strong>of</strong> Australia and the Government <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands, I recognise that<br />
longstanding connection between the Australian people and the Dutch people. I particularly mention the member<br />
for Forde with his background in Holland. Also, coming from Brisbane, I note that the Brisbane Roar have<br />
connections with the Dutch community and wear the colours <strong>of</strong> the Dutch community, something that my<br />
granddad, with his Irish background, probably would not be as keen on. But modern-day Australia is a mix <strong>of</strong><br />
many people, and I commend the member for Forde on this motion and his support for football in another capacity<br />
as well.<br />
Obviously that close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands is grounded in many <strong>of</strong> the things that<br />
we hold sacred, democracy being a strong connection but also support for human rights and free trade—the Dutch<br />
having a long history <strong>of</strong> being a trading nation—and rules-based international order. And I note that the Dutch<br />
have always been prepared to put on a blue beret in support <strong>of</strong> world peace and have <strong>of</strong>ten served with Australian<br />
service personnel in parts <strong>of</strong> the world that are far from Holland and Australia.<br />
Earlier this month, we were honoured to welcome their Majesties the King and Queen <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands<br />
during their state visit to Australia. I note that they were accompanied by the Dutch Minister <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs,<br />
His Excellency Bert Koenders. It is all about ensuring that we take every trade and economic opportunity possible<br />
with our connections to Europe. I am sure the more than 300,000 Australians who claim Dutch heritage are<br />
supportive <strong>of</strong> that, and this new declaration <strong>of</strong> intent, as detailed by the member for Forde, builds on this already<br />
close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands, a connection that in Queensland goes back to 1606,<br />
when the United East India Company ship Duyfken first made contact with the Indigenous people <strong>of</strong> Australia—<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
142 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
the oldest civilisation in the world making contact with some <strong>of</strong> the world's best traders back in 1606 up at<br />
Mapoon.<br />
The other connection, a little bit later, was on 25 October 1616 in Western Australia in Shark Bay, where Dirk<br />
Hartog made contact on his ship, the Eendracht, on an island now called Dirk Hartog Island, although the<br />
Indigenous people <strong>of</strong> Western Australia probably called it something else for 30,000 or 40,000 years beforehand.<br />
It is a 620-kilometre square island. When Dirk Hartog and a couple <strong>of</strong> the dignitaries on board nailed a pewter<br />
plate to the post, arguably under some law they were making a claim to that land, although I think some British<br />
gunboats later down the track might have said that they did not recognise that claim. But there was that suggestion<br />
that Dirk Hartog, who had actually been blown <strong>of</strong>f course, was perhaps appeasing some <strong>of</strong> the paying members <strong>of</strong><br />
his ship by saying, 'Yeah, yeah—here's your name on a pewter plate.' I think it has actually ended up in a museum<br />
in Holland, recognising that connection.<br />
In more recent times the Dutch have been the fourth-largest source <strong>of</strong> foreign direct investment in Australia.<br />
And we still have that healthy two-way trading relationship <strong>of</strong> over $6 billion. Obviously, there is much potential<br />
for us to explore: there is the Dutch-speaking community in Australia and the Dutch heritage, whether that be<br />
through people like the member for Forde, which makes connections with Europe. Obviously, we have many<br />
products that can be sold into Europe through the ports <strong>of</strong> Holland.<br />
Tragically, we are also bonded over other aspects, such as looking for the victims who were in the tragic<br />
downing <strong>of</strong> MH 17. But it goes back beyond that to when many Australians opened their doors to the Dutch who<br />
had been devastated by World War II. Many took the time and had the courage to get on a ship and come to the<br />
other side <strong>of</strong> the world, and helped to make multicultural Australia a stronger place. I know that I have a very<br />
strong Dutch community, and I am sure that this new declaration will build on the already close relationship<br />
between our two nations.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Global Security<br />
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:56): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) since 2014, Daesh (also known as ISIL) has been carrying out terror campaigns against Christians, Assyrians,<br />
Mandaeans, Yezidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria;<br />
(b) these campaigns have taken the form <strong>of</strong> mass murders, torture, rape, kidnappings, sexual enslavement and other crimes;<br />
and<br />
(c) these atrocities constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;<br />
(2) noting that the United Nations mandated Independent International Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry on Syria has declared that<br />
Daesh's actions against the Yezidi people amount to genocide, calls on the:<br />
(a) Australian government to refer to the Daesh atrocities as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and<br />
(b) United Nations and member states to co-ordinate measures to prevent further atrocities occurring in Syria and Iraq and<br />
take all necessary action to hold those responsible to account; and<br />
(3) commends:<br />
(a) the Hashemite Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Jordan, the Lebanese Republic, the Republic <strong>of</strong> Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional<br />
Government in Iraq, for their ongoing support and efforts to shelter and protect those fleeing the violence in Syria and Iraq;<br />
and<br />
(b) those nations that are providing a permanent home for Syrian and Iraqi refugees who are escaping persecution and<br />
violence.<br />
In the Middle East we are facing the largest displacement <strong>of</strong> people since the Second World War. However, in this<br />
motion I specifically want to deal with the atrocities committed and the horrific means deployed by Daesh in their<br />
efforts to achieve their abominable objectives.<br />
Daesh has engaged in abductions, systematic rape, enslaving women and girls and torture, coupled with the<br />
mass murder <strong>of</strong> civilians, and yet there seems to be a reluctance for these atrocities to be called out for what they<br />
really are: crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. We have all been shocked by Daesh-inspired<br />
attacks on the people <strong>of</strong> France, Kuwait, Tunisia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Here in Australia we have not been<br />
immune, with the attacks at the Lindt cafe and the killing <strong>of</strong> Curtis Cheng outside the police headquarters in<br />
Parramatta.<br />
All these are acts <strong>of</strong> terror in support <strong>of</strong> Islamic State and its perverted objectives. Daesh has deliberately set<br />
out not only to destroy those who disagree with their extreme ideology but to destroy the very evidence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 143<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> those who it deems to be infidels—particularly the Christians, the Assyrians, Mandaeans, Yezidis and<br />
other minorities. It has destroyed churches, blown up monasteries and desecrated cemeteries.<br />
Daesh is genocidal by its nature, by its ideology and, clearly, by its actions. The systematic destruction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
monuments and artefacts <strong>of</strong> the Assyrian people, who have been indigenous to the region for over 6,000 years<br />
demonstrates the resolve <strong>of</strong> Daesh to recast history devoid <strong>of</strong> this ancient civilisation. In the Sinjar, Daesh tried to<br />
wipe the Yezidis from the very face <strong>of</strong> the earth by killing, enslavement, sexual slavery, torture and starvation.<br />
Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians. Daesh kills Yezidis because they are Yezidis. It kills and<br />
destroys those who refuse to follow its extreme interpretation <strong>of</strong> Islam. The United Nations council has<br />
condemned the systemic violations and abuses <strong>of</strong> human rights by Daesh. On 13 March 2015, the Office <strong>of</strong> the<br />
UNHCR reported:<br />
It is reasonable to conclude that some <strong>of</strong> these incidents, … may constitute genocide. Other incidents may amount to crimes<br />
against humanity and war crimes.<br />
The US secretary <strong>of</strong> state, John Kerry, went further when he said:<br />
In my judgement Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups ... under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and<br />
Shia Muslims.<br />
Indeed, in June this year, the UN Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry on Syria concluded that Daesh is committing genocide<br />
against the Yazidis. In respect <strong>of</strong> military action currently on foot in Mosul, the UNHCR reported:<br />
Abductions and forced removals <strong>of</strong> tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> people from their homes … effectively using [these] men, women and<br />
children as human shields.<br />
They went on to say that 232 civilians were shot for refusing to comply with ISIL's instructions.<br />
Motions similar to mine have already been moved in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Council <strong>of</strong><br />
the European Parliament, recognising the actions <strong>of</strong> Daesh as genocide. Given Australia's involvement in and<br />
commitment to the Middle East, it is appropriate that we now formally recognise that Christians, Assyrians,<br />
Mandaeans, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities from Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the<br />
hands <strong>of</strong> Daesh. We call on the UN Security Council to have these matters referred to the International Criminal<br />
Court, where the perpetrators can one day be brought to justice.<br />
I am proud <strong>of</strong> our efforts to assist the Syrian refugees, particularly in taking an additional 12,000 people. But<br />
the global community owes an enormous debt <strong>of</strong> gratitude to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their<br />
disproportionate efforts to provide humanitarian assistance and safe haven to the majority <strong>of</strong> people fleeing the<br />
violence <strong>of</strong> Syria.<br />
I call on the government to do all that is necessary to bring this motion to a formal resolution <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (17:01): I second the motion. In fact, I am delighted to support the member for<br />
Fowler's motion condemning the Daesh campaign <strong>of</strong> war crimes and genocide against Christians, Assyrians,<br />
Mandaeans, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria and commending those nations<br />
that continue to support the people who are fleeing the violence.<br />
Since 2014 the so-called Islamic state, or Daesh, has been carrying out a campaign <strong>of</strong> terror against various<br />
ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq in Syria. There is clear evidence, over and over again now, <strong>of</strong> mass<br />
murders, torture, systemic rape, kidnapping, sexual enslavement and a series <strong>of</strong> other crimes. As the member for<br />
Fowler pointed out, a number <strong>of</strong> parliaments and government agencies have declared the actions <strong>of</strong> Daesh to be<br />
genocide. These include the United Nations Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry on Syria, the United States Congress, the US<br />
State Department, the European Parliament, the Council <strong>of</strong> Europe, the UK <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> Commons and the French<br />
Foreign Ministry.<br />
The UN Human Rights Council has also condemned the systemic violations and abuses <strong>of</strong> human rights and<br />
international humanitarian law committed by the so-called Islamic State. On 13 March 2015 the Office <strong>of</strong> the<br />
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that:<br />
It is reasonable to conclude in the light <strong>of</strong> the information gathered overall, that some <strong>of</strong> these incidents may constitute<br />
genocide. Other incidents may amount to crimes against humanity or war crimes.<br />
On 16 June 2016, the UN Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry on Syria concluded that ISIL is committing genocide against<br />
Yazidis:<br />
ISIS has committed the crime <strong>of</strong> genocide as well as multiple crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Yazidis,<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> whom are held captive in the Syrian Arab Republic where they are subject to the most unimaginable horrors.<br />
Indeed, a series <strong>of</strong> other reports have come to a similar conclusion.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
144 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
As the honourable member for Fowler pointed out, there have been motions and resolutions from a range <strong>of</strong><br />
jurisdictions around the world. I will quote from one or two <strong>of</strong> them. The United Kingdom <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> Commons<br />
motion said:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong> believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering<br />
Genocide at the hands <strong>of</strong> Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate Referral to the UN Security Council with<br />
a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.<br />
In a similar manner, there was a concurrent resolution <strong>of</strong> both the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> and the Senate in the<br />
United States Congress which stated:<br />
That—<br />
(1) the atrocities perpetrated by ISIL against Christians, Yezidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria<br />
constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;<br />
(2) all governments, including the United States, and international organizations, including the United Nations and the<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the Secretary-General, should call ISIL atrocities by their rightful names: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and<br />
genocide;<br />
(3) the member states <strong>of</strong> the United Nations should coordinate urgently on measures to prevent further war crimes, crimes<br />
against humanity, and genocide in Iraq and Syria, and to punish those responsible for these ongoing crimes, including by the<br />
collection and preservation <strong>of</strong> evidence and, if necessary, the establishment and operation <strong>of</strong> appropriate tribunals;<br />
(4) the Hashemite Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Jordan, the Lebanese Republic, the Republic <strong>of</strong> Turkey, and the Kurdistan Regional<br />
Government in Iraq are to be commended for, and supported in, their efforts to shelter and protect those fleeing the violence<br />
<strong>of</strong> ISIL and other combatants until they can safely return to their homes in Iraq and Syria; and<br />
(5) the protracted Syrian civil war and the indiscriminate violence <strong>of</strong> the Assad regime have contributed to the growth <strong>of</strong><br />
ISIL and will continue to do so as long as this conflict continues.<br />
That resolution was passed by the United States <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> on 14 March this year. Similarly, there<br />
have been motions by the European Parliament, which:<br />
Expresses its view that the persecution, atrocities and international crimes amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity;<br />
stresses that the so-called 'ISIS/Daesh' is committing genocide against Christians and Yazidis, and other religious and ethnic<br />
minorities—<br />
in the region. Similarly, the Council <strong>of</strong> Europe passed a motion condemning 'in the strongest terms the recent<br />
terrorist attacks' and the ongoing activities <strong>of</strong> Daesh in perpetrating 'acts <strong>of</strong> genocide and other serious crimes<br />
punishable under international law'. As I said, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said on 25 March<br />
2015:<br />
We are witnessing a true genocide. The Islamic State group in particular kills, enslaves or exiles people who don't think like<br />
them.<br />
Finally, to add to the list, John Kerry, the Secretary <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> the US, said:<br />
… in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians,<br />
and Shia Muslims.<br />
(Time expired)<br />
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (17:07): One <strong>of</strong> the most terrifying aspects <strong>of</strong> Daesh's reign in eastern Syria<br />
and western Iraq has been this persecution <strong>of</strong> minorities, particularly the ancient Christian communities that<br />
predate Islam in that part <strong>of</strong> the world and other minorities like the Yazidis. I am going to especially focus on the<br />
appalling theology <strong>of</strong> rape', as The New York Times has called it, and enslavement that Daesh has practised against<br />
the Yazidi people in particular. But let's remember some <strong>of</strong> the other horrifying things that these people have<br />
done, particularly to the people <strong>of</strong> Iraq and eastern Syria.<br />
I think all <strong>of</strong> us had forgotten the biblical names <strong>of</strong> Nineveh and Nimrud. I did not even know that there was a<br />
tomb <strong>of</strong> Jonah in Mosul. One <strong>of</strong> the first things that happened there when they got control <strong>of</strong> that area was that<br />
they blew up the ancient tomb <strong>of</strong> Jonah, which had existed in that city for thousands <strong>of</strong> years and which relates to<br />
all <strong>of</strong> our common Abrahamic religions. We all know what Daesh was doing in Palmyra. But it is particularly for<br />
the people <strong>of</strong> that part <strong>of</strong> the world that I want to express my outrage and support this resolution.<br />
