House of Representatives
2niJFGZ
2niJFGZ
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 />
WEDNESDAY, 29 MARCH 2017<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 />
Wednesday, 5 April 2017<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—2017<br />
Date<br />
February 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27 28<br />
March 1, 2, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30<br />
May 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31<br />
June 1, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22<br />
August 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17<br />
September 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14<br />
October 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26<br />
November 27, 28, 29, 30<br />
December 4, 5, 6, 7<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—SECOND 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—Hon. Damian Kevin Drum 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 />
Acting Clerk <strong>of</strong> the Senate—R Pye<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 />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public<br />
Service<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-<br />
Terrorism<br />
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet<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 />
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer<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 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 />
Hon Michael Sukkar 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 />
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO<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<br />
Hon Greg Hunt MP<br />
Minister for Sport<br />
Hon Greg Hunt MP<br />
Minister for Aged Care<br />
Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP<br />
Minister for Indigenous Health<br />
Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP<br />
Assistant Minister for 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 />
WEDNESDAY, 29 MARCH 2017<br />
Chamber<br />
BILLS—<br />
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016—<br />
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016—<br />
Assent ..................................................................................................................................................................1<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017—<br />
Report from Federation Chamber ........................................................................................................................1<br />
Third Reading ......................................................................................................................................................1<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017—<br />
Report from Federation Chamber ........................................................................................................................1<br />
Third Reading ......................................................................................................................................................1<br />
BUSINESS—<br />
Rearrangement ....................................................................................................................................................1<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—<br />
Code for the Tendering and Performance <strong>of</strong> Building Work 2016 .........................................................................5<br />
Motion for Disallowance ........................................................................................................................................5<br />
BILLS—<br />
Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017—<br />
First Reading ..................................................................................................................................................... 11<br />
Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................. 11<br />
Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017—<br />
First Reading .....................................................................................................................................................13<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................14<br />
Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017—<br />
First Reading .....................................................................................................................................................15<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................16<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
Public Works Committee—<br />
Report ................................................................................................................................................................16<br />
BILLS—<br />
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................17<br />
Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................20<br />
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017—<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> Senate Message ......................................................................................................................20<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................22<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS—<br />
Marist College Kogarah .......................................................................................................................................38<br />
Sydney Technical College ....................................................................................................................................38<br />
Barker Electorate: Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby ...................................................................................................39<br />
Asylum Seekers ....................................................................................................................................................39<br />
Grey Electorate: Laura Folk Fair ..........................................................................................................................39<br />
Backpacker Tax ....................................................................................................................................................39<br />
Fadden Electorate: School Fete ............................................................................................................................40<br />
Defence and Strategic Studies Course ..................................................................................................................40<br />
Neurological Disease Awareness ..........................................................................................................................40<br />
Endometriosis .......................................................................................................................................................41<br />
Forde Electorate: Rainbow Child Foundation ......................................................................................................41<br />
Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool Women's Resources Centre .................................................................................41<br />
Bonner Electorate: Radio 4EB .............................................................................................................................41<br />
WestConnex..........................................................................................................................................................42<br />
Burnett, Mr Raymond William .............................................................................................................................42<br />
Education ..............................................................................................................................................................42<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ...........................................................................................................................42<br />
Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................43
CONTENTS—continued<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ...........................................................................................................................43<br />
Domestic and Family Violence ............................................................................................................................43<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ...........................................................................................................................44<br />
Education ..............................................................................................................................................................44<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE—<br />
Taxation ................................................................................................................................................................44<br />
Economy...............................................................................................................................................................45<br />
Economy...............................................................................................................................................................46<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .................................................................................................................................46<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE—<br />
Economy...............................................................................................................................................................46<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .................................................................................................................................47<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE—<br />
Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................................48<br />
Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................48<br />
Workplace Relations .............................................................................................................................................49<br />
Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................50<br />
Prime Minister ......................................................................................................................................................50<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .................................................................................................................................51<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE—<br />
Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................51<br />
Prime Minister ......................................................................................................................................................52<br />
Skilled Migration Program ...................................................................................................................................53<br />
Prime Minister ......................................................................................................................................................53<br />
Workplace Relations .............................................................................................................................................54<br />
Donations to Political Parties ...............................................................................................................................54<br />
Trade .....................................................................................................................................................................55<br />
Workplace Relations .............................................................................................................................................55<br />
Budget ..................................................................................................................................................................56<br />
Workplace Relations .............................................................................................................................................56<br />
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER—<br />
Interference with Parliament ................................................................................................................................57<br />
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE—<br />
Economy...............................................................................................................................................................57<br />
BILLS—<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017—<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017—<br />
Returned from Senate ........................................................................................................................................68<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................68<br />
Consideration in Detail ......................................................................................................................................83<br />
Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................86<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................86<br />
Assent ................................................................................................................................................................92<br />
Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................92<br />
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017—<br />
Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................92<br />
ADJOURNMENT—<br />
Telecommunications .............................................................................................................................................99<br />
Page Electorate: Community Events .................................................................................................................. 100<br />
Page Electorate: Telecommunications ................................................................................................................ 100<br />
Taxation .............................................................................................................................................................. 101<br />
Cyclone Debbie .................................................................................................................................................. 101<br />
Alvarez, Mr Jose Antonio ................................................................................................................................... 102<br />
Nassar, Mr Leslie................................................................................................................................................ 102<br />
GST .................................................................................................................................................................... 103<br />
Swan Electorate .................................................................................................................................................. 103
CONTENTS—continued<br />
NOTICES ............................................................................................................................................................... 104<br />
Federation Chamber<br />
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS—<br />
Northern Territory .............................................................................................................................................. 106<br />
North Sydney Electorate: War Memorials .......................................................................................................... 106<br />
Dobell Electorate: Legal Aid .............................................................................................................................. 107<br />
Bennelong Electorate ......................................................................................................................................... 107<br />
Denison Electorate: Welfare Reform .................................................................................................................. 108<br />
Anzac Day .......................................................................................................................................................... 108<br />
Field, Mr David .................................................................................................................................................. 109<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Child Care ........................................................................................................................ 110<br />
Community Celebrations .................................................................................................................................... 110<br />
Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitors ............................................................................................................ 111<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources—<br />
Report .............................................................................................................................................................. 111<br />
CONDOLENCES—<br />
Robinson, the Hon. Ian Louis ............................................................................................................................. 116<br />
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH .................................................................................................................... 117<br />
GRIEVANCE DEBATE—<br />
Member for Cowan ............................................................................................................................................ 151<br />
National Security ................................................................................................................................................ 151<br />
Canning Electorate: Youth Services ................................................................................................................... 152<br />
Paterson Electorate: Telecommunications .......................................................................................................... 154<br />
Field, Brigadier Chris, AM, CSC ....................................................................................................................... 155<br />
Yamba Golf & Country Club.............................................................................................................................. 155<br />
Social, Community and Disability Services Sector ............................................................................................ 156<br />
Victoria: Rail Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 158<br />
Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................................... 159<br />
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ........................................................... 159<br />
Questions In Writing<br />
Taxation—(Question No. 644) ........................................................................................................................... 161<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—(Question No. 652) ................................................. 161<br />
Contractors—(Question No. 653) ...................................................................................................................... 161<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—(Question No. 654) ................................................. 161<br />
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister—(Question No. 655) ............................................................ 162<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews—(Question No. 656) ................... 162<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews—(Question No. 657) ................... 162<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—(Question No. 658) ................................................. 162<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—(Question No. 659) ................................................. 162
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1<br />
Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The SPEAKER (Hon. Tony Smith) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> country and read<br />
prayers.<br />
BILLS<br />
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016<br />
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016<br />
Assent<br />
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> assent to the bills.<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017<br />
Report from Federation Chamber<br />
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy <strong>of</strong> the bill presented.<br />
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.<br />
Bill agreed to.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:32): 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 />
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017<br />
Report from Federation Chamber<br />
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy <strong>of</strong> the bill presented.<br />
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.<br />
Bill agreed to.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:33): 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 />
BUSINESS<br />
Rearrangement<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:33): I move:<br />
That so much <strong>of</strong> the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gorton’s private Members’ business<br />
notice relating to the disallowance <strong>of</strong> sections 11(3)(a) and (c) <strong>of</strong> the Code for the Tendering and Performance <strong>of</strong> Building<br />
Work 2016, made under section 34 <strong>of</strong> the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, and<br />
presented to the <strong>House</strong> on 7 February 2017, being called on immediately.<br />
I have moved this motion because yet again the Labor side are dancing to the tune <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU when it comes<br />
to building and construction here in Australia. I do not intend to delay the <strong>House</strong> for long on this matter, as I<br />
understand that the opposition will agree to the suspension <strong>of</strong> standing orders, and the member for Fisher will<br />
speak on behalf <strong>of</strong> the government on this disallowance motion, but the reality is that this week the member for<br />
Gorton came into the <strong>House</strong> and put on the Notice Paper a motion to disallow the Building Code under the<br />
Australian Building and Construction Commission, a Building Code that will help restore the rule <strong>of</strong> law on<br />
Australian construction sites. Yesterday, coincidentally, the CFMEU began a robocall campaign around<br />
Australia—particularly in the member for Indi's electorate—urging people to vote for the member for Gorton's<br />
disallowance motion. What a coincidence!<br />
So, yet again, as if we needed any more evidence, the Labor Party is dancing to the tune <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU. You<br />
would think that they would be sick <strong>of</strong> it by now. We have given them every opportunity to decouple themselves<br />
from the union movement: we have introduced the Registered Organisations Commission and we have introduced<br />
the Australian Building and Construction Commission—we are restoring the rule <strong>of</strong> law on building and<br />
CHAMBER
2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
construction sites around Australia. You would think the Labor Party would be sick <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU pulling their<br />
chain and making them jump to the tune that they are playing, but they are not—they never tire <strong>of</strong> attaching<br />
themselves to one <strong>of</strong> the most corrupt and evil unions in Australia's history. We know why—it is because the<br />
CFMEU, just in the last 12 months, gave the Labor Party $1.3 million to campaign against the Turnbull<br />
government. That is on top <strong>of</strong> the $10 million the CFMEU has given the Labor Party over the last 10 or 15 years.<br />
We have even more evidence from Dean Mighell. Dean Mighell was the former long-term secretary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ETU in Victoria—quite a famous unionist in Victoria. He said in an email that was provided to the royal<br />
commission:<br />
Given that the Federal ALP is desperate for funds, surely we can say that we will help them if and only if, they abolish the<br />
ABCC.<br />
I can tell you for a fact that unions are donating to federal Labor for outcomes, not promises. Yet again, this week<br />
we are seeing those outcomes being delivered by the Labor Party to the CFMEU. Thank goodness that they are<br />
not in government, because last time they were in government they abolished the Australian Building and<br />
Construction Commission; they turned back the clock; they brought the CFMEU into the cabinet room and sat<br />
them down at the table to help them make decisions; and, when asked about what unions were engaging in this<br />
process <strong>of</strong> donating to the ALP—for outcomes, not promises—Dean Mighell told the royal commission, 'I believe<br />
that the CFMEU and some <strong>of</strong> the other building industry unions were again seeking the abolition <strong>of</strong> the ABCC as<br />
a policy outcome.'<br />
I feel sorry for the member for Gorton. He is basically a decent man. He is not a bad billiard player, but I pity<br />
him because he is the poor unfortunate on the Labor Party front bench who is given the job <strong>of</strong> coming in here and<br />
meekly trying to abolish the Building Code, meekly doing the bidding <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU. He knows how bad that<br />
union is. We could give you chapter and verse on how bad the CFMEU is as a union. In the Heydon royal<br />
commission—do not take my word for it—the royal commissioner, Justice Heydon, said:<br />
The conduct that has emerged discloses systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments, physical and<br />
verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse <strong>of</strong> right <strong>of</strong> entry permits, secondary boycotts, breaches <strong>of</strong> fiduciary duty and<br />
contempt <strong>of</strong> court.<br />
That is what Justice Heydon said about the CFMEU. Yet again we have the Labor Party in here today dancing to<br />
the tune <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU and trying to abolish the Building Code under the ABCC. We will not let them do so. We<br />
will call on that debate this morning from the suspension <strong>of</strong> standing orders. We will defeat that disallowance<br />
motion, and the Building Code and the ABCC can get on with their excellent work <strong>of</strong> restoring the rule <strong>of</strong> law,<br />
increasing productivity in the construction industry, saving consumers money, saving young house buyers money<br />
that they would otherwise have to pay because <strong>of</strong> the inflated prices, one <strong>of</strong> the reasons for which, <strong>of</strong> course, is the<br />
way industrial relations have been run in this country because <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU over far too long. We will stand in<br />
the way <strong>of</strong> the CFMEU and we will stand in the way <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party in their attempts to support the CFMEU.<br />
We will stand up for the workers. We will stand up for house buyers and consumers and for productivity in this<br />
country.<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (09:39): Thank heaven the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong><br />
used the time there as a limit rather than a target and did not try to go for any longer than he did. What we have in<br />
front <strong>of</strong> us is not the motion for the purposes that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> said, as though he is bravely bringing<br />
on a disallowance motion. If he does not move to bring it on, it takes effect anyway. That is how standing orders<br />
work. If he had not come in here to bravely bring it on and force the debate, it would have been carried. That is<br />
what would have happened. So for all the nonsense that we just heard from the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, what we<br />
have in front <strong>of</strong> us is a very routine procedure that needs to occur every time someone moves a disallowance<br />
motion. The motivation for the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> there, as though this is some brave act by the Liberal Party<br />
and the government—it is not. It is procedurally required unless they want the disallowance motion from the<br />
member for Gorton to take effect automatically.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the quotations we heard: if they want to come up with a union <strong>of</strong>ficial to get stuck into the Labor<br />
Party, as though there is some revelation in this person's words, do not pick someone we expelled from the Labor<br />
Party. The words from Dean Mighell are not exactly going to be given on behalf <strong>of</strong> the party that he was expelled<br />
from. It is just extraordinary.<br />
If the government is serious that they want to bravely bring on for debate issues where the Labor Party and the<br />
union movement are closely aligned, then once we have dealt with the disallowance I would urge the Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>House</strong> to bring on the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's penalty rates bill. If they actually have a view that they are<br />
willing to take on any debate that is happening in the community, then straight after this one bring the penalty<br />
rates bill on for debate, because that is one that does not take effect automatically if it is not brought on. If there is<br />
any <strong>of</strong> the courage <strong>of</strong> the convictions that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> just claimed to have, then immediately after<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3<br />
this debate there is a piece <strong>of</strong> legislation on the books that should be brought on for debate and vote. But he wants<br />
to shield his backbench from having to formally vote in favour <strong>of</strong> the pay cut for 700,000 workers across<br />
Australia. If the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> believes any <strong>of</strong> the words he articulated a moment ago, that will be the next<br />
item <strong>of</strong> business.<br />
Mr Pyne: Is that it?<br />
Mr BURKE: We agree with the motion! There is a limit to how angry we can be on a motion that we are<br />
supportive <strong>of</strong>.<br />
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:42): I want to support the<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> on this motion, because this is another demonstration <strong>of</strong> the way in which the modern Labor<br />
Party has been completely captured by the union movement. There is no worse union in this country than the<br />
CFMEU. The Australian public understand this. I was reminded <strong>of</strong> that in a book that I read recently—a couple <strong>of</strong><br />
years ago now. The book was called I heard you paint houses. Essentially, it was a detailed how-to guide, which<br />
the CFMEU is now referring to as some sort <strong>of</strong> reference document. It detailed the activities <strong>of</strong> the Teamsters in<br />
the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.<br />
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—<br />
Mr DUTTON: We can come to Jimmy H<strong>of</strong>fa. There are many people within the CFMEU that fit that Jimmy<br />
H<strong>of</strong>fa bill. This is the reality. Somehow the modern Labor Party, under this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, have<br />
allowed themselves to be compromised to the point where they are allowing the modern-day Teamsters to pull the<br />
strings on a daily basis. This is unacceptable.<br />
I feel for the member for Indi, because in her electorate yesterday there was a robocall scare campaign which<br />
the CFMEU masters during the last election—during periods in government and opposition the CFMEU has<br />
mastered the intimidation and scare campaign. It shows, as the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> points out, that the two<br />
organisations, the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU, have once again acted in close concert, in this case to<br />
intimidate, or to attempt to intimidate, the member for Indi. I know the member for Indi, and I know that she is not<br />
going to be intimidated by this process. The same tactics have been demonstrated in South Australia, where the<br />
union movement has attempted to vilify Senator Xenophon. Senator Xenophon has not fallen for these tactics<br />
either, and the message to the Australian public is that they should not fall for the Labor Party's and union's<br />
tactics, because, as we know, the CFMEU fully owns and operates this Labor Party and in particular this Leader<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Opposition.<br />
The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, as he demonstrated, during his time as a union leader presided over deal after<br />
deal after deal. In some cases hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars was paid by the employer or the employer group to<br />
the union, to the AWU. Lo and behold, the union agreement—the EBA—is struck shortly thereafter, which takes<br />
penalty rates away from those workers, and the workers do not even know about the special payment that was<br />
made during the period <strong>of</strong> negotiation from the employer to the AWU. Now, this was not just a one-<strong>of</strong>f occasion.<br />
This was a course <strong>of</strong> conduct presided over by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition in his capacity as secretary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
AWU.<br />
If you want to have a look at the activities that are going on within the union movement otherwise, we know<br />
that within the CFMEU, across the union movement otherwise, as was detailed in the royal commission presided<br />
over by Justice Heydon, dozens and dozens <strong>of</strong> union leaders across the country have been charged with criminal<br />
<strong>of</strong>fences. They are defended on a daily basis by the Labor Party, and it is outrageous. But you have to again ask<br />
yourself the question: why would this be so? Why would this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition allow himself to be held to<br />