The New York Times, in reporting this particularly ugly activity against the Yazidi people, said:<br />
In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the—<br />
Daesh—<br />
fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other<br />
than Islam—<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 145<br />
his perverted attitude and misreading <strong>of</strong> his own great religion 'not only gave him the right to rape her—it<br />
condoned and encouraged it'. The New York Times said:<br />
The systematic rape <strong>of</strong> women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the<br />
organization and the radical theology <strong>of</strong> the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an<br />
institution … The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network <strong>of</strong> warehouses where<br />
the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet <strong>of</strong> buses used to transport<br />
them.<br />
The article said that more than 5,000 Yazidis were abducted the year before, and 3,100 were still being held,<br />
according to their community leaders. To handle them, Daesh had a detailed bureaucracy <strong>of</strong> sex slavery, including<br />
sales contracts notarised by ISIS Islamic courts, and the practice had become an established recruiting tool to lure<br />
crazy people from the kinds <strong>of</strong> societies where casual sex was taboo and dating was forbidden.<br />
Like previous speakers, I am proud <strong>of</strong> the role that Australia has played. We have legislation acting against<br />
people who like to perpetrate the same activities here in Australia. We have passed five tranches <strong>of</strong> legislation, we<br />
have troops advising the people in that area so that the Iraqi forces can capture back and control Mosul. We have<br />
proposed—Tanya Plibersek, the Turkish government and even Hillary Clinton, who was unfortunately beaten—a<br />
no-fly zone in northern Syria which would have been the most effective way <strong>of</strong> protecting people from attack by<br />
both the Assad forces and by Daesh. Unfortunately it does not seem that that is going to happen now.<br />
I agree with the mover <strong>of</strong> this motion that we have to pay tribute to Turkey, which has 2,700,000 refugees, to<br />
Lebanon, which has one million refugees, Jordan 655,000 and Iraq, in mainly the Kurdish zones, 230,000 people.<br />
We have to be consistent on this when these people try to do this in any part <strong>of</strong> the world, and that includes what<br />
the young Daesh and Hamas supporters are trying to do in Israel too—they would do the same to the Jews if they<br />
had the power to do it in that part <strong>of</strong> the world, but fortunately they are able to act very strongly against them. We<br />
have to be consistent all over the world, including here in Australia, to act against these people in a legal and<br />
measured way. (Time expired)<br />
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:11): I commend the motion to recognise Daesh atrocities as war crimes, crimes against<br />
humanity and genocide. Like previous speakers, I also commend the member for Fowler. Terror inflicted by<br />
Daesh is a theatre <strong>of</strong> jihads within the broader violent jihadist movement, and so we must be ever vigilant that<br />
new theatres <strong>of</strong> jihad will continue to emerge as long as there continues to be unrest and conflict in parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Middle East and as long as the ideology <strong>of</strong> violent jihadism continues to attract individuals prepared to use<br />
violence.<br />
I spoke in this chamber last week on the member for Canning's motion noting that that these mujahideen, as<br />
they term themselves, will follow the conflict to the next theatre <strong>of</strong> jihad—as those before them have done. I also<br />
spoke <strong>of</strong> the need to revise the conventional wisdom that Daesh could be defeated by military means alone.<br />
Assymetric warfare typically describes a conflict situation in which one side has a strategic advantage because<br />
they are willing to use tactics that the other side is either unable or unwilling to use. These tactics have no regard<br />
for the conventions <strong>of</strong> warfare—they indiscriminately target individuals and innocents and constitute crimes<br />
against humanity<br />
As a woman, I feel compelled here to speak about the disproportionate suffering <strong>of</strong> women under the hands <strong>of</strong><br />
the brutal Daesh. The United Nations, among others, has acknowledged that women and children, by and large,<br />
are the most affected by war. Daesh's terror campaign includes rape and sexual enslavement, among other crimes.<br />
The plight <strong>of</strong> the Yazidi women who have been enslaved by Daesh, treated as war booty, used and abused, raped<br />
and tortured is but one gross example <strong>of</strong> Daesh's atrocious war crimes. Those few who have managed to escape<br />
have told <strong>of</strong> unimaginable terror—being sold for a mere few cigarettes, beaten if they refuse or resist and<br />
threatened with death should they try to escape. Such is the plight <strong>of</strong> Yazidis and other religious minorities<br />
targeted by Daesh<br />
Before 2003, the Christian population in Iraq numbered 1.4 million. Today, it is estimated at 250,000 and an<br />
estimated 3,600 Yazidis—mostly women and children—remain missing, thought to be held captive by Daesh.<br />
It is very clear from the first rising <strong>of</strong> Daesh that their mission was to establish a religiously pure state. Terrorist<br />
organisations that have the goal <strong>of</strong> religious purity are certainly not new. Having studied the history <strong>of</strong> terrorism<br />
and having written a book about it, I do not think it is a reach to say that Daesh is among the world's most<br />
destructive forces, prepared to wipe out all those who do not agree with them.<br />
Daesh are also guilty <strong>of</strong> cultural genocide, eradicating not only the minorities they target but also systematically<br />
destroying their history, their language and their historical sites—both Islamic and non-Islamic. They have<br />
destroyed several sites across Iraq, looted Mosul Museum, destroyed the 3,000-year-old Assyrian city <strong>of</strong> Nimrud,<br />
and bulldozed the 2,000-year-old fortress in the city <strong>of</strong> Hatra and the 2,000-year-old Syrian statues in the ancient<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
146 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
city <strong>of</strong> Palmyra, in what UNESCO refers to as cultural cleansing. The destruction <strong>of</strong> the relics attacks the heart <strong>of</strong><br />
the nationalist identities <strong>of</strong> the peoples in Iraq and Syria. It is purposeful—designed to eradicate borders, both real<br />
and cultural, in order to conquer and establish a so-called Islamic State.<br />
There is no easy way to defeat this scourge. Simply going in and bombing them is not enough; we need to also<br />
focus our efforts on stopping the spread <strong>of</strong> their ideology. This is a long war, a long battle, and one which has<br />
created one <strong>of</strong> the worst humanitarian crises the modern world has ever seen. We must understand that Syrians<br />
and Iraqis fleeing violence are fleeing Daesh. They are fleeing a conflict in which one side will stop at nothing<br />
and will do anything with no regard for human life. They are not fleeing a normal war. This is not the kind <strong>of</strong><br />
conflict where armies fight against each other on well-worn battlefields. This is asymmetrical warfare, where the<br />
currency is human lives and the combatants know no boundaries.<br />
I therefore commend this motion to the <strong>House</strong> and urge the government to work with the United Nations and<br />
member states in holding Daesh accountable for war crimes and genocide.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) (17:17): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is<br />
adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
National Stronger Regions Fund<br />
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (17:17): by leave—I move the motion as amended:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) congratulates the Government on the success <strong>of</strong> the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF);<br />
(2) acknowledges the significant and positive impact that the NSRF is having in rural, remote and disadvantaged regions<br />
around Australia; and<br />
(3) notes that the:<br />
(a) Government is investing $125,286,955 in 40 projects around Queensland under 3 rounds <strong>of</strong> the NSRF; and<br />
(b) NSRF is delivering infrastructure projects to create jobs in regional areas, improve community facilities and support<br />
stronger and more sustainable communities across Queensland.<br />
I congratulate the Liberal-National coalition government on the success <strong>of</strong> its National Stronger Regions Fund.<br />
The National Stronger Regions Fund was an initiative <strong>of</strong> the National Party, led by my predecessor in Wide Bay.<br />
The former Leader <strong>of</strong> the Nationals and former Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, understood the need for the<br />
federal government to provide support to local councils and community groups to assist them to build<br />
infrastructure in their communities. The National Stronger Regions Fund supports projects that address<br />
disadvantage in regions around Australia. These projects are helping to unlock the economic potential <strong>of</strong> local<br />
communities and create jobs.<br />
In Queensland, the coalition government is investing more than $125 million in 40 projects. In Wide Bay, I am<br />
pleased to say that the Gympie Regional Council has received $5 million for its new aquatic centre. The new<br />
aquatic centre includes a 50-metre outdoor regional competition pool as well as a 25-metre heated indoor pool. I<br />
am really pleased the federal government has been able to partner in this project and deliver funding through the<br />
National Stronger Regions Fund to assist with the construction <strong>of</strong> the facility. The new aquatic centre is destined<br />
to become a prized community asset. It will be used by families for recreation, and schools and swimming squads<br />
for training and competition. It is creating jobs and supporting new investment during the construction phase and<br />
will sustain local jobs once it is open. There is no doubt the aquatic centre will bring a real boost to Gympie and<br />
Wide Bay.<br />
The National Stronger Regions Fund is also supporting the renovation and refurbishment <strong>of</strong> Gympie's Pavilion<br />
Conference and Reception Centre. The coalition government has allocated more than $548,000 to the project that<br />
was brought forward by the Gympie Regional Council. When finished, the new multipurpose conference and<br />
events facility will create new business, recreation and social opportunities for Gympie. I thank the Gympie<br />
Regional Council for these National Stronger Regions Fund applications, and I look forward to the benefits they<br />
will deliver.<br />
In Maryborough the National Stronger Regions Fund is supporting stage 2 <strong>of</strong> the Fraser Coast Military Trail<br />
through a $900,000 commitment from the coalition government. This iconic project tells the story <strong>of</strong> the ANZAC<br />
landing at Gallipoli and the first man ashore, a Maryborough man, Duncan Chapman. The $1.8 million Fraser<br />
Coast Military Trail is a project <strong>of</strong> national significance, and when completed has the potential to draw tourists<br />
from all over Australia to Maryborough. The war memorial will tell the stories <strong>of</strong> courage and bravery, sacrifice<br />
and service <strong>of</strong> our diggers, and will help to preserve the Anzac legend for generations. The project will feature a<br />
representation <strong>of</strong> the cliffs <strong>of</strong> Gallipoli, information bays and specially-commissioned sculptures. A trench walk<br />
symbolising the Western Front and a memorial <strong>of</strong> the Battle <strong>of</strong> Pozieres, where Major Duncan Chapman was<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 147<br />
killed in 1916, will complete this very special and unique landmark project. The Fraser Coast Military Trail tells a<br />
story <strong>of</strong> our region's involvement in the war effort, linking local attractions and new works. It commemorates<br />
Wide Bay's significant links to military activities and its training and support services on the home front. I give<br />
credit to the support <strong>of</strong> the Fraser Coast Regional Council, Maryborough RSL and especially Nancy Bates for<br />
bringing this unique project forward.<br />
Also in Maryborough, the National Stronger Regions Fund is supporting the extension <strong>of</strong> the Brolga Theatre.<br />
The coalition government has committed $325,000 towards the construction <strong>of</strong> an all-weather area that will enable<br />
the theatre to hold large functions and host an even greater variety <strong>of</strong> public events. I thank Bill Trevor, Scott<br />
Rowe and the Wide Bay Regional Development Australia Committee, for their work in assisting the applicants to<br />
develop these proposals that will deliver lasting benefits to Wide Bay communities.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> these projects are job creating and will strengthen the economy and provide more social and cultural<br />
opportunities for people in Wide Bay and visitors to our region. These projects would not be possible without the<br />
support <strong>of</strong> the Liberal National coalition government through the National Stronger Regions Fund.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Van Manen: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (17:22): I welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak about the National Stronger<br />
Regions Fund. It may be that Queensland's disadvantaged regions are benefiting from the National Stronger<br />
Regions Fund, as asserted by the member's motion, although I dare say some <strong>of</strong> my colleagues on this side may<br />
have more to say on that point.<br />
As the member for one <strong>of</strong> Western Australia's most disadvantaged areas, I fail to see how this program has<br />
helped my constituents one little bit. The reality is that the outer suburban regions <strong>of</strong> Perth have been forgotten by<br />
the Turnbull Liberal government. A simple glance at the projects funded by this program over the past three years<br />
charts the increasing stranglehold that the National Party has on the Turnbull government. In round 1 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program we saw money flowing to only one suburban area in Perth in need <strong>of</strong> new infrastructure, Belmont. Round<br />
2 saw infrastructure funded in only one suburb again, in Rockingham. Then take a look at round 3. The outer<br />
suburban funding dries up altogether, and the National Stronger Regions Fund becomes the Building Better<br />
Regions Fund.<br />
I am certainly not arguing that WA's remote and rural towns should not receive funding under the program. Of<br />
course they should, and they do. Nor do I support a regional grants program funding projects in the inner city, like<br />
the $2.5 million committed to South Perth in that most recent round <strong>of</strong> this program, a blatant piece <strong>of</strong> pork<br />
barrelling for the contested seat <strong>of</strong> Swan. But outer suburban areas are in crisis across the country—particularly in<br />
Perth. High unemployment, combined with years <strong>of</strong> neglect from state and federal Liberal governments has left<br />
local infrastructure, like sporting complexes and community hubs, in a state <strong>of</strong> disrepair.<br />
One perfect example <strong>of</strong> the hypocrisy in project selection under this program comes in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Burt.<br />
The city <strong>of</strong> Armadale has been campaigning for funding for a year-round, heated indoor aquatic facility for a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> years now. More than $4.5 million in preparatory work has already been completed by the city for this<br />
$26 million project. So when the National Stronger Regions Fund appeared in the budget, the City <strong>of</strong> Armadale<br />
thought it had found the solution and put in an application. They had good reason to think that it would be a<br />
suitable project. After all, round 1 <strong>of</strong> the National Stronger Regions Fund funded a water park in Craigieburn in<br />
Melbourne's outer suburbs, and another two pools in the Northern Territory and Queensland. Alas, the city was<br />
knocked back in round 2 and it appeared that the residents would be forced to wait another five years until funding<br />
could be sourced—right up until an election was called, that is, and the project was funded as an election<br />
commitment.<br />
This is a vitally important project for my electorate and grant programs like the National Stronger Regions<br />
should exist to ensure that, outside <strong>of</strong> contested election cycles, local governments and community organisations<br />
in our outer suburbs can access federal funding. But, <strong>of</strong> course, we discovered during the election that the<br />
National Stronger Regions Fund would no longer exist as we knew it in this new parliament: it would be replaced<br />
by the Building Better Regions Fund, which strips from outer suburban councils and groups an opportunity to<br />
even apply for the funding.<br />
So the funding for the Armadale pool through the Community Development Grants, in this context, confirms<br />
how blatant a political move supporting this funding was by the government. It was knocked back in round 2 <strong>of</strong><br />
the National Stronger Regions Fund. The city applied again for round 3—they received no approval for this—and<br />
then the government announced it would not be able to fund metro projects. But, miraculously, the government<br />
announced funding for the Armadale pool through its once-every-three-years Community Development Grants<br />
Program.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
148 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
We are, <strong>of</strong> course, grateful that this project has been funded and I do take some credit for applying political<br />
pressure on the government leading to that funding announcement. Remember: all <strong>of</strong> this is at a time when<br />