ransom by these union leaders? Well, when you look around, it is impossible—and this is why there should be a<br />
suspension <strong>of</strong> standing orders—<br />
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business on a point <strong>of</strong> order?<br />
Mr Dutton: Surely not on relevance?<br />
Mr Burke: On the point <strong>of</strong> order, given that we are dealing with a—<br />
The SPEAKER: I would like to know what the point <strong>of</strong> order is, actually.<br />
Mr Burke: It is on being relevant to the motion before the chair. The moment I rose, the first words that were<br />
relevant to the motion were said. And I would simply encourage the <strong>House</strong>: we are about to have a debate, and<br />
everybody agrees that we should have the debate. Everybody is in support <strong>of</strong> the motion before the chair right<br />
now, and the minister will be able to deliver that exact speech in a few moments time. He can start from the<br />
beginning again if he feels he needs to. But in terms <strong>of</strong> relevance to what is in front <strong>of</strong> us right now, none <strong>of</strong> the<br />
speech, other than the final four words when I stood up, have been relevant.<br />
CHAMBER
4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business. Just before I call the minister: the Manager <strong>of</strong><br />
Opposition Business makes a very fair technical point, but if he would like me to adopt his suggestion to the<br />
conduct <strong>of</strong> all suspension motions—<br />
Mr Burke: Just ones on notice.<br />
The SPEAKER: I would just make the point that, whether it is on notice or not, members speaking are<br />
supposed to confine themselves to the reason that standing orders should be suspended. And there are lots <strong>of</strong><br />
examples where these are moved where both speakers do go a bit broader, and that has been the practice, and it<br />
has certainly been the practice over the last couple <strong>of</strong> years. But I will say to the minister to confine himself, in the<br />
final minutes <strong>of</strong> his contribution, to why standing orders should be suspended.<br />
Mr DUTTON: I think, if I might say so myself, it has been a compelling case for suspension <strong>of</strong> standing<br />
orders, and it is obvious I think to all within the chamber that we must deal with this matter. We must deal with<br />
this matter because it is an issue <strong>of</strong> urgency—the fact that the Labor Party has been captured wholly and solely by<br />
the union movement. I mean, we must deal with this in this chamber, and we must support the motion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. We must.<br />
The reality is that the Labor Party do not like this exposure. That is their problem. The problem is that they do<br />
not like a spotlight being shone on the way this relationship has developed to an unhealthy position. And the<br />
reality is that the CFMEU—all <strong>of</strong> these union engagements are not in the best interests <strong>of</strong> this nation. They are<br />
not, on any test, in the best interests <strong>of</strong> this nation. The Labor Party wants to talk about penalty rates. Let's talk<br />
about penalty rates. Let's talk about these issues—where the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition was involved in ripping <strong>of</strong>f<br />
hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> workers. That is the reality. That is his history. That is something he needs to stand up<br />
and defend. The reality is that hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars were paid to the union movement, who have been<br />
involved in criminal activities.<br />
When you look at these people around here sitting on these benches within the Australian Labor Party at the<br />
moment, there are no teachers, there are no butchers, there are no people from backgrounds—<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
Ms Ryan: There's a teacher over here!<br />
Mr DUTTON: These are all union leaders. You cannot become a member <strong>of</strong> parliament in the modern Labor<br />
Party unless you have been a secretary or you have occupied a high <strong>of</strong>fice within the union movement. They will<br />
all protest; <strong>of</strong> course they will, because they do not want this racket exposed.<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!<br />
Mr DUTTON: But the fact is that they are dealing with the modern-day Teamsters. This is why there should<br />
be a suspension <strong>of</strong> standing orders. This is why we need to deal with this issue—because it needs to be dealt with.<br />
And we need to expose this hypocrisy to the Australian public, and we will, because this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition<br />
has done or has sanctioned deals that have been done by unions—for example, with fast food outlets. Those young<br />
workers, working on a Sunday, have been paid less under the union agreement than what the 18-year-old at the<br />
mum-and-dad fish and chip shop in the adjoining tenancy is being paid. That is the reality. That is the hypocrisy<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Australian Labor Party. They do not want people to hear this story, but the reality is that that is exactly what<br />
is happening.<br />
Why would they do that? In the case <strong>of</strong> the brother and sister who are going <strong>of</strong>f to the local shopping centre to<br />
work, with the brother going into McDonald's for a much lesser rate on a Sunday than his sister going into the fish<br />
and chip shop owned by the mum and dad, why would Labor have sanctioned a deal where the McDonald's<br />
worker is paid less than the fish and chip shop worker?<br />
Government members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: I will just ask the minister to resume his seat for a second. Members on both sides can cease<br />
interjecting. Whilst I allowed the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business to be very broad—he brought up the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
penalty rates, but he did so in the context <strong>of</strong> whether a motion should be brought on or not—I do say to the<br />
minister that, as much as I do give latitude, he is moving now way beyond why standing orders should be<br />
suspended for the purpose that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> has put.<br />
Mr Pyne interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> does not need to speak to me; he might want to speak to the<br />
minister. But in the last few seconds, I just ask the minister to confine himself.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5<br />
Mr DUTTON: This protection racket that is run by the union movement and the Labor Party does need to be<br />
dealt with in this <strong>House</strong>. It will be dealt with, and we intend to expose the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> this Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition who is wholly owned by the union movement <strong>of</strong> this country.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS<br />
Code for the Tendering and Performance <strong>of</strong> Building Work 2016<br />
Motion for Disallowance<br />
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (09:52): I move:<br />
That sections 11(3)(a) and (c) <strong>of</strong> the Code for the Tendering and Performance <strong>of</strong> Building Work 2016, made under section<br />
34 <strong>of</strong> the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 on 2 December 2016 and presented to the<br />
<strong>House</strong> on 7 February 2017, be disallowed.<br />
After 20 minutes <strong>of</strong> us furiously agreeing to bring this matter on, the reason I tabled this motion in this place was<br />
to ensure that we can constrain some <strong>of</strong> the worst aspects <strong>of</strong> the building code that was supported by the<br />
government. It is clear that Labor did not support the bill that was enacted by the parliament and we did not<br />
support it for good reason. We had concerns about civil rights; we had concerns about safety issues; we did not<br />
agree with the proposition that productivity would improve—in fact, we think it will decline as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
reinstitution <strong>of</strong> the ABCC; and we had problems with the bill.<br />
But this is not about the bill. Whether I like it or not, the fact is that the parliament enacted that bill and, whilst<br />
we stand by our position, this motion is about dealing with the code. The secondary arguments we made were just<br />
as important ins<strong>of</strong>ar as the effects <strong>of</strong> this code. The problem with this code is that it sets up a set <strong>of</strong> laws for<br />
employers and workers in the building industry that does not exist in any other industry. In fact, it goes broader<br />
than the building industry because the reach <strong>of</strong> the code and the reach <strong>of</strong> the bill have gone beyond the building<br />
industry itself. What that really means is that the code, as it stands, denies employers to put in agreements ratios <strong>of</strong><br />
apprentices to workers. This is the only industry in which that is denied.<br />
This code denies the right to limit or constrain in any way temporary work visas for work in workplaces in the<br />
building industry. It is the only industry that is not in a position to negotiate enterprise agreements with provisions<br />
that regulate the workplace in such a way as to, for example, limit the use <strong>of</strong> 457 visas or limit the use <strong>of</strong> holidaymaker<br />
visas and student visas—which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the building industry at the expense<br />
<strong>of</strong> unemployed tradespeople and labourers who live in this country and need work.<br />
There are other concerns we have with the code, but we have chosen to focus on these two matters. We believe<br />
that two sections <strong>of</strong> the code which are particularly egregious because they undermine Australian apprenticeships<br />
and Australian jobs. They are sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3) (c), as I indicated. Section 11(3)(a) prohibits enterprise<br />
agreements from having clauses to prescribe the number <strong>of</strong> employees or subcontractors that may be employed or<br />
engaged on a particular site, in a particular work area or at a particular time. Section11(3)(c) precisely prohibits<br />
enterprise agreements from having clauses that require or result in discrimination between classes <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the basis on which they are lawfully entitled to work in Australia.<br />
Labor warned that passing the ABCC legislation and the code would prevent enterprise agreements from<br />
containing clauses which mandate a ratio <strong>of</strong> apprentices to tradespeople and which require consultation on the use<br />
<strong>of</strong> temporary overseas workers. If only members <strong>of</strong> parliament who like to talk big about protecting Australian<br />
jobs in their electorates voted to protect Australian jobs in the parliament. I call upon government members to<br />
consider this: the bill will not be changed, and that is a shame, but that is not what is before us. The code itself can<br />
be limited to ensure that employers, unions and workers are able to have provisions in place so that we put<br />
workers in this country first—we put Australian workers first. We have very high numbers <strong>of</strong> unemployed<br />
Australians in the building industry who cannot find consistent work or enough work and in some cases they<br />
cannot find any work.<br />
Government members have an opportunity in supporting this motion for disallowance to limit the effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
code so that, if an employer chooses to say that he wants to limit the use <strong>of</strong> 457 visas, he can do so by having an<br />
enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission. If unions on behalf <strong>of</strong> workers want to negotiate<br />
with employers to do just that, they can do so. It is quite extraordinary that the government has set up a code that<br />
does not allow for the ratio <strong>of</strong> apprentices to be set inside an enterprise agreement and yet in every other industry<br />
it can happen.<br />
Labor's warnings have proven to be well founded. The ABCC has issued a list <strong>of</strong> clauses from enterprise<br />
agreements that have been submitted for assessment to the ABCC. An advice about whether the clauses meet the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> section 11 <strong>of</strong> the building code 2016 or whether they are non-compliant. The following clause in<br />
CHAMBER
6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
the existing agreement has been deemed by the ABCC to be non-compliant with section 11(3)(a). This is a<br />
provision that, up until the code took effect, was allowable at workplaces in the building industry across Australia,<br />
and it says:<br />
Apprentices are the future <strong>of</strong> our industry, and the parties reaffirm our commitment to the training <strong>of</strong> apprentices. Further,<br />
they shall make every endeavour to make full-time apprenticeships available with the company. The employer will employ at<br />
least one apprentice for every eight tradespeople employed.<br />
This was a provision <strong>of</strong> an existing agreement that was entered into in good faith between employers, their<br />
workers and the unions, and that will no longer be allowed as a result <strong>of</strong> this code. In fact, that is no longer<br />
allowed as a result <strong>of</strong> this code. But, if we support the motion before us, we can ensure that that type <strong>of</strong> revision,<br />
either in the existing or a future agreement, can be enforceable and can be agreed to by employers, workers and<br />
unions.<br />
The following clause in an existing agreement has been deemed by the ABCC to be non-compliant with section<br />
11(3)(c):<br />
2.1 The Employer endorses the following principles:<br />
2.2 Temporary foreign workers are intended to supplement the Australian workforce, and will only be recruited and employed<br />
where there are insufficient Australian workers available to do the work, including through training.<br />
2.3 Workers who are Australian residents will have preference in … training opportunities relative to temporary foreign<br />
workers, to the maximum extent permitted by law.<br />
2.4 While it may be agreed that recruitment <strong>of</strong> temporary foreign labour is necessary—<br />
from time to time—<br />
the intention is that reliance on temporary foreign labour will be reduced over time during the life <strong>of</strong> the Agreement.<br />
That clause was allowable until this code took effect. The clause was regulating the workplace and really allowing<br />
the employer to say, 'We want to put Australian workers first in order to ensure that the growing number <strong>of</strong><br />
unemployed building workers in this country get the first opportunity; we do not want a situation where the first<br />
port <strong>of</strong> call for an employer is to employ people on temporary work visas'—not only those on 457s where there is<br />
at least some limitation because <strong>of</strong> labour market testing, and I might add that that is a test that the now<br />
government and then opposition totally opposed, but also regulating what are at least 500,000 temporary work<br />
visas that are covered under two visa categories: the holiday-maker visa and the student visa. The 500,000<br />
workers in this country on temporary work visas are here for legitimate purposes in many respects, but the idea<br />
that those visa holders will get opportunities before unemployed Australian workers is unfair. That is why the<br />
employers in this industry, as in other industries, have reached agreement with their workforce to say, 'We value<br />
your work, we are concerned about unemployed residents in this country and we're going to give you preference.'<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the code the preference is no longer happening, but if you support this motion that will allow<br />
employers to negotiate ratios <strong>of</strong> apprentices, like they do in every other industry, you will enable the regulation <strong>of</strong><br />
the use <strong>of</strong> temporary workers to ensure that workplaces can look to local employment—look local first—before<br />
having to look overseas.<br />
It is important to remember that all <strong>of</strong> those companies who negotiated with unions and their workforce in good<br />
faith and entered into legal enterprise agreements over the last three years acted prudently and reasonably. It<br />
would be wrong if companies who have enterprise agreements with clauses like the two the ABCC have ruled to<br />
be non-compliant—clauses which are about supporting Australian jobs—are banned from undertaking<br />
Commonwealth construction work.<br />
The government has sought to say they have concerns about the use <strong>of</strong> temporary work visas in this country. In<br />
fact, during question time and on other occasions the minister now at the table, the Minister for Immigration and<br />
Border Protection, has said he has concerns. He can reflect the sincerity <strong>of</strong> those concerns by voting on this matter<br />
and supporting Labor. If he genuinely has concerns—indeed, if the government has genuine concerns—about the<br />
way in which we give preference to local workers before having to use overseas workers then he would support<br />
this proposition. In fact, to vote down this amendment to the code will mean that you do not support the right <strong>of</strong><br />
not only unions and workers but also employers wanting to regulate their workplace to give preference to<br />
Australian workers. If you vote down this restriction on the code, it is signalling to not only the 750,000<br />
unemployed Australians across all industries but also the 1.1 million underemployed Australians is that you are<br />
not concerned for them and you do not want employers in industries to be able to sit down with their workforce<br />
and restrict the use <strong>of</strong> temporary workers in this country by negotiation.<br />
This is an untenable position. You cannot on one hand say that you have concern about the use <strong>of</strong> temporary<br />
workers in this country and yet vote against Labor's proposition today. You cannot argue you have concern for the<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> apprentices and the lack <strong>of</strong> opportunity for young people to get a trade in this country when we have seen a<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7<br />
cut <strong>of</strong> 133,000 apprentices since this government was elected. You cannot say that you are concerned about the<br />
difficulties young people are having in acquiring the skills that they need in the fastest changing labour market in<br />
human history if you are not going to support the right <strong>of</strong> employers in this industry, or for that matter any<br />
industry, to sit down with their workforce and say: 'We're happy to give a ratio <strong>of</strong> apprentices to trades people. We<br />
want to do that.' It is not outlawing the ability just for unions to negotiate this—it is not even allowing employers<br />
to do it.<br />
Say, for example, an employer chose to have an agreement without unions. That is not my preferred option, but<br />
an employer is not even allowed to enshrine their position in a registered instrument to say they want the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> apprentices to be set as a ratio to tradespeople. Clearly that is not acceptable—the government's absolute<br />
enmity towards unions has blinded their commonsense. In their attempt to destroy the capacity <strong>of</strong> unions to<br />
bargain they have thrown under the bus apprentices and permanent workers who deserve to get opportunities<br />
before temporary workers in this country. That is what has happened.<br />
We are not trying to have a further debate or go back to a debate on the issues that go to the bill. Even though<br />
we have strong reservations about the bill, we have lost that battle, at least at this point, but we still hold the same<br />
position. What we have instead chosen to do today is, rather than have the whole debate about that matter, confine<br />
this debate to two issues: the opportunity for young people to get apprenticeships in the building industry and the<br />
need for there to be an opportunity for all workers in this country before temporary work visas are used and for<br />
employers in this industry to be allowed to regulate that.<br />
I think that is reasonable. I find it very difficult to understand, given the rhetoric <strong>of</strong> the government—in<br />
particular, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—why the government cannot support this<br />
proposition. They like to talk about conspiracy theories to do with unions and the like—but, in the end, this comes<br />
down to whether you support apprentices and whether you support permanent workers in this country.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell): Is the motion for disallowance seconded?<br />
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:07): I second the motion. This is a chance for the government to acknowledge<br />
they have made a mistake with the code. This disallowance motion will help the government live up to their<br />
rhetoric <strong>of</strong> supporting Australian jobs and supporting the growth <strong>of</strong> good, secure, well-paying jobs in this country.<br />
Labor stood firmly against the Liberal government's anti-worker ABCC legislation and the accompanying<br />
Building Code. This particular focus <strong>of</strong> the government and these new rules that they have brought in—or old<br />
rules that they have brought back—are part <strong>of</strong> a draconian regime that says that any company that wishes to<br />
express interest in tendering for Commonwealth building work must comply with the Building Code. It should<br />
also be noted that this will apply in August, so we are talking a couple <strong>of</strong> months away.<br />
Two sections <strong>of</strong> the code go after and attack Australian jobs. They undermine Australian apprentices; they<br />
undermine Australian jobs. These are sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(c). They are the two parts that we seek in this<br />
place to disallow today. Section 11(3)(a) prohibits enterprise agreements from having clauses which:<br />
(a) prescribe the number <strong>of</strong> employees or subcontractors that may be employed or engaged on a particular site, in a<br />
particular work area, or at a particular time …<br />
So this is what is happening right now. This is a clause under which employees and employers sit down and agree<br />
how many subcontractors may or may not work on a site. This government wants to stop that conversation from<br />
happening. It wants to stop that from being in an agreement.<br />
Section 11(3)(c) prohibits an agreement having ratios or clauses around apprenticeships and clauses about<br />
employees based upon when they are lawfully entitled to work in Australia. So, where we have agreements that<br />
talk about apprenticeships, limiting the use <strong>of</strong> 457 visas or limiting the use <strong>of</strong> subcontractors and therefore<br />
prioritising local Australians being directly employed for these jobs, this government now says, 'If that is in an<br />
agreement, that company can now not tender for federal government work.'<br />
This particular part <strong>of</strong> the code, like the whole code, must apply by August—meaning, as we have seen in<br />
media reports, about 3,000 agreements need to be renegotiated by August if those companies want to tender for<br />
Commonwealth work. There are not enough days left to be able to do that and for the Fair Work Commission to<br />
be able to consider them. Even if the employees and employers could reach an agreement, there are not enough<br />
days between now and August for the Fair Work Commission to consider all <strong>of</strong> those agreements—3,000 <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
So the government have brought forward this code knowing full well it is impractical and impossible for that to<br />
occur.<br />
Let's just talk about why. Why is it that the government are so fixated on these particular parts <strong>of</strong> the code?<br />
Why will they not stand with Labor? As the previous member has said, they are blinded by their pure hatred <strong>of</strong><br />
unions. In their pure hatred <strong>of</strong> unions, they will actually damage things and will slow things down. They will<br />
create chaos in the construction industry.<br />
CHAMBER
8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
We heard during the suspension motion the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection say that there are<br />
currently dozens <strong>of</strong> union <strong>of</strong>ficials that are facing charges for criminal <strong>of</strong>fences. That is wrong. In this country if<br />
you enter a workplace as a union <strong>of</strong>ficial and you have not given notification it is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence. If two<br />
union <strong>of</strong>ficials have a cup <strong>of</strong> tea, it is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence. Equally, it is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence if an employer<br />
knowingly breaches occupational health and safety and it leads to a death in a workplace. In this country,<br />
industrial manslaughter is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence. If there are employers in this country who knowingly ignore<br />
health and safety laws and that leads to the death <strong>of</strong> a worker, that is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence. So let's be very<br />
careful with the language that we use in this place.<br />
It is not a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence in this country for a union <strong>of</strong>ficial to enter a workplace. If you want to talk about<br />
scare campaigns, the government like to pretend this. They beat up on the unions. They beat up on the workers in<br />
the construction industry. Now they are beating up on the employers in that industry who have sat down and<br />
bargained in good faith an agreement that talks about Australian jobs. You would think that the government would<br />
welcome this. We are trying to correct a mistake that they have made. If they wanted to be true to their rhetoric<br />
and to stand up for Australian jobs, they would support this disallowance motion.<br />
We do have a problem with temporary work visas in the construction industry. We do have a problem with<br />
international students and backpackers working in the construction industry. There has been a misuse <strong>of</strong> 457 visas<br />
in the construction industry. This government's own report by the Fair Work Ombudsman has told us that and<br />
exposed that one in five people here working on a 457 visa have been found to be underpaid or not employed in<br />
the job they were engaged for in the first place. This was under this government's watch. You would think that<br />
they would join with Labor and disallow these things that are in the code that will make it harder for workers and<br />
employers to restrict the use <strong>of</strong> labour hire <strong>of</strong> temporary workers here in this country, including backpackers in the<br />
construction industry. When you talk to a labourer or a construction worker, they are baffled by how we let<br />
backpackers work in the construction industry. How can they have the skills and the Australian standards to work<br />
in the construction industry? We know the tragic consequences <strong>of</strong> it. In Perth last year, there was the tragic death<br />
<strong>of</strong> a woman who fell. She was here as a backpacker. She fell down a lift shaft and was killed. In the very same<br />
city, Perth, a year before we also lost two Irish backpackers. They were supposed to be on the trip <strong>of</strong> a lifetime in<br />
this country. They were working on a construction site and were killed. It is not fair that we allow them to work in<br />
these workplaces. That is why we have seen employers and employees sit down with the union and negotiate<br />
agreements to say, 'We take responsibility for who works in our workplaces. We will ensure that it is locals for<br />
local jobs first.'<br />
Why would a government not want to support Australian kids getting apprenticeships? It is as simple as that.<br />
Why would a government disallow apprenticeship ratios in collective agreements for employers and employees<br />
that are saying, 'We take responsibility for the next generation <strong>of</strong> tradespeople and we will mandate ratios for how<br />
many young people we will have on a site'? They are employers that are saying, 'We acknowledge there is an<br />
extra cost to investing in the next generation, but we will do it.' They are companies that will stand with the<br />
CFMEU and the workers and say, 'Together, we will invest in the next generation.' Why would a government<br />
want to stop that? When we have a youth unemployment crisis in this country and a loss <strong>of</strong> apprentices because<br />
we are seeing a downturn in the manufacturing industry, why would a government not support Australian kids<br />
getting apprenticeships in our construction industry? This government is so out <strong>of</strong> touch with what is happening in<br />
Australian workplaces and the construction industry. It should support Labor's proposal to disallow these parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the code so we can put Australian jobs and Australians first, and so we can put our young people first to make<br />
sure that they get apprenticeships so that they, too, can have careers in construction. We should put unemployed<br />
local tradespeople first so that they can get work, because we have a downturn in our economy.<br />
We should encourage, support and champion businesses that sit down with unions and negotiate these kinds <strong>of</strong><br />
clauses in their agreements. They are showing the leadership that this government is failing to show. Instead <strong>of</strong><br />
championing that, this government says, 'We want to make it illegal for you to do that.' It is putting a handbrake<br />
on our ability to employ locals and our ability to train the next generation. This government needs to support this<br />
if it is genuine about construction jobs. It also needs to support this to save itself.<br />
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:18): The member for Gorton has moved to disallow the Code for the Tendering<br />
and Performance <strong>of</strong> Building Work 2016. The member for Gorton's private member's business motion is yet<br />
another example <strong>of</strong> Labor's rank hypocrisy and its outright subservience to the CFMEU. It is absolutely<br />
undeniable that the Labor Party and, in fact, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, are owned lock, stock and barrel by the<br />
CFMEU. My sources in the building and construction industry inform me that the CFMEU are white-hot angry<br />
with the opposition leader and the Labor Party for their failure to stop the reintroduction <strong>of</strong> the ABCC and the<br />
building code, because they know that the implementation <strong>of</strong> these measures has resulted in a severe disruption <strong>of</strong><br />
their illegal and corrupt conduct.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9<br />
I am one <strong>of</strong> the few people in this place who understands the building and construction industry. I have worked<br />
in the industry as a carpenter, a builder, a mediator, an adjudicator and a barrister in construction law. I have given<br />
30 years <strong>of</strong> my working life to the industry. It has been good to me and my family, as it has been good to many<br />
families around this country. But I have seen firsthand the best and the worst that the industry can bring. I have<br />
personally been subjected to threats and intimidation by the loyal thugs <strong>of</strong> the then Builders Labourers Federation.<br />
The Builders Labourers Federation was the precursor to the CFMEU. That group <strong>of</strong> lawless individuals was so<br />
bad that Prime Minister Hawke deregistered it. The CFMEU entered into the equation, and they have not changed<br />
their tune—not one iota.<br />
On the other side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, who has actually worked in the building industry? I do not mean working as a<br />
shop steward, union delegate or organiser. On the other side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, who has swung a hammer, dug trenches<br />
or built things in the building industry? I would suggest that not one person has worked on the tools. Those<br />
opposite do not care about the workers—the mums and dads—who struggle every day to make a living in the<br />
nation's third-largest employment sector. Those opposite are interested in trying to appease their union masters<br />
that have donated $10 million in recent years to the ALP election c<strong>of</strong>fers.<br />
To all the mums and dads out there working on every building site, I am talking to you right now. Believe it or<br />
not, there are mums and dads out there listening right now.<br />
An honourable member: They are turning it <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
Mr WALLACE: No, they are not turning it <strong>of</strong>f; they are listening, and I am talking to them right now. I am<br />
suggesting to you that the CFMEU has no interest whatsoever in your welfare or your work conditions. All they<br />
want is your union membership. All they want is your money and the power that enables them to wield over their<br />
political arm, the Australian Labor Party.<br />
The member for Calwell's private member's business motion, which seeks to disallow the building code, should<br />
be seen for what it is—a clumsy attempt made by both the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition and the member for Gorton to<br />
try and re-enliven the protection racket that has been waged by the CFMEU, underwritten and supported by the<br />
Labor Party federally and throughout the country, particularly in my home state <strong>of</strong> Queensland. You see, the<br />
Labor Party have to be seen to be trying to prevent the reintroduction <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> law on Australian building<br />
sites, but we on this side <strong>of</strong> <strong>House</strong> will not stand for that. We will fight tooth and nail against any suggestion<br />
whatsoever to try and reintroduce the lawlessness that has sat in the industry since the ABCC was last abolished.<br />
I want to take this opportunity to give the <strong>House</strong> a little bit <strong>of</strong> a history lesson here. The ABCC was established<br />