unemployment in the city fringes in my seat is almost triple that <strong>of</strong> the national rate. In Armadale, we are seeing<br />
unemployment at 17.2 per cent. Infrastructure projects provide for young people the employment opportunities<br />
that have disappeared in Western Australia as the mining construction boom winds down.<br />
I am regularly contacted by community groups in my area looking for funding grants from the federal<br />
government for infrastructure projects. While other programs exist for smaller projects, there is nothing that<br />
provides substantial funding opportunities for infrastructure projects that will benefit entire communities. Why<br />
should our outer suburbs be put at a disadvantage simply to allow support for the National seats and, further, to<br />
support Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership? The Nationals are buying votes; the Prime Minister is buying<br />
votes in his party room; and outer suburbs, like in Burt, are missing out—once again, ignored by a Liberal<br />
government.<br />
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (17:27): It is a pleasure to rise in the <strong>House</strong> and to speak on<br />
the coalition's $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund on the basis that has driven improvements right across<br />
the country and has provided support to two very important projects in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Forde. The National<br />
Stronger Regions Fund has been an important initiative to boost the social and economic development in<br />
Australia's regions by funding priority infrastructure projects for local communities. In rounds 1 and 1, the<br />
program supported some 162 projects across the country.<br />
In my electorate <strong>of</strong> Forde, I was recently joined by the Minister for Regional Development, Fiona Nash, to<br />
announce two very important National Stronger Regions Fund projects. The first was nearly $1 million in funding<br />
to establish the AEIOU Logan Autism Centre <strong>of</strong> Excellence. The project will establish an AEIOU centre at<br />
Griffith University in Logan to help service the unmet and vital need for early intervention and support services<br />
for children with autism. The centre will also facilitate research, education and training opportunities as well as a<br />
resource development for parents, schoolteachers, researchers and students in partnership with key stakeholders.<br />
This National Stronger Regions Fund project will not only help address disadvantage; it will help remove<br />
barriers to productivity and help develop education services. This in the longer term, in conjunction with projects<br />
such as Logan Together, is designed and aimed at reducing the reliance <strong>of</strong> those communities in Logan on welfare<br />
and allowing those children, when they move into adulthood, to have the skills and abilities to enter the workforce<br />
and live out their full potential.<br />
The second project is the construction <strong>of</strong> family recovery units at Logan <strong>House</strong> recovery centre. This project<br />
was also awarded around $1 million from the National Stronger Regions Fund. Once completed, these units will<br />
provide access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services for parents with young children. As well as providing an<br />
economic benefit to my electorate, these projects provide a tremendous amount <strong>of</strong> support to areas <strong>of</strong><br />
disadvantage within our region.<br />
These projects would not have been possible without funding support from the National Stronger Regions<br />
Fund. I am very pleased that the coalition government will continue this program through the refocused Building<br />
Better Regions Fund. The focus on regional, rural and remote areas will ensure smaller councils will not have to<br />
compete with the major capital city councils for funding. Regional Australia allows our cities to exist: it supplies<br />
their water, food, gas and electricity. There is huge potential for economic growth in our regional areas, which is<br />
what the Building Better Regions Fund is designed to assist by providing investment in new opportunities for<br />
regional communities.<br />
The coalition government continues to back our regional communities with programs such as the Building<br />
Better Regions Fund, and more broadly through our other regional funds. In my electorate <strong>of</strong> Forde I have seen<br />
that, not only through National Stronger Regions Fund but also programs such as the Bridges Renewal Program,<br />
the Roads to Recovery Program and blackspot road funding. Any number <strong>of</strong> those programs contribute to<br />
improving my electorate <strong>of</strong> Forde, and both Logan City and Gold Coast city councils have benefited significantly.<br />
I commend these programs and the ongoing stewardship <strong>of</strong> this coalition government to building stronger<br />
communities across our country.<br />
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (17:32): Our nation will rue the day we did not use this period <strong>of</strong> ultra low interest rates to<br />
invest in critical economic infrastructure in the regions and in our cities. We have missed an opportunity to put our<br />
people to work, and this is theft from future generations. Failure to invest in infrastructure is theft from future<br />
generations.<br />
The government claims to stand for jobs and growth and that jobs and growth are going to come from a $50<br />
billion tax cut for the big end <strong>of</strong> town. This is simply voodoo economics, which does not work and which is<br />
resulting in lower growth and lower infrastructure investment. It is the same old trickle-down approach we have<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 149<br />
seen from the coalition for years and years, but here we are today with the coalition patting themselves on the<br />
back over their feeble infrastructure program.<br />
The facts are that public investment in infrastructure in Australia has been substantially cut by the coalition,<br />
whether it is in the regions, the rural areas or in our cities. The big investments that have been happening, even in<br />
regional Queensland, have been Labor investments—the Cooroy to Curra investment was predominantly a Labor<br />
investment and the gateway north is a Labor investment—because we have not had the sort <strong>of</strong> investment we<br />
should have seen from this government over a period <strong>of</strong> years. Their attempts to destroy the Clean Energy Finance<br />
Corporation is an attack on basic infrastructure when it comes to renewable energy. The facts are these: in the<br />
2015-16 financial year the Turnbull government cut infrastructure investment by nearly $3 billion, that is 35 per<br />
cent, on what had it promised in its 2014 budget. That is what I mean when I talk about theft from future<br />
generations.<br />
We are passing on an economic blockage to future generations. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to the<br />
massive infrastructure investment that occurred under Labor. We doubled the roads budget. We increased the rail<br />
budget more than tenfold. We invested in more public transport than every previous government in the history <strong>of</strong><br />
the Commonwealth put together. Now we have weak global growth, we have weak wages growth and we have<br />
weak investment in infrastructure. This is an opportunity lost to our country, because when interest rates are at<br />
record lows, that is the time to invest. Indeed, that is the advice <strong>of</strong> responsible international organisations. They<br />
say the way through this period <strong>of</strong> slackness in the global economy and in economies like Australia's is to borrow.<br />
And they argue that that is good economics. That is their advice to the government <strong>of</strong> Australia. So we need<br />
quality investment in both physical and human infrastructure. We need it to lift our productivity and to lift our<br />
living standards for the long term.<br />
It is our failure to invest in physical infrastructure and quality education that is leaving a huge infrastructure<br />
deficit for our kids. We can only solve this problem <strong>of</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> investment in the private sector by investing from<br />
the public sector. You only need to glance at the weak wage growth that we have in our community to see the<br />
urgent need for a government led program <strong>of</strong> investment to drive growth in the private sector. That <strong>of</strong> course is<br />
what is being recommended to the government <strong>of</strong> Australia by the International Monetary Fund.<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> capital is at record lows. The International Monetary Fund says that it is actually cheaper to drive<br />
your economy, more efficient to drive your economy, when interest rates are low—compared to the equivalent set<br />
<strong>of</strong> public sector cuts that this government is putting in place, which are actually leading to the weaker wage<br />
growth, the weaker economic growth in our economy. So, as the IMF has concluded, debt funding physical<br />
infrastructure at prevailing low interest rates can lead to faster deficit reduction through higher growth rather than<br />
indiscriminate spending cuts across the budget.<br />
So investing in infrastructure is precisely the sort <strong>of</strong> assertive fiscal policy that our country needs—indeed, that<br />
the global economy needs—rather than a reliance on monetary policy, which is failing now to provide the<br />
stimulus it once did. Of course when that low monetary policy is combined with a reluctance to deploy fiscal<br />
policy, what you get is a slack labour market. It may well be the headline unemployment rate has a five in front <strong>of</strong><br />
it but hours worked are at their lowest levels ever and the workforce is casualised, so people out there know in<br />
their bones that what we need is a boost to demand, which is only in the first instance going to come from a<br />
productive investment in productivity enhancing infrastructure which will drive our economy for the future and<br />
provide the living standards that we seek for our children.<br />
Mr DRUM (Murray) (17:37): I suppose it is a very similar pattern that we see in this chamber: firstly, we have<br />
a Labor member standing up accusing the National Party <strong>of</strong> pork-barrelling. We are quite happy to have the Labor<br />
Party talking about Nationals pork-barrelling projects in our regions. We know it is not the case but we do like<br />
being accused just the same. I suppose it is also par for the course when we have the former Treasurer standing up<br />
saying that we need to borrow more and we need to increase national debt. He says if we are going to work our<br />
way out <strong>of</strong> this low economic growth, the best way is to just borrow more money and spend more money.<br />
A government member: Glad he's not the Treasurer.<br />
Mr DRUM: Well he was the Treasurer and I think he is in that sphere. The Nationals understand that it simply<br />
costs more to deliver projects and it costs more to deliver services in the regions than what it does in our major<br />
regional cities or in our capital cities. Unless we are prepared to make these additional investments into our<br />
communities, then we are always going to have people in regional areas, country areas and remote areas who are<br />
going to have less services and are going to live a lesser standard <strong>of</strong> living because they do not have a government<br />
that understands their way <strong>of</strong> thinking. That is why the National Party and projects like the Building Better<br />
Regions Fund and the National Stronger Regions Fund are so important and so critical, increasing the investment<br />
from government in areas such as communications.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
150 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
We understand that in the six years that Labor were in government under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years not one<br />
government co-investment in communication black-spot towers was made. We had a whole raft <strong>of</strong> communities<br />
around Australia who cannot engage in what they would call normal communications. They cannot conduct their<br />
business and they cannot conduct their normal social phone calls anywhere around Australia simply because a<br />
Labor Party has no understanding about the need for co-investment.<br />
It is similar with energy costs. Energy costs, currently, in many <strong>of</strong> the states are going through the ro<strong>of</strong> but we<br />
have ideological governments at state level that are simply aiming for a reduction in gas and shutting down coal,<br />
leading to increased energy costs around regional Australia. This is having a huge impact again on the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
energy and on jobs around Australia and around the world.<br />
It is also worth thinking about some <strong>of</strong> the projects inside and just outside <strong>of</strong> my region that have been funded<br />
through the National Stronger Regions Fund. The first one that comes to mind is Warramunda Village in<br />
Kyabram. Warramunda received a fraction under $1 million as part <strong>of</strong> round 3 <strong>of</strong> the National Stronger Regions<br />
Fund. This investment is primarily going to assist with an $8 million to $9 million investment in a dementia ward.<br />
Dementia is something that is becoming more and more prevalent around our aged-care facilities as the people<br />
who are coming into our aged-care facilities are getting older and, therefore, there is an increase in the percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> those residents suffering from dementia.<br />
In nearby electorates we had a $2.4 million investment in the Bendigo Tennis Association proposal. That<br />
project has been waiting some four or five years for funding. Again, the local knowledge <strong>of</strong> the politicians in that<br />
area meant they were able to make a good case as to why that project should get up. The Shepparton Art Museum<br />
has received $10 million from Senator Nash. It is part <strong>of</strong> a $40 million build for what will be a world-class art<br />
museum for a place like Shepparton, which is desperate to bridge that cultural gap that it as yet has not quite been<br />
able to. We are also hoping that the National Stronger Regions Fund will help La Trobe University expand in<br />
Shepparton. They are looking for some assistance there. They are very eager to look into the application stage <strong>of</strong><br />
the National Stronger Regions Fund. If they are able to get that, certainly a contribution will assist in them<br />
growing even more nursing courses for the region <strong>of</strong> the Goulburn Valley.<br />
The National Stronger Regions Fund is now going to <strong>of</strong>fer a greater opportunity because it is not just going to<br />
be for bricks and mortar but it is also going to be for opportunities to do with leadership, community capacity<br />
building and work in areas other than just building. It is going to be a fantastic program. I hope everybody gets<br />
behind it. I want to commend the Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Nationals, Fiona Nash, for running this program. (Time<br />
expired)<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:42): It is amazing that when the National Party want to be congratulated for so-called<br />
funding projects they will not acknowledge that they have cut funding for infrastructure in Australia. Today I want<br />
to address the issue <strong>of</strong> the chronic cuts and lack <strong>of</strong> infrastructure funding for my home state <strong>of</strong> Queensland. We<br />
had the member for Forde in here earlier wanting to be congratulated for getting people around his community,<br />
but the single one obstacle that is blocking funding for the M1 is the member for Forde. There is money on a table<br />
from the state government; money on the table from the federal opposition; money on the table and endorsement<br />
and support from the chamber <strong>of</strong> commerce, by the Logan City Council mayor and the full council, residents and<br />
chamber <strong>of</strong> commerce associations. But the member for Forde refuses to back his community. He refuses to stand<br />
up to this government that is chronically underinvesting in Queensland.<br />
I note that we heard the National Party saying that this is all about the regions—and I note the term 'stronger<br />
regions'—but we also note that today's motion should acknowledge the $13.2 million National Stronger Regions<br />
Fund grant in the member for Warringah's electorate and the fact we are spending $3.2 million in the minister for<br />
the environment's electorate <strong>of</strong> Kooyong. I do not know if there has been a definition change for 'region'—<br />
A government member interjecting—<br />
Mr DICK: I will take the interjection, through you, Madam Chair: not a dollar has been spent in the southwest<br />
<strong>of</strong> Brisbane, and that brings me to the issue <strong>of</strong> infrastructure. For 13 long years under the Howard government,<br />
those opposite sat there—year in, year out—and refused to spend a dollar on the Ipswich Motorway. And they<br />
have the gall to come in here and lecture anyone else about infrastructure funding. It took a Labor federal<br />
government and a Labor state government to deliver billions <strong>of</strong> dollars worth <strong>of</strong> infrastructure upgrade.<br />
We have also seen now, finally, the missing piece <strong>of</strong> the puzzle: the Darra to Rocklea upgrade. Money was set<br />
aside back under the federal Labor government, and what happened? The Queensland LNP state government<br />
under Campbell Newman ripped it up and refused to fund that project, time and time again, just like Cross River<br />
Rail in Brisbane.<br />
But it gets worse. In the case <strong>of</strong> Cross River Rail, the LNP state government were prepared to fund it, and I am<br />
advised that it actually had gone through the cabinet process after the former government led by Julia Gillard and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 151<br />
Wayne Swan allocated $716 million for the Cross River Rail project. The media release was written. The media<br />
opportunity was organised by the then LNP state transport minister and the then LNP Premier, alongside the<br />
government. What happened? This time, former Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott<br />
got in the road and refused to support the project. So, <strong>of</strong> course, the LNP state government under the leadership <strong>of</strong><br />
Campbell Newman ripped up that project as well, and we are still waiting for infrastructure to be built—a critical<br />
piece <strong>of</strong> public transport infrastructure.<br />
It is just like, in my electorate, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade: it always takes a Labor state government and an<br />
activist federal Labor opposition to make sure that these projects are delivered. Because <strong>of</strong> that commitment made<br />
by Bill Shorten alongside me, the member for Moreton and the member for Blair earlier this year, we finally saw<br />
action from the coalition. But it should not have to take years and years <strong>of</strong> years <strong>of</strong> lobbying. More importantly, it<br />
is not about the politicians; it is about the people in my community who have had to sit in traffic week in, week<br />
out because this government is refusing to invest. We have seen close to $1 billion slashed from local government<br />
financial assistance since the budget <strong>of</strong> 2014-15. In the 2014 budget, the government promised $8 billion in<br />
infrastructure, but we know only $5.5 billion was spent.<br />
I say again that time and time again we hear great, great motions in this chamber, but doing and acting is<br />
another thing once we get out into the community. I know that infrastructure is critical, but real investment is<br />
needed, and this government has shown no willingness to seriously deliver on the vital funding. To have the<br />
audacity to come in here when this government is letting Queensland down on projects like the M1 is sickening.<br />
But I will continue to fight to make sure that we hold this government to account. (Time expired)<br />
Ms PRICE (Durack) (17:47): It is the start <strong>of</strong> another sitting week, the final one <strong>of</strong> 2016, and here we are<br />
today talking about yet another Turnbull government commitment, with a program which is improving the lives <strong>of</strong><br />
people in regional, rural and remote Australia. The Turnbull government is committed to building better regions,<br />
and the National Stronger Regions Fund, or NSRF, was established upon this government being elected some<br />
three years ago. NSRF plays a vital role in driving economic development, and it complements other government<br />
policies such as the $50 billion infrastructure plan, which is driving jobs and economic growth throughout<br />
regional Western Australia and, more broadly, around Australia.<br />
But we know that those on the other side do not care about regional Australia, so I might just talk slowly so that<br />
they might learn a thing or two as I continue with my speech today. NSRF was an election commitment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
coalition in 2013 and has had a pr<strong>of</strong>ound impact on regional Australia, particularly after the six years <strong>of</strong><br />
abandonment by those opposite. The program has delivered over $66 million worth <strong>of</strong> projects across WA,<br />
including grants for the Karratha Arts and Community Precinct and the restoration <strong>of</strong> the Victoria Hotel in<br />
Roebourne. The third round <strong>of</strong> NSRF will deliver over $18 million worth <strong>of</strong> projects in WA and over $126 million<br />
nationally.<br />
In my electorate <strong>of</strong> Durack, I announced that a number <strong>of</strong> projects will be delivered across the electorate and<br />
supported by the NSRF. The first one I want to talk about is in the Shire <strong>of</strong> Derby-West Kimberley, which has<br />
received $5 million for the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Derby Airport, which will lead to the recommencement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
regular passenger transport service and the construction <strong>of</strong> a tourism air lounge to enhance tourism in the region.<br />
This funding goes to the heart <strong>of</strong> what the program is designed to deliver, improving regional communities, as I<br />
said, with the redevelopment leading to the resumption <strong>of</strong> commercial flights to and from Derby. This is indeed<br />
good news for that town and that region.<br />
Also in the Kimberley, the Kununurra Bushmen's Rodeo Association received over $300,000 for an outdoor<br />
multipurpose facility, which will open up the town to host international rodeo and camp drafting events, which is<br />
another brilliant outcome for that region. In the Pilbara, St John Ambulance in Port Hedland will have the benefit<br />
<strong>of</strong> a new subcentre, courtesy <strong>of</strong> over $1.7 million in funding from the NSRF. The project will allow St John<br />
Ambulance to cater for increased demand for services in the area and <strong>of</strong>fer improved access to first aid training<br />
and equipment.<br />
As I mentioned, the Karratha Arts and Community Precinct project is a project that the federal government has<br />
committed $10 million towards. This will improve the liveability <strong>of</strong> the city <strong>of</strong> Karratha and the Pilbara region,<br />
more generally. Karratha has the largest population <strong>of</strong> any town in the Pilbara, Kimberley and Gascoyne regions<br />
<strong>of</strong> northern Western Australia. It is a hub through which much <strong>of</strong> the industry and business <strong>of</strong> these regions flow<br />
through. We need to be encouraging projects that foster the growth <strong>of</strong> the spirit <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Karratha through<br />
arts and cultural projects such as this.<br />
In the nearby town <strong>of</strong> Roebourne, a $2 million grant will help restore the Victoria Hotel. This is an important<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the heritage <strong>of</strong> the town and the region as a whole, as the hotel was constructed in 1893 and is still standing<br />
today—quite something in the Pilbara, I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the pub has been<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
152 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
closed since 2005 but was purchased in 2013 by the Juluwarlu Aboriginal Corporation. There are now new plans<br />
for the pub, which was famously the centre <strong>of</strong> town and will be again, I have no doubt. This restoration project<br />
aims to reveal the sites early 1900s architectural form and will position it as Roebourne's landmark, with retail<br />
space, a small business incubator and training facilities. No longer will it be a pub; it will provide very good<br />
community facilities.<br />
The rural mid-west town <strong>of</strong> Cue was also boosted through the latest round <strong>of</strong> the program, with the town's 1895<br />
state heritage listed building—<br />
A division having been called in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>—<br />
Proceedings suspended from 17:52 to 18:05<br />
Ms PRICE: With the time remaining, I would like to talk about the last four projects which will be funded<br />
thanks to the National Stronger Regions Fund. The first one is the Shire <strong>of</strong> Moora receiving $900,000 to upgrade<br />
the region's major health campus. Another is the Liebe Group, which will now get new premises in Dalwallinu—<br />
$616,000. The Shire <strong>of</strong> Kellerberrin receives $310,000 for the Centenary Park, and the Shire <strong>of</strong> Narembeen's<br />
community precinct will be funded by over $700,000 from the federal government.<br />
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:06): I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Wide Bay on the National<br />
Stronger Regions Fund. The member says the fund is having a significant and positive impact on rural, remote and<br />
disadvantaged regions <strong>of</strong> Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in my electorate. While the<br />
Turnbull government were handing out funding under the National Stronger Regions Program, at the same time<br />
they were starving local councils <strong>of</strong> funding through the financial assistance grants indexation freeze. Government<br />
MPs have supported the decision <strong>of</strong> their ministers and their government to reduce funding to local government<br />
by close to $1 billion since 2014-15.<br />
A government member interjecting—<br />
Ms SWANSON: It's the truth. This is cost shifting at its most appalling, and it hits hard in the regions. The<br />
regions need infrastructure and they need jobs. In my region, the unemployment rate continues to grow. Compare<br />
these figures from my electorate to the national average <strong>of</strong> 5.6 per cent: in June this year the unemployment rate in<br />
Kurri Kurri and Abermain was 10.8 per cent, in Maitland it was 9.9 per cent and in Raymond Terrace it was 11.5<br />
per cent, almost double the national average—a disgrace! How can this government boast about stronger regions<br />
when so many are out <strong>of</strong> work?<br />
There is one project on the table that would boost many regions along the east coast <strong>of</strong> Australia, and that is the<br />
high-speed rail. A 21st century fast train from Melbourne to Brisbane, via Sydney and Canberra, was introduced<br />
to this place by the shadow minister for infrastructure and championed by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. Highspeed<br />
rail would not only revolutionise interstate travel in this country but also be an enormous boost to the<br />
regions, especially to regions like mine, the electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson, which straddles the productive lower Hunter<br />
Valley and beautiful Port Stephens and is just a stone's throw from the major regional city <strong>of</strong> Newcastle. With a<br />
high-speed rail station in Newcastle, everything in our region would be a great deal closer to everyone along the<br />
eastern seaboard. The government should support Labor's call for a high-speed rail authority to get on with<br />
planning this incredible and important piece <strong>of</strong> infrastructure.<br />
Back to the National Stronger Regions Fund: the member for Wide Bay says the fund 'is delivering<br />
infrastructure projects to create jobs in regional areas, improve community facilities and support stronger and<br />
more sustainable communities'. Maybe in his electorate <strong>of</strong> Wide Bay and maybe in the leafy city seats <strong>of</strong><br />
Warringah and Kooyong, but certainly not in Paterson.<br />
My electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson missed out on funding under the last round <strong>of</strong> the National Stronger Regions Fund<br />
and that is a great shame. It is more than a shame: it is actually a disgrace, because the project that missed out on<br />
federal funding was Maitland City Council's Mount Vincent waste transfer and recycling facility.<br />
The council applied in March for $5.2 million <strong>of</strong> the $17 million cost <strong>of</strong> the project under the National Stronger<br />
Regions Fund, but found out just in November that it had missed out. The fact that this project missed out leaves a<br />
$5 million black hole in a $17 million project. Who will pay for that?<br />
The tip at Mount Vincent Waste Management Centre is near capacity, so this project simply has to go ahead.<br />
We have five people moving to the Maitland area every day. It is one <strong>of</strong> the fastest-growing areas in the state.<br />
Who will fund the shortfall? The ratepayers <strong>of</strong> Maitland? If the National Stronger Regions Fund were really as<br />
significant and positive as the member for Wide Bay would have us believe it would have granted the sought-after<br />
contribution to Maitland City Council's Mount Vincent Waste Management Centre, but it did not. It is hardly a<br />
success story.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 153<br />
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (18:10): I was hoping to get here earlier, to hear the member for Wide Bay<br />
speak. But soon afterwards the member for Lilley started speaking and I grabbed the popcorn in my <strong>of</strong>fice suite,<br />
because it was just hilarious. It was like watching a comedy video. The member for Lilley was exactly the same as<br />
the member for Oxley and now the member for Paterson. They just love to throw stones when they actually have<br />
absolutely no credibility when it comes to infrastructure.<br />
I looked up some <strong>of</strong> the facts and, despite the member for Lilley previously being the Treasurer <strong>of</strong> this country,<br />
in the 2010-11 budget Labor estimated that they would spend $6.8 billion—$6.8 billion!—in the 2012-13 year on<br />
infrastructure. The actual—how much they really spent—was $3.6 billion, barely 50 per cent. As we know<br />
already—other people have referred to this era as the 'post-truth' era, where the Labor Party will not hesitate to tell<br />
a filthy lie—they might have zero when it comes to truth but they only have 50 per cent when it comes to delivery<br />
<strong>of</strong> infrastructure.<br />
I was also delighted to hear the furphies around the Queensland contribution to infrastructure from the Labor<br />
Party. After all, the person who put this motion is the honourable member for Wide Bay, a great LNP<br />
representative and a great Queenslander. In Wide Bay, just like in my seat <strong>of</strong> Fairfax, and running all the way up<br />
the coast either way in Queensland, we have the Bruce Highway. When the Labor Party were in power they<br />
committed to $4.1 billion on the Bruce Highway. They never did it—they never do—but they committed $4.1<br />
billion. How much has the coalition committed to Queensland's Bruce Highway? It is $6.7 billion—$6.7 billion!<br />
Ms Swanson interjecting—<br />
Mr TED O'BRIEN: And I am delighted to have the uproar <strong>of</strong> congratulatory messages from the opposition<br />
here. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, do you know that just within the Sunshine Coast region, where I am, over a<br />
billion dollars will be spent on the Bruce Highway in coming years? In only the last week or so we have<br />
announced a $181 million concessional loan for the Sunshine Coast Airport. The coalition actually delivers, and<br />
that is the contrast.<br />
The National Stronger Regions Fund has been a roaring success. Of course, Labor's equivalent was the<br />
RDAF—the Regional Development Australia Fund. When I looked this up I found the Auditor-General's report<br />
from 2014, which spoke scathingly <strong>of</strong> its mismanagement and poor administration. Again, I find this bizarre, that<br />
here Labor are, coming in in numbers and trying to bag the coalition's performance on delivery when they<br />
themselves actually have none. Three rounds <strong>of</strong> the National Stronger Regions Fund have been enormously<br />
successful: $630 million. And can I say how happy I am that within the seat <strong>of</strong> Fairfax, the Nambour Heritage<br />
Tramway project was a recipient in round 3.<br />
For those who do not know Nambour, it is a town <strong>of</strong> which I am enormously proud as a member <strong>of</strong> parliament.<br />
In 2003, the Moreton sugar mill closed. It had been running in Nambour for well over 100 years—106 years. That<br />
had an enormous impact on the town's economy and on the town's identity. One <strong>of</strong> the things that the town looked<br />
at as a community with their local councillor, Greg Rogerson, was a revitalisation plan, and the heritage tramway<br />
was a part <strong>of</strong> that. Half a million dollars through this National Stronger Regions Fund will help get that tram <strong>of</strong>f<br />
the ground or back on track.<br />
I want to pay credit here to Michael Foley. Michael unfortunately left us some weeks ago. He passed away. But<br />
I want to pay tribute to Michael today. He was responsible for ensuring the heritage listing <strong>of</strong> that trail track. I also<br />
want to pay tribute to the committee—Paul Moriarty, Peter Clarke, Ron King, Kristen Beckhaus, Rhonda Billet-<br />
Haire—the Nambour Alliance and indeed the Nambour community. It is funds like this that the coalition delivers<br />
that get regional local communities boosting their economy again, and I am so happy to be speaking today in<br />
support <strong>of</strong> the motion.<br />
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (18:15): I commend the government for investing in the National Stronger Regions<br />
Fund, and in particular I am pleased that the government has sought to amend the fund so that the focus is on<br />
investment in regional projects in regional Australia, and it is not allocated to metropolitan Australia. Of course, I<br />
have no issue with infrastructure spending in our cities, but you only need to travel through regional Australia to<br />
realise that regional funding comes in a poor second to spending on metro infrastructure.<br />
I would just like to note for the <strong>House</strong> my disappointment and my particular concern that, while we had in<br />
round 1 $212 million in spending and, in round 2, $293 million in spending, for round 3 only $126 million was<br />
spent in this program. We are a very big country, and that is spread very thinly through regional Australia. I am<br />
also a little bit disappointed that, <strong>of</strong> the three rounds and <strong>of</strong> the total investment by the Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> more<br />
than $600 million, only one project had a Commonwealth investment in my electorate, and that was $9 million for<br />
Kangaroo Island.<br />
Just to detail that: in round 2 <strong>of</strong> the program, the Kangaroo Island Council put in a successful bid for $9 million<br />
for an $18 million project to upgrade the island's airport. Kangaroo Island has some <strong>of</strong> the most expensive freight<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
154 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
and passenger costs in Australia. So I and the community <strong>of</strong> Kangaroo Island are very hopeful that the upgraded<br />
airport will deliver on its promise to provide direct access to new markets for tourism and for the export <strong>of</strong> our<br />
niche agricultural products, including seafoods. Kangaroo Island received a quarter <strong>of</strong> South Australia's allocation<br />
over those three rounds. That is just $9 million out <strong>of</strong> $632 million.<br />
In round 3, there were hundreds <strong>of</strong> applications, including 48 from South Australia. Four <strong>of</strong> those projects were<br />
selected, with a total value <strong>of</strong> just over $9.8 million, <strong>of</strong> which $8.6 million was set aside for a wastewater<br />