by Prime Minister Howard in 2005 but, unfortunately, it was abolished by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition in 2012 at<br />
the behest—no, at the demand—<strong>of</strong> the CFMEU. During the seven years in which the ABCC operated,<br />
productivity in the construction industry increased by 20 per cent. Since its abolition, it has flat lined. Since the<br />
ABCC was abolished, the rate <strong>of</strong> disputes in the sector increased by 43 per cent, even while in other industries the<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> industrial disputes declined by 32 per cent. Prior to the ABCC, industrial disputes in the construction<br />
industry were at five times the all-industry average, but the other side say: 'Nothing to see here. It has got nothing<br />
to do with the ABCC.' During the ABCC's operation, disputes fell to double the average. Since its abolition in<br />
2012, disputes have again risen to around five times the average. The building code works in tandem with the<br />
restored ABCC to fix a major problem in our third-largest industry, the building industry.<br />
The CFMEU is notorious for bullying, intimidation and lawlessness in the industry. What some people do not<br />
understand—clearly those opposite do not understand—is that the high rate <strong>of</strong> industrial disputation adds cost to<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> public infrastructure and private infrastructure. The building <strong>of</strong> schools, bridges, roads, hospitals all<br />
significantly increased. There is some talk about these increases being 30 per cent, but I believe, and my own<br />
evidence has shown me, that that figure is a gross underestimate. My figures demonstrate that the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
lawlessness in the building and construction industry adds costs somewhere between 60 per cent and 100 per cent,<br />
particularly <strong>of</strong> public infrastructure.<br />
I can see some there shaking their heads on the other side. They do not want to believe it. Open your eyes, do<br />
some investigations yourselves and see what the CFMEU are doing to this country; they are destroying this<br />
country because the increased costs—<br />
Mr Hammond: We are not all Satan.<br />
Mr WALLACE: You are absolutely right; you are not, and that is a very good point. There are very good<br />
people in the union movement, and Australia needs a union movement. We on this side do not hate unions. What<br />
we hate is union thuggery and union lawlessness. That is what we hate and that is what we will stand up against.<br />
We on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> recognise that unions play an important part in this country and we will stand up for<br />
them. But we cannot stand and we will not stand for union lawlessness.<br />
CHAMBER
10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Our building code means that if you want to tender for Commonwealth funded work, small businesses must<br />
now get a fair go. Those opposite talk about section 11A <strong>of</strong> the building code but those opposite clearly have not<br />
read the note that immediately precedes section 11A. For those interested, which should be the other side, section<br />
11(3)(A) says:<br />
Note: this does not prevent the inclusion <strong>of</strong> clauses in an enterprise agreement that encourage the employment <strong>of</strong><br />
apprentices.<br />
You left that <strong>of</strong>f, didn't you? It is ridiculous. Section 457 visas— (Time expired)<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (10:28): I move:<br />
That the motion be put.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
The SPEAKER (10:32): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [10:32]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<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 />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Katter, RC<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 />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
Ayes ...................... 68<br />
Noes ...................... 74<br />
Majority ................. 6<br />
AYES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Clare, JD<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 />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<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 />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK (teller)<br />
Entsch, WG<br />
NOES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Bishop, JI<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<br />
Coleman, DB<br />
Crewther, CJ<br />
Dutton, PC<br />
Evans, TM<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11<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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
Question negatived.<br />
BILLS<br />
Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (10:39): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 contains a range <strong>of</strong><br />
measures to reduce red tape applying to the broadcasting and telecommunications sector whilst continuing to<br />
maintain important consumer safeguards.<br />
The bill also simplifies regulations by removing redundant or otherwise unnecessary provisions.<br />
I now turn to provide more detail on the amendments in the bill.<br />
Industry based numbering management<br />
The first set <strong>of</strong> amendments concerns industry based numbering management. The Telecommunications Act<br />
1997 currently requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, to make a plan for the<br />
numbering <strong>of</strong> carriage services in Australia and the use <strong>of</strong> numbers in connection with the supply <strong>of</strong> services to<br />
the public. The numbering plan must specify the numbers for use and may set out rules for the allocation <strong>of</strong><br />
numbers to carriage service providers, the transfer <strong>of</strong> numbers between carriage service providers, and the<br />
surrender <strong>of</strong> numbers by carriage service providers.<br />
This bill will amend the Telecommunications Act to enable the minister to appoint a 'numbering scheme<br />
manager' to manage numbering resources on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth under a self-managed industry scheme.<br />
An industry managed numbering scheme has the potential to deliver faster implementation <strong>of</strong> new numbering<br />
ranges, lower charges and more efficient allocation processes. The scheme will need to achieve key principles<br />
specified in the legislation, including an adequate and appropriate supply <strong>of</strong> numbers, protection <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong><br />
consumers, the promotion <strong>of</strong> effective competition, support for the emergency call service and the ongoing<br />
CHAMBER
12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> numbering charges. Any industry scheme would only commence if and when the minister was<br />
satisfied that the scheme met these and other relevant principles and would be fully funded by industry.<br />
As an important safeguard, the appointment <strong>of</strong> the numbering scheme manager could be revoked by the<br />
minister if the numbering scheme manager was not managing the numbering scheme in accordance with the<br />
principles, or if the minister was satisfied that the revocation was in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the telecommunications<br />
industry, users <strong>of</strong> telecommunications services, the general community or national security.<br />
As ACMA will continue to remain responsible for the collection <strong>of</strong> numbering charges, the bill will include a<br />
provision requiring a numbering scheme manager to provide information requested by ACMA in relation to<br />
calculating and collecting numbering charges. This would be at no cost to ACMA.<br />
Licensee reporting and notification arrangements<br />
The bill also contains provisions in relation to licensee reporting and notification arrangements. The bill will<br />
streamline account keeping and licence fee administration arrangements under the Broadcasting Services Act<br />
1992 for commercial broadcasters and datacasters.<br />
First, the bill will remove the requirement that licensees audit certain financial information that they are<br />
required to provide to ACMA. Instead, the bill will enable the ACMA to request the audit <strong>of</strong> financial documents<br />
on a case-by-case basis, as it considers necessary.<br />
The bill also widens the classes <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficeholders who can make a statutory declaration about the gross earnings<br />
<strong>of</strong> certain commercial broadcasting and datacasting licensees. The eligible classes will be extended from the CEO<br />
or company secretary to include directors, as well as people authorised by the CEO or company secretary that<br />
have knowledge <strong>of</strong> the financial affairs <strong>of</strong> the licensee company.<br />
The bill will also allow ACMA to waive small licence fee underpayments where, in ACMA's opinion, it would<br />
not be efficient to recover the amount unpaid.<br />
The bill will also remove the obligation on incoming controllers <strong>of</strong> regulated media assets to notify ACMA <strong>of</strong><br />
changes in the control <strong>of</strong> a licence or publication. This is because the Broadcasting Services Act already requires<br />
licensees, publishers and controllers <strong>of</strong> regulated media assets to notify ACMA <strong>of</strong> such changes.<br />
Single classification scheme for television programs<br />
The bill also deals with a single classification scheme for television programs. It will repeal the present<br />
requirement under the Broadcasting Services Act for licensees to use the film classification scheme in the<br />
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 when broadcasting films. This will enable<br />
licensees to use the code based television classification guidelines that apply to other television programs. This<br />
change will deliver a single classification scheme for all television programs, including films. ACMA handling<br />
<strong>of</strong> broadcasting complaints<br />
The bill also deals with ACMA's handling <strong>of</strong> broadcasting complaints. It will repeal part 11 <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting<br />
Services Act, which sets out a framework for making and investigating complaints about licensed and national<br />
broadcasters, including complaints relating to compliance with broadcasting codes <strong>of</strong> practice. Part 11 is<br />
redundant, given that complaints currently investigated under part 11 can also be investigated under ACMA's<br />
broader investigation powers in part 13 <strong>of</strong> the Broadcasting Services Act.<br />
Accordingly, the bill will make consequential amendments to part 13 to make it clear that people may complain<br />
to ACMA about broadcasting or datacasting services, and ACMA may investigate the complaint at its discretion.<br />
In recognition <strong>of</strong> the co-regulatory approach to broadcasting services, the amendments make clear that ACMA<br />
may, for example, choose to investigate a complaint where the complainant is dissatisfied with the broadcaster's<br />
response to his or her complaint, or where the broadcaster fails to respond to a complaint in a manner consistent<br />
with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the relevant industry code <strong>of</strong> practice.<br />
Tariff filing<br />
The bill also deals with tariff filing. It will repeal tariff filing arrangements applying to the telecommunications<br />
industry under divisions 4 and 5 <strong>of</strong> part XIB <strong>of</strong> the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Division 4 enables the<br />
ACCC to collect certain tariff information from carriers and carriage-service providers that have a substantial<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> market power. Division 5 sets out a tariff filing regime that applies specifically to Telstra. These<br />
provisions are no longer necessary, and they impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on industry. In addition,<br />
there is considerable pricing information available in the public domain.<br />
Industry monitoring and reporting<br />
The bill contains provisions dealing with industry monitoring and reporting. Specifically, it will reform the<br />
statutory information collection and reporting functions <strong>of</strong> ACMA and the ACCC.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 13<br />
Section 105 <strong>of</strong> the Telecommunications Act requires ACMA to monitor and report to the minister each<br />
financial year on significant matters related to the performance <strong>of</strong> carriers and carriage-service providers. ACMA<br />
obtains information from industry in preparing the report. The bill will provide more flexibility for ACMA to<br />
decide which matters to monitor and report on. ACMA will only be required to report on the operation <strong>of</strong> part 14<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Telecommunications Act, regarding national interest matters, and the data retention requirements under the<br />
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The minister will retain the power to direct ACMA to<br />
report on specified matters.<br />
The bill will also remove the requirement for ACMA to provide the report to the minister and for the minister<br />
to table the report in parliament. Instead, the bill will require ACMA to prepare and publish the report on its<br />
website within six months <strong>of</strong> the end <strong>of</strong> the financial year. This change will enable ACMA to provide information<br />
to the public in a more timely manner and reduce administrative costs.<br />
Section 151CM <strong>of</strong> the Competition and Consumer Act requires the ACCC to monitor and report to the minister<br />
annually on charges paid by consumers for listed carriage services, ancillary goods or services, and Telstra pricecontrol<br />
arrangements. The bill will provide more flexibility to the ACCC by allowing it to decide which charges<br />
to monitor and report on, having regard to the most commonly used consumer services supplied using a<br />
telecommunications network.<br />
The bill will also remove the requirement for the ACCC to provide the report to the minister and for the<br />
minister to table it in parliament, along with a similar requirement under section 151CL for the ACCC's report on<br />
competitive safeguards in the telecommunications industry. To enable the more timely provision <strong>of</strong> information to<br />
the public, the bill will require the ACCC to publish the reports on its website within six months <strong>of</strong> the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
financial year. In addition, the bill will require the ACCC to review its record-keeping rules at least every five<br />
years, having regard to whether the information is publicly available, to whether consumer demand for the goods<br />
or services to which the information relates has changed and to the usefulness <strong>of</strong> the information to consumers,<br />
the minister and parliament.<br />
ACMA consultation on submarine protection cable zones<br />
The bill also deals with consultation by ACMA on submarine protection cable zones. The bill will remove the<br />
requirement under the Telecommunications Act for ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before<br />
declaring a submarine protection cable zone. This requirement is not needed as ACMA consults with the secretary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the department <strong>of</strong> the environment and the public in all instances.<br />
NBN Co statements that it is not installing fibre in new developments<br />
The bill deals with statements by NBN Co that it is not installing fibre in new developments. It will remove the<br />
ability <strong>of</strong> NBN Co under the Telecommunications Act to issue and keep a register <strong>of</strong> statements that it will not be<br />
installing fibre in a new real estate development, which in turn removes the obligation on a developer to install<br />
fibre-ready pit and pipe. The current provisions require NBN Co, as an industry participant, to make decisions <strong>of</strong> a<br />
regulatory nature. This is not appropriate. The minister will continue to have the power to exempt developments<br />
from the pit-and-pipe rules if required.<br />
NBN Co disposal <strong>of</strong> surplus assets<br />
The bill also deals with the disposal by NBN Co <strong>of</strong> surplus assets. It amends the National Broadband Network<br />
Companies Act 2011 to provide that NBN Co may dispose <strong>of</strong> surplus non-communications goods. The changes<br />
will allow NBN Co to sell surplus asserts, such as <strong>of</strong>fice equipment and vehicles, even where it does not supply<br />
services to the buyer <strong>of</strong> the asset. This will provide NBN Co with greater flexibility to manage its assets in an<br />
efficient and financially effective manner.<br />
The government remains committed to ensuring that our regulation is fit for purpose in the light <strong>of</strong> changing<br />
technology and consumer expectations, and to removing outdated regulation which represents an unnecessary<br />
drag on the economy. This bill makes a useful contribution in this regard. I commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
CHAMBER
14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the<br />
Centenary <strong>of</strong> ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence<br />
Personnel) (10:52): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 will make some small but significant changes to Defence's<br />
practice and operations. Some stem from recommendations to government and some deliver on election<br />
commitments. These are covered in the four schedules to this bill.<br />
The first Schedule amends the Defence Act 1903 to apply common sense to Defence prohibited substance<br />
testing.<br />
It will enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a prohibited substance<br />
positive test result must be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage <strong>of</strong> over the<br />
counter medication or substances administered or dispensed by authorised persons.<br />
Under the current arrangements, a positive test result may be disallowed under the direction or recommendation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a legally qualified medical practitioner.<br />
The bill will allow a positive test to be disregarded under certain circumstances specified in the relevant<br />
Defence Instruction issued by the Secretary and Chief <strong>of</strong> the Defence Force jointly under Section 11 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Defence Act 1903.<br />
This broadening <strong>of</strong> the circumstances is necessary to ensure that over the counter medication and other<br />
legitimate circumstances can be considered where a positive test result is returned. For example, it will mean that<br />
Defence will be able to ignore instances where a positive test result has been caused by a dose <strong>of</strong> generic cold and<br />
flu medication rather than something more significant.<br />
The bill will also simplify the termination provisions to align with the new Defence Regulation 2016 which<br />
prescribes procedural fairness, notice to show cause and warning provisions in relation to adverse administrative<br />
decisions.<br />
Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to put in place greater protections for<br />
Reserve members. This is a Coalition election commitment and I am happy to be bringing these measures forward<br />
in this bill.<br />
The Defence Reserve Service Protection Act provides for the protection <strong>of</strong> Reserve members in their<br />
employment and education, to facilitate their return to civilian life after rendering defence service, and for related<br />
purposes. It sets out entitlements and prohibitions that apply in relation to people who at any time serve as<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the Reserves. The act mitigates some <strong>of</strong> the employment and financial disadvantages Reserve<br />
members may face when rendering defence service and facilitates their availability to undertake defence service,<br />
and will enhance Defence capability.<br />
It is the view <strong>of</strong> the government that no one should be disadvantaged by choosing to wear a reserve uniform.<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the act in 2008 (the Protection Review) concluded that, overall, the act was working well and<br />
achieving its objectives. However, the Protection Review recommended a number <strong>of</strong> enhancements to the act. The<br />
amendments in Schedule 2 implement many <strong>of</strong> these recommendations.<br />
In particular the bill will address the application <strong>of</strong> the employment, partnership and education protections in<br />
Parts 5, 6 and 7 <strong>of</strong> the act to extend to all types <strong>of</strong> Reserve service. Previously, voluntary continuous full time<br />
service (which is the type <strong>of</strong> Reserve service that is typically used when a Reserve member deploys on operations)<br />
was only protected if the CDF (or delegate) had requested the member to undertake the service on that basis. This<br />
requirement resulted in confusion for Reservists and their employers as to whether the protections applied in any<br />
given case. This will no longer be an issue, as all defence service will be protected from now on.<br />
The bill will also extend the application <strong>of</strong> the financial liability and bankruptcy protections in Parts 8 and 9 <strong>of</strong><br />
the act to continuous full time service that is operational service. Previously, the service was only protected if it<br />
was continuous full time service following a call-out under the Defence Act 1903.<br />
A civil penalty regime is also established to supplement the criminal <strong>of</strong>fence provisions throughout the act,<br />
including provisions dealing with discrimination in employment and education.<br />
The provisions in Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the act dealing with discrimination are enhanced to improve the clarity and<br />
consistency <strong>of</strong> these provisions, and to deal with harassment <strong>of</strong> Reserve members because <strong>of</strong> their defence service.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 15<br />
The employment protections in Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the act are clarified, by stating when the protected period begins and<br />
ends, and by replacing the concept <strong>of</strong> suspending an employment contract with an entitlement to be absent from<br />
employment while absent on defence service.<br />
The education protections in Part 7 <strong>of</strong> the act are amended to provide a general obligation on education<br />
institutions to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a member's defence service.<br />
Schedule 3 will implement a recommendation <strong>of</strong> the 2015 First Principles Review <strong>of</strong> Defence. It will amend<br />
the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA), the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 in order<br />
to transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)<br />
to the Australia Geospatial Organisation (AGO). In conjunction, the Australian Hydrographic Office (AHO) will<br />
be transferred out <strong>of</strong> the RAN and into AGO.<br />
This recommendation will be met in order to have all geospatial related information functions consolidated<br />
within the AGO. The transfer <strong>of</strong> these functions is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation <strong>of</strong> imagery and<br />
other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial related information in support <strong>of</strong> Australia's<br />
defence interests and other national objectives.<br />
The amendments to the ISA will permit AGO to provide its non-intelligence products and related assistance to<br />
an expanded range <strong>of</strong> entities in accordance with Australia's legal obligations and national interests. Among other<br />
things, this will ensure that AGO can, through the AHO, continue to effectively and efficiently deliver high<br />
quality hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic services to the maritime community.<br />
The minor consequential amendments to the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 are<br />
needed to ensure that the terminology used in those acts aligns with new Defence organisational arrangements<br />
following transfer <strong>of</strong> those functions.<br />
Schedule 4 will amend the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cover Act 2015 to align a small number <strong>of</strong><br />
provisions in this new superannuation act with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity in<br />
definitions.<br />
The bill will ensure that members who resign from the ADF and later find that they could have been medically<br />
discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) to have their mode <strong>of</strong><br />
discharge circumstances reassessed.<br />
The bill will also create a more contemporary definition to allow a child <strong>of</strong> a deceased member or invalid to<br />
become eligible at a later date, where the child currently is found ineligible at the time <strong>of</strong> the member's or invalid's<br />
death.<br />
An example <strong>of</strong> how this could occur would be where a child <strong>of</strong> the member or invalid is over 18 and ceases<br />
full-time study to become the carer or to undertake a gap year prior to the member or invalid's death, subsequently<br />
resuming full-time study after the member or invalid's death while still under the age <strong>of</strong> 25.<br />
The bill will also remove the requirement for a child <strong>of</strong> a deceased member to be "wholly or substantially<br />
dependent" on the member or an eligible spouse. The amendment ensures that all eligible children <strong>of</strong> a deceased<br />
member are recognised regardless <strong>of</strong> where they reside and does not unintentionally exclude children who would<br />
otherwise be found eligible if there was no eligible spouse.<br />
CSC will determine who to pay a proportion <strong>of</strong> the total pension where there are multiple spouses and eligible<br />
children.<br />
As mentioned, this bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence legislation.<br />
They will be significant to the operations <strong>of</strong> Defence, providing streamlining to practices and common sense to<br />
regulation.<br />
They will be significant to the members <strong>of</strong> the Defence Reserves, who will receive greater protection.<br />
They will be significant to family members <strong>of</strong> the ADF who will now benefit from the changes to<br />
superannuation.<br />
I commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hartsuyker.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
CHAMBER
16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:03): I move:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Proactive industries are the future <strong>of</strong> Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry—industries that see an<br />
opportunity to promote their product, grow their business and become more pr<strong>of</strong>itable. This bill will help a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> rural industry sectors to make it happen.<br />
In the late 1980s, industry and government established the Rural Research and Development Corporations<br />
under the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989. Since then, the R&D corporations have helped<br />
to keep rural industries productive and pr<strong>of</strong>itable by conducting research, development and extension which is<br />
practical and relevant to each industry sector. Industry and government both invest in R&D corporations. Industry<br />
invests through levies on production and the Australian government invests by matching industry's R&D levy<br />
expenditure. According to ABARES estimates, for every dollar invested in broadacre agricultural R&D farmers<br />
generate a $12 return within 10 years.<br />
Strong agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are good for all Australians. ABARES forecasts our farm<br />
exports to be around $47.7 billion in 2016-17 and $48.7 billion the next year.<br />
There are 15 rural R&D corporations, <strong>of</strong> which 14 can carry out marketing activities. Only 10 do, however, and<br />
they provide a valuable service to their industry sectors. Marketing has helped to build our pork, wool and red<br />
meat industries, to name just a few, and expanded Australian access to international markets.<br />
Four statutory R&D corporations are still governed by the 1989 legislation—the fisheries, cotton, grains and<br />
rural industries R&D corporations. Unlike most R&D corporations, they must have a statutory levy attached to the<br />
corporation in order to undertake marketing. This change was made in 2013 following wide consultation which<br />
led to the passage <strong>of</strong> the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Act 2013.<br />
The process to impose a statutory levy is <strong>of</strong>ten time consuming and its collection can be expensive. The<br />
Fisheries R&D Corporation and its industry bodies say that smaller industries cannot afford the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
establishing and collecting a statutory levy.<br />
This bill provides that the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations will be able to carry<br />
out marketing activities using voluntary contributions—for example a gift, grant or bequest. This will add to their<br />
existing ability to conduct marketing with statutory levy funds.<br />
The R&D corporation will have to report on the marketing activities it carries out each financial year in its<br />
annual report.<br />
The bill will expand the definition <strong>of</strong> 'marketing activities' to include matters incidental to marketing. This will<br />
allow R&D corporations to scope, plan and coordinate marketing activities without having to use funds provided<br />
to them for R&D purposes. The expanded definition mirrors the definition <strong>of</strong> R&D activities to make it easier to<br />
apply and understand.<br />
The affected R&D corporations support the provisions in this bill, and I commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
Public Works Committee<br />
Report<br />
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:07): On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I<br />
present the committee's third report for 2017 on referrals made by December 2016.<br />
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).<br />
Mr BUCHHOLZ: by leave—On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present<br />
the committee's third report for 2017 on the two proposals referred in December 2016. The first proposal is base<br />
building works and a tenancy fit-out for the International Energy Agency at the Australian Chancery in Paris,<br />
France. This project proposes to conduct a fit-out at the Chancery to secure a 12-year lease with the International<br />
Energy Agency. It has a clear commercial justification. The project cost is estimated to be around $27.73 million,<br />
which includes a 20 per cent French value-added tax.<br />
The second proposal is for a fit-out <strong>of</strong> new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Human Services in Geelong, Victoria. NDIA currently leases <strong>of</strong>fice space in six locations<br />
around Geelong for its national <strong>of</strong>fice and is seeking to consolidate this into a single location. The consolidation<br />
will improve its ability to roll out the NDIS through the creation <strong>of</strong> operational efficiencies.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 17<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Human Services is also seeking to consolidate its Geelong presence through this proposal. It<br />
currently leases spaces for its Geelong Smart Centre in two locations. This proposal would allow them to save<br />
more than $3 million in lease costs over 10 years. The project cost estimate is $27 million excluding GST.<br />
Anywhere where the Public Works Committee can save money when we assess applications, we will<br />
endeavour to do so. I compliment the bipartisanship <strong>of</strong> the way in which the Public Works Committee works.<br />
There are incredibly diverse skill sets on that committee. I thank those who make a valued contribution to that<br />
committee from the other place, in addition to the outstanding work that the secretariat does in providing a<br />
balanced, well-measured, concise brief for members <strong>of</strong> the committee. I acknowledge their work and I<br />
acknowledge the committee members' work. There is still a lot <strong>of</strong> work to be done in that space. I look forward to<br />
the challenges that lie ahead for us. I commend this report the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
BILLS<br />
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:10): In the small time left to me, I would like to conclude that this bill<br />
remedies a terrible Gillard government bill passed back in 2009. The bill was an oversight that has seen tens <strong>of</strong><br />
millions, if not hundreds <strong>of</strong> millions, <strong>of</strong> dollars <strong>of</strong> goods lawfully owned by small business being transferred to the<br />
financiers, the big banks and the insolvency companies. It was a terrible piece <strong>of</strong> legislation. It was an oversight. I<br />
acknowledge that the coalition did the wrong thing in opposition in supporting it. We should have picked this up<br />
in opposition back in 2009. We also need to act on the Romalpa clause. That is another area that we need to fix<br />
up. It has been done, and allows property from small businesses to be transferred to the large end <strong>of</strong> town. I hope<br />
that the member from Moreton in his contribution acknowledges the great mistakes that were made and the tens <strong>of</strong><br />
millions <strong>of</strong> dollars that have been lost by the small business community because <strong>of</strong> this poor piece <strong>of</strong> Gillard<br />
government legislation.<br />
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (11:12): The Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS<br />
Leases) Bill 2017 seeks to amend the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, a piece <strong>of</strong> legislation that the<br />
coalition voted for. I cannot see any members from the 2009 parliament from the coalition that voted for this in<br />
the chamber at the moment. But certainly nearly the entire frontbench <strong>of</strong> the coalition voted for this piece <strong>of</strong><br />
legislation. The member for Hughes is clearly seriously confused, because that 2009 PPS act was introduced by<br />