management project for Peterborough to allow for the growth <strong>of</strong> industry in the region—a very worthy project.<br />
Unfortunately, two applications from my electorate were unsuccessful, including a $380 million bid for the<br />
Milang & District Community Association to redevelop the Milang Lakeside Butter Factory and a project by the<br />
Mount Barker District Council to build a regional football centre in Mount Barker.<br />
I note, though, that the federal government has reaffirmed its commitment to an election promise to provide<br />
$3.75 million towards the $27 million regional sporting hub project in Mount Barker. I may say that Mount<br />
Barker is one <strong>of</strong> the fastest-growing regional centres in Australia. We have a population <strong>of</strong> 33,000, and we are<br />
expected to be 52,000 by the year 2036. So my <strong>of</strong>fice is working very hard with the Mount Barker council to<br />
secure other funding for this crucial piece <strong>of</strong> infrastructure, which will boost the economy and will attract elitelevel<br />
games <strong>of</strong> AFL and soccer to our Adelaide Hills.<br />
South Australia has an unenviable position <strong>of</strong> having some <strong>of</strong> the highest unemployment rates in our country.<br />
Just before I entered parliament, I learnt that my electorate had the dubious honour <strong>of</strong> being one <strong>of</strong> the top 20<br />
worst places for youth unemployment in Australia, and that was for the first time since records have been kept.<br />
Those records were detailed by the Brotherhood <strong>of</strong> St Laurence. The Adelaide Hills and central region made the<br />
list with 16.3 per cent youth unemployment. That was just under the northern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Adelaide, which are<br />
always considered the area <strong>of</strong> highest youth unemployment, which had 16.4 per cent. In South Australia, the only<br />
area worse <strong>of</strong>f than us was the Barossa and the mid-north, which came in at No. 7, with 19.4 per cent. If ever there<br />
was an argument for infrastructure investment in regional South Australia to create jobs, those figures detail the<br />
need. The government has spent over $600 million on the rest <strong>of</strong> the country on this fund. With $495 million left<br />
and rebranding it as the Building Better Regions Fund, it is my hope that South Australia, and Mayo in particular,<br />
will not be overlooked and will receive its fair share.<br />
I would like to detail very quickly one project that my community is particularly passionate about, a freight<br />
bypass. We need this to come out from Murray Bridge to take freight north until it gets to Dry Creek. This will<br />
increase productivity, bring a lot <strong>of</strong> jobs to our region and allow for a transport corridor throughout my electorate<br />
so that we can, hopefully, one day get some sort <strong>of</strong> train or O-Bahn infrastructure that we so critically need and<br />
that are missing and have been missed for over 20 years. It would also allow trucks to travel around to the north<br />
and miss the dangerous Adelaide Hills route down to the city.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is<br />
adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination<br />
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:21): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) calls on the Government to:<br />
(a) establish a national inter-governmental taskforce to co-ordinate the response <strong>of</strong> state/territory and federal government<br />
agencies to the perfluorinated and polyfluorinated (per- and poly-fluoro) alkyl substances contamination on and around Royal<br />
Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases at Williamtown and Oakey, and throughout Australia;<br />
(b) develop a nationally consistent approach for screening and health guidelines, assessments, containment, management<br />
standards and remediation protocols for Commonwealth sites and their surroundings that are identified as being contaminated<br />
with per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;<br />
(c) provide:<br />
(i) a breakdown and schedule <strong>of</strong> spending <strong>of</strong> the $55 million allocated from the Defence budget to deal with<br />
contamination at and around RAAF bases caused by per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;<br />
(ii) transparency into the Government's per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances interdepartmental committee, including a<br />
breakdown <strong>of</strong> its composition, terms <strong>of</strong> reference and meeting schedule; and<br />
(iii) a timeline for when, how, and by whom the issue <strong>of</strong> per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances will be brought to the<br />
COAG; and<br />
(d) inform Williamtown residents when its proposed dialogue will begin on buybacks <strong>of</strong> properties contaminated by perand<br />
poly-fluoro alkyl substances; and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 155<br />
(2) while welcoming the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency's lifting <strong>of</strong> fishing bans implemented as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> the contamination, calls on the Government to:<br />
(a) ensure income support is available to affected commercial fishers through to March 2017; and<br />
(b) advocate for leniency by lending institutions with respect to business and home loan repayments and lending practices<br />
involving properties in the Williamtown investigation zone.<br />
I move this motion today out <strong>of</strong> sheer anger at the Turnbull government's failure to help the people <strong>of</strong><br />
Williamtown, people who are stuck in a red zone <strong>of</strong> contamination caused by firefighting chemicals, known as<br />
PFAS, leaching from the RAAF base; people who are worried about their health, their families and their future;<br />
and people who have already felt the impact, with elevated levels <strong>of</strong> these chemicals in their blood, with land that<br />
has been devalued and is no longer fit for purpose, with businesses that are struggling because banks will not lend<br />
them money, with the stigma <strong>of</strong> living in a contaminated zone and with anger and frustration at a government that<br />
will not deliver. So, yes, I am angry at this government as it sits idly by, failing to deliver on the commitments it<br />
made during the election campaign, while my community struggles.<br />
This contamination does not affect the people <strong>of</strong> Williamtown only. They and the people <strong>of</strong> Oakey in<br />
Queensland are merely guinea pigs, and there are more communities to follow. There are more Defence bases<br />
contaminated. At sites throughout Australia, environmental investigations have only just begun. In Williamtown,<br />
environmental investigations have been going on for 15 months. Fifteen months might not sound like a long time,<br />
but when you are living with it, when you are lying awake every night worrying about the future, 15 months feels<br />
like a life time.<br />
This government promised voluntary blood testing, but it took too long, so the community did it themselves.<br />
This government promised—the Prime Minister himself promised—to begin a dialogue on voluntary buybacks <strong>of</strong><br />
properties once environmental testing was complete. Now my community fear that environmental testing will<br />
never be complete. My community were promised action. Now they feel they have no choice but to take legal<br />
action against Defence for the damage it has done and the losses caused.<br />
We simply do not know if these PFAS chemicals are affecting health in our community. Australian health<br />
authorities maintain there is no proven link with ill health, but in the United States DuPont has been found liable<br />
for a man's testicular cancer because it discharged these chemicals into waterways. It is the second case in which<br />
the company has been found liable, and there are 3,500 more cases to come. I do not say that to be alarmist, nor to<br />
challenge the authority <strong>of</strong> Australian health experts, but the jury is quite literally still out on these chemicals. They<br />
have come to the notice <strong>of</strong> the United Nations Stockholm convention on persistent organic compounds and they<br />
have come to the notice <strong>of</strong> the American courts, and this will continue.<br />
What must occur in Australia and what was committed to by this government is a nationally consistent<br />
approach to PFAS chemicals and the communities impacted by them. We must have, as Labor suggested in the<br />
first place, a proper intergovernmental independent task force. We must have national guidelines. We must have<br />
transparency around government action. We must have support for affected communities.<br />
A remark that is made to me over and over again is: if this were a company that had contaminated the water<br />
supply, the commercial fisheries and private property, there would be holy hell to pay, and yet this is our<br />
government that has caused this grief. This government must step up. I urge the members <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> to support<br />
this motion so that my community in Williamtown, Salt Ash, Oakey in Queensland and the many other<br />
communities who are affected and will be affected by PFAS contamination are dealt with promptly and fairly. We<br />
cannot wait for the science to be completely known. We cannot risk another asbestos.<br />
I have felt like a lone voice on this issue, such has been the silence from this government, and I note there are<br />
no speakers on the Notice Paper today for this. I am now pleased that I have my own colleagues in Labor by my<br />
side in the <strong>House</strong> who have joined me, and we collectively have worked so hard. Gai Brodtmann, the federal<br />
member for Canberra, who joins me in the <strong>House</strong>, has worked so hard; she has had countless sleepless nights<br />
alongside me with this as well. The member for Newcastle, who also joins me in the <strong>House</strong>, has been by our side<br />
and her community's side, particularly in relation to commercial fishing. I urge this <strong>House</strong>: back me, back all the<br />
communities in Australia that have been impacted and please support this motion.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan): I thank the member for Paterson. Is the motion seconded?<br />
Mr Georganas: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.<br />
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (18:26): I am pleased to advise the chamber that I rise to speak on the motion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
member for Paterson. The Turnbull government certainly recognises community concerns around the potential<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> what we know as PFAS chemicals. This is a challenge many decades in the making, and it requires a<br />
comprehensive and fact-based response.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
156 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
As a government and for me as the member for Groom—which takes in the beautiful community <strong>of</strong> Oakey—<br />
we understand the impact and the need to respond as soon as practicable. But this is not a simple issue with a<br />
simple solution, and it is not just a localised issue in certain locations, such as Williamtown or Oakey. National<br />
implications make it even more important that the government gets this right and that it follows appropriate<br />
scientific investigation processes to gather the evidence that we need to underpin sound decisions for the longterm<br />
future.<br />
I have been engaged with our Oakey community on this issue since before my election this year right through<br />
to a meeting between some local landholders and the Minister for Defence Personnel just last week. That<br />
engagement will continue in the coming weeks, in the coming months and, in terms <strong>of</strong> community recovery, in the<br />
coming years.<br />
I know Oakey. It is the community where I spent my childhood. We meet in homes, in businesses, in the main<br />
street and in public halls, and we will continue to do so until we reach the outcomes that we need. Make no<br />
mistake, Oakey residents and landholders are frustrated. They are angry and they are stressed, and understandably<br />
so, both in terms <strong>of</strong> the time required to get the science and basis for future decision-making right and the<br />
divisions that have been caused in our local community based on differing views <strong>of</strong> those impacts and potential<br />
solutions.<br />
But I firmly believe the role <strong>of</strong> government is to focus on the science to develop those answers as soon as<br />
possible. Rather than the approach <strong>of</strong> those opposite, who seek to politicise this issue, the Turnbull government's<br />
actions and decisions are informed first and foremost by medical experts. To date, the advice is that there is no<br />
consistent evidence that suggests exposure to PFAS causes any adverse human health effects. Whilst this is the<br />
expert advice to government, we do understand this <strong>of</strong>fers small comfort to people living in impacted<br />
communities.<br />
The government is also on the record as considering the matter <strong>of</strong> property acquisition and compensation now<br />
that the interim health reference values have been established and detailed environmental investigations are<br />
concluding. Now would I like to see those answers available today? Of course I would. I know Oakey landholders<br />
wanted to see them yesterday. But to ensure the highest prioritisation that the Turnbull government believes that it<br />
deserves, the Prime Minister has directed that the whole-<strong>of</strong>-government task force coordinating its response be<br />
moved into the Department <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister and Cabinet to ensure a comprehensive, whole-<strong>of</strong>-government<br />
response is developed with the states and territories. The consultation is essential and I, amongst others, have been<br />
critical <strong>of</strong> earlier consultation by Defence. But now it is now time that we focus on progressing these<br />
investigations through to finalisation. We are on track for delivering our election commitments: blood testing,<br />
epidemiological study, mental health community liaison <strong>of</strong>ficers and remediation. Alternative drinking water<br />
supplies are in place in the meantime.<br />
Science and fact are the best approach for strategies to reduce exposure for the community and for management<br />
and remediation. To suggest that this should be rushed or that corners should be cut displays a complete disregard<br />
for the expertise and resources required to undertake what will be one <strong>of</strong> the biggest environmental investigations<br />
ever undertaken in this country. One thing this government is not going to do is put at risk the integrity <strong>of</strong> those<br />
investigations to meet a politically convenient time frame. It is greatly distressing that those opposite are<br />
unashamedly saying that that is what they would do.<br />
The calls for the establishment <strong>of</strong> a national intergovernmental task force and other approaches are simply<br />
playing catch-up with what is already in place.<br />
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (18:31): I rise to support the member for Paterson's motion. This is a very<br />
important motion. It helps raise awareness <strong>of</strong> this issue around the nation and in this place. It is an ongoing issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> contamination <strong>of</strong> defence and aviation sites around Australia and the impact it is having on those that work on<br />
the defence and aviation sites, airports and the residents in and around those places. These particular contaminants<br />
or chemicals have been used for years on airports and RAAF bases. These particular substances have the ability to<br />
repel oil, grease and water. They have been used in the firefighting foams and chemicals that are used to combat<br />
fires. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway<br />
accidents and even building fires. So it is not just in those areas but all over the metropolitan, country and rural<br />
areas as well.<br />
The foams have been used for nearly 50 years on defence and civilian facilities and in airports in Australia due<br />
to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Firefighters train on airport facilities with these chemicals<br />
or used to train with these chemicals. Thankfully, these chemicals have now been more or less phased out from<br />
firefighting foams in Australia. However, these particular chemicals are biologically very stable and resist typical<br />
environmental degradation like other chemicals. They stay in the environment for many years and they do not<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 157<br />
degrade. Significant residual contaminants have been identified at many sites globally, for example, around<br />
49,000 <strong>of</strong> the world's airports—civilian and military. In South Australia's case, there are three sites: The RAAF<br />
base at Edinburgh, Parafield Airport and in my electorate, the Adelaide Airport which is in the middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />
electorate. It is causing quite a bit <strong>of</strong> angst with residents in and around the electorate <strong>of</strong> the airport.<br />
In December 2011, Defence added these chemicals to its routine environmental monitoring schedule<br />
particularly at facilities where firefighters may have been using them including at Edinburgh and Adelaide<br />
Airport. This was a welcome move as was the Senate inquiry into contamination <strong>of</strong> defence property and CFA<br />
training ground at Fiskville. The committee was chaired by Senator Gallacher and brought down its<br />
recommendations in November. However, we must remember that over the years many firefighters and workers<br />
on these airports were repeatedly exposed to these potentially toxic substances. It is not just firefighters who have<br />
been exposed to these chemicals but also support personnel and workers who perhaps are not firefighters but who<br />
were involved in working with these foams on and outside <strong>of</strong> the airports. These workers are not classified as<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional firefighters, the ones who were working outside <strong>of</strong> airports, and are <strong>of</strong>ten overlooked. It is important<br />
that they also be included in any testing program or future management schemes around this issue.<br />
In the first few weeks after I was re-elected, I was contacted by a constituent who raised his concerns about this<br />
very issue. This constituent is a retired firefighter, with 35 years <strong>of</strong> experience at Adelaide Airport. Many<br />
constituents, others and our former firefighters are asking for greater government commitment to develop and<br />
implement a testing and monitoring regime for these people. I understand that blood tests have been <strong>of</strong>fered, but<br />
only on a voluntary basis. So many people have yet to be tested and may never be tested. It is necessary to fully<br />
understand the effects <strong>of</strong> these compounds on workers exposed to those chemicals.<br />
These workers want answers. They want their concerns addressed and they want to be taken seriously. Many <strong>of</strong><br />
them are firefighters and workers who have worked at Adelaide Airport. We all understand the monitoring <strong>of</strong><br />
these substances is still in the early stages. There are many unknowns about the effects <strong>of</strong> the contamination and<br />
the exposure and the inconclusive results from animal testing, but it is precisely the fact that not enough is known<br />
that is causing angst with residents and workers. This is leading to fear and mental anguish issues for many<br />
involved, including their families.<br />
It is our responsibility to ensure that they are monitored and that their workplaces are safe. We need to continue<br />
to monitor and research these sites in order to better understand the effects <strong>of</strong> the compounds on the workers<br />
exposed to the chemicals and, <strong>of</strong> course, if there is any exposure to the residents in and around the airport. The<br />
response to this problem has now been too slow, as we heard from the others. We need action now.<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:36): I want to commend the member for Paterson for this motion. It is a<br />
very timely motion and I also want to commend the member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce advocacy on<br />
this issue. Since she was campaigning, since she was preselected, she has been on this issue talking with the<br />
community, working with the community, to get the best results for that community. I want to commend the<br />
member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce efforts on this issue.<br />
I never thought I would wish for the Prime Minister to be more discursive. I never thought I would keenly<br />
await a word from the Minister for Defence Industry. I never thought I would be checking my inbox on a Friday<br />
afternoon, hoping to find a media release from the Minister for Defence as she takes out the trash before the<br />
weekend rolls round. And yet, here we are. Here we are—three weeks since the Department <strong>of</strong> Defence released<br />
the preliminary sampling report into the extent <strong>of</strong> legacy firefighting foam contamination at 12 defence sites<br />
around the country. Three weeks have passed and the Turnbull government has not said anything. Not a thing!<br />
Three weeks have passed since 12 communities had it confirmed to them that, yes, the local defence base has been<br />
contaminated and, no, it is not clear what happens next. Three weeks with no action from this leaderless<br />
government.<br />
We on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> will not sit on our hands while those opposite sit on theirs. Labor is doing what it<br />
has always done on this emerging national issue and it is leading from the front. The government has just sat on its<br />
hands. Labor led from the front when we initiated the Senate inquiry into the contamination at defence and other<br />
Commonwealth sites. Labor led from the front when we developed a comprehensive policy response to the issue,<br />
and it was the Turnbull coalition government that copied it. Labor led from the front when we called for the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> an intergovernmental task force to coordinate a consistent response across the country. The news<br />
that the member for Groom mentioned about this interdepartmental task force in PM&C—that is news, member<br />
for Groom. Labor led from the front when we supported <strong>of</strong>fering blood tests to residents, and the government<br />
copied it.<br />
Labor lead from the front again today in our call for air sampling in the Williamtown investigation zone. We<br />
call for it because there are concerns amongst residents that they may have been exposed to contaminants through<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
158 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
breathing the dust outside. Considering the ingestion <strong>of</strong> dust has been recognised to become a low-level source <strong>of</strong><br />
PFAS exposure, we believe this course <strong>of</strong> action to be the right thing to do. It is important to note that the<br />
Williamtown Human Health Risk Assessment recognised the potential for inhalation <strong>of</strong> surface soil-derived dust<br />
within the investigation area.<br />
The assessment deems the risk it poses to be low and tolerable under the numerous pathway scenarios<br />
modelled—but certainty is everything here. When we are dealing with a fast-moving, emerging national issue<br />
such as that <strong>of</strong> PFAS contamination, it is important to bring the community along with us every step <strong>of</strong> the way.<br />
While the scientific literature continues to evolve at this pace, it is inevitable that residents will receive conflicting<br />
advice from different sources. It is a recipe for uncertainty at a time when certainty is critical.<br />
It has been three weeks since the release <strong>of</strong> the preliminary sampling report and since Defence said it will start<br />
more comprehensive tests in 'early 2017'. Residents might not have results until 12 months after testing starts,<br />
whenever that will be. That is a long time to wait for answers. Labor has called on the government to intervene<br />
and accelerate the testing time line. The sooner the Turnbull government acts, the sooner the communities will<br />
know the extent <strong>of</strong> the contamination—and they deserve to know. Communities deserve better than this<br />
government, which is overflowing with Defence ministers and sorely lacking in leaders. Not one <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull<br />
government's three Defence ministers has managed to say so much as a word on PFAS contamination. Not one<br />
has managed to pierce the uncertainty that has developed since the preliminary sampling report was released three<br />
weeks ago—not one word. One party is supporting residents and the other is ignoring them.<br />
Communities are facing uncertainty right around the country. They should not be left to suffer in the Turnbull<br />
government's silence. Residents deserve a government that listens to them and responds to them, that says to<br />
them: 'We hear you, communities who are suffering.' That says to them: you are not on your own. It says to them:<br />
we are here to help. Residents deserve a government that says something to them. Yet, here we are, waiting for a<br />
word, and all we can hear from those opposite is the sound <strong>of</strong> empty chairs.<br />
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:41): I thank my colleagues the member for Hindmarsh and the member for<br />
Paterson for putting this motion on the Notice Paper, and I also thank them and the member for Canberra for their<br />
contributions. I think they have done a very good job <strong>of</strong> outlining the deficiencies in the way in which the<br />
government has dealt with this issue.<br />
I was involved in the first consultation in Katherine some many months ago now and, sadly, apart from me and<br />
a couple <strong>of</strong> local councillors, no-one from the public turned up. That raised serious questions about the<br />
engagement <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Defence with the local community on this issue or, alternatively, the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
information that was made available to them. I do not at all suggest that the people responsible at RAAF Base<br />
Tindal were in some way doing the wrong thing. There is no doubt that they were operating on the best<br />
information available to them, which is bloody poor information. And we have got to a point, as we have heard,<br />
where a report was released some little time ago now about the testing at various sites across the country, and<br />
people have been left to wonder. That is the issue here.<br />
I fully recognise that departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials who go around consulting on behalf <strong>of</strong> the government, who are<br />
talking to people, do not know the answers to many <strong>of</strong> the questions. They freely admit they do not know the<br />
answers to many <strong>of</strong> the questions. That is a very positive thing in a way, because they do not try and con people<br />
by saying, 'Look, it's okay.' In fact, what they are doing is saying to people is: 'Because <strong>of</strong> the potential risks, what<br />
we want to do is operate on the side <strong>of</strong> caution and, if, for example, you are drinking bore water from an area<br />
which has been tested to be contaminated, we suggest you drink other water, which we will supply.' That is a very<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ound and good thing to do. But then people ask a series <strong>of</strong> other questions, such as: 'What do you know about<br />
these products?' 'Not a lot.' 'What do you think the medical impacts will be?' 'We don't know.' 'What is the<br />
international experience?' 'Well, we're not quite sure <strong>of</strong> that either.'<br />
It seems to me that this is creating a great deal <strong>of</strong> uncertainty and concern and, indeed, harm in many<br />
communities, as the member for Paterson knows only too well in her own community. In her case, I think it was<br />
partly brought about by the stupidity <strong>of</strong> the department <strong>of</strong> environment people in New South Wales making a preemptive<br />
declaration on the land around the base. What they need to be doing is working in partnership with the<br />
Commonwealth and not raising fears but being alive to the fact that people's relevant and important concerns need<br />
to be addressed. As the member for Canberra said, the next set <strong>of</strong> testing will take place over the next 12 months.<br />
That is simply not good enough. Again, I do not want to somehow mean that the departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials are not<br />
doing their job; but the fact is that they need additional resources to do the work that is required to satisfy the<br />
concerns <strong>of</strong> people in these communities right across the country. It is very simple: make the resources available,<br />
take some responsibility and make sure that the people who are concerned about this have their concerns properly<br />
addressed and their fears allayed. If you do not, what you are doing is perpetrating something upon those<br />
communities which they do not need and which is not welcome.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 159<br />
And it is not good for government. It is certainly not good for Defence Force <strong>of</strong>ficials who are working in<br />
communities where they are trying to manage relationships. These are important Defence assets. And it is not only<br />
Defence; the civilian community needs to be concerned about the impact <strong>of</strong> this on civilian airports and in fire and<br />
emergency services right across the country. Yet they appear not to be involved in this discussion. It seems to me<br />
it is about time we took a whole-<strong>of</strong>-government approach looking not only across federal government but also<br />
state jurisdictions. The Civil Aviation Authority ought to be heavily involved in these discussions because they<br />
run airports which have used this firm in the same way the Defence Force has. In one sense, the Defence Force<br />
has been on the front foot—although they do not have sufficient information. We need a lot more out <strong>of</strong> this<br />
government. I say to the three ministers: one <strong>of</strong> you take responsibility, for God's sake!<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Christensen): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is<br />
adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
Strzelecki Track<br />
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (18:47): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) recognises that:<br />
(a) the Strzelecki Track is a vital freight and tourist route connecting Adelaide to the Moomba Gas fields in South<br />
Australia's far north-east and South East Queensland;<br />
(b) the route is used extensively by pastoralists, mining vehicles and tourists and is no longer fit for purpose due to pot<br />
holes, bulldust and closures from flooding;<br />
(c) it can take more than 12 hours for heavy transport to negotiate 338 kilometres from Lyndhurst to Moomba;<br />
(d) the Track is used by many tourists heading into the heart <strong>of</strong> Australia and visiting some <strong>of</strong> the wonders <strong>of</strong> outback<br />
South Australia and Queensland and with a proper standard road there is great potential to grow this industry; and<br />
(e) the Track is also used by heavy transport which supports the exploitation <strong>of</strong> the Moomba Gas Fields and trucks carrying<br />
supplies to, and cattle from, properties and they are totally reliant on this route;<br />
(2) notes that:<br />
(a) the Track cuts through remote and inhospitable country where emergency services are reliant on the Royal Flying<br />
Doctor Service;<br />
(b) more than 30 road trains navigate the Track each day carrying vital equipment for the gas industry and thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
dollars <strong>of</strong> damage is done to each <strong>of</strong> these trucks on a daily basis; and<br />
(c) rain can close the road for up to six weeks as it did in 2010 when large sections were washed away or left underwater<br />
and on average shuts the road for 45 days a year; and<br />
(3) calls on the state and federal governments to work together in an urgent manner to bring about the sealing <strong>of</strong> this vital<br />
route.<br />
To most people, the Strzelecki Track is just another <strong>of</strong> the names intertwined with the legends <strong>of</strong> the discovery<br />
and utilisation <strong>of</strong> the Australian outback. The Birdsville and Oodnadatta tracks and the Old Ghan Railway have<br />
become for adventurous tourists part <strong>of</strong> the list <strong>of</strong> roads that need to be conquered in their quest to discover the<br />
real Australia. And that is a good thing. However, for most Australians they are just names <strong>of</strong> some forgotten<br />
stories <strong>of</strong> the outback. And while they all have their important economic role to play, it is the Strzelecki Track,<br />
affectionately known as the Strez, which provides the supply lines to one <strong>of</strong> South Australia's, if not Australia's,<br />
greatest assets in the Cooper Basin. It is estimated that over the last 40 years around 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> recoverable<br />
free-flowing natural gas has been extracted from the basin. However, it is advances in the extraction <strong>of</strong> tight gas<br />
that have led us to believe that we may have only just scratched the surface and that this resource will provide a<br />
very important source <strong>of</strong> gas for Australia in a carbon constrained world well into the next century.<br />
The Strzelecki Track is 472 kilometres <strong>of</strong> road between Lyndhurst, at the northern end <strong>of</strong> the bitumen road<br />
network <strong>of</strong> north-eastern South Australia, to Innamincka, which is another 26 kilometres to the Queensland<br />
border. Of this, 45 kilometres is already sealed—in six strips to allow for overtaking. The problem is not only that<br />
the Strez is unsealed; on average, it is closed for 45 days a year. In fact, in 2010 it was closed for six weeks. And<br />
much <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> the time it is simply as rough as guts. It is a 'truck wrecker' adding millions <strong>of</strong> dollars to the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> gas production in the basin. While these conditions attract some <strong>of</strong> the more adventurous tourists, for many<br />
others they are simply a barrier to be avoided. Around 30 heavy vehicles a day do the 360 kilometre trip from<br />
Lyndhurst to Moomba. These are not town delivery trucks; they are road trains, with delivery loads between 60<br />
and 80 tonnes and up to a dozen axles. However, almost unbelievably, that trip from Lyndhurst to Moomba can<br />
take about 14 hours. I think that is an average speed <strong>of</strong> about 35 kilometres an hour. The trip inflicts a huge toll on<br />
the truck in terms <strong>of</strong> tyres and maintenance. Wrecked suspensions, high wear <strong>of</strong> all moving parts and significant<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
160 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
damage to fragile equipment frequently occurs. It is simply no way to supply a modern industry, and certainly not<br />
one that we will continue to rely on so heavily.<br />
In recent years the Queensland government has pushed its bitumen roads further west to the South Australian<br />
border, and our road users—whether they be heavy transporters in either the resources or the livestock industries,<br />
tourists, junior explorers or locals—find they can drive to the South Australian border on a 21st century road, only<br />
to discover that it is only an invisible border between states isolating them from a 19th century solution, the rough<br />
as guts dirt track. Simply put: one minute they are on a brand new 21st century bitumen road, and, depending on<br />
how recently maintenance grading has occurred, then they are on a 19th century dirt road <strong>of</strong> very ordinary value.<br />
This presents a new variable to road users. Adelaide to Moomba is 954 kilometres, with 358 kilometres <strong>of</strong> that<br />
being unsealed road. Moomba to Brisbane is 1,501 kilometres, with just 143 kilometres <strong>of</strong> unsealed road.<br />
Increasingly, the heavy transport industry is using the long option. It is 50 per cent further with an extra 500<br />