Labor, proudly, by the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. It created a single national online register <strong>of</strong><br />
security interests in personal property within Australia.<br />
I could almost take a personal explanation later in the day, because I need to correct the member for Hughes,<br />
who is seriously flawed. Firstly, he referred to my speech <strong>of</strong> Wednesday, 16 September 2009—my wife's<br />
birthday, incidentally—so I went back to my speech. The member for Hughes said that I supported the legislation<br />
because it made more work for articled clerks. He totally misread my speech. I clearly said that we were clearing<br />
up the process—we were removing work from articled clerks. I referred to my time as articled clerk running<br />
around to those 70 different registers. The more legal work you do, the more people will pay. We turned 70<br />
security registers into one. It was a great piece <strong>of</strong> legislation. It reduced red tape. It was a good thing to do. That is<br />
why the coalition supported it. That is why any sensible person would support it.<br />
I looked at some other things that the member for Hughes said. I quote from Hansard:<br />
With this legislation we are changing the minimum duration for which leases apply down from two years to one year. It was<br />
previously two years; it is now one year.<br />
Member for Hughes, that is not what the legislation does. You need to talk to your Attorney-General. You need to<br />
actually read the legislation. This bill actually amends the Personal Property Securities Act to extend the<br />
minimum duration <strong>of</strong> a PPS lease from more than one year to more than two years. You have totally<br />
misrepresented what your government's legislation does. You need to make a personal explanation after question<br />
time, member for Hughes, so that you can actually point out what your legislation does. It was quite bizarre—<br />
what he was on—when the member for Hughes was speaking last night. I thought he was going to come in this<br />
morning and set the record straight. But no, he has chosen not to. And I would point out to the member for<br />
Hughes, going on about why this legislation has not been changed, that he is in his fourth year <strong>of</strong> government—<br />
the fourth year <strong>of</strong> government, member for Hughes. You are a member <strong>of</strong> the coalition government. If anything is<br />
going to be done, surely you are the ones who can do it.<br />
CHAMBER
18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
So, I bring you back to my great pride in Labor's Personal Property Securities Act, because when it was<br />
introduced it was described as important microeconomic reform. I actually referred to it, in my speech, as<br />
basically stealing jobs from articled clerks. And I know that anyone who has been an articled clerk would have<br />
done a lot <strong>of</strong> that work in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties and noughties. But now that work does<br />
not exist, because we got rid <strong>of</strong> the red tape. Prior to the Personal Property Securities Act, a purchaser <strong>of</strong> property<br />
could be misled by an apparent owner that clear title was held by them. There was no independent way to<br />
determine whether anyone else held an interest in the property that was contrary to the interest being <strong>of</strong>fered. The<br />
PPS regime allows a party to secure its interest in a property and to provide anyone who searches the register with<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> that security interest. Any interest in personal property can now be perfected by registering on the<br />
PPS register—effectively the Torrens title <strong>of</strong> non-land-based property, I guess.<br />
The second reading speech by the then Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, described the regime as<br />
replacing:<br />
… the existing complex, inconsistent and ad hoc web <strong>of</strong> common law and legislation, involving over 70 Commonwealth, state<br />
and territory acts. It will implement a single national law, creating a uniform and functional approach to personal property<br />
securities.<br />
How could someone who is supposed to be a champion <strong>of</strong> small business not praise bringing 70 bits <strong>of</strong> red tape<br />
down to one? I mean, it is bizarre. I really am starting to wonder whether the Liberal Party has totally<br />
disconnected from those Liberal Party values Menzies used to trumpet. I am seeing so much erratic behaviour.<br />
Maybe it is from being too close to the Nationals. Maybe that is what it is. The Nationals are leading them astray,<br />
maybe. But the Senate committee: I call on all those present to try to set them straight—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta): The member for Hughes on a point <strong>of</strong> order?<br />
Mr Craig Kelly: Under '66A Interventions', I would ask the member for Moreton whether he would accept a<br />
question.<br />
Mr PERRETT: No.<br />
Mr Craig Kelly: Oh, come on.<br />
Mr PERRETT: You had your chance to correct the record. You chose not to do it. You have misled the<br />
people who listened to your speech.<br />
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hughes, the member for Moreton has the call, and he will be<br />
heard in silence.<br />
Mr PERRETT: The Senate committee report on the bill in 2008 noted that the Attorney-General's<br />
Department described the objectives <strong>of</strong> the then bill as the four Cs: the regime that would be created would deliver<br />
more certain, consistent, less complex and cheaper arrangements in relation to personal property securities. And<br />
when you talk to lawyers today you see that. You see it time after time. Prior to the 2009 act, consumers and<br />
businesses had to negotiate their way through a minefield <strong>of</strong> unnecessary red tape. Some security interests had to<br />
be registered in more than one jurisdiction and on more than one register to be fully effective. There were both<br />
electronic registers and paper based registers and in some cases, some jurisdictions, there were no registers at all.<br />
This resulted not only in confusion but in unnecessary costs for everyone involved—more work for lawyers, more<br />
costs for consumers. The reforms were described as 'the most substantial reform in a decade'. The is what the<br />
member for Hughes is asking the Labor Party to apologise for and I guess he is also asking everyone who was in<br />
parliament in 2009 and is currently here who voted for this legislation. It is bizarre. I am hoping that the Prime<br />
Minister will try to rein him in.<br />
Let's look at what the Consumer Action Law Centre said. They supported the idea <strong>of</strong> 'national personal<br />
property security laws and a register that makes that work more efficiently and laws that again create certainty and<br />
efficiency in that system'. But let's hear from some other 'crazy, left-wing' organisation—like the Australian<br />
Bankers' Association! What did they say? They said that they are 'very supportive <strong>of</strong> the two-pronged PPS reform<br />
proposals—register and substantive law reform'. I know they might have Anna Bligh working for them at the<br />
moment, but they are not a left-wing organisation—and I should stress, member for Hughes, that I was being<br />
ironic when I said that.<br />
The reforms, while they made day-to-day transactions simpler and less expensive, required a complete mind<br />
shift for lawyers and articled clerks, which was the point I was making in my speech in 2009. The common law<br />
and equitable principles previously underpinning the law <strong>of</strong> personal property securities were all but abandoned<br />
for the far less complex PPS regime. The concepts <strong>of</strong> a floating charge and crystallisation <strong>of</strong> a floating charge are<br />
now replaced with the straightforward rules provided by the PPS Act. That was certainly a relief to a lot <strong>of</strong> young<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 19<br />
law students, I am sure—turning 70 into one—and, as I said, maybe even articled clerks. It was the newly minted<br />
law graduate who <strong>of</strong>ten had the task <strong>of</strong> going from building to building with various forms to register personal<br />
property securities on the 70 different registers that existed throughout Australia.<br />
The object <strong>of</strong> that legislation, brought in by the Labor government, by Robert McClelland—this monumental<br />
reform—was to make life easier for lawyers but also to make doing business much more streamlined and less<br />
expensive. The Labor Party put the consumer first. That object has been achieved. That is why the Prime Minister<br />
voted for it. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Senate, voted for it. That is why every sensible Liberal<br />
Party person who believes in small business voted for it. Yet we have the member for Hughes calling for them to<br />
apologise—unbelievable.<br />
The World Bank gives a rating to countries on the ease <strong>of</strong> doing business in that country. In 2013 Australia<br />
jumped from 10th place from a previous 15th place in these rankings. The introduction <strong>of</strong> the 2009 PPS Act is<br />
credited as being instrumental in improving that rating. How are they going under the coalition government? How<br />
are we going in terms <strong>of</strong> ease <strong>of</strong> doing business at the moment, in the last four years <strong>of</strong> this shambolic government<br />
that we have here. The World Bank publication that lists the rankings particularly commented on the PPS reform,<br />
saying:<br />
In Australia the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 and associated regulations came into effect, and a single, national<br />
online register began operating. The web-based registry allows creditors to conduct searches and register security interests in<br />
personal properties at any time.<br />
In the World Bank's assessment <strong>of</strong> which country has the most legal rights for borrowers and lenders, Australia<br />
had the highest ranking attainable in 2013.<br />
The PPS Act, when it was introduced in 2009, revolutionised the way business was conducted in Australia.<br />
Everyone from small businesses, large supply companies, finance companies, banks and ordinary Australians<br />
benefited from the protections the regime <strong>of</strong>fered. Labor is proud <strong>of</strong> these reforms; Labor will not be apologising<br />
for doing the right thing by small business and big business. The PPS reforms were real regulatory reform that cut<br />
red tape, lowered costs for businesses and improved productivity. That term 'red tape' is one I have heard a lot in<br />
the 44th Parliament and 45th Parliament—not so much in the 45th but certainly the 44th Parliament.<br />
I remember the Liberal government's obsession with red tape repeal. Let's be fair dinkum, it amounted to<br />
attacking a couple <strong>of</strong> commas and a few brackets. It is what every sensible government does, but it was the great<br />
visionary achievement <strong>of</strong> the Abbott-Turnbull conglomeration—celebrate red tape repeal day. I remember it<br />
because it was like an obsession. You are lucky, the class <strong>of</strong> 2016, you did not have to hear some <strong>of</strong> the speeches<br />
about 'We attacked some commas', 'We took it to those semicolons'. It was like being in the trenches in World<br />
War I. It was unbelievable that they could focus so much on it, and I am really not kidding. In fact, I have to this<br />
day the current governments Cutting Red Tape web page, which is subheaded 'The Australian Government's<br />
online resource for regulation reform'. I printed it <strong>of</strong>f yesterday, and it gives these tips:<br />
The Australian Government's Guide to Regulation has been written to help change the way policy makers think about<br />
regulation and to inform the consultation and policy making processes.<br />
Families, businesses and community organisations pay the price for poor regulation and the purpose <strong>of</strong> this Guide is to help<br />
make better regulation, not more regulation.<br />
Strangely, this Prime Minister is not having his red tape celebration days. He is leaving the commas alone or<br />
maybe he is just doing what governments do—he is doing that part <strong>of</strong> the job rather than having champagne and<br />
confetti every time he attacks a semicolon. But we do have this government website telling us how great the<br />
government is for doing its job.<br />
We did have those four repeal days—spring and autumn repeal days in 2014 and 2015. We normally started<br />
with the Omnibus Repeal Day Bill. Sadly and unbelievably, not all <strong>of</strong> the bills were actually passed on the<br />
celebrated repeal date. For example, the Australian Charities and Not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it Commission (Repeal) Bill 2014—<br />
and I am sure the member for Fenner would know this—did not pass. Most <strong>of</strong> the bills were to abolish bodies that<br />
were actually defunct, to consolidate previous bodies and repeal spent and redundant provisions and acts and, <strong>of</strong><br />
course, to eliminate those pesky commas and unruly full stops. It was a jihad on grammar—a grammar jihad.<br />
Thankfully, the current Prime Minister wanted to distinguish himself from that great visionary, the member for<br />
Warringah, and so he decided that we would not have these repeal days. Instead, he has focused on those great<br />
challenges, like responding to dangerous climate change—no, I am just kidding, Deputy Speaker—he is instead<br />
defending people's right to be bigots or he is focusing on the idea <strong>of</strong> using coal to pump water up a hill. He is<br />
doing some great stuff. He is definitely a man <strong>of</strong> vision—<br />
Mr McCormack: It is more than I can say about you.<br />
CHAMBER
20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Mr PERRETT: This bill before the chamber, which the member for Hughes was attacking, is actually a<br />
sensible response to issues that were raised by a number <strong>of</strong> submissions to the Whittaker review and by a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> recent Supreme Court decisions concerning problems with the operation <strong>of</strong> the PPS act in relation to PPS<br />
leases. The bill extends the minimum term <strong>of</strong> a PPS lease from one year to more than two years—I do hope that<br />
the member for Hughes notes that. Any PPS leases which run for more than two years will be 'a security interest'<br />
that should be registered on the PPS register. It is a sensible tweak to the legislation that addresses concerns about<br />
the burden on small business, particularly in the hire and rental industry, where short-term lease arrangements or<br />
indefinite-term leases are commonplace. Labor is very happy to support this bill, which will help small<br />
businesses.<br />
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (11:27): I thank the honourable members for<br />
their contributions to be Personal Properties Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017. The Personal<br />
Properties Securities Act 2009 is an important reform which established a single national set <strong>of</strong> rules for secured<br />
credit using personal property. The framework provides greater clarity for both lenders and consumers than ever<br />
before, and, since its introduction, Australian businesses are now more readily able to use their assets as security<br />
for obtaining cost-effective secured finance.<br />
It is clear, though, after a period <strong>of</strong> time that there are compelling reasons to make adjustments to the act. The<br />
regulatory impact the act has had on short-term equipment hire businesses is one such case. Businesses with high<br />
volumes <strong>of</strong> short but indefinite term leases have had difficulties adapting to the framework and have struggled to<br />
meet the administrative burden. And this government is all about lifting administrative burden and cutting through<br />
red tape.<br />
The consequences for small and medium enterprise hire operators in some circumstances can be quite severe.<br />
Extending the minimum duration <strong>of</strong> a lease before it becomes a PPS lease will lift the burden the act is having on<br />
the hire and rental industry. Leases with an indefinite term will only require registration once they have exceeded<br />
two years in length, and fixed-term leases will only require registration if they are for a term <strong>of</strong> more than two<br />
years. The changes to the PPS lease time frame in this bill are aimed at ensuring that the short-term hire and rental<br />
sector remains a strong contributor to the Australian economy without disrupting the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> this important national framework.<br />
Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond to the member for Isaacs' comments on the Whittaker review. The<br />
government is considering the total <strong>of</strong> the 394 recommendations from the report <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> the Personal<br />
Property Securities Act. The report is comprehensive; it provides recommendations on technical and complex<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> the legislation which are interlinked and must be progressed as a complete package. The bill deals with<br />
an urgent matter <strong>of</strong> reform which can be dealt with now, independently <strong>of</strong> other issues addressed in the report.<br />
This bill provides relief to the hire and rental industry without disrupting the proper operation <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> this<br />
important national framework. The government, through the Attorney-General's Department, is working closely<br />
with the Australian Financial Security Authority to develop a response to the report which will benefit businesses<br />
and consumers to the maximum potential.<br />
In conclusion, a range <strong>of</strong> industry representatives have been consulted on these measures in order to preserve<br />
the balance between competing interests <strong>of</strong> all stakeholders who deal with the act on a day-to-day basis. With the<br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> industry and the support for the bill provided by state and territory governments, these measures will<br />
succeed in providing short-term hire businesses with appropriate relief.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Bill read a second time.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (11:30): 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 />
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> Senate Message<br />
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.<br />
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.<br />
Senate's amendments—<br />
(1) Govt (1) [Sheet JC394]<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 21<br />
Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 5 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:<br />
5. Schedule 2 The later <strong>of</strong>:<br />
(a) the start <strong>of</strong> the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent; and<br />
(b) immediately after the commencement <strong>of</strong> Part 2 <strong>of</strong> Schedule 1 to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation<br />
Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Act 2017.<br />
However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.<br />
(2) Opp (1) [Sheet 8095]<br />
Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 16), after subsection 4A(1), insert:<br />
(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:<br />
(a)a decision or determination that the death <strong>of</strong> a person is not a service death;<br />
(b)a decision or determination that an injury sustained by a person is not a service injury;<br />
(c)a decision or determination that a disease contracted by a person is not a service disease.<br />
(3) Opp (2) [Sheet 8095]<br />
Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 23), after subsection 3A(1), insert:<br />
(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:<br />
(a)a decision or determination that a disease suffered by an employee was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by<br />
the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee;<br />
(b)a decision or determination that an injury (other than a disease) to an employee did not arise out <strong>of</strong>, or in the course<br />
<strong>of</strong>, his or her employment;<br />
(c)a decision or determination that an aggravation <strong>of</strong> an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee is not an<br />
aggravation that arose out <strong>of</strong>, or in the course <strong>of</strong>, his or her employment.<br />
(4) Opp (3) [Sheet 8095]<br />
Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 30), after subsection 4B(1), insert:<br />
(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:<br />
(a)a decision that the death <strong>of</strong> a veteran was not war caused;<br />
(b)a decision that an injury suffered by a veteran is not a war caused injury;<br />
(c)a decision that a disease contracted by a veteran is not a war caused disease;<br />
(d)a decision that the death <strong>of</strong> a member <strong>of</strong> the Forces (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> Part IV), or a member <strong>of</strong> a Peacekeeping<br />
Force (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> that Part), was not defence caused;<br />
(e)a decision that an injury suffered by a member <strong>of</strong> the Forces (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> Part IV), or a member <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> that Part), is not a defence caused injury;<br />
(f)a decision that a disease contracted by a member <strong>of</strong> the Forces (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> Part IV), or a member <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning <strong>of</strong> that Part), is not a defence caused disease.<br />
(5) Govt (2) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, page 8 (line 3), omit the heading.<br />
(6) Govt (3) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 8 (line 4) to page 9 (line 17), omit the items.<br />
(7) Govt (4) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (line 20) to page 11 (line 26), omit the item.<br />
(8) Govt (5) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 1), omit "amendments made by items 5 and 7 apply", substitute "amendment made by<br />
item 5 applies".<br />
(9) Govt (6) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 2), omit "those items", substitute "that item".<br />
(10) Govt (7) [Sheet JC394]<br />
Schedule 2, items 10 to 14, page 12 (line 10) to page 14 (line 18), omit the items.<br />
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the<br />
Centenary <strong>of</strong> ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence<br />
Personnel) (11:31): I move:<br />
That the amendments be agreed to.<br />
I am tabling this further supplementary explanatory memorandum for clarity and transparency. I believe it will<br />
assist all members and senators to have a consolidated version <strong>of</strong> the explanatory memorandum to understand the<br />
CHAMBER
22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
changes that both houses <strong>of</strong> the parliament have made to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital<br />
Readiness and Other Measures) Bill. A further explanatory memorandum is not required when a bill returns from<br />
the second to the first house after amendment. However, I would like the intent <strong>of</strong> both the government and the<br />
opposition amendments, which were agreed to by the Senate on Monday evening, to be reflected in a consolidated<br />
explanatory memorandum.<br />
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:32): I welcome the explanatory memorandum, which does clarify<br />
amendments made by the Senate. I would like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his cooperation with<br />
this. As I have discussed previously, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other<br />
Measures) Bill was looked at forensically. In particular, the bill went to the Senate Standing Committee on<br />
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Through the process some concerns were raised, and these concerns<br />
continued to be raised during the discussion <strong>of</strong> this bill.<br />
One particular concern was the removal <strong>of</strong> human decision-making for those veterans who had a negative<br />
claim. Of course we do want to see digitalisation and computer-aided benefits flow to veterans, but there was<br />
some concern about those who did not benefit from this process. Consequently, Labor did move an amendment in<br />
the Senate to the legislation which would ensure that any claim made by a veteran that was rejected by a computer<br />
decision-making process would be automatically sent to a delegate for review. Labor believes that by doing this<br />
not only is there still benefit in a more timely claims process but also any claims which are not initially accepted<br />
in the computer system can be reviewed. For example, should a veteran make six claims and five <strong>of</strong> those claims<br />
are accepted and one is rejected, the rejected claim would be sent to a delegate for a review, with the other five<br />
being accepted by the computer decision-making process.<br />
The additional explanatory memorandum that the minister has tabled makes this very clear, and I would like to<br />
thank him again for ensuring that we have a clear process going forward so that we can get the benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
computer decision-making but do not have the concerns that have come to light in other departments, including<br />
the robo-debt debacle, as it is now commonly called. We do not have those concerns for veterans, and I think this<br />
is a good amendment and a good explanatory memorandum.<br />
Of course, there is another amendment that the government moved during the Senate process which removed<br />
the public disclosure <strong>of</strong> personal information. We had been working with the government on the rules to ensure<br />
that veterans were safeguarded, but, in light <strong>of</strong> the community concern and confusion there had been around this,<br />
we certainly welcome the government's amendments that withdrew that element from the bill.<br />
We are pleased with the outcome <strong>of</strong> this bill and pleased that the process for the automated computer decisionmaking<br />
process is very clear. I will note that the department does not quite have the computer systems to deliver<br />
this yet, but I am sure the minister is working on getting the money for that. But the legislation is very clear about<br />
the process and about how this will not only benefit veterans but also protect veterans in ensuring that no mistakes<br />
or problems with an automated system do not get picked up by a human person. I commend the explanatory<br />
memorandum and the amendments in this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the<br />
Centenary <strong>of</strong> ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence<br />
Personnel) (11:36): I thank the shadow minister for her cooperation and bipartisan support for this bill.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:36): I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill<br />
2017. This bill will hurt Australian families. It will cut the household budget <strong>of</strong> 1.5 million Australian families.<br />
Every single member <strong>of</strong> the Liberal and National parties are about to vote for this cut to Australian families. It<br />
will do so by freezing the family tax benefit part A and part B for two years. So every single recipient <strong>of</strong> family<br />
tax benefit part A and part B—that is, 1.5 million Australian families—will be left worse <strong>of</strong>f. $1.4 billion will be<br />
taken out <strong>of</strong> the pockets <strong>of</strong> Australian families by this government. That is what this bill does. Around 600,000 <strong>of</strong><br />
these families receive the maximum rate <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit part A. That means that their household income is<br />
less than $52,000 a year. So these are low-income families.<br />
I will give some particular examples <strong>of</strong> what this will mean for families. A family with a family income <strong>of</strong><br />
$60,000 with two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. A single-parent family<br />
on $50,000 with two high school children will be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f. That is what this bill is doing to these<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 23<br />
families. A single-income couple or a single-parent family with three children under 12 will be around $605 worse<br />
<strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. So every single member <strong>of</strong> the Liberal and National parties needs to be honest with their<br />
constituents that this is the cut that they are imposing on all <strong>of</strong> the families in their electorates that are on family<br />
tax benefit part A and part B.<br />
These cuts were actually first proposed in the 2014 budget. That is right—the horror 2014 budget, the budget<br />
when Joe Hockey decided that he would try to divide Australians between 'lifters' and 'leaners'. Labor opposed to<br />
these cuts when they were first proposed in the 2014 budget, and the Liberals withdrew them from the parliament<br />
and took them out <strong>of</strong> the budget at the end <strong>of</strong> 2015. This really goes to show that you cannot trust this<br />
government. They say they are not continuing with the cuts and then, out <strong>of</strong> the blue—literally, in this case—they<br />
put them into the Senate, push them through the Senate and now today they are going to try to push them through<br />
the <strong>House</strong>. Labor will oppose these cuts to the family tax benefit again today, just as we did in 2014 and just as we<br />
did in the Senate last week. These cuts are unfair. They are unfair because they will hurt vulnerable families right<br />
across Australia. They will make life harder for low-income families that are already struggling to keep their<br />
heads above water.<br />
We believe that these cuts are particularly unfair because they come at a time <strong>of</strong> worsening inequality in this<br />
country. Inequality is at a 75-year high in Australia. I think Australian families are very well aware that wages<br />
growth is at record lows, underemployment is at record highs, penalty rates are under threat and Australians are<br />
increasingly being forced into insecure and casual work that does not provide an adequate income. That means<br />
that more Australians are reliant on family assistance.<br />
As recent research from the Australia Institute shows, cuts to Sunday penalty rates for low-paid workers could<br />
blow a $650 million hole in the federal government's budget bottom line. This is because so many Australians are<br />
facing a pay cut from the penalty rates decision, resulting in less tax revenue for the government. Of course, there<br />
will also be greater demand for social security payments such as family support as people lose income. So there<br />
could not be a worse time to cut family tax benefits for low-income families.<br />
We have a situation under this Turnbull government where the poorest families in this country are being told to<br />
accept a cut to their standard <strong>of</strong> living. At exactly the same time, we have this Liberal government wanting to give<br />
the biggest companies in the country a $50 billion tax cut. That is how much this government's company tax cut<br />
will cost the Commonwealth budget—$50 billion. In literally the same week that this government are trying to<br />
pass this legislation to cut family tax benefits from some <strong>of</strong> the poorest families in Australia, they are also trying<br />
to pass legislation to cut company tax for the biggest and wealthiest companies in the country. That is the context<br />
in which we are having this debate today.<br />
On 1 July, the government also intend to abolish the deficit levy, which will mean a tax cut for millionaires <strong>of</strong><br />
$16,400 a year or $315 a week. What the Turnbull government could have done if they had kept the deficit levy is<br />
raise three times as much money from a third as many families rather than have this cut to family tax benefits. If<br />
the government had kept the deficit levy, they would have raised $4.4 billion compared to the $1.4 billion worth<br />
<strong>of</strong> cuts that low-income families will suffer as a result <strong>of</strong> this bill.<br />
If the deficit levy was necessary in 2014 when the deficit was $11 billion it is more than necessary now that this<br />
government has done the most extreme thing, which is see the deficit go up to $37 billion. It has gone up to $37<br />
billion from $11 billion in just over three years <strong>of</strong> this Liberal government. As I said, all <strong>of</strong> this is happening at a<br />
time <strong>of</strong> worsening inequality. The latest economic data shows a massive 20 per cent surge in company pr<strong>of</strong>its<br />
while wages for workers have fallen by 0.5 per cent. What we see from this government and all <strong>of</strong> the Liberals<br />
and Nationals who are going to vote for this is that they are prioritising tax cuts for millionaires over support for<br />
low-income families. They are prioritising company pr<strong>of</strong>its over the household incomes <strong>of</strong> ordinary Australian<br />
families.<br />
These cuts to families by the Liberals are not an isolated incident. The Liberals really do have form when it<br />
comes to cuts to families. If we look further into the 2014 budget, the Liberals actually tried to cut $8½ billion,<br />
and those opposite who were there in 2014 voted for all <strong>of</strong> those cuts. They wanted to take $8½ billion out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
pockets <strong>of</strong> families—cuts that would have left an average family on $60,000 around $6,000 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f; cuts<br />
that would have seen families lose family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turned six. Given that this<br />
cut in the bill before us today was in the 2014 budget, who is to say that the other cuts from the 2014 budget will<br />
not also be brought back from the dead, just like this freeze to family tax benefit payment rates has come back<br />
today? You would have to say that the Liberals simply cannot be trusted when it comes to support for families.<br />
They cannot be trusted not to bring back these harsh cuts from the 2014 budget.<br />
In the 2015 budget, the Liberals tried to cut $4½ billion from family tax benefits. In that same budget, they<br />
proposed to crack down on what they called double dipping <strong>of</strong> paid parental leave. That was another billion<br />
CHAMBER
24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
dollars they wanted to take out <strong>of</strong> the pockets <strong>of</strong> new mothers. The current Treasurer even called new mums<br />
'rorters' for accessing both employer and government paid parental leave schemes. Just last week, this Treasurer<br />
recommitted the Liberals to zombie measures contained in the old omnibus bill, which included: cuts to paid<br />
parental leave that would have seen 70,000 new mothers lose money; scrapping the energy supplement to<br />
pensioners; the five-week wait for Newstart that would have hurt young jobseekers; cutting the pension to<br />
pensioners after they spend more than six weeks overseas; and scrapping the pensioner education supplement and<br />
the education entry payment. We know the Treasurer wants to double down and keep all <strong>of</strong> those cuts. It really<br />
does demonstrate that you can be in no doubt that the government have not learnt one thing from the reaction <strong>of</strong><br />
the Australian people to the very harsh and cruel cuts in the 2014 budget. They still do not get fairness. They still<br />
want to rewrite the social contract in Australia and, it seems, they want to refashion our country into the image <strong>of</strong><br />
America, where the market is king and an underclass <strong>of</strong> working people work in jobs that do not pay a living<br />
wage.<br />
This bill was rushed through the Senate last Wednesday. It was introduced into the Senate with just 10 minutes<br />
notice. The opposition had not seen the bill and we know, <strong>of</strong> course, that the government is going to try to ram<br />
this through the <strong>House</strong> today. It has been an extraordinarily chaotic process that has, <strong>of</strong> course, prevented any<br />
serious consideration or scrutiny <strong>of</strong> the cuts contained in this bill. I am particularly disappointed that the Senate<br />
crossbench decided to rubberstamp these cuts. It did so without any scrutiny. The house <strong>of</strong> review certainly did<br />
not do its job. If it did, it would have realised that these cuts will hurt low-income Australian families.<br />
The government likes to say that the cuts contained in this bill are going to be used to pay for the childcare<br />
changes. I am very pleased that the member for Adelaide is in the chamber with me today, as she has done so<br />
much to draw attention to these issues and to the failings in the government's childcare changes. All along, Labor<br />
have said that the government's linking <strong>of</strong> cuts to family payments and the changes to child care was an artificial<br />
link. All along, we have said that it was robbing Peter to pay Paul—taking from one family to pay for another. All<br />
along, we have said—and particularly, the member for Adelaide has said—that the proposed childcare reforms<br />
were flawed. We were not the only ones to say that. Jo Briskey from The Parenthood said:<br />
Thousands <strong>of</strong> families had to see their family tax benefit payments frozen and thousands <strong>of</strong> vulnerable kids had to have their<br />
access to early learning cut in half, just to see cheaper child care for other families.<br />
The government decided to reject expert advice to preserve access to a minimum <strong>of</strong> two days' care and early<br />
education for vulnerable Australian families, and particularly the children in those families.<br />
The Turnbull government has jeopardised vulnerable children's access to early education. That is what the vote<br />
on child care has done. It has done so to the point where experts in the sector actually called for the childcare bill<br />
to be blocked in its entirety if this problem was not fixed. Early Childhood Australia put out a statement last week<br />
calling on the Senate to reject the childcare changes because they were unfair to vulnerable children. That really is<br />
quite extraordinary. It does underline that the government's cuts to family payments and the childcare changes will<br />
not lead to good policy outcomes for many vulnerable Australian families and their children.<br />
I also want to address the claim by the Minister for Social Services that the cuts in this bill are the same as the<br />
changes to family tax benefits made by the previous Labor government. You will not be surprised to know that the<br />
Minister for Social Services was not telling the truth and was not accurate in his claims. In question time last<br />
week, the minister actually read from a press release from myself and the member for Lilley from 2009. Not<br />
surprisingly for this minister, he cherrypicked a few quotes from the media release. Of course, that is something<br />
that he does regularly to mislead people. But the minister failed to mention that the media release did not say<br />
anything about freezing family tax benefit payment rates. On the contrary, it said: Labor was implementing a<br />
family tax benefit part B primary earner income threshold, remaining at $150,000; the income threshold for<br />
receiving dependency tax <strong>of</strong>fsets would remain at $150,000; the baby bonus eligibility threshold would remain at<br />
$75,000 family income; and the high-income free area <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit part A would remain constant. It was<br />
nothing to do with what this bill is about, nothing to do with the freezing <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit rates, which is what<br />
this government is on about.<br />
While I am talking about this minister and his record, the Minister for Social Services was the Treasurer in<br />
Western Australia. If ever there was a demonstration <strong>of</strong> economic mismanagement, his record is it. This is the<br />
minister who, as Treasurer <strong>of</strong> WA during the height <strong>of</strong> one the greatest resources booms this country has ever<br />
seen, actually managed to increase the state debt and the state deficit. The state <strong>of</strong> Western Australia is now<br />
expected to see net debt reach $41.5 billion by 2019-20. They have a deficit in WA <strong>of</strong> $3.3 billion. That is the<br />
Minister for Social Services' legacy to the people <strong>of</strong> Western Australia—record levels <strong>of</strong> debt and huge deficits.<br />
The voters <strong>of</strong> Western Australia did not just reject the Barnett Liberal government at the recent WA election; they<br />
also rejected the incompetence <strong>of</strong> the Minister for Social Services during his time as Treasurer <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 25<br />
As Fairfax journalist Peter Martin noted in a recent article, the Minister for Social Services:<br />
…promised spending growth <strong>of</strong> 7.9 per cent in 2011-12, and achieved 10.2 per cent. And he borrowed more, boosting state<br />
government debt from $13.4 billion to $18.2 billion in two years.<br />
So this minister has absolutely no credibility when it comes to fiscal management. He fundamentally mismanaged<br />
the West Australian economy during his time as Treasurer and we will certainly not be letting him forget it.<br />
This legislation also contains some other measures that I want to touch on. The bill will freeze for three years<br />
the income free areas for all working age and student payments. What that means is that, for three years, the<br />
income test applying to payments for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
living. This measure would prevent those income free areas for allowances and student payments from keeping<br />
pace with the costs <strong>of</strong> living.<br />
We all know that Newstart is already too low. This bill will make life harder for people on Newstart who have<br />
a small amount <strong>of</strong> work. It will affect 264,500 Australians on the lowest incomes. The thresholds being frozen are<br />
already incredibly low. Just to give the <strong>House</strong> an example: for people on parenting payment, the threshold after<br />
which their payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. I think everyone would agree this is not a high threshold.<br />
And there appears to be no policy rationale for this change. For Newstart, the change will mean the threshold will<br />
be frozen at $104 before their payment begins to be cut. These thresholds, as a result <strong>of</strong> this bill, will be frozen for<br />
three years. It will impose a further disincentive for people to get more work if their income free areas are frozen<br />
at such low thresholds. We on this side do not support this measure.<br />
If this bill passes the <strong>House</strong> today it will see an extension <strong>of</strong> the one-week waiting period that currently applies<br />
to recipients <strong>of</strong> Newstart and sickness allowance. That will see the one-week ordinary wait period apply to both<br />
Youth Allowance—jobseeker—and parenting payment. The government also wants to make it harder for people<br />
who are already in a difficult financial situation to access the financial hardship exemption, by requiring that they<br />
also be experiencing a personal financial crisis. This is just another demonstration <strong>of</strong> who <strong>of</strong> this Prime Minister<br />
really is. He is going to put more and more pressure on those who are doing it the hardest.<br />
I also want to speak briefly about the proposal to automate the process by which the Department <strong>of</strong> Human<br />
Services collects income stream information. This will mean that from 1 January 2018, a six-monthly electronic<br />
data collection process will be introduced for income stream information from financial service providers. We do<br />
think that having a more regular and efficient means <strong>of</strong> collecting income stream information will improve the<br />
accuracy and timing <strong>of</strong> the data being collected. So Labor will support this measure as it underpins a more<br />
systematic, efficient and accurate reporting system. However, if the government does not pull that measure out,<br />
we will not be supporting this bill.<br />
We on this side do not support the proposition that you need to cut family tax benefits to pay for child care<br />
changes. And we certainly do not support the proposition that anyone should agree to take food <strong>of</strong>f the tables <strong>of</strong><br />
Australian households to give big business a $50 billion tax cut. We do not think that vulnerable families should<br />
be made more than $400 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f, especially at a time <strong>of</strong> increasing inequality in Australia. It is bad<br />
public policy. It will make struggling families carry the burden <strong>of</strong> budget cuts. We on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> will<br />
stand up for families. We will oppose this bill.<br />
To that end, I move:<br />
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:<br />
"The <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because it includes cuts to Family Tax Benefit that will leave 1.5 million<br />
families worse <strong>of</strong>f, freezes income free areas for 264,500 recipients <strong>of</strong> income support and student payments, and forces<br />
young people and single parents to wait one week to access income support; and<br />
(2) calls on the government to drop their unfair cuts to families and vulnerable Australians on very low incomes.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta) (11:59): Is the amendment seconded?<br />
Mr Neumann: I second the amendment.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the<br />
honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to<br />
substituting other words. If it suits the <strong>House</strong>, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed<br />
to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:59): I rise to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is<br />
really interesting. Last week in this chamber, we saw a plethora <strong>of</strong> government members speaking on their<br />
enterprise tax plan that will give $50 billion <strong>of</strong> tax cuts to the biggest corporate entities in the country, including<br />
$7.4 billion to the biggest banks. They were proud <strong>of</strong> their legislation, without any analysis, details or research to<br />
CHAMBER
26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
counter the fact that it would not make an appreciable difference to employment. Over a long period <strong>of</strong> time—10<br />
years—it will make a 0.1 per cent improvement in employment. The Gonski funding and needs based funding<br />
alone would bring in three times that amount <strong>of</strong> improvement in terms <strong>of</strong> employment and growth in the country.<br />
Today I look at this legislation which was rushed through the Senate without the opposition having the<br />
opportunity to look at it and without any parliamentary committee being able to examine it. Sadly, many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
crossbench are supporting it. How proud would the coalition members be to speak on this particular legislation<br />
today? They were very proud about the fact that they would give $50 billion worth <strong>of</strong> tax cuts to the big end <strong>of</strong><br />
town. Look at the list <strong>of</strong> those persons who are going to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill<br />
2017. They include the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister; me as the shadow minister for immigration and<br />
border protection; the member for Lyons; the member for Lalor; the member for Oxley; the member for Lindsay;<br />
the member for Bendigo; and many more Labor MPs.<br />
I was thinking about just how proud the coalition members would be to cut social service payments, including<br />
family tax benefit payments, for 1.5 million Australian families and to rip $1.4 billion out <strong>of</strong> their household<br />
incomes. But not one <strong>of</strong> them is speaking on it—not one. I got up and spoke after the member for Jagajaga.<br />
Another one <strong>of</strong> my Labor colleagues will speak after me. And on and on it will go. Not one member <strong>of</strong> the<br />
coalition backbench—certainly no holder <strong>of</strong> a marginal seat—is proud to come into this place and speak on this<br />
particular bill. They do not have anyone speaking on it. Look at their benches over there. No-one is going to get<br />
up and proudly support this particular legislation. They will not. Do you know why? It is because they know the<br />
adverse impact it will have on their constituents, with the most vulnerable Australian families being adversely<br />
impacted.<br />
The government have their priorities all wrong. They give $50 billion <strong>of</strong> tax cuts to big corporate Australia, but<br />
they will not defend 700,000 Australians who will get $77 a week less as a result <strong>of</strong> the Fair Work Commission<br />
decision that was handed down recently, they will not support Labor's proposed legislation to protect the living<br />
standards <strong>of</strong> those workers, and they will rip away the deficit levy, giving millionaires more than $16,000 a year<br />
in tax cuts. Allegedly, that deficit levy was introduced to address the issue <strong>of</strong> debt and the deficit, but the<br />
government have tripled the deficit and added more than $100 billion <strong>of</strong> debt to the bottom line. They are the<br />
biggest-taxing government in the history <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Australia. When they were opposition, they<br />
said they would bring in a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. They have tripled the deficit and<br />
added more than $100 billion <strong>of</strong> debt.<br />
This legislation shows just how out <strong>of</strong> touch their priorities are. The issue <strong>of</strong> weakening protection against<br />
racist hate speech seems to have really vexed them and caused them to be distracted for such a long time. Their<br />
priorities have drifted. They seem to be divided and dysfunctional. Certainly, that is why the Australian public is<br />
disillusioned with them; the polls clearly show that. This bill is an attack on the most vulnerable Australians. It<br />
had its origin in their much-vaunted 2014 budget. That is the budget that was handed down by the then member<br />
for North Sydney and lauded for a day or so until the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition said that Labor would fight tooth<br />
and nail against the cuts to family payments, the cuts to family tax benefits. This is not responsible fiscal budget<br />
repair—not at all. This government's approach seems to be targeting vulnerable Australians. It is almost as if the<br />
Prime Minister is held hostage to the far right <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party. Now he is trying to undo them.<br />
The bill introduces four key measures: a freeze in indexation for working-age and student payments, the<br />
introduction <strong>of</strong> waiting periods for parenting payment and youth allowance applicants, the freezing <strong>of</strong> indexation<br />
for family tax benefits and the automation <strong>of</strong> income-stream review processes. While we support efforts to<br />
improve income-reporting systems, there are things in this particular legislation that are chilling attacks on the<br />
basic social contract upon which this country is built.<br />
The first measure proposed in this legislation is in relation to indexation. It is an egregious attack on some <strong>of</strong><br />
the lowest-earning Australians. The bill would freeze for three years the income-free threshold for payments<br />
including Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payments and carers payments, leaving the income test for single<br />
parents, jobseekers and students trailing behind the cost <strong>of</strong> living. They are going to be worse <strong>of</strong>f; 204,000 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
lowest-income earning Australians will be worse <strong>of</strong>f. These are payments that enable some <strong>of</strong> the neediest and the<br />
most hard done by people in our country to get through the week financially—to feed and clothe their family, to<br />
make sure that they do not become homeless and to live a decent life. For many <strong>of</strong> my constituents in the<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Blair in southeast Queensland, these payments make it possible for their families to keep a ro<strong>of</strong> over<br />
their kids' heads and to put food on the table when they fall on hard times. For others, the payments provide<br />
support for those who provide constant, around-the-clock care and support for family members in need.<br />
The government feel that they can target these Australians. It is appalling; it is simply appalling. The thresholds<br />
that will be frozen by this bill are already dangerously low. For people receiving Newstart, the threshold is<br />
currently about $104 per fortnight. For single parents wanting to access the parenting payment, the threshold is a<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 27<br />
little better—$188.60. What possible sense is there in making this less? Do the government understand at all what<br />
these people are going through? According to the government, the answer to that question is definitely no. They<br />
have no idea what is happening in the lives <strong>of</strong> these people.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> further waiting times for income support is yet another assault on vulnerable Australians.<br />
This bill would see the recipients <strong>of</strong> parenting payment and youth allowance forced to wait seven days before they<br />
can receive their payment. To be eligible for youth allowance, you must not be undertaking full-time study and<br />
not be an apprentice. The unemployment rate in this country is higher than it was during the global financial<br />
crisis. It is 5.9 per cent. Nearly 1.1 million Australians say that they would like more work. They are<br />
underemployed. We have well over 700,000 Australians who are unemployed and not able to find work. We know<br />
from reported figures that there are 6,400 fewer jobs while as many as 33,000 part-time employees lost their jobs<br />
in the same period, in the last month. But, instead <strong>of</strong> taking concrete action to protect these jobs and build<br />
apprenticeships, the government have ripped nearly $2 billion out <strong>of</strong> jobs and training. We have 135,000 fewer<br />
apprenticeships in this country than when the government came to power four years ago. If the government were<br />
bothering to listen to those in need, they would not bring in this legislation today.<br />
Most people I know do not look for a handout; they look for a way to get through the week, trying to do<br />
everything they can to pull themselves up and get a better life for themselves and their family. The government<br />
are making it harder for them to get a job and harder for them to make ends meet. We know this is only the start <strong>of</strong><br />
what they want. We know that if they had their druthers, if they really did what they wanted to do, the $8.5 billion<br />
in cuts in the 2014 budget would have passed. But for the opposition <strong>of</strong> Labor they would have passed. We have<br />
consistently protected those people and stood up for them.<br />
The Prime Minister is not listening and nor did his predecessor, and that is why they turfed him out. This Prime<br />
Minister had a near-death political experience at the last federal election, getting by with virtually a goal, in AFL<br />
terms, or a field goal in rugby league terms, in the last minute to win the election. This bill should not be here.<br />
This bill will have an adverse impact on his political fortunes. Those opposite will wear this because, at every<br />
debate that Labor members have at the next election, I guarantee we will raise this particular legislation. We will<br />
raise the fact that this is what they are doing to families. Tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> them in my electorate, in Ipswich<br />
and Somerset in south-east Queensland, will be adversely impacted by what this government is doing. What<br />
possible reason has the Prime Minister for this particular legislation? What possible priority does he have? He is<br />
not content with attacking jobseekers and single parents. This bill hurts families. This is a family tax benefit cut. It<br />
is a piece <strong>of</strong> fiscal repair so unpopular that those opposite cannot even bring themselves to speak on it in this<br />
chamber. It is beyond belief that this is the sort <strong>of</strong> legislation that the government think is a priority.<br />
From 1 July 2017, indexation for the rates <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit parts A and B will be frozen for two years. That<br />
means that for two years the payments that those families receive and rely on will be out <strong>of</strong> step with the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
living, cutting $1.4 billion straight out <strong>of</strong> the budgets <strong>of</strong> Australian families. We have a situation where 1.5 million<br />
Australians will be adversely impacted by this legislation. The changes in this particular aspect will hit every<br />
family receiving family tax benefit, leaving over half a million low-income families worse <strong>of</strong>f. Six hundred<br />
thousand families are already receiving the maximum rate <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit part A, meaning that their<br />
household income is less than $52,000 a year. It is difficult to understand why the government would do this—the<br />
impact on low-wage households; the cut to family incomes making it harder to make ends meet. A family earning<br />
$60,000 with two children in primary school will be $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f by 2018. A single parent on $50,000 with two<br />
high school students will be $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f by 2018. A single-income family on $60,000 with three children<br />
under the age <strong>of</strong> 12 will be $600 worse <strong>of</strong>f by 2018. It is just inexcusable that the government would do this. The<br />
government do not have their priorities straight. They claim from time to time that the cuts are necessary to pay<br />
for their childcare reforms. How can you get a situation where you spend $1.6 billion and leave one in three<br />
families worse <strong>of</strong>f with your childcare reforms? At times they claim that these cuts are necessary to fund the<br />
NDIS. It is simply astonishing that they would do that. It is shameful and disgraceful that they would hold that<br />
position. The cuts are not necessary to fund the NDIS. They were not necessary in relation to the childcare<br />
reforms.<br />
Every year I relaunch the Blair Disability Links directory, which provides families living with disability and<br />
their carers information about the different local organisations and services. Every year I do that. At my most<br />
recent launch, we saw 50 organisations from Ipswich and Somerset take the opportunity to gather together to<br />
highlight the work that is being done. The priority for the government should be looking after the vulnerable<br />
Australians. The priority for the government should be looking after children who need a lift up and a chance to<br />
get a good education. The priority for the government should be to focus on the people they talked about and<br />
those who attend the Blair Disability Links expo every year. That should be their priority. If they want to talk<br />
about priorities, the government should look at privatisation in terms <strong>of</strong> restoring the funding that they are cutting<br />
CHAMBER
28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
for community legal centres. I just met with representatives from the Australian Services Union in a parliamentary<br />
briefing in relation to the cuts that the government are undertaking in terms <strong>of</strong> community legal centre funding<br />
and cuts they are undertaking in mental health funding and gaps.<br />
We know that the Personal Helpers and Mentors and Partners in Recovery funding is being rolled into the<br />
NDIS, and some <strong>of</strong> those services are delivered by Aftercare, through headspace, in my electorate, in Ipswich. If<br />
the government want to talk about priorities, do not prioritise this sort <strong>of</strong> legislation; prioritise funding for the<br />
NDIS, prioritise funding for PhaMs, prioritise funding for Partners in Recovery and prioritise funding for<br />
community legal centres. Make sure these things need to be funded and make sure those are your priorities. Do<br />
not prioritise funding for the big end <strong>of</strong> town and do not prioritise tax cuts for millionaires; prioritise funding for<br />
families, children and those living with disability and their carers. That is where the government's priorities should<br />
be, not this sort <strong>of</strong> legislation. I urge them to withdraw it. Go back to the drawing board. Stop being divided and<br />
start being committed to the unity <strong>of</strong> the Australian public and the Australian social compact.<br />
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:15): A freeze on family payments is a cut to family payments; those<br />
opposite can play as many word games as they like. Are rents and mortgages going to freeze for two years? Are<br />
supermarkets going to freeze the price <strong>of</strong> groceries? Are power companies, water utilities, councils and private<br />
health insurers going to freeze their bills for two years? This two-year freeze on family payments is a cut and it is<br />
one that Australian families cannot afford—and that is assuming this remains a two-year freeze. We have all seen<br />
how this government likes to extend what are supposed to be short-term freezes. A Medicare rebate freeze<br />
introduced by Labor shortly before the 2013 election and meant to last less than a year remains in place after five<br />
years <strong>of</strong> coalition government. It is little wonder that I have zero confidence that this supposed two-year freeze<br />
will fare any better.<br />
Once the indexation <strong>of</strong> family payments is frozen, what guarantee does this government <strong>of</strong>fer that the freeze<br />
will be lifted? What assurances on anything could this government give that could ever be believed? This is a<br />
government that is sneaky, untruthful and uncaring. This is a government that takes money from families,<br />
pensioners, students and workers, lecturing them about the need to rein in the budget deficit and the duty not to<br />
saddle future generations with debt, but, in the next breath, gives massive tax cuts to millionaires and a $50 billion<br />
handout to corporations and banks.<br />
As well as freezing family payments for two years, the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017<br />
extends waiting periods. The impacts <strong>of</strong> this bill affect 1½ million Australian families. Many <strong>of</strong> them live in<br />
Tasmania. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the constituents <strong>of</strong> my electorate cannot afford yet another cost-<strong>of</strong>living<br />
wallop from this government. In my electorate <strong>of</strong> Lyons, 9,200 families receive family tax benefit A. Such<br />
households earn less than $52,000 a year. These are people already doing it tough. In Lyons, 6,967 families<br />
receive family tax benefit B to help make ends meet. Families with two primary-school-aged children in Tasmania<br />
are looking down the barrel <strong>of</strong> being $440 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f. Those opposite may sc<strong>of</strong>f and say, 'That's just a c<strong>of</strong>fee<br />
or two a week,' but these are people who already struggle to meet their bills. Taking $8.50 a week from families<br />
who already scrape 20 cent pieces together for bread and milk is a real impact.<br />
We must never forget that these measures are not new. They have been dragged <strong>of</strong>f the shelf, and the cobwebs<br />
and dust have been blown <strong>of</strong>f the cover. The cover would have had on it the words: '2014 budget submission:<br />
Treasurer Joe Hockey.' That is right—this is a submission from one <strong>of</strong> the worst budgets ever to be presented to<br />
this <strong>House</strong>, a budget so awful that it ended the parliamentary career <strong>of</strong> the former member for North Sydney and<br />
led to the downfall <strong>of</strong> the member for Warringah. It comes from a budget that brought us the infamy <strong>of</strong> 'lifters and<br />
leaners' and the image <strong>of</strong> the former Treasurer and the Minister for Finance puffing away on cigars in the<br />
parliamentary courtyard, content at a job well done.<br />
These measures were born <strong>of</strong> a budget extraordinary for its meanness and its calumny <strong>of</strong> the Australian people.<br />
One would have thought this government would have preferred to never again be reminded <strong>of</strong> that budget <strong>of</strong><br />
horrors, but the Liberals never let a bad idea die. They just put it on the shelf, where it waits to be reanimated.<br />
And it is the member for Pearce, the Minister for Social Services, who gets to play Dr Frankenstein. He has<br />
brought out the jumper cables and he has zapped Joe's zombie back to life. Like any good zombie, this one is<br />
going to be let loose to shuffle about in the community, wreaking havoc and leaving tears and tragedy in its wake.<br />
There has been no consultation on this measure—neither <strong>of</strong> key stakeholders nor <strong>of</strong> the families who will be<br />
personally affected. These measures are striking in their meanness. At their heart, they make ordinary families pay<br />
the price <strong>of</strong> meeting the government's objectives to balance the budget and rein in debt, but the same government<br />
is removing its deficit levy on millionaires and still intends to hand $50 billion to corporations and banks.<br />
Families get a cut in income; corporations get a cut in tax. It does not make sense. Family tax benefits are in place<br />
for a reason: they stop families falling below the poverty line.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 29<br />
This bill also attacks students, amongst others. Students are generally thought <strong>of</strong> as a political free kick, but<br />
students in high school and at university are our sons and daughters. They are our grandsons and granddaughters<br />
and they deserve support. Many <strong>of</strong> them already do it tough. Many <strong>of</strong> them live at home. My own daughter is a<br />
university student, and she lives at home. She has the privilege <strong>of</strong> living at home and <strong>of</strong> having most <strong>of</strong> her<br />
expenses met by her mother and me. But there are a number <strong>of</strong> university students who do it very tough in the<br />
community. They need to pay rent and petrol, afford a car and buy their own textbooks. These are the people who<br />
will be hurt by these measures. They are already doing it very tough, and this just makes life tougher for them.<br />
Students and others will see their income-free areas frozen for three years. This means that single parents,<br />
jobseekers and students will not be able to keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. This is particularly problematic when<br />
you consider that most income-support payments are already below the poverty line, so these cuts will push<br />
people who are already doing it tough to live in even harsher conditions. Practically speaking, these cuts will<br />
mean people on Newstart allowance will only be able to work three hours on the minimum wage before they are<br />
over their threshold and their payments are impacted. These moves do not encourage people to get work and stay<br />
in work; they punish them. This is a disincentive to getting out there and making a go <strong>of</strong> it. These measures kick<br />
the people earning the least in our nation.<br />
We are a wealthy nation, one that can and should look after everyone. Freezing indexation is a cut—a plain,<br />
ugly cut. It is a cut when the people relying on these payments cannot afford it. It is an unfair cut at a time when<br />
inequality in this country is at its worst for decades. There has never been a time in living memory when income<br />
inequality in this country has been worse. There is an old saying: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and<br />
unfortunately that is true in Australia at the moment. It is this parliament's job to rein in that inequality, not make<br />
it worse.<br />
This is a cut when wages growth is at record lows. Wages are stagnating. It is a cut when weekend penalty rates<br />
are under threat. This parliament has been debating for more than two weeks the penalty rate cuts that are coming<br />
into place for low-income workers, people who depend on penalty rates, on Sunday rates, for their income, people<br />
who face a $77 a week loss from their pay. It is a cut when workers are being pushed back into part time and<br />
casual work, when they are losing the security <strong>of</strong> full-time permanence. They lack security. They lack the ability<br />
to plan financially for the long term. This is a cut when company pr<strong>of</strong>its are surging 20 per cent, while wages for<br />
workers fell by half a per cent. I am pleased that company pr<strong>of</strong>its are doing well. When companies do well,<br />
workers do well. I am happy to admit that. I myself am formerly a small businessman. But there comes a time<br />
when we have to look at where the pr<strong>of</strong>it share is going. When companies are making these huge pr<strong>of</strong>its, where is<br />
the community dividend? If wages are flat and if the poorest people in this nation cannot afford to make ends meet<br />
then you have to ask: where are those corporate pr<strong>of</strong>its going? How are they helping the community?<br />
These are cuts that the other side seem not to realise will hurt small business. They will bring in less tax<br />
revenue. When we cut the pay <strong>of</strong> so many people and so many families the downsides are immeasurable. The<br />
Liberals prioritise company pr<strong>of</strong>its over everyday Australians. In my first speech in this place I said that we live in<br />
a society, not an economy. The economy exists to serve us. We do not exist to serve the economy. That is so true<br />
in these words today.<br />
Labor is not okay with these cuts. We oppose them. Attacks on families are not on. Families are the backbone<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Australian community. Those on the other side just do not seem to understand fairness or the concept <strong>of</strong> a<br />
hand-up rather than a handout. Just this week in Tasmania we heard about pensioners doing it really tough,<br />
running out <strong>of</strong> money and eating poorly to get by. I am holding up the feature page from the Sunday Tasmanian. It<br />
reads: 'Thousands endure a life <strong>of</strong> struggle.' A thousand Tasmanian pensioners told their story to the newspaper<br />
about how hard life is on the age pension: a pensioner couple buying an '$8 pack <strong>of</strong> supermarket sausages' and<br />
dividing them up into three portions to last three nights. We are a wealthy nation. We can do better by people who<br />
live so hard. These are the people who built this great nation with their hard work, their sweat and their tears, but<br />
now they cannot even afford fresh food and vegetables. It is shameful.<br />
This bill also seeks to automate processes. If the coalition had agreed to excise that element from this bill we<br />
would support it. But seeing that they have insisted it be part <strong>of</strong> the entire bill we have no choice but to oppose the<br />
bill as a whole. The bill also extends waiting periods for Newstart and sickness allowance by another week before<br />
payments begin. Sickness allowance! The government is making people wait longer to get sickness allowance!<br />
This government is all about kicking people when they are down. It is a low act. Anyone who gets sick or loses<br />
their job is waiting longer to access even the small payments that help them get by. It is shameful.<br />
Labor will not support this bill. It is not fair that those who are doing it the toughest are forced to do it even<br />
tougher. Struggling families should not have to carry the budget burden those opposite are creating. Australian<br />
families should not bear the burden <strong>of</strong> repairing a budget when this government is prepared to give $50 billion<br />
over the next 10 years to corporations and banks. We can do better as a nation.<br />
CHAMBER
30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:27): I rise to join my colleagues today to speak on the Social<br />
Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the amendments put forward by the member for Jagajaga. The<br />
government believes the only way to improve the budget is to go after the vulnerable, and we are here again<br />
talking about another piece <strong>of</strong> legislation that is highlighting their attack on students, their attack on pensioners<br />
and, in general, their attack on people receiving any payment from Centrelink. They refuse to lower the deeming<br />
rates for our pensioners, they refuse to adequately fund our schools and they will not do a thing about the glacial<br />
rollout <strong>of</strong> the NBN. Yet, here we are again talking about changes to social services and, again, an attack on the<br />
most vulnerable in our communities.<br />
We saw their desire to drain middle and working class Australians manifested in their manufactured debt<br />
recovery debacle. We have seen that and we have talked about it in here time and time again, and we still have a<br />
government refusing to stop and change that system to make it less onerous on people in our community, and<br />
more fair.<br />
I understand and appreciate that this government is constantly having to split up their regressive policy ideas so<br />
that it might be difficult for people to keep up if they do not particularly pay close attention to politics. So let me<br />
tell you this: this speech is going to be the same speech I have been giving in this place since 2014, since the<br />
diabolical budget we woke up to in 2014, where this government's priorities were laid clearly on the table. They<br />
want to shower largess on the big end <strong>of</strong> town while chasing people down rabbit holes and putting their hands in<br />
their pockets to scrounge and take from the most vulnerable in our community.<br />
Since 2014 Labor has stood up for the people <strong>of</strong> Australia whom this government thinks it can bully and<br />
devalue. Since that 2014 budget, even with a new Prime Minister, this government still has not managed to get<br />
itself a set <strong>of</strong> priorities that are acceptable to the broader Australian public, that are acceptable to all <strong>of</strong> us here<br />
who come to represent our electorates. The same priorities are here, the same division is here and this legislation<br />
demonstrates that just one more time.<br />
This legislation has in it a freeze on key payments. This is the new strategy <strong>of</strong> the government—what I call the<br />
'kick them while they're down' strategy. This means that there will be welfare payments that will see freezes. That<br />
means that the amount <strong>of</strong> money given to recipients <strong>of</strong> Newstart, youth allowance, the parenting payment and the<br />
carer payment will remain at their current rates for three years, irrespective <strong>of</strong> how much the cost <strong>of</strong> living<br />
increases in that time. We have a government that want to come in here in question time, where they know that<br />
perhaps they will get on the TV at night, and talk about electricity price hikes, but while the televisions are not<br />
focused on us they want to cut the lowest incomes in our community. The rhetoric is about, 'We want to save you<br />
from price hikes,' but through the back door they want to put a freeze on the most vulnerable, who will therefore<br />
not be able to afford to pay their electricity bills. If you already struggling to make it on one <strong>of</strong> these payments,<br />
things will get a lot worse if this government gets its way. In fact it is expected that this particular change will<br />
make 204,000 Australians worse <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
I know that the majority <strong>of</strong> those opposite like to get on their feet and demonise those in our communities that<br />
need support, those who have fallen on hard times or who lack the networks or the training and require a hand up,<br />
those—like people in my electorate—who are lurching from one casual or part-time job to another, those people<br />
who need support in between positions, those families who are reliant on a pay packet from week to week and<br />
have no certainty about what next week's pay packet might look like, those families who are not sure that the<br />
casual hours that they got this week will be available next week and those who find themselves perhaps running a<br />
small business with an ABN and are reliant on the weekly receipts <strong>of</strong> the work that is going on in our community.<br />
Any slowdown in housing in my community has ramifications throughout the community in terms <strong>of</strong> people's<br />
weekly incomes, and a lot <strong>of</strong> those families and a lot <strong>of</strong> those working young people who are reliant on work in<br />
those industries might wake up one day and realise that they need to visit Centrelink.<br />
Let me get rid <strong>of</strong> this notion that people wake up around Australia going: 'You beauty, I'm going to go to<br />
Centrelink today. I'm gonna give up work and I'm just gonna retire permanently because there's a safety net in this<br />
country that means I can do that.' Those opposite seem to be stuck in a picture <strong>of</strong> 1970, where dole bludgers were<br />
on the front page <strong>of</strong> every newspaper. Life is not like that for an ordinary Australian. Life is not like that in my<br />
community. People who get up in the morning and realise they have to go Centrelink, because there is not going<br />
to be a pay packet next week, go there with dread in their hearts. As someone who worked in schools, I have to<br />
tell you how difficult it is to get the young people in my electorate to even say they will go to Centrelink. They are<br />
proud people. They want work. They want full-time work. There are 1.8 million people in this country who are<br />
underemployed or unemployed. Those are the ones who are walking through the doors <strong>of</strong> Centrelink. Those are<br />
the ones who are requesting assistance to get them through the hard times—not necessarily permanently; perhaps<br />
just for a month—and this bill that this government wants to get through this parliament is going to make those<br />
things more difficult.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 31<br />
I want to burst that bubble. They believe that there are somehow lazy people that they have demonised into<br />
people who want to sit back at the beach and have Centrelink look after them. In my electorate it is a very<br />
different story to that, and I would suggest that across Australia it is too. We have had mutual obligation in this<br />
country for a long time. Those who are fortunate enough never to have to interact with Centrelink may not<br />
understand what mutual obligation is, but everybody who has ever been through those doors understands what it<br />
means. No-one thinks they are going onto a Centrelink payment permanently in this country, and people who are<br />
there are not there because they are lazy.<br />
I will take, for instance, Peter Grant, a man in my electorate who was once fit and gainfully employed. He<br />
worked full time in a job that paid up to $2,000 a week. He had a good job. He would regularly ride and he would<br />
regularly run. He was a leader in the community, involved in sporting groups and someone who really was<br />
enjoying life living in the electorate. His life fell apart when he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis three<br />
years ago. The life <strong>of</strong> this man, who takes more medication each day than I can fit in my medicine cabinet and is<br />
in permanent pain, fell apart with that diagnosis. His life fell apart with that pain. He is being denied the disability<br />
support pension and is being forced to live on Newstart, because somebody in this world thinks he, a man whose<br />
pain is preventing full-time work, is being lazy.<br />
This bill will also go to ordinary waiting periods at Centrelink. Currently, recipients <strong>of</strong> Newstart or sickness<br />
allowance must wait seven days before they can receive a payment. One could argue that is fair or unfair; I would<br />
suggest it is unfair. This measure will extend this waiting period to recipients <strong>of</strong> parenting payment and youth<br />
allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice. This is a Grinch<br />
measure. This is kicking them while they are down. On their worst day, when they have to go to Centrelink, they<br />
are going to walk through the doors and be told, 'That's all well and good, but you'll have to wait another week.'<br />
This schedule also provides that the current exemption available on the basis <strong>of</strong> severe financial hardship will<br />
apply only if a person has experienced a personal financial crisis. Why are they at Centrelink if they are not in a<br />
personal financial crisis? For goodness sake, wake up. This is not something people do for fun. They do it so they<br />
can pay the rent. They do it to avoid eviction. They do it so they can meet a mortgage payment. They do it so that<br />
they can pay the school fees. They do it so they can go to the doctor. They are not walking into Centrelink until<br />
they have a personal financial crisis. Who goes there unless that is the circumstance? And what will happen now?<br />
They will walk into Centrelink and be told, 'It's really sad that you lost your job last week' or 'that the factory<br />
closed down'. Perhaps they had worked in the car industry. It is really sad that 4,000 car industry workers in my<br />
electorate are facing a jobless future. They will walk into Centrelink and be told, 'Perhaps you'll have to wait a<br />
week.' So they will go down the road to one <strong>of</strong> our community organisations, possibly to seek support, perhaps for<br />
a relief package.<br />
The community organisations in my electorate are down to one relief package per family per year under this<br />
government. The cuts across the sector have been absolutely drastic. They have got their hands tied behind their<br />
backs and are trying to deal with preventative measures to keep people in their homes or in their rental properties.<br />
That situation is being exacerbated now. They will have people who are already in personal financial crisis<br />
walking through the door and seeking advice on how they might prove that to Centrelink, and seeking assistance<br />
for the week in which they have to wait until there will be support from Centrelink. These are families. These are<br />
people with children.<br />
I heard a story in the electorate quite recently—it is actually a good-news story—about a family that had gone<br />
through some really hard times in previous years. A mother and her children found themselves sleeping in a car.<br />
They have turned the corner, and mum has found employment and they are now in a rental situation. It highlights<br />
for me how quickly people can slip—it is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff. If you are reliant on casual<br />
employment, this is a cliff when the bad news comes. If you are working for a company that employs a small<br />
number <strong>of</strong> people, you have no recourse in terms <strong>of</strong> unfair dismissal; there are redundancies happening. Young<br />
people show up for work one day and then are told, 'Work has slowed down, guys—sorry, we are going to have to<br />
put you <strong>of</strong>f.' Do they ring Fair Work to find out what they are entitled to? These young people have to negotiate<br />
with their employers to see if they can get their two weeks that might be owed for leave plus the two weeks for<br />
redundancy. Do they have to do all <strong>of</strong> this by themselves? They are not doing that. They are saying, 'Thanks, boss,<br />
for the time you employed me' and walking out the door and then facing the hard decision to go to Centrelink, to<br />
be told, 'You'll have to wait a week.' The rent is not going to be paid and the bills are not going to be paid. They<br />
are going to be back on mum and dad's doorstep. That is the reality here. To put this waiting period in place seems<br />
absolutely insane to me. What is the cost <strong>of</strong> this in our communities? What is going to be the cost to mental<br />
health? What is going to be the cost on the ground in communities like mine compared to the savings that this<br />
government thinks it might make?<br />
CHAMBER
32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The other big thing in this bill is the indexation freeze on parts A and B <strong>of</strong> the family tax benefit for two years<br />
from 1 July 2017. Currently the payments are indexed annually, on 1 July, by the consumer price index. This<br />
means that the payments families receive will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living for two years. Let us not<br />
misunderstand this. This is a government that thinks that people should lose possibly $77 a week in their penalty<br />
rates and that people who are reliant on the family tax benefit can no longer have that indexed to CPI. In Lalor,<br />
this is a big issue because it affects many families <strong>of</strong> the 1.5 million families across the country who are reliant on<br />
family tax benefit parts A and B, or part there<strong>of</strong>. Almost 600,000 <strong>of</strong> these families are on the maximum rate <strong>of</strong><br />
family tax benefit A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 per year. In certain sections <strong>of</strong> the<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Lalor the average income is $52,000 per year, so you can imagine the number <strong>of</strong> people in Lalor who<br />
are reliant on the family tax benefit—and now they are going to face a freeze. The impact on families and<br />
significant. A family on $60,000 with two primary school age children will be around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19.<br />
I will finish on this point, because I know it is ringing in the ears <strong>of</strong> the people in my electorate—that is, while<br />
a family on $60,000 with two children is going to lose $440 from this government, millionaires are going to get<br />
$16,400 on the same day in tax relief, and big business is still lining up for its $50 billion tax cuts. The priorities<br />
<strong>of</strong> the government are absolutely absurd. They cannot manage getting legislation through the parliament, because<br />
they are deaf to the notion that they need to address the issue <strong>of</strong> fairness. The Prime Minister promised when he<br />
took the leadership that he would see things through a lens fairness. He has failed to do so. Being on our feet again<br />
today discussing this proves that just one more time.<br />
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:42): It should not be any surprise that we are standing here yet again<br />
defending the most vulnerable citizens <strong>of</strong> Australia from yet another attack by this government. It is a relentless<br />
attack, and we will continue to stand up for families and individuals who are the victims <strong>of</strong> it. The Social Services<br />
Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is cutting $1.4 billion from Australian families. Those opposite are not willing<br />
to back down on their tax cut for big business, but they are willing to pull the rug from under a whole bunch <strong>of</strong><br />
people who are just trying to get on with living with some dignity.<br />
So let us look at the individual parts <strong>of</strong> this bill that we are opposed to. Firstly, there is the freezing <strong>of</strong><br />
indexation on payments. This bill freezes for three years the income-free areas for all working-age and student<br />
payments. So, for the next three years, the income test for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep<br />
pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. Admittedly, wages growth is the slowest on record. That will help keep CPI down on<br />
one level. But the problem is that the ABS says that hourly rates <strong>of</strong> pay excluding bonuses grew by 0.48 per cent<br />
for the quarter in seasonally adjusted terms, leaving the annual rate at 1.87 per cent. The year-on-year increase<br />
was still the lowest level on record. So people are getting the lowest wages on record. And, at times, you would<br />
think that freezing something, putting it on hold, slowing down an increase might be a sensible approach. But why<br />
would you do it to the people who are already under pressure, with the lowest possible incomes?<br />
Let us talk about Newstart recipients. There are 1.8 million people looking for work. When you have<br />
businesses like KPMG and the Business Council <strong>of</strong> Australia calling for an increase in the amount <strong>of</strong> money<br />
jobseekers have to survive on while they are looking for work, you know you have a real issue. Right now I am<br />
not sure if most people even know how much people looking for work are allowed to earn before their payment<br />
begins to be cut: it is $102 per fortnight—$51 a week—that they are able to earn to supplement Newstart.<br />
I have people young, old and in-between coming into talk to me about their desire to work and about the efforts<br />
they go to to try and get work. They are demoralised. For young people, their families are feeling desperate. These<br />
are <strong>of</strong>ten families where they have not known unemployment, so these are issues where you just wonder: why do<br />
we have to make things harder; how much harder do we seriously want to make it for students; and how much<br />
harder do we want to make it for parents?<br />
For parenting payments, the threshold after which the payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. This is already<br />
a really low threshold: it is $94 a week. The same freeze applies to carer payments—and this is one that is<br />
particularly concerning for many carers in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Macquarie. People on carer allowance have <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
given up full-time work in order to care for a parent, partner or child. They can find themselves in a precarious<br />
financial situation not completely <strong>of</strong> their making. It is something they have chosen to do but sometimes with a<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> financial misgiving, because something unexpected has happened—illness or disability <strong>of</strong> a loved one. If<br />
they can manage to do a few hours <strong>of</strong> work a week and earn a bit <strong>of</strong> extra income, they tell me it is not just about<br />
the financial benefit; it is about the opportunity to have a change <strong>of</strong> environment and interact with other people<br />
outside their immediate family. You cannot underestimate the mental health benefits and social connectivity that<br />
those few hours <strong>of</strong>fer; however, this freeze is yet another blow for people trying to maintain their work<br />
connections, which can be so important for them, if their circumstances change and they are in a position to reenter<br />
the workforce in a full-time capacity.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 33<br />
The freeze also applies to single parents—yep, there is a group you really want to make life harder for. Not<br />
only are many single parents already juggling study with young families so that when they can return to the<br />
workforce they have the necessary qualifications but now we want to make it harder for them to earn a bit <strong>of</strong> extra<br />
money to be able to pay for soccer boots, enrolling in netball or that school excursion. Quite frankly, that aspect <strong>of</strong><br />
the bill is just plain dumb.<br />
But then we have got the stretched-out waiting periods. The decision to extend waiting periods before being<br />
eligible for youth allowance and parenting payments is another part <strong>of</strong> the bill that we oppose. It is just another<br />
example <strong>of</strong> this Prime Minister's inability to comprehend what it is like to struggle to make ends meet. Currently,<br />
if you receive Newstart or sickness allowance, you have to wait seven days before receiving payment. Goodness<br />
knows how you are supposed to buy food or pay your rent in that time. By the time people have accepted that<br />
perhaps they are not going to get a job any time soon—or actually they are really sick and will not be able to get<br />
back to work—they have generally exhausted all the savings and goodwill <strong>of</strong> friends and family that have kept<br />
them going.<br />
We were able to beat the plan to extend the Newstart wait to five weeks, but the leopards opposite do not<br />
change their spots. Extending the one-week measure to parenting payments and youth allowance recipients is<br />
equally hard to understand. Anyone who has been through the application process for youth allowance already<br />
knows that it takes forever to finally be granted eligibility. To be considered independent for youth allowance, you<br />
have already funded yourself through work for 18 months so, if you have had a gap year, you are starting uni<br />
without any government support—you are <strong>of</strong>ten relocating cities, you are paying for transport to and from uni and<br />
you are buying text books—and now they want people to just hold on another week.<br />
The only possible explanation I can find for this is that it is desperation by the government to find some<br />
savings. They are penny-pinching and aiming it at the socially disadvantaged and politically defenceless. I think<br />
Ross Gittins said it well when he wrote that it showed 'the government is near the bottom <strong>of</strong> the barrel in the<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> budget savings it's prepared to make'—not the savings it could make but the savings it is prepared to<br />
make. I can see why he concludes that 'this government is near to being morally, politically and economically<br />
bankrupt'.<br />
I now turn to the family tax benefit, which will freeze indexation <strong>of</strong> the rates <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit parts A and<br />
B for two years from 1 July. Right now, the payments are indexed—that is pretty logical; these are benefits that<br />
families rely on to cover the costs <strong>of</strong> raising a family, and the cost <strong>of</strong> living goes up every year. This means now<br />
that the payments families receive just will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living for the next two years.<br />
The first cut happens in just three months time for that financial year. It will not be the last though: the second<br />
cut will kick in in July next year, and the effects will be felt at the end <strong>of</strong> that financial year. Let's think about the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> these cuts on families: a family on $60,000 a year with two primary school-aged children will be around<br />
$440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in the second year <strong>of</strong> this cut; a single parent on $50,000 with three children under 12 will be $600<br />
worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19; and a single parent with two high school children will be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f in the same<br />
year. As always with this government, it is not necessarily a huge amount <strong>of</strong> money for those opposite, but for the<br />
families whose children just do not seem to stop growing—and they do not seem to stop eating for that matter—it<br />
is a real hit to a tight, if not already stretched, budget.<br />
The families who will have to cope with these cuts are not an abstract concept in my electorate. There are 8,500<br />
families who receive family tax benefit part A. There are 6,500 Macquarie families on family tax benefit part B,<br />
all <strong>of</strong> whom will lose assistance. They are in Bligh Park, Wilberforce and Bowen Mountain; they are in Mount<br />
Riverview, Hazelbrook and Katoomba, and everywhere in-between.<br />
Peggy from Lawson wrote to me recently to explain just how important the family tax benefit payment is to her<br />
family. Peggy uses the money to pay for her car registration, because it is very hard to save up week to week for<br />
such a large expense. She says that to have the payment reduced or taken away would be disastrous for her family.<br />
A freeze has the same impact as a cut. It will reduce her ability to be able to cover a significant annual bill. As<br />
Peggy says, the end-<strong>of</strong>-year return is more use to her than an extra $20 per fortnight, as in the scheme <strong>of</strong> things<br />
that would mean very little to her lifestyle. But the consequences <strong>of</strong> taking away that end-<strong>of</strong>-financial-year<br />
payment will pervade her entire year, and she worries that it may leave her without a car in the very near future.<br />
So that is the human impact—and I have to tell you: you do not want to be a mum in the mountains unable to<br />
access a car. If we had a city public transport system, you might think it was a reasonable decision to make, but<br />
once you take away a vehicle from a family in the Blue Mountains you are isolating somebody.<br />
That is why we oppose this undermining <strong>of</strong> the family tax benefit. These families are part <strong>of</strong> the 1.5 million<br />
families who will be worse <strong>of</strong>f under these changes. More than one-third <strong>of</strong> them are on the maximum rate <strong>of</strong><br />
family tax benefit A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. I recall the government<br />
CHAMBER
34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
tried to do this in the 2014 budget, but after fierce opposition from us it was dropped from the budget in the midyear<br />
forecast in 2015. Who knows what else from that horrific budget they are planning to bring back in a month's<br />
time? You have to wonder how many <strong>of</strong> these families will also be hit by the cut to Sunday and public holiday<br />
penalty rates, which would be another blow to their budgets. We think that all <strong>of</strong> the measures I have spoken<br />
about should be removed from this bill.<br />
It has fascinated me to see the way this government has sought to fund its child-care package, especially one<br />
that leaves one-third <strong>of</strong> children and their families worse <strong>of</strong>f and that has been at the expense <strong>of</strong> other families,<br />
playing one family <strong>of</strong>f against another—in some cases, playing one child <strong>of</strong>f against another. This is the priority<br />
<strong>of</strong> this government: hit families and the lowest income people.<br />
But it is not just this bill. It is also the cuts to community legal centres. It is the $30 billion cut to education and<br />
the failure to fund the full Gonski so that we have needs-based funding that is fair for every single child. It is the<br />
ongoing decision to freeze the Medicare rebate to GPs. When will that be lifted? Until it is, there is no security for<br />
people that a visit to the GP is within their budget. It is also the failure to fund housing and homelessness services.<br />
It is the failure to adequately support the community sector, which is under more and more pressure. These are the<br />
sort <strong>of</strong> decisions, when you use a freeze as a way to patch up a budget—a budget I should point out, where the<br />
deficit is three times greater than what they started with, blowing out <strong>of</strong> the water the self-proclaimed myth that<br />
those opposite are good economic managers—where the impacts are long-lasting.<br />
I want to finish with one measure in the bill that we have agreed to support—that is, the automation <strong>of</strong> income<br />
stream information. The aim <strong>of</strong> this measure is to improve the accuracy and efficiency <strong>of</strong> the social security<br />
system. I see this as a way <strong>of</strong> avoiding the awful robo-debt letters that people have received, demanding money<br />
that may or may not have been overpaid several years ago. The more quickly a discrepancy can be picked up, the<br />
smaller the error will be and the easier it will be for welfare recipients to correct the situation. They are more<br />
likely to still have payslips and receipts, so it will be a far less painful process. Clearly the current system <strong>of</strong><br />
income data collecting has failed many honest Australians who reported their income correctly—only to have a<br />
computer say 'no'. It must be backed by human beings, who have a key role in the process <strong>of</strong> ensuring that what<br />
we have seen in the robo-debt debacle is not repeated.<br />
I would like to speak about one <strong>of</strong> my constituents, a retired academic Annabelle Solomon from Winmalee,<br />
who was diagnosed with melanoma last year. In the midst <strong>of</strong> intense therapy for her cancer, she received a letter<br />
from Centrelink asking her to confirm her income from 2014-15. She was a casual lecturer at the Western Sydney<br />
University at the time, some weeks working many hours and other weeks very few. She was also at retirement age<br />
and entitled to a part pension. Every fortnight she reported her income and received some payment, depending<br />
upon her earnings, but she was told that she had a debt worth thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars. Annabelle fought this. She<br />
came to me; she went to the media. As a result <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> those efforts, Centrelink realised that they had made a<br />
mistake. In fact, recently, again while midway through treatment, she was given the news that there is no debt at<br />
all. Annabelle says that the whole process was dehumanising. I hope those opposite are proud <strong>of</strong> what they have<br />
done to someone undergoing cancer treatment—a completely unnecessary thing to have occurred. Let's hope that<br />
this legislation prevents that. There are people in my electorate like Annabelle who will never forget the treatment<br />
that they have received.<br />
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (12:57): I rise with my colleagues on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> to speak on the Social<br />
Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is not my intention to go into detail about our concerns about<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> this bill; I think they have been very well articulated already by members on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. I<br />
will, however, touch on a number <strong>of</strong> the measures within the bill, in particular the measure that the member for<br />
Macquarie just spoke about—that is, the automation <strong>of</strong> the income stream. I also do want to make some broader<br />
comments and some observations in relation to what this bill represents and the overall narrative that is<br />
developing about the government.<br />
It seems to me that what we are discussing today—and the speech by the member for Jagajaga from this side <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>House</strong> articulated this—is the desperate attempt by this government to try and reclaim some <strong>of</strong> what was in the<br />
2014 budget measures. I think the member for Macquarie's quoting <strong>of</strong> Ross Gittins shows very clearly that the<br />
overall narrative that is emerging—and I have been around parliaments for a very long time—is <strong>of</strong> a government<br />
that does not care about people who are vulnerable; it does not care about people who are poor or people who are<br />
sick.<br />
This bill demonstrates very strongly what the government is saying to many thousands <strong>of</strong> parents and to over<br />
1½ million families in Australia. All <strong>of</strong> those families live in the electorates <strong>of</strong> everyone that is represented in this<br />
chamber, and that point should be noted very much. You only have to look at the tax cuts that will be provided to<br />
the people <strong>of</strong> wealth in this nation on 1 July and the refusal <strong>of</strong> the government yesterday in question time to<br />
directly answer whether or not those tax cuts would be held back. The other thing <strong>of</strong> course—this has been well<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 35<br />
articulated by previous speakers—is that not just this bill but a number <strong>of</strong> bills being brought forward by the<br />
government over the course <strong>of</strong> this week have had no speakers or very few speakers from the government. This<br />
includes the bill in relation to rural students accessing earlier payments from Centrelink, which was a positive<br />
story for the government. It just astounds me that there is not even an effort from the government—I hope the<br />
media is taking note <strong>of</strong> this—to provide speakers on its own legislation. I have never seen, in 14 years <strong>of</strong><br />
experience in parliaments both in New South Wales and in this one, a government too lazy and not organised<br />
enough to provide speakers for its own legislation even when the legislation is noncontroversial and has bipartisan<br />
support from this side <strong>of</strong> the house. It is astounding—and, as I said, I hope the media is taking notice <strong>of</strong> this—that<br />
a government does not even provide speakers on its own piece <strong>of</strong> legislation when that legislation has bipartisan<br />
support. It suggests to me a laziness, it suggests to me an attitude <strong>of</strong> not caring and it also suggests to me that<br />
ministers who are responsible for those pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation have not had their staff organise a speakers list for the<br />
legislation. It is something that I have never seen before.<br />
If you look at what was going on in the Senate yesterday and today, at the attacks this government is making on<br />
people who believe in decency and who believe in a community that does not lend itself to racial discrimination<br />
and at the idiotic attacks on 18 C and the lack <strong>of</strong> a logical approach to that piece <strong>of</strong> legislation, you start to get a<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> what this government does or does not stand for. The absurdity <strong>of</strong> attacking poor and working families is<br />
something that this side <strong>of</strong> the house will never, ever agree to. That is why Labor will oppose this bill in its current<br />
form.<br />
We have said very clearly to the government that, if they separate the measures around automation <strong>of</strong> income<br />
stream from the bill, we will support that aspect <strong>of</strong> the bill. But I suspect that the government, with its lack <strong>of</strong><br />
finesse, its laziness and its lack <strong>of</strong> capacity to organise its legislative program, will not agree to that particular<br />
measure, even though it makes absolute sense and, as the member for Macquarie said, would avoid to a very large<br />
measure the debacle we have seen with the robo-debt recovery. It just says to me, once again, a lack <strong>of</strong> finesse and<br />
laziness that this government displays in terms <strong>of</strong> its legislative framework.<br />
I have no doubt that this is yet another measure, like the robo-debt recovery measure, about a money grab.<br />
These measures—this bill and others—will do nothing to invest in more jobs in Australia; create more training<br />
programs; lift people up who deserve that lift up into employment and into being able to maintain some sort <strong>of</strong><br />
decency in their homes, be that registering a car, making sure their kids are well dressed to go to school or putting<br />
food on the table. It is as we have seen with this government's rush to attack penalty rates on Sundays.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> those things add up to a narrative. That narrative is not being misunderstood by the Australian<br />
community and that narrative is clearly increasingly not being misunderstood by the Australian media. It is about<br />
being mean, penny-pinching and prepared to kick those who can least afford it to grab money to fill a budget<br />
black hole. That is not the way to run a government and that is not the way to have good and fair governance for<br />
all communities and for all citizens in Australia. It is attacking the most poor and ripping away from the most<br />
vulnerable to try and fix up a budget problem when it is obvious how that budget problem, in part, could be fixed.<br />
Labor has said time and time again in this chamber, 'Do not give a $50 billion tax cut to the rich, do not attack<br />
things like family tax benefit and do not attack and take money—in fact, it is almost like stealing—through<br />
something like the robo-debt recovery scheme, where many people have paid back debt that is non-existent out <strong>of</strong><br />
fear and out <strong>of</strong> giving up trying to deal with Centrelink.'<br />
These cuts, as I said, will leave at least 1½ million families worse <strong>of</strong>f in electorates like Barton that I represent<br />
and those you represent. It astounds me that there is not one person from the government who will stick their head<br />
up about the things that are affecting people in their electorates. We know they are affecting people in their<br />
electorates. Elements <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the electorates that are represented by those opposite, from both the Liberal<br />
Party and the National Party but particularly the National Party, are very poor and have experienced entrenched<br />
disadvantage over a very long period <strong>of</strong> time. If the measures that I have outlined were about creating<br />
employment, improving the system, refining the processes <strong>of</strong> Centrelink and putting more resources into<br />
Centrelink, you could understand the silence from the other side. But, when none <strong>of</strong> those things are evident in the<br />
legislation we are dealing with today or in other pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation, you have to wonder why there is such a<br />
silence. It is obvious that this government and this Prime Minister stand for nothing anymore, because, if this<br />
government and this Prime Minister stood for something, we would not be debating the harsh measures in these<br />
pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation, which are simply a money grab. They are not about good policy or good governance and<br />
they are certainly not about the people they will directly hurt. This bill will hurt families and those studying for<br />
three years. These measures will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest income. For three years, the income <strong>of</strong><br />
single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. This is just another form <strong>of</strong><br />
attack from this government on hardworking families and those trying to improve their lives.<br />
CHAMBER
36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
As with other speakers, I am so disgusted with the cynical idea that, if you attack people who need Centrelink<br />
assistance, who rely on welfare and who are doing it hard, people will not care. The cynical politics says that you<br />
can go ahead with your attacks. That is wrong—people do care. As I have said in this chamber before, the one<br />
thing that Australia stands for is fairness, and people can see just how unfair the decisions <strong>of</strong> this government have<br />
been over a very long time.<br />
This bill also introduces a one-week waiting period before people can access parenting payments or youth<br />
allowance. Once again, this is not common sense; it is simply about saving money. There is no rationale for this<br />
other than just as another attack on people who may be facing some difficult financial situations. The only<br />
explanation can be that, as I said, it is an attack on everyday Australians. I have articulated, as did the member for<br />
Macquarie, the measures around the automation <strong>of</strong> the income stream and how we will support that if it is<br />
separated from the rest <strong>of</strong> the bill. Clearly, because there are no speakers from the government in this debate, that<br />
is not going to happen—and I recognise the story about Annabel that the member for Macquarie spoke <strong>of</strong>.<br />
I also have been privy to many <strong>of</strong> the submissions that are coming into the Senate inquiry on the robo-debt<br />
issue, and I can say that even the department's own submission demonstrates, writ large, just how many mistakes<br />
have been made in that process. In fact, the department is saying, 'Well, it's not so bad because not as many<br />
mistakes have been made in assessing the family tax benefit.' Isn't that an indication <strong>of</strong> just how bad the situation<br />
must be? Labor stands for fairness, Labor stands for equity and Labor stands for supporting those who can least<br />
afford the sorts <strong>of</strong> attacks and cuts in this legislation and other pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation that this government has<br />
introduced. We will not support the ongoing attacks on Australian families.<br />
I finish by saying this. It seems to me that, when you reduce yourself as a government with these sorts <strong>of</strong><br />
attacks without any positivity or any indication that these measures will be beneficial to anyone, while stubbornly<br />
refusing to rule out tax breaks for the most wealthy and those who can most afford it when you are attacking the<br />
people who can least afford it, that indicates a government in decline. That indicates a government that smells. It<br />
smells <strong>of</strong> unfairness, it smells <strong>of</strong> defeat, it smells <strong>of</strong> disorganisation and it smells <strong>of</strong> chaos, and the time will come<br />
when people will reach that conclusion. (Time expired)<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:12): I follow on from my colleague the member for Barton and acknowledge her<br />
contribution to this chamber and her advocacy for the disadvantaged in her community and across the country for<br />
the last couple <strong>of</strong> decades. I am really proud that Labor speakers are defending the most vulnerable in our<br />
community—because this piece <strong>of</strong> paper in front <strong>of</strong> me, the speakers list, says it all. It says there is a complete<br />
blank page from the government. This is a government that apparently says these reforms are necessary; this is a<br />
government that says the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is critical; but not one speaker—and I<br />
will go further than the member for Barton—has the guts to get up and defend the government's decision. Not one.<br />
Last week, we heard them all, one after the other, squawking away about critical issues, apparently, such as<br />
enabling more racial hate speech, but not one speaker has the guts to come into this place and defend or justify the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> their decisions on the thousands <strong>of</strong> people in my electorate and over one million families across<br />
Australia. I say that not only is it shameful; it is gutless. It is a government that will not look people in the eye and<br />
explain exactly what it is going to do, so the member for Barton is exactly right to highlight the arrogance <strong>of</strong> those<br />
opposite.<br />
This government is known for its incompetence on a whole lot <strong>of</strong> things, whether it be the Centrelink robo-debt<br />
disaster or whether it be the ABS failure—on it goes. But it is now getting a name for itself in the community as<br />
an arrogant government that is completely out <strong>of</strong> touch. I am sick and tired <strong>of</strong> the language that this government<br />
uses about 'lifters' and 'leaners' and 'double dippers' and 'rorters'—fingering everyone else, blaming everyone else,<br />
but not taking responsibility for its actions. It seems that those opposite think this is a good idea, that they think<br />
ripping up the safety net and support for working families in my electorate and in other electorates across<br />
Queensland is a good idea. I note that none <strong>of</strong> the marginal seat members from Queensland are walking in here to<br />
defend these measures. Where are the member for Petrie, the member for Flynn, the member for Leichhardt, the<br />
member for Dawson? None <strong>of</strong> them have the guts to walk into this chamber and explain to their communities or to<br />
the broader national community why they think it is acceptable to rip up the social safety net. But we are not<br />
surprised, because this is a pattern writ large by this government. The priority <strong>of</strong> this government—as we see<br />
week, in week out—is looking after the top end while the bottom end has to pay for it. Time and time again we<br />
see that—lining the pockets <strong>of</strong> the large corporations, the big banks et cetera with a large tax cut <strong>of</strong> $47 billion but<br />
at the same time hitting Australian families, pensioners, jobseekers and people living with a disability to pay for<br />
this voodoo economics, this trickle-down economics.<br />
Let us look at this bill. This bill will cut $1.4 billion from Australian families. It is crystal clear that this Prime<br />
Minister, shackled to the extreme right <strong>of</strong> his own party, thinks it is okay to cut family support and to cut the<br />
payments that people rely on. Labor speakers have talked about case studies demonstrating what these sorts <strong>of</strong><br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 37<br />
payments mean to people, but the government thinks it is okay to cut these payments and look after the large<br />
multinational companies and banks. Those are the government's priorities; we know that and the Australian<br />
community are seeing that day in, day out. We know the genesis <strong>of</strong> this policy framework: it came out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
horrific 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget. I note that the former Treasurer was back in Australia yesterday, in this<br />
building. Who can forget those images <strong>of</strong> the then Treasurer and the finance minister on budget night chomping<br />
down on their cigars, having a big laugh, cranking the music up, 'The best night <strong>of</strong> my life,' dancing in the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
and then the Treasurer, minutes later, walking into this place and telling the rest <strong>of</strong> Australia, 'Look, sorry about<br />
that; I know we didn't mention it during the federal election campaign, I know we didn't mention it before the<br />
election, but, by the way, you are all going to pay for it, and you are going to pay for it through the nose.' We saw<br />
how that all unfolded and, as a result, we saw the disastrous reforms that they attempted to introduce. We then<br />
saw a leadership regime change within the Liberal Party because <strong>of</strong> that disaster, and now we see the government<br />
again go back to form—nothing has changed; there is no new sense <strong>of</strong> leadership and no new sense <strong>of</strong> responsible<br />
government. The government is trying to ram through these measures. It is still the bedrock <strong>of</strong> this government's<br />
policy framework to rip out support and the safety net for those who need it the most.<br />
If I am wrong, if I am not speaking the truth, then one member <strong>of</strong> the government should get up and say so.<br />
One member should have the guts—the minister, or the assistant minister at the table, if he feels inclined. The<br />
member for Hughes is in the chamber; he always has something to squawk about. He is always on his feet ripping<br />
out the salary <strong>of</strong> low-income workers or defending the extreme right-wing racial hate speeches from his own<br />
party. He is always up for that challenge, yet he is eerily silent today on this important matter. It is not a minor<br />
matter; it is not a tinkering <strong>of</strong> legislation—it is a major sledgehammer for the thousands <strong>of</strong> families who call my<br />
electorate home. Let us be clear about what this bill intends to do: it will freeze for three years the income-free<br />
areas for all working-age and student payments on support programs such as Newstart, youth allowance, parenting<br />
payment and carers payments. And all <strong>of</strong> this when inequality is at a 70-year high—2½ million Australians live<br />
below the poverty line and hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians are unemployed. These new measures would<br />
affect 204,000 Australians living on the lowest incomes. I want to underscore that: the lowest incomes.<br />
I did a mobile <strong>of</strong>fice in my electorate on Saturday, and a young mum came to see me and said she wanted to<br />
ask me some questions about what was going on in politics in Australia. I said, 'Absolutely, let's have a chat.' She<br />
wanted some straightforward answers from her representative about why the parliament and why this government<br />
focuses on one thing—how to make more wealthy people more wealthy and how to look after big corporations<br />
and the top end <strong>of</strong> town. She just wanted a simple answer, and she wanted a government that would focus on her<br />
needs—on what her family needs. I have to be honest, she admitted to me that she did not vote for me. She told<br />
me, 'I believed the lie'—her words—'about what the Prime Minister said about jobs and growth.' There are no jobs<br />
for her and her family, and she does not see any economic growth happening for her community. I can be pretty<br />
sure she is not going to waste her vote on this government again. I know that is just one person, but one person<br />
makes a difference. All the stories I have heard from families, young people, pensioners and the people who rely<br />
on government support show that this government is only interested in one thing: ripping apart the social safety<br />
net.<br />
We know that, at the same time, they want to make it harder for people who are in difficult financial situations.<br />
We heard this week that members <strong>of</strong> parliament have been lobbied by the community sector. The people who<br />
provide financial support, community support and outreach programs, community legal centres, support for<br />
domestic violence services—all <strong>of</strong> those homeless and at-risk services that operate in my community and some <strong>of</strong><br />
the disadvantaged areas across Australia are facing a cut from this government. A billion dollars ripped out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
community sector; 30 per cent cut to legal aid; all <strong>of</strong> this happening while at the same time this government thinks<br />
it is okay to impact Australia's social safety net by $1.4 billion. When will this government start listening?<br />
The real kicker in this bill is the 1½ million Australians who will suffer at the hands <strong>of</strong> this government under<br />
their proposed plan to freeze the indexation <strong>of</strong> family tax benefits. That is 1½ million Australian families who are<br />
part <strong>of</strong> this government's relentless plan. They want them to do the heavy lifting for them, for their trickle-down<br />
economics, at the same time handing over that big tax cut to big business. These are the payments to low- and<br />
middle-income families to help them cover the costs <strong>of</strong> getting their kids to school, <strong>of</strong> paying family bills and<br />
helping them to get ahead. We have seen this attempt by the government to cut family tax benefits, which affects<br />
14,330 families in my local area who receive Family Tax Benefit Part A, many <strong>of</strong> whom will be worse <strong>of</strong>f as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> this latest cut, in addition to 11,477 families who will lose $354 as a result <strong>of</strong> the abolition <strong>of</strong> the Family<br />
Tax Benefit Part B end-<strong>of</strong>-year supplement. This means that, as a result <strong>of</strong> this bill, payments to families will not<br />
keep up with the cost <strong>of</strong> living.<br />
When you go out and about in the community and talk to families, people are doing it tough. Despite all the<br />
nonsense and slogans we hear from this government, the feeling on the ground, the actual feeling <strong>of</strong> what is<br />
CHAMBER
38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
happening in the community, is that people are struggling. This government does not say, 'How can we help<br />
you?'—it says, 'How can we hurt you?' Of the 1½ million families that I just mentioned, 600,000 will be directly<br />
affected by the cuts to Family Tax Benefit Part A, and these are families whose income is less than $52,000 per<br />
year. I will say that again: families who are on less than $52,000 a year are going to take a hit. The impact on<br />
families, as we have heard from Labor speaker after Labor speaker, is that a family on $60,000 with two primaryschool-age<br />
children will be around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f, a single parent on $50,000 with two high-school children will<br />
be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19, and a single-income couple on $60,000 with three children under 12 will be<br />
$600 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. That is money taken out <strong>of</strong> the pockets <strong>of</strong> hard-working Australian families. This<br />
government's priority is not to look after them, but to look after big banks and multinational companies. That is<br />
their priority. Everyone knows that. The Australian community is seeing that time and time again.<br />
The truth is that the focus and vision <strong>of</strong> this government for Australia's future is about destroying the social<br />
contract for this country. We have seen that over and over again. This is even before we get to the appalling<br />
situation where this government thinks it is acceptable that penalty rates should be cut—that the 10,000-odd<br />
people in my electorate who rely on penalty rates, who get up early and go to work, sacrificing time away from<br />
their families on Sundays, should get a pay cut. I do not support that, and mainstream Australia does not support<br />
that. Time and time again we are seeing the extreme right wing hijacking this government. Once upon a time we<br />
kind <strong>of</strong> understood what the Prime Minister stood for. Now he only stands for what will keep him in <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Listening to the right-wing zealots in his own party, whether it be about supporting more racial hate speech or<br />
now, in today's debate, which those opposite are refusing to engage in, either arrogantly or ashamedly not wanting<br />
to engage in this debate today, or too afraid to acknowledge that they are impacting the family budgets <strong>of</strong> 1½<br />
million Australians.<br />
I will say it again: Labor will fight these changes every step <strong>of</strong> the way. Labor will always stand up for fairness<br />
and Labor will always stand up for the family who needs it most. Bill Shorten, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, will<br />
continue to lead this fight. Every single Labor member <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> and the other place will fight right to the end,<br />
because Australian families deserve a fair go. They simply are not getting it under the Turnbull government.<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:27): I rise to speak in opposition to this bill and in support<br />
<strong>of</strong> the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. What we can say with certainty about the effect <strong>of</strong> this bill<br />
is that it will increase poverty in Australia. It will make income inequality greater. It will leave poorer people<br />
worse <strong>of</strong>f. That is guaranteed by the parliament passing this bill. It simply represents the twisted priorities and<br />
how out <strong>of</strong> touch this Abbott-Turnbull government is when it comes to protecting the interests <strong>of</strong> vulnerable<br />
Australians and at the same time giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest and largest corporations in this country.<br />
Despite unprecedented levels <strong>of</strong> income inequality in our nation, the rising cost <strong>of</strong> living and more Australians<br />
unemployed and underemployed, this government continues to pursue tax cuts for massive global corporations,<br />
while at the same time putting their hands into the pockets <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the poorest and most vulnerable members <strong>of</strong><br />
our community. These past few weeks have solidified this government as the true enemy <strong>of</strong> the Australian worker.<br />
Their support for a reduction in penalty rates for some <strong>of</strong> the lowest-paid casual workers in this country truly<br />
represents what they are all about. This particular bill is a further attack on the interests and incomes <strong>of</strong> lowincome<br />
Australians. This bill is another slap in the face to hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians who are just<br />
trying to make ends meet and trying to survive from week to week. But this government does not get it. They do<br />
not understand how much some Australians, particularly those on less than $50,000 year, struggle from week to<br />
week. That is why Labor cannot support this bill.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton) (13:30): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with<br />
standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Kingsford Smith will be given<br />
an opportunity at that time to complete his contribution.<br />
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS<br />
Marist College Kogarah<br />
Sydney Technical College<br />
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:30): On Friday 24 March, Marist College Kogarah's school community, along with<br />
distinguished guests, gathered to celebrate the blessing and opening <strong>of</strong> the new Creative Arts and Learning Centre<br />
in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Barton. I was honoured to be invited by John Riordan, principal <strong>of</strong> the college, and to meet the<br />
school's community, including the school captain, Leo Micalizzi, and the school chaplain, the Most Reverend<br />
Terrence Brady. And on International Women's Day I attended the inaugural celebration <strong>of</strong> this important day at<br />
Sydney Technical College, an all-boys college at the invitation <strong>of</strong> the principal, Jacqueline Lyons, and the<br />
students, led by the school captain, Pakajan Narendiran. Two important guests at the function were the St George<br />
Girls High School captain, Una Altarac, and the vice-captain, Genia Furlong. It was an honour to hear from<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 39<br />
student representatives Jarrod Athanassiou and James and Mouhtadi Sjarief <strong>of</strong> the students' support for and<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> International Women's Day.<br />
These two all-boys schools in the electorate <strong>of</strong> Barton are exemplary. The young gentlemen who attend these<br />
schools are a credit to everyone living in Barton. I was very proud to attend both events. I wish Marist College<br />
Kogarah and Sydney Technical College well into the future, and I promise I will visit them again as soon as I<br />
possibly can.<br />
Barker Electorate: Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby<br />
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:31): Last week I spoke about the numerous shows, field days and farm fairs that<br />
occur across Barker at this time. Indeed, my <strong>of</strong>fice has termed this time <strong>of</strong> the year 'show season'. I mentioned in<br />
my speech last week that I had put my hand up to take part in the Header Demolition Derby in Keith's Diesel and<br />
Dirt Derby. I rise today to update the <strong>House</strong> on this event—because, quite frankly, I am proud that I survived! The<br />
opportunity for competitors to smash their headers into one another was given an extra sweetener this year with<br />
their local federal member participating—and what a target I presented, driving a huge combine harvester<br />
emblazoned with my electoral corflute. I was pretty hard to miss—and they did not miss!<br />
Having a background in livestock farming I cannot say I was all that confident driving the harvester, but I am<br />
pleased to tell the <strong>House</strong> that I came out in better shape than did the header, which is now sitting in the back <strong>of</strong> a<br />
shed ready for some much-needed repairs—and I will undertake those repairs so that I can enter the event next<br />
year and hopefully do a little better. But all jokes aside, shows such as the Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby are<br />
important in strengthening community spirit. More than 10,000 people attended the event. There was a fantastic<br />
atmosphere, and it gave me a great opportunity to ensure that I am listening to the people <strong>of</strong> that community on<br />
the matters that concern them. I commend Glen Simpson and the Keith Show Society for putting on such a great<br />
event.<br />
Asylum Seekers<br />
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:33): The government is sending out thousands <strong>of</strong> letters to asylum seekers living<br />
in the community, giving them just weeks to lodge their claims or risk being denied the right to asylum here. This<br />
is disgusting, because asylum seekers may not be able to renew their visas or will be cut <strong>of</strong>f from critical<br />
payments unless they can lodge their applications within clearly unattainable time frames. Make no mistake: the<br />
government is setting asylum seekers up to fail, despite the life-changing implications <strong>of</strong> their not getting it right.<br />
We are talking here <strong>of</strong> people with little English who are being faced with forms <strong>of</strong> over 100 pages in which<br />
any misstep could end their opportunity <strong>of</strong> permanent residence in Australia. Moreover, the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Immigration and Border Protection has told community legal services that extensions to these time frames will not<br />
be accepted, which tosses aside a longstanding agreement with lawyers working in the sector. No wonder legal<br />
services are bracing for an expected 300 per cent increase in demand for their help. They are already seeing<br />
people who have been cut <strong>of</strong>f from support payments within days <strong>of</strong> receiving one <strong>of</strong> these letters. This shameful<br />
victimisation <strong>of</strong> vulnerable people must stop. Only a government devoid <strong>of</strong> humanity would treat human beings in<br />
this way.<br />
Grey Electorate: Laura Folk Fair<br />
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:34): This weekend will see the 37th staging <strong>of</strong> the Laura Folk<br />
Fair. Tucked away in the shade <strong>of</strong> majestic red gums on the banks <strong>of</strong> the Rocky River, the country town <strong>of</strong> Laura<br />
in the Southern Flinders Ranges is the boyhood home <strong>of</strong> celebrated Aussie poet CJ Dennis. This beautiful country<br />
town is known for producing delicious Golden North ice-cream—which is now being enjoyed in China, I might<br />
say—and for its tree-lined main street, which houses soap and gift shops, antique shops, book shops and even a<br />
cobbler. But one <strong>of</strong> Laura's most celebrated accomplishments is the annual Folk Fair, which will take place this<br />
weekend, 1 and 2 April.<br />
The annual fair is quite simply the toast <strong>of</strong> the town and creates an atmosphere <strong>of</strong> celebration, music, art, fine<br />
food, crafts and fun. The fair reflects the fabric <strong>of</strong> the rich agricultural community that is Laura and its strong<br />
artistic culture. It features entertainment from literary events, an art exhibition, a fabulous bush dance and more<br />
than 100 stalls. CJ Dennis, who is immortalised in the main street in a larger-than-life copper sculpture, would be<br />
proud <strong>of</strong> his town—and so am I. I plan to attend the fair this weekend, enjoy an iconic giant twin—that is the icecream—and<br />
soak up the music, entertainment and fun <strong>of</strong> the fair. Congratulations must go to Folk Fair chair, Sue<br />
Scarman, and her hardworking committee for organising this great event.<br />
Backpacker Tax<br />
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:36): The negative impacts <strong>of</strong> the government's dithering on the backpacker tax are<br />
coming to fruition in Tasmania. Sassafras orchardist John Brown said today in my local newspaper that he expects<br />
CHAMBER
40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
to lose hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars worth <strong>of</strong> fruit because <strong>of</strong> the dire shortage <strong>of</strong> backpacker labour. He is 60<br />
pickers short and clearly states that this is as a result <strong>of</strong> the coalition's disastrous and bungled backpacker tax.<br />
Apple growers were told by backpackers last season that they would not be coming back to Australia to pick<br />
apples this season because <strong>of</strong> the government's then-proposed backpacker tax rate <strong>of</strong> 32½ per cent.<br />
Apple and Pear Australia warned in August last year that the dithering <strong>of</strong> the government on the backpacker tax<br />
was going to hurt the industry, and here is the pro<strong>of</strong>. And what happened to the $10 million advertising campaign<br />
whipped up by the government to attract backpackers to come and work here? Clearly that was a waste <strong>of</strong> money.<br />
Had the government not gagged the debate on the bill last year, they would have heard my calls for this money to<br />
be used to focus on backpacker jobs in Tasmania, WA and the Northern Territory. The government needs to tell<br />
the industry what it is doing to ensure Tasmania's apple crop will be picked in time and how it will fix the damage<br />
caused by its bungling <strong>of</strong> the backpacker tax.<br />
Fadden Electorate: School Fete<br />
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:37): May I firstly welcome what appears to be <strong>of</strong>ficers from Australia and the<br />
region from one <strong>of</strong> our national security colleges here. I think I spy Colonel Justin Rookey. He and I joined<br />
together 25 or 26 years ago. Oh, the stories, Colonel, we could tell.<br />
But from the sublime to the local: I am so proud <strong>of</strong> what our local schools are doing, especially Pacific Pines<br />
State High School under the great leadership <strong>of</strong> principal Mark Peggrem. They have just hosted their first fete,<br />
which was a Pacific Pines Fiesta and which I opened. We had a few dramas with the sound and so we opened it<br />
with the DJ on top <strong>of</strong> the hill. It was a cracker <strong>of</strong> an event. The Kokoda teams raised over $500 and Relay for Life,<br />
$130. Nearly $2000 was raised for a new school bus. The industrial technology design department secured a<br />
private contract to make 300 customised cheese boards, one <strong>of</strong> which I have and make great use <strong>of</strong>. Mr Deputy<br />
Speaker, if you like, I will get one for you as well—I am getting a nod from the member in the chair.<br />
They will be running the fete again next year. I will be very proud to be involved and to be its major sponsor<br />
next year. Pacific Pines State High School does a great job; it is well led. I was privileged to speak at their<br />
leadership ceremony to induct their new leaders. There is much our community can be proud <strong>of</strong> with this school<br />
and what it is doing.<br />
Defence and Strategic Studies Course<br />
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:39): I too would like to talk about these amazing ladies and gentlemen in the<br />
gallery behind me from the Defence and Strategic Studies Course The course is a year-long postgraduate<br />
education program with a strong practitioner focus that provides senior military and civilian <strong>of</strong>ficials with the<br />
knowledge, awareness and skills to operate at the highest levels <strong>of</strong> leadership, command, policy formulation and<br />
management. They have come to see how this place operates.<br />
They come from a range <strong>of</strong> workplaces—Army, Navy, Air Force, Attorney-General's Department, Defence<br />
civilians. There are 48 <strong>of</strong> them in total; 27 Australians and 21 from other countries all around the world. They are<br />
the best <strong>of</strong> the best; they are the best <strong>of</strong> their countries; and, from an Australian perspective, they are the future <strong>of</strong><br />
our Australian Defence Force, the Department <strong>of</strong> Defence and the Attorney-General's Department.<br />
We have a former commander <strong>of</strong> Australian submarines, a former commander <strong>of</strong> the Special Air Services<br />
Regiment, a former Australian Defence Attache to Indonesia. We have Indonesian Army <strong>of</strong>ficers, a Tongan naval<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer, the next chief <strong>of</strong> staff to the Timor-Leste Defence Force, a former commander <strong>of</strong> Taskforce Taji in Iraq,<br />
Afghanistan veterans, including those who have felt the grief <strong>of</strong> losing soldiers under their command. They are the<br />
best <strong>of</strong> the best. I commend them to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Neurological Disease Awareness<br />
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:40): Recently in parliament we held a neurological event to raise awareness<br />
<strong>of</strong> the difficulties faced by people with Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis. We<br />
hosted Alzheimers Australia, Brain Injury Australia, the Huntington's Association, the Muscular Dystrophy<br />
Foundation and groups associated with hereditary neurodegenerative conditions.<br />
Since 2013 I have been the chair <strong>of</strong> the Friends <strong>of</strong> Parkinson's Disease, and I was honoured to have been part <strong>of</strong><br />
this event, later introducing Gary and Jayne Latham, Monica Hall and Bettina Clayton-Greene and her daughter<br />
Jamielle to the Prime Minister. At that meeting they talked to him about the difficulties they face, particularly as<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> degeneration for their illness is not always recognised in the implementation <strong>of</strong> the NDIS. They also<br />
spoke about research initiatives, which are being funded by the coalition government, and about the neurological<br />
interventions, such as the deep-brain intervention, that can be used to reduce tremors but only for some sufferers<br />
<strong>of</strong> Parkinson's Disease.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 41<br />
Steve Sant, the chair <strong>of</strong> Parkinson's Australia, spoke <strong>of</strong> the need for neurological nurses. As we already know in<br />
Gilmore, they make an amazing difference to the quality <strong>of</strong> life for those suffering from these illnesses. Thursday,<br />
11 April 2017 is World Parkinson's Day. The theme for 2017 is Pause for Parkinson's as part <strong>of</strong> the Shake It Up<br />
Australia's campaign. In Gilmore we will host a lunch for our local Parkinson's Support group.<br />
My friend and colleague Senator John Williams, better known as 'Wacka', has recently been diagnosed. I am<br />
sure he will approach this with the same tenacity and courage as he does with in this place—(Time expired)<br />
Endometriosis<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:42): Yesterday I spoke in the <strong>House</strong> about endometriosis and how one in<br />
10 women suffer from it—one in 10 women in our community every day are suffering from this insidious disease.<br />
The response to my speech has been overwhelming, I can assure you. I have received 31,000 views and 550<br />
shares <strong>of</strong> that speech; and it has gone right around Australia and throughout the world—hello, Brazil.<br />
I would like to share some <strong>of</strong> the stories that I got from that video. Clare wrote:<br />
Endometriosis is evil. No more should it be a silent, unknown women's condition. It is a disease that slowly destroys your<br />
body, your social life, relationships, dreams <strong>of</strong> becoming a mother, careers/work, financial stability, self-esteem, sex life,<br />
ability to function normally, ability to parent fully and your mental state.<br />
Women spoke <strong>of</strong> the need to break down the taboo on the issue—to have the conversation and to raise<br />
awareness about this insidious disease. From the response I got yesterday it seems that no-one is talking about<br />
this. We have to end the silence on endometriosis. One in 10 women in our community is suffering from this<br />
every day. I encourage my colleagues in the chamber to get out there, raise awareness about this insidious disease<br />
and its symptoms and have the conversation with your community and please end the silence about endometriosis.<br />
Forde Electorate: Rainbow Child Foundation<br />
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:44): I would like to take this opportunity to give a great<br />
being shout out to Waterford West teen Jazinda Barnes, who is heading to London and Paris this month to<br />
compete in the Face <strong>of</strong> the Globe Pageant. Face <strong>of</strong> the Globe is an international beauty pageant held in aid <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rainbow Child Foundation. Jazinda is one <strong>of</strong> a small group <strong>of</strong> girls chosen to represent Australia after receiving a<br />
placing in the National Face <strong>of</strong> the Globe competition here.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> Jazinda's pageant duties, she is raising funds to support the Rainbow Child Foundation. This is a notfor-pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organisation and global charity that helps children and families around the world through sanitation and<br />
immunisation programs, education and support <strong>of</strong> orphanages, as well as providing support and care for<br />
terminally ill children. With Jazinda's passion for the Logan community and work with sporting groups and<br />
Access Community Services, I have no doubt she will be a strong contender for Face <strong>of</strong> the Globe. In my<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Forde, we have so many young people like Jazinda who are working to make the world a better place<br />
every day. I am very proud to be able to share this good news story with the <strong>House</strong>. I wish her best <strong>of</strong> luck and<br />
commend her for her efforts to fundraise for and highlight the work <strong>of</strong> the Rainbow Child Foundation.<br />
Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool Women's Resources Centre<br />
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (13:45): The Liverpool Women's Resource Centre is an invaluable group for<br />
women and families in my electorate, providing support services such as counselling referrals both in person and<br />
over the telephone, as well as group programs that fight isolation and bring women <strong>of</strong> all backgrounds together<br />
with art or other shared interests, allowing them a valuable outlet with free child-minding. The centre has been in<br />
operation since 1984 and continues to provide essential assistance to disadvantaged women across the southwest.<br />
The centre's success is the result <strong>of</strong> the efforts <strong>of</strong> its hard-working team. I particularly want to note the efforts <strong>of</strong><br />
manager Nikki and community development <strong>of</strong>ficer Rosheen, as well as the dedicated volunteers and board<br />
members, including Linda, Anna and Susan.<br />
I was fortunate enough to speak at the centre's International Women's Day event this year. There were many<br />
inspirational local women in attendance, including an impressive group from the Ashcr<strong>of</strong>t, Hoxton Park and<br />
Miller Technology high schools. It was a privilege to share the stage with such strong advocates in our<br />
community, like Aunty Del Leslie who received the inaugural Kate Nicholas community service award, and<br />
young women like the inspiring Thea. The importance <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> this centre and the community who keep it<br />
running cannot be overstated. I commend their continuing efforts to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Bonner Electorate: Radio 4EB<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:47): Today I would like to speak about a longstanding community radio station that<br />
provides a vital service to my electorate and to the wider Brisbane region. Radio 4EB is the only multicultural<br />
radio station in Brisbane, with about 55 languages, broadcasting 24/7. It has been a valuable voice for Brisbane's<br />
ethnic community since 1979. The station receives federal funding for the purchase and maintenance <strong>of</strong><br />
CHAMBER
42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
equipment and wages for a handful <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice staff. As 4EB is a not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it, it depends on donations to help<br />
cover costs to stay on the air. All <strong>of</strong> its broadcasters work as volunteers and each language group must find their<br />
own ways to support their activities.<br />
I have been proud to support 4EB's past fundraising efforts. I was glad to hear that last year's radiothon was a<br />
great success. More recently, I was pleased to donate a very special raffle prize for the Vietnamese language<br />
group's third annual fundraising evening last Saturday. The group was a founding member <strong>of</strong> 4EB, and it is a<br />
testament to their good work that they are still going strong almost four decades later. At their fundraiser, the<br />
group auctioned a bottle <strong>of</strong> wine signed by the Prime Minister. After fierce bidding, it went for a record $1,100.<br />
As their convenor, Viet, told me later, the 200 or so guests were big fans <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister and his support for<br />
community groups. The group raised over $6,000 in total—an all-time record. Congratulations, and I wish them<br />
and all the other groups at 4EB many more successes on and <strong>of</strong>f the air.<br />
WestConnex<br />
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (13:48): I am rising to speak about a critical<br />
local issue in my electorate, and that is the mismanagement by the New South Wales state government <strong>of</strong> the<br />
WestConnex project. Billions <strong>of</strong> dollars <strong>of</strong> taxpayers' money from the state and federal governments is going into<br />
creating an enormous traffic jam in the suburbs <strong>of</strong> Alexandria, Erskineville, St Peters, Green Square and<br />
Kensington. All through the inner city, thousands <strong>of</strong> extra cars are being disgorged from this project into already<br />
crowded streets.<br />
Daily car usage is set to multiply exponentially from just a few thousand cars on some <strong>of</strong> our busiest roads to in<br />
excess <strong>of</strong> 50,000 cars. Streets including McEvoy Street, Euston Road, Sydney Park Road, Gardeners Road, Anzac<br />
Parade, South Dowling Street, Moore Park Road and Botany Road are already very congested—particularly on<br />
the weekends as people are taking their children to sport, I have noticed recently. This project will disgorge<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> extra cars onto those already congested roads. In fact, residents have been told that Euston Road will<br />
become a seven-lane road. It will go from four lanes to seven lanes as little as 1.8 metres from their front doors. It<br />
is inconceivable that as a community we will spend billions <strong>of</strong> dollars to bring traffic congestion to already<br />
congested suburbs. There are about 42,000 residents in the affected area at the moment. An extra 31,000 will go in<br />
in extra years, and what they can expect is an almighty traffic jam!<br />
Burnett, Mr Raymond William<br />
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:50): It is with much regret that I inform the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> the passing <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia's cherished World War II veterans—my constituent Raymond William Burnett. Born on 24 December<br />
1916, Ray enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force on 20 August 1942. Among his postings during the war, he<br />
served as an Airfield Defence Guard protecting RAAF aircraft in Darwin. Ray was deployed to Darwin and PNG<br />
with No. 54 Squadron, No. 1 Fighter Wing in the direct defence <strong>of</strong> his country. Ray achieved the rank <strong>of</strong> Leading<br />
Aircraftman. In recognition <strong>of</strong> his service, Ray was awarded the Pacific Star, the Australian Defence Medal, the<br />
War Medal and the Returned from Active Service Badge.<br />
Last December I had the privilege <strong>of</strong> meeting Ray at his 100th birthday celebrations at the Glass <strong>House</strong><br />
Country RSL. That was a great opportunity to reflect upon the impact <strong>of</strong> Ray's many years <strong>of</strong> service to his<br />
country and to his community. Ray sadly passed away last week, on 21 March 2017, and his funeral is set to take<br />
place today. My thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time. This country is indebted to Ray and<br />
all who have served in our armed forces for their selfless contribution. Ray, I know you can hear me. I thank you<br />
for your service, this parliament thanks you for your service and this country thanks you for your service.<br />
Education<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975<br />
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:51): I rise today to express my dismay at the absolute lack <strong>of</strong><br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> those opposite about what is important to Australians. I do this in the frame <strong>of</strong> seeing a local<br />
paper where the member for Chisholm is in the headline saying that there is no need for Gonski—no need for<br />
Gonski!<br />
I wonder what the good people <strong>of</strong> Chisholm, who I know value the transformative nature <strong>of</strong> education, make <strong>of</strong><br />
that.<br />
I wonder, too, what the people <strong>of</strong> Chisholm, like the people in Lalor, make <strong>of</strong> the pursuit <strong>of</strong> this change to 18C<br />
that this government is running down the track to drive home that will hurt kids in every school in this country. In<br />
classes and playgrounds across the country, there are children now engaged in a conversation about 18C that they<br />
did not to need to be engaged in. There are young people going home tonight and saying, 'I got in trouble today,<br />
Dad, because I called someone a terrible racist name.' And Dad will say: 'That's okay, mate. You're free to be a<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 43<br />
bigot in this country. You can say whatever you like in this country to any child.' This pursuit <strong>of</strong> change is stirring<br />
up concern in electorates and schools across this country. I say to the government: leave alone what is not broken.<br />
Leave our wonderful multicultural country alone.<br />
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): I remind the member for Goldstein that he is out <strong>of</strong> his seat and he<br />
is close to disorderly.<br />
Energy<br />
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:53): I rise to commend the recent action by the Prime Minister and the<br />
Treasurer to direct the ACCC to review retail electricity prices. This is the first inquiry that the ACCC has<br />
undertaken into this, and it will be very welcome news for the hardworking families across my electorate on the<br />
Central Coast.<br />
In fact, just over a week ago, I held a community forum at Umina Beach and received dozens <strong>of</strong> community<br />
surveys back from local residents. Again and again, these surveys showed what local residents tell me every<br />
single day—that the pressure from the rising cost <strong>of</strong> living is one <strong>of</strong> the top priorities we need to tackle to help<br />
make life easier for people on the Central Coast. These families will be pleased to know the consumer watchdog<br />
will investigate this issue thoroughly and will file an interim report within six months and then in detail by the<br />
middle <strong>of</strong> next year.<br />
We know that electricity prices for households have doubled during the six years <strong>of</strong> the Labor government.<br />
Prices came down somewhat with the scrapping <strong>of</strong> the carbon tax, but recent upward pressure needs to be<br />
addressed in a way that protects families and businesses. That is why we are taking action in other areas, too, like<br />
delivering the Snowy Mountains scheme 2.0 to increase its generation capacity by 50 per cent, adding 2,000<br />
megawatts <strong>of</strong> renewable energy, enough to power 500,000 homes. The gas industry has also committed to<br />
cheaper, more reliable energy for households. Ensuring the lights stay on and prices are affordable is<br />
central to this government's approach to energy policy. (Time expired)<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (13:55): This government is acting with<br />
total arrogance when it comes to the people who are most impacted by its ridiculous campaign against section<br />
18C. This morning Labor hosted in Parliament <strong>House</strong> close to 100 representatives <strong>of</strong> multicultural communities<br />
from around Australia. They told us that there is real anxiety and fear in their communities about an increase in<br />
racial abuse thanks to this government. We heard from Senator Patrick Dodson, who spoke passionately about the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> hurtful speech. 'Words matter,' he said. The people who were in that room this morning know about racial<br />
abuse because they have experienced it themselves.<br />
Has the Prime Minister even bothered to speak to these people, the casualties in his battle against so-called free<br />
speech? Has he even bothered to contact the Jewish community in his own electorate <strong>of</strong> Wentworth? I would<br />
guess not, because I know what they would tell him. They do not support this crazy, ideological vendetta <strong>of</strong> the<br />
right-wing <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party. The trouble with this Prime Minister is that he has a total lack <strong>of</strong> initiative on most<br />
things except the wrong things. It boggles the mind that he has chosen the last sitting week before the budget to<br />
alienate multicultural communities and the moderates in his own party. Wake up, Prime Minister! Drop your<br />
changes to section 18C. Do not weaken Australia's protections against racist hate speech which have served our<br />
country very well for more than 20 years. (Time expired)<br />
Domestic and Family Violence<br />
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:56): On 15 March I was part <strong>of</strong> an important conversation on domestic<br />
and family violence in the southern forest region <strong>of</strong> my electorate. Domestic violence touches more lives than we<br />
will ever know. So much <strong>of</strong> it happens behind closed doors that accurate statistics are near impossible to collect. I<br />
thank Sandy Venter, Chair <strong>of</strong> DOVES—Domestic Violence Education and Support—for inviting me to discuss<br />
local domestic and family violence support services and ways <strong>of</strong> addressing critical gaps in service provision in<br />
this region. At this forum, women and men spoke frankly about their own personal journeys or pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
experiences on the front line in the battle against this disease creeping insidiously through all levels <strong>of</strong> society.<br />
I commend the agencies working in crisis accommodation, counselling and family services. Every day they<br />
support victims and their families through the immediate trauma, guiding them through recovery, restoring dignity<br />
and confidence, and rebuilding damaged family relationships.<br />
I was pleased to reaffirm the federal government's role in committing $100 million to the women's safety<br />
package and an additional $100 million for initiatives under the third action plan. This plan focuses on: immediate<br />
interventions to keep women and families safe; enhanced services to fight domestic violence and support those<br />
CHAMBER
44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
affected; technologies to keep victims safe and to monitor perpetrators Australia-wide; and educating that violence<br />
is always unacceptable. Together, we can all work towards making our communities safe from family and<br />
domestic violence in the future.<br />
Racial Discrimination Act 1975<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (13:58): The Senate is debating whether Australians<br />
should agree with Senator Brandis's claim that there is a right to be a bigot. Weakening the Racial Discrimination<br />
Act is an attack on modern multicultural Australia. Racism is not 'just words'. People who are insulted, <strong>of</strong>fended,<br />
and humiliated by racist hate speech know that racism cuts much deeper than that.<br />
I understand that members will come to this parliament with a genuine commitment to freedom <strong>of</strong> speech. I<br />
will never understand how anyone decides the person who most needs their help is the racist bigot who they<br />
believe should be allowed to say more. And be in no doubt: the government want them to say more. If the<br />
government claim this is about freedom <strong>of</strong> speech then it must mean more will be said. The law they are changing<br />
is the law which protects people from racist insults, <strong>of</strong>fence and humiliation when they are at the shops, at a<br />
sporting event or on public transport. What is it they want people to be allowed to say? The government refuse to<br />
answer this question because the answer is a form <strong>of</strong> racist hate speech. People expect this from One Nation; they<br />
expected better from the Turnbull government.<br />
I encourage everyone who believes in respect, in multicultural Australia and in maintaining the protections <strong>of</strong><br />
the Racial Discrimination Act to make their voices heard. Talk on community radio, publish in community<br />
newspapers, post on social media and join us on Friday afternoon in Lakemba for the Walk for Respect to<br />
celebrate modern multicultural Australia.<br />
Education<br />
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:59): In the time available to me, I just want to give a big shout-out to this<br />
government's announcement <strong>of</strong> an independent review into regional, rural and remote education. I encourage all<br />
families, teachers, students and anyone who has an interest in this particular matter to, please, contribute to this<br />
very important inquiry to ensure that kids in the bush have the same opportunities as their city cousins.<br />
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Taxation<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister.<br />
Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister said he was delivering the economic growth that Australians<br />
deserve. Does big business deserve a $50 billion handout? Do millionaires deserve a $16,000 tax cut? Do nearly<br />
700,000 Australians deserve a pay cut?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): Nothing is more phoney than this Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition. This so-called champion <strong>of</strong> the workers! Oh, yes, we have seen him snuggling up to big business.<br />
And it is not just socialising with big business; it is doing real business with big business—taking money from big<br />
business. Let's have a look at the record <strong>of</strong> the Australian Workers' Union. Let's look at the things they did not tell<br />
their members. And do not turn away, Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition.<br />
Government members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!<br />
Mr TURNBULL: Do not you turn away from your members. You would not face up to your members. What<br />
a coward. He was not prepared to tell his members in 2007 that he was taking a $32,000 political donation from<br />
Unibilt—a company with which the AWU was negotiating an EBA. Not only did he not tell his members but he<br />
did not tell the Australian Electoral Commission. It took a royal commission and eight years to find out about that.<br />
What we have seen, again and again, is members sold out. What about the workers at Cleanevent?<br />
Mr Hammond interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth!<br />
Mr TURNBULL: He talks about looking after the workers—some <strong>of</strong> the lowest-paid workers in Australia:<br />
cleaners. They could have been getting $50 an hour, but they got $18 an hour, thanks to that hero's advocacy.<br />
Ms Plibersek interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!<br />
Mr TURNBULL: What a champion! But the main thing is: the union got paid money; the union got money<br />
and one false invoice after another. Let's look at a few <strong>of</strong> them. What about this—what about ACI Operations? It<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45<br />
paid the AWU in Victoria half a million dollars while workers were being laid <strong>of</strong>f at their Spotswood glass plant.<br />
What was that money for? Well, we never would have found out that it had even been paid had it not been for the<br />
royal commission. This former union boss wants to run the country like the way he ran the AWU—he wants to<br />
run the country like he ran a union. That money was taken and was never disclosed. It took the royal commission<br />
to find out. And what did the union invoice it as? Paid education leave. What was it used for? To pay <strong>of</strong>f a loan<br />
for the union. It was used for the union's own purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment and Energy!<br />
Mr TURNBULL: In terms <strong>of</strong> what Australians deserve, they do not deserve to have their country run by this<br />
union boss. That is what they definitely do not deserve because he will sell them out like he sold out his members<br />
again and again.<br />
Economy<br />
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the <strong>House</strong><br />
on how the government's policies are helping to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages? Are there<br />
any threats to the government's approach, including in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Bonner?<br />
Ms Plibersek interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Bonner will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have<br />
said countless times that I am really going to crack down on interjections, particularly when the question is being<br />
asked. The member for Sydney is warned. The member for Bonner will ask the question again.<br />
Mr VASTA: My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the <strong>House</strong> on how the<br />
government's policies are helping to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages? Are there any threats<br />
to the government's approach, including in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Bonner?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. The<br />
government is backing the businesses that employ nearly 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> all Australians. We know that Australian<br />
businesses need the encouragement to invest more and employ more. And that is why we are backing in our<br />
business tax cuts. We know they will deliver the growth and the jobs in the honourable member's electorate and in<br />
every member's electorate. That is the big difference: we are backing jobs; we are backing workers. The Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the Opposition is opposing business and selling workers out, just as he did when he was representing them. We<br />
are talking one deal after another—one dodgy deal after another. He likes to talk about penalty rates.<br />
Ms Husar interjecting—<br />
Ms Keay interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned, as is the member for Braddon.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: He sold workers' penalty rates out again and again—remarkably, again and again in<br />
circumstances where the union was paid money by the employer concerned. We have talked about Cleanevent and<br />
Chiquita Mushrooms. But, right across the board, let's look at the agreements that the Labor Party want to defend.<br />
They believe it is just that a worker at KFC on Sunday gets paid $21 an hour, but, at the award, gets paid $29.<br />
That is the deal they did.<br />
Again and again, he claims to be in favour <strong>of</strong> renewables. What has he done? He has sold out Australians in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> energy security. What are we doing? We are ensuring that we have Snowy Hydro 2.0, the plan that will<br />
provide the greatest storage and backup ever developed in our nation that will make renewables reliable.<br />
What about the importance <strong>of</strong> gas supply? We have seen to date the results <strong>of</strong> our work. We called the gas<br />
producers in. We told them that they had to deliver for Australian businesses and families. We got a commitment,<br />
a guarantee <strong>of</strong> gas for peaking power being made available. Today you have seen Origin commit to providing the<br />
gas that is needed to get the Pelican Point generator going again, the one that was not working when South<br />
Australia had its blackout event.<br />
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Energy and the Environment is warned.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: We are delivering. We are delivering on renewables, we are delivering on energy, we are<br />
delivering on jobs and we are defending Australian working men and women by ensuring that businesses that<br />
employ them and will employ them have the incentive to invest. Labor says it is in favour <strong>of</strong> workers and sells<br />
them out. It says it is in favour <strong>of</strong> renewable energy and does not do anything to support it. (Time expired)<br />
The SPEAKER: The prime Minister's time has concluded. The member for Gorton.<br />
CHAMBER
46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Are you hungover?<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will resume his seat. I am going to the next question. The member<br />
for Tangney has the call.<br />
Economy<br />
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:08): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the <strong>House</strong> on<br />
the government's success in delivering on the commitments it outlined in last year's budget. Is he aware <strong>of</strong> any<br />
alternative plans that would threaten the successful transition <strong>of</strong> Australia's economy?<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He knows,<br />
because he was elected on the basis <strong>of</strong> our national economic plan for jobs and growth that were set out in last<br />
year's budget, that our economy, the Australian economy is one <strong>of</strong> the fastest growing advanced economies in the<br />
world today. We have the second-highest GDP per capita <strong>of</strong> any country in the G20, second only to the United<br />
States. Our national economic plan made the decision and made the calls which address the challenges <strong>of</strong> ensuring<br />
that we are improving the wage performance <strong>of</strong> Australians—lifting their wages, supporting wages growth,<br />
increasing investment and securing jobs for hardworking Australians. This is across a raft <strong>of</strong> areas.<br />
The National Innovation and Science Agenda has delivered new tax incentives for start-up businesses. It has<br />
delivered new funding to support the CSIRO to work with companies to take innovations and research into the<br />
marketplace. The biomedical