kilometres, or 1,000 kilometres for a round trip. Once again, this is a very strong indication <strong>of</strong> the condition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
road. Higher fuel costs, longer hours, more drivers but much lower maintenance costs. It is a very sobering<br />
indication <strong>of</strong> the condition <strong>of</strong> the road, and the implications for South Australia are clear: the benefits <strong>of</strong> our assets<br />
are being lost to the Brisbane supply line. For this reason alone, it is vitally important for South Australia's future<br />
that the track be sealed. Of course, this presents a higher cost option to all those who use it.<br />
But there is much more: increasingly there is every reason to be more enthusiastic about the Australian tourism<br />
industry. We are seen as a safe, secure, First World option with incredible tourism assets. This works in our<br />
favour for not only international tourists but also our domestic travellers as well, especially those who are repeat<br />
customers. An increasing number are looking to explore the unparalleled experience <strong>of</strong> the Aussie outback. Yes,<br />
as I have said earlier, some are looking for the ultimate test <strong>of</strong> man and machine, but most are not. Most want to<br />
see the wonders <strong>of</strong> the outback and not be left on the side <strong>of</strong> the road with a broken axle or worse. The wonders <strong>of</strong><br />
the outback as accessed from the Strzelecki Track are many and magnificent. Cooper Creek; the outback's striking<br />
wet lands <strong>of</strong> the Coongie Lakes; Lake Eyre; the base <strong>of</strong> the Birdsville and Oodnadatta Tracks; the pathway <strong>of</strong> the<br />
old Ghan; Coober Pedy, the opal capital <strong>of</strong> the world; and the magnificent Flinders Ranges are all accessed from<br />
the Strzelecki Track. The completion <strong>of</strong> a good road to the Southern Ocean through the South Australian outback<br />
would open up huge opportunities in the tourism sector.<br />
In all <strong>of</strong> this, we should not forget the industry which opened up the outback in the first place: livestock. For<br />
livestock producers, shorter and faster routes are far better in getting cattle to market. For those unfamiliar with<br />
the livestock industry, the cattle have to be spelled after a long period on a truck. Rough roads are uncomfortable<br />
for livestock. These are all added costs and added time. Not only for South Australian producers but also for many<br />
properties in south-east Queensland, markets and abattoirs in the south make more sense and should provide<br />
bigger and better pr<strong>of</strong>its, but it all hinges around having a decent road. We cannot expect these vitally important<br />
industries <strong>of</strong> our outback to thrive if we are not prepared to reinvest in them and provide fit tools for service—in<br />
this case, a decent road.<br />
I met recently with Premier Jay Weatherill on this issue, and he assures me the state government is interested.<br />
The Strez is, <strong>of</strong> course, a state road and, as such, any possible project will require them to put their shoulder to the<br />
wheel. I stand ready to petition ministers for direct support <strong>of</strong> the program to seal the Strzelecki Track when the<br />
state government produce a request to the federal government.<br />
I have also had a number <strong>of</strong> meetings with Mark Harrington from the Strzelecki Highway company, which has<br />
put in to the state government an unsolicited bid involving a portion <strong>of</strong> private funding. It is an interesting concept<br />
and given the pressing need for this project to be brought on as quickly as possible I am very hopeful that the state<br />
government will respond to his proposal as soon as possible.<br />
From my part, I continue to lobby federal ministers. I have a standing invitation, I must say, with the transport<br />
minister to travel the Strzelecki Track with me! When I pressed him the other day for a date—and I was thinking<br />
mid to late December, before it gets too hot—he had his <strong>of</strong>fice staff looked at his diary and he is thinking maybe<br />
April, which is a concern, because I think seeing is believing for so many people. They do not really get their head<br />
around, firstly, what the Cooper Basin means—around the value <strong>of</strong> the tourism assets that are in the outback <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia and in this particular case the outback <strong>of</strong> South Australia—and then actually understand what a road like<br />
the Strzelecki can be like and what a barrier it is to tourism and other operators. Incidentally, I have sat in the<br />
Lyndhurst Hotel talking to a number <strong>of</strong> truckies who have come down the Strz and most <strong>of</strong> them are pretty<br />
appalled at the damage to their trucks. I have to report, sadly, that one truckie said to me, 'Whatever you do don't<br />
bituminise the road.' I asked him why and he said, 'If you bituminise the road the big fellers will be here and little<br />
blokes like me will get squeezed out.' I said, 'I understand what you are saying, but for the benefit <strong>of</strong> South<br />
Australia and the benefit <strong>of</strong> Australia, so that these industries can actually contribute in the way that they should to<br />
our economy, I cannot agree with you. I think the track needs bituminising, and the sooner the better.'<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 161<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I Thank the member for Grey and note the passion for his electorate. Is the motion<br />
seconded?<br />
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (18:56): I second the motion. I would like to congratulate my South Australian<br />
colleague the member for Grey for moving this motion today. He is a very hardworking and passionate local<br />
member and also a South Australian. I note also that the member for Barker is here in the chamber with us. All <strong>of</strong><br />
us understand how important it is to get the South Australian economy back on track to look after our rural and<br />
regional areas. This project is very unique, because it has a significant strategic value to the South Australian<br />
economy and to the tourism industry, which is critical.<br />
Now more than ever I think we need to be building productive infrastructure in South Australia so that we can<br />
start to reverse the very dire economic trends that our state has been suffering from. This project stands as one that<br />
will greatly improve road freight transport between South Australia and Queensland, unlocking significant<br />
potential to further develop job-creating industries in South Australia. A sealed Strzelecki Track will mean that<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> head <strong>of</strong> cattle can she be shipped directly to South Australian abattoirs, creating growth in the foodprocessing<br />
industry. The member for Barker, <strong>of</strong> course, has in his electorate, in Thomas Foods, one <strong>of</strong> our most<br />
significant abattoirs and processors. Also, the ability for industry to use an all-weather road to and from the<br />
Cooper Basin will, <strong>of</strong> course, improve access to service industries for the oil and gas operations in Moomba and<br />
also over the border in Queensland.<br />
Tourism is another industry that will benefit from a road that is sealed. Sealing the 472-kilometre stretch <strong>of</strong><br />
road will provide a gateway from the Sunshine State to some <strong>of</strong> the nation's renowned salt lakes and the Flinders<br />
Ranges. A sealed track will also make it easier and, importantly, much safer for tourists to traverse remote<br />
Australia. We Australians know that you have to be really careful when you are travelling in the outback and we<br />
also know that sometimes tourists do not have the expertise to know how carefully you need to treat the outback.<br />
As you can see, this is about much more than construction jobs. It is about a long-term, forward-thinking<br />
infrastructure project that will help grow our state's economy in the decades to come. With South Australia's<br />
unemployment rate, at 6.4 per cent, unfortunately still being well above the national average, a focus on jobcreating<br />
infrastructure from the state Labor government cannot come quickly enough. And something that is<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> the CBD for once would also be nice! As someone who represents suburban South Australia and grew<br />
up in rural and regional South Australia, I think there is far too much emphasis from this state Labor government<br />
on the city centre. It is as if the rest <strong>of</strong> us do not exist, and quite frankly we have had enough <strong>of</strong> it. Also, <strong>of</strong> course,<br />
fixing up or bitumising the Strzelecki Track is about improving productivity and safety for those who use the<br />
road.<br />
It is quite remarkable that the track is closed for about 45 days a year. Being a dirt road, it does not take much<br />
to wash it out and these closures cost the South Australian economy millions <strong>of</strong> dollars in lost revenue and<br />
compound the already-long travel times on the track as well. So this is very much a productivity issue. Sealing the<br />
road will considerably reduce time spent travelling for our hardworking truckies. With maximum speeds on the<br />
track <strong>of</strong> only 35 kilometres an hour for road freight it takes over 14 hours to complete. This is a serious<br />
productivity issue.<br />
A sealed Strzelecki Track should be travelled in under six hours, I think—is that right, member for Grey?<br />
Mr Ramsey: Yes.<br />
Ms FLINT: Absolutely. This will, <strong>of</strong> course, increase productivity and save people money, and we would also<br />
<strong>of</strong> course anticipate that it would stop the track being closed down for so many days in the year—reducing it from<br />
45 days down to 20 or so, which would be a very good outcome. A special consideration is the estimated cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$500,000 for every day that the road is closed. That is a significant financial impost. Sealing the track will save<br />
over $12 million a year.<br />
This, <strong>of</strong> course, is also a safety issue. For our truck drivers, for our tourists and for people providing services to<br />
the mining industry it is really very important. I think that the overall savings to business and government in the<br />
operation and maintenance costs are irrefutable.<br />
Once again, I thank the member for Grey for raising this and call on the state Labor government to take note <strong>of</strong><br />
the prosperity that an upgraded Strzelecki Track will bring to the state <strong>of</strong> South Australia. Thank you.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Italy: Earthquakes<br />
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:02): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
162 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(1) expresses its deepest condolences for the victims <strong>of</strong> the devastating earthquakes that hit central Italy on 24 August and 30<br />
October 2016;<br />
(2) recognises the:<br />
(a) ongoing suffering and displacement that the earthquakes have caused to the residents <strong>of</strong> the affected towns; and<br />
(b) courageous and tireless work <strong>of</strong> the emergency and medical workers, and volunteers to save lives and prevent further<br />
tragedies; and<br />
(3) expresses our sincere thanks to the Australian communities who have rallied to show their support and solidarity in the<br />
face <strong>of</strong> this tragedy.<br />
Today I want to take the opportunity to talk about the generosity <strong>of</strong> the South Australian communities who have<br />
rallied together to help the victims <strong>of</strong> these devastating earthquakes in Italy.<br />
On 24 August a 6.2 magnitude earthquake struck central Italy, reducing three towns in the regions <strong>of</strong> Lazio,<br />
Umbria and Marche to absolute rubble and devastating many other towns and villages. In total almost 300 people<br />
died and 400 people were injured.<br />
In the town <strong>of</strong> Amatrice alone, 234 people lost their lives. The area had hardly settled into this new reality<br />
when it was struck by another 6.6 magnitude quake, which hit central Italy on 30 October—the biggest tremor to<br />
be felt in the region for 40 years. The second quake was centred near Norcia, around 68 kilometres south-east <strong>of</strong><br />
Perugia. The area remains devastated and more than 15,000 people are being housed in temporary shelters.<br />
I moved this motion because I wanted to ask this <strong>House</strong> to express our deepest condolences to the Italian<br />
people who suffered so much as a result <strong>of</strong> these disasters. We grieve for those who lost their lives or who were<br />
injured, and for their friends and families; for those who were left homeless or without work; and for those who<br />
suffered and who continue to suffer the shock and fear. A massive reconstruction effort will now be needed.<br />
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the many thousands <strong>of</strong> Italians who donated food, clothes, toys and<br />
blankets and who opened their homes to those who no longer had one. They staffed makeshift kitchens, fed people<br />
and clothed people in that region. This spirit <strong>of</strong> generosity was also not just in Italy. Solidarity was certainly felt<br />
all the way here in Australia in efforts that certainly have been echoed throughout all around Australia in the<br />
Italian communities.<br />
The Marche Club in Adelaide mobilised its efforts immediately to help in any way it could. I attended a<br />
fundraiser with the member for Makin, with the whole Italian community in South Australia coming together.<br />
Marche is one <strong>of</strong> the regions severely destroyed in the earthquakes, and the Marche Club immediately set up a<br />
fundraising committee called the Adelaide Central Italy Earthquake Appeal. They undertook a massive<br />
fundraising effort that included dinners, donations and countless volunteer hours. In a sign <strong>of</strong> great generosity and<br />
friendship, the Greek Orthodox Community <strong>of</strong> South Australia took the initiative to pass around an extra<br />
collection plate at all <strong>of</strong> their churches for the victims <strong>of</strong> the Italian earthquake during church services. This<br />
simple act collected $5,000, which the Greek Orthodox Community <strong>of</strong> South Australia decided to contribute to<br />
the funds being collected by the Marche Club.<br />
I had the great pleasure <strong>of</strong> assisting in bringing in the Greek and Italian efforts together. Together with the<br />
member for Makin, we held discussions with the Italian ambassador in Canberra, His Excellency Pier Francesco<br />
Zazo, at the embassy and the Italian consul in Adelaide, Ms Roberta Ronzitti. Both were very touched by this<br />
thoughtful gesture and the friendship between the two communities. We facilitated a meeting between Bill Gonis,<br />
the president <strong>of</strong> the Greek Orthodox Community, and Cathy Papandrea, chairperson <strong>of</strong> the Adelaide Central Italy<br />
Earthquake Appeal. Cathy invited Bill and I to join the fundraising committee for a dinner to <strong>of</strong>ficially hand over<br />
the money that was raised by the Greek Orthodox Community <strong>of</strong> South Australia. It was a wonderful evening. It<br />
was inspiring to see the goodwill that exists between our wonderful communities in Australia. In total, the<br />
fundraising efforts by the Adelaide Central Italy Earthquake Appeal are likely to raise around $100,000. This<br />
money will go towards funding a project to help people in some <strong>of</strong> the worst affected towns in the Marche region.<br />
There are too many people who have contributed to this fundraising effort to single out any one person or<br />
group. Instead, I want to acknowledge the sense <strong>of</strong> generosity, solidarity and friendship that this act symbolises,<br />
because this is what keeps us going through difficult times. I sincerely commend and thank everyone who has<br />
contributed to these efforts. I would just like to say a couple <strong>of</strong> words <strong>of</strong> Italian, and I am sure the member for<br />
Makin will correct for me if I do not pronounce them correctly. Grazie per la vostra generosita' e amicizia: your<br />
assistance is greatly appreciated and acknowledged. That is for all those people who have volunteered their time<br />
to raise much needed funds for the Italian earthquake victims.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 163<br />
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:06): I am pleased to second this motion and commend the member for Hindmarsh<br />
for bringing this matter to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. He did very well with his Italian and the translation just a<br />
moment ago.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> Italy was in shock on 24 August. It was in physical shock in the central part <strong>of</strong> Italy where the<br />
earthquake and the subsequent tremors took place, but the rest <strong>of</strong> the country was in emotional shock as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
what was happening. I will not go through all <strong>of</strong> the statistics again, because I think the member for Hindmarsh<br />
has already done covered the extent <strong>of</strong> the devastation that occurred on that day—and, indeed, on subsequent<br />
days. I understand that even up to a couple <strong>of</strong> weeks ago there were still tremors being felt in the same region<br />
generally. Instead, I just want to make some general observations and comments about what happened in Italy.<br />
Italy is not a country where the people are unaccustomed to natural disasters, be it earthquakes, in particular, or<br />
floods or landslides. The records will show that over the years, particularly in the last 100 years, there has been a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> events, one after the other, where people have lost their lives, homes have been lost and many people<br />
have been left homeless. The country is quite accustomed to dealing with natural disasters. In fact if we look at<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the statistics in recent years, we find that in 2009 in L'Aquila, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake left 308 people<br />
dead, 1,500 injured and 65,000 homeless. On 24 August we saw that happen again, with a very similar numbers.<br />
In 1997, so in the last 20 years, another 40,000 people were left homeless and 13 killed as a result <strong>of</strong> an<br />
earthquake in Umbria-Marche region. So the country is accustomed to dealing with crises.<br />
But this particular time I could sense from the news reports I was reading that were coming out <strong>of</strong> Italy and<br />
from people here in Australia who were in regular contact with their family members in Italy that this was quite<br />
devastating. I think the devastation was because they knew what happened on 24 August was not necessarily the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the earthquakes and that they would continue, and I think the scientific advice that was being provided to<br />
them was suggesting that that would be the case. Whilst I understand that, at the time, the relief efforts were<br />
absolutely fantastic—indeed, the member for Hindmarsh and I met a young man at the Marche Club who had just<br />
come from Italy and who had participated in the relief efforts at the time. He talked about the devastation—he had<br />
seen it firsthand—and was able to give us a firsthand account <strong>of</strong> what happened there. It was truly terrific to see<br />
everyone pulling together.<br />
One may well say, 'Italy is an advanced country, and I am sure that they can manage to deal with situations like<br />
that.' But I believe that when countries like Australia and others stand up and show acknowledgment for what has<br />
happened and in turn try to do what we can to give support, it adds a level <strong>of</strong> moral courage to the people who are<br />
back there doing the work. I think that is the importance <strong>of</strong> what happened at the Marche Club in Adelaide a<br />
couple <strong>of</strong> months ago, when the community came together to raise funds—I do not remember what the final<br />
figure was, but it was tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars—that will be sent back there to help them, as we saw with<br />
$5,000 from the Greek community. It is that moral courage to let people know that you are not alone at a time like<br />
this. There are people around the world who are happy to stand up and support you in any way they can.<br />
I particularly say that since, in Australia, we have nearly a million people who would claim that their heritage is<br />
<strong>of</strong> Italian descent. Indeed, some 700,000—or thereabouts—Italians have come to this country over the years. Of<br />
course, a lot <strong>of</strong> them are no longer still with us and have passed on. Italian migration largely stopped in 1970, but<br />
the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren <strong>of</strong> those migrants are still here and still have connections with<br />
those regions and the people there. They visit them when they go on holidays back to Italy, and so they are<br />
familiar with the country and the connections that they have made.<br />
It is wonderful to see that the Italians who have come to Australia have not forgotten their heritage and have<br />
been prepared to stand up at a time <strong>of</strong> need and support their country in any way they can. Congratulations and<br />
well done to all those who have supported this cause, and in particular to the Marche Club for organising the<br />
fundraiser in Adelaide. Once again, I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing the matter to the attention <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): I thank the member for his contribution. The time allocated for this<br />
debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order for the next<br />
day <strong>of</strong> sitting.<br />
Broadband<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (19:12): I move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) the nbn TM Fair Use Policy is unfair for rural and regional Australia;<br />
(b) rural nbn TM users have restricted data speeds, limits on capacity and have to pay more for a poorer service;<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
164 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
(c) under the nbn TM Interim Satellite Service, rural users had '<strong>of</strong>f peak' data from 11 pm to 2 pm;<br />
(d) on the new nbn TM Sky Muster TM Satellite Service, the '<strong>of</strong>f peak' data has now changed to between 1 am and 7 am; and<br />
(e) the consequence <strong>of</strong> the nbn TM Fair Use Policy is that businesses, students, home workers and farmers have reduced<br />
Internet access and pay comparatively more; and<br />
(2) calls on the Government to:<br />
(a) implement the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the 2015 Regional Telecommunications Review and review the nbn TM Fair Use<br />
Policy in light <strong>of</strong> the impact on rural families and businesses;<br />
(b) maximise the amount <strong>of</strong> data available under the satellite service; and<br />
(c) revert the <strong>of</strong>f-peak period in the nbn TM Fair Use Policy to 11 pm to 2 pm, to accommodate the realities <strong>of</strong> rural life.<br />
In the Weekly Times recently, there was a very poignant story <strong>of</strong> a farmer and a businesswoman and the problems<br />
she has had with NBN access:<br />
Bonnie Doon organic lamb and beef producer Carolyn Suggate struggles to divvy up her 40GB monthly NBN Sky Muster<br />
download allowance between her farm, work and three data-hungry children.<br />
'My son is about to enter Year 12 and can't use the internet at home for downloading anything substantial,' said Ms<br />
Suggate, who has an online beef and lamb business, and is the administrator <strong>of</strong> the Organic Federation <strong>of</strong> Australia. 'They talk<br />
about the difficulties <strong>of</strong> remote students, but we're not in the Kimberleys. Imagine telling a city kid that they can't get internet<br />
after school?'<br />
Ms Suggate and her family live a 20-minute drive from Mansfield—<br />
in north-east Victoria—<br />
but fall 2km outside <strong>of</strong> the reach <strong>of</strong> the local NBN fixed wireless tower.<br />
They have had to sign up to the NBN satellite service, which caps their data allowance at 40GB a month during the NBNdefined<br />
peak period <strong>of</strong> 7 am to 1 am.<br />
'We've got access to another 100 gigs a month, <strong>of</strong>f peak, but that is from 1am to 7am,' she said—<br />
not much use. Not only is data and access a problem but she also talks about the problems they are having with<br />
the system:<br />
Since connecting to the NBN satellite system 10 weeks ago, Ms Suggate and her family have experienced an outage a week,<br />
most <strong>of</strong> which last for hours, not minutes.<br />
So we have some problems that we really need to address. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the<br />
telecommunications landscape is changing. Smart devices and online communication are now essential for<br />
businesses in Australia, and rural Australians want to capitalise on these innovations. Whether it be for small<br />
business, rural education, social connectivity, e-health, remote management <strong>of</strong> industry, automation on our farms<br />
or emergency services, we are beginning to come to rely on the internet and the connectivity it gives us. Many<br />
people were looking forward to the NBN and to the better internet access it would provide. However, in my<br />
electorate many people are now concerned about affordability and value as they pay twice what their metro<br />
counterparts are paying for a limited satellite service. This makes it very difficult for rural businesses to compete.<br />
In bringing my comments to a close, I call on the government to really take heed <strong>of</strong> the 2015 review<br />
recommendations and to move towards a more equitable model <strong>of</strong> service delivery in regional areas. I call on the<br />
government to manage and prioritise demand on NBN satellite services to ensure that satellite, the structure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
NBN Co's fair use policy and the wholesale tariffs minimise the negative impact on rural and regional businesses<br />
and users.<br />
Tonight, I particularly want to acknowledge the people <strong>of</strong> my community. We have heard your call. We are<br />
very happy to bring your issues to the government and to the parliament and to continue to work to make this<br />
service better for all <strong>of</strong> us. Thank you.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): Is the motion seconded?<br />
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (19:17): I second the motion. I completely support the member for Indi's motion, and I<br />
would like to echo her concerns about the national broadband rollout. It is disadvantaging regional and rural<br />
communities. I wish to support her push for a review <strong>of</strong> the fair use policy as it applies to NBN satellite services<br />
to ensure equity <strong>of</strong> internet access for rural people.<br />
The electorate <strong>of</strong> Mayo was one <strong>of</strong> the first areas to have the NBN rolled out—in some parts <strong>of</strong> it, <strong>of</strong> course—<br />
and we have seen that in regional areas there are winners and losers and that we are certainly losing compared to<br />
our urban cousins and, sometimes, our immediate neighbours. In my area, the townships <strong>of</strong> Strathalbyn and<br />
Willunga were fortunate enough to have fibre to the home and not to the node, and they were certainly the envy <strong>of</strong><br />
many other rollouts beyond them. Mayo now has 11,900 premises ready for fibre to the node, with 4,500<br />
connected; more than 5,000 premises will eventually have fixed wireless; and, to date, just under 5,000 premises<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 165<br />
will have to rely on the Sky Muster satellite service. The result is a disgruntled populace, acutely aware that<br />
communities are being discriminated against on the grounds <strong>of</strong> geography, even if they live just 20 kilometres<br />
from the CBD <strong>of</strong> Adelaide.<br />
When I came into <strong>of</strong>fice, the NBN quickly became the No. 1 constituent issue handled by my staff. Initially, we<br />
were receiving 30 calls a week about the NBN. This has petered out to around 10 calls a week. That may sound<br />
reduced, but we know that many people are not making contact with the <strong>of</strong>fice and are just living with the service<br />
they are being <strong>of</strong>fered, shrugging their shoulders and realising: 'Well, I guess we live in a regional area. I guess we<br />
cannot expect the same as our metro areas.' I think that is fundamentally unfair. Residents and businesspeople<br />
were contacting us because they had no-one else to turn to. The NBN Co service providers and their<br />
subcontractors, from our communications, did not want to know about the problems. It was always somebody<br />
else's problem.<br />
We had a vet clinic that not only did not have internet; they did not have a landline for weeks, because<br />
somehow somebody damaged the line infrastructure underground, and nobody—neither their telco nor the<br />
NBN—wanted to own the problem.<br />
We have an internet businessman in Bridgewater, 20 minutes from the city. He was originally told that he<br />
would be getting fibre to the premises, only to find out last week that this is not going to happen. His immediate<br />
neighbour will get fibre to the node, but he will not. And, thanks to geography, he will not get wireless either.<br />
A similar tale affects a medical imaging research company at Piccadilly, 25 minutes from the city, and we have<br />
residents in Langhorne Creek, which is pretty flat country, whose area is 3.2 kilometres from a tower, but they<br />
cannot get wireless, because <strong>of</strong> the trees. We have a town with a broadacre farm that needs a 50-metre lattice<br />
tower to ensure that 300 residents get wireless. Anyone who lives more than two kilometres away will get<br />
satellite, and there is currently a very long waiting list.<br />
Country people are pragmatic, and they understand the economies <strong>of</strong> scale. However, the NBN is a national<br />
infrastructure project akin to the electricity network and the copper telephone networks <strong>of</strong> previous generations.<br />
Due to geography, country people will not have access to a level <strong>of</strong> service at the same price as the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
people who live in metropolitan areas. Can you imagine the uproar if, in the middle <strong>of</strong> metropolitan Sydney,<br />
people were <strong>of</strong>fered a mix <strong>of</strong> satellite and fixed wireless towers and just a very, very small percentage <strong>of</strong> them<br />
were <strong>of</strong>fered fibre to the node?<br />
An honourable member interjecting—<br />
Ms SHARKIE: Absolutely. It is not enough to say to regional communities, 'Well, just use ADSL.' There has<br />
been limited investment in that resource because <strong>of</strong> the NBN. Some new residents cannot access ports, because<br />
there are none available, and they have been told there will be no upgrade, because <strong>of</strong> the NBN. Sections <strong>of</strong> my<br />
electorate are also in high-rainfall areas, and in winter copper wiring can be underwater because many <strong>of</strong> our areas<br />
have over a metre <strong>of</strong> water. That affects the conductivity <strong>of</strong> the network, and this is going to be an issue that the<br />
NBN will have to address.<br />
If you are going to put rural people on satellite because it is cheaper for the government, it needs to be<br />
affordable for all. As people in regional areas, we should not be expected to pay more for internet services and<br />
receive a slower service simply because we live outside the metropolitan areas. The government really must look<br />
as this as an infrastructure project that must be thinking <strong>of</strong> the next 50 years and not just three years and a budget<br />
line.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is<br />
adjourned, and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next sitting.<br />
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE<br />
Additional Information<br />
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (19:22): On indulgence, Deputy Speaker—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): Is indulgence given?<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.<br />
Ms BUTLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On indulgence: as has been reported in the press, I have<br />
apologised to a person who has been a respondent in a racial vilification case, which I mentioned previously in<br />
this place. I can confirm that I have provided a written apology to this person and have left it at his discretion<br />
whether to disclose its contents.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
166 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 28 November 2016<br />
Deputy Speaker, you may recall that an allegation was made in a racial vilification case that a racist phrase was<br />
used in a Facebook post bearing this person's name. The person concerned gave evidence accepted by the court<br />
that he was not the author <strong>of</strong> the Facebook post attributed to him. It has been brought to my attention that there are<br />
some concerns over references I made in this place on 23 November 2016, in which I described these<br />
circumstances as the person's Facebook account being either hacked or subjected to a hacking. The circumstance<br />
was that the court received evidence that another person posted the relevant message pretending to be the<br />
respondent. I trust this addresses the concerns that have been brought to my attention. Thank you, Mr Deputy<br />
Speaker.<br />
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:24<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Monday, 28 November 2016 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 167<br />
Road Upgrades<br />
(Question No. 4)<br />
Mrs Elliot asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 1 September 2016:<br />
In respect <strong>of</strong> the Government's election commitment to allocate $2.7 million for the Tweed, Ballina and Byron shire<br />
councils to undertake priority local road upgrades, will these funds be allocated in the 2016-17 budget; if so, (a) from which<br />
funding program will they come, and (b) what additional funding requirements will be imposed upon the funding recipient for<br />
them to receive the funding.<br />
Mr Chester: The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the<br />
honourable member's question:<br />
The Australian Government is currently working with the NSW Government to settle the arrangements for the funding <strong>of</strong><br />
all new commitments. This includes projects to be delivered by the Tweed, Ballina and Byron shire councils.<br />
(a) Funding for the projects will be provided under the Infrastructure Investment Programme.<br />
(b) All projects approved under the Infrastructure Investment Programme are required to be administered under the terms<br />
and conditions set out in the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.<br />
Armadale Road Duplication<br />
(Question No. 33)<br />
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, in writing, on 11 October 2016:<br />
(1) When does he expect (a) work to begin on the Armadale Road duplication, and (b) the Australian Government<br />
contribution to this project to be paid to the Western Australian Government.<br />
(2) Has Infrastructure Australia undertaken an assessment <strong>of</strong> this project; if so, when will this assessment be released; if not,<br />
why not.<br />
(3) Has the Australian Government received a request for funding for an Armadale Road or North Lake Road freeway bridge;<br />
if so, what was the nature <strong>of</strong> this request.<br />
(4) Has the Australian Government made any comparative assessment on the impact on traffic <strong>of</strong> completing the Armadale<br />
Road duplication project with and without also constructing a new Armadale Road freeway bridge.<br />
Mr Fletcher: The Minister for Urban Infrastructure has provided the following answer to the honourable<br />
member's question:<br />
(a) Early 2018.<br />
(b) Australian Government funding is allocated from 2016-17 to 2019-20.<br />
(2) Infrastructure Australia is currently evaluating the Armadale Road business case, which will be released when finalised.<br />
(3) No<br />
(4) The Western Australian Government is responsible for project development works including traffic modelling.<br />
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Change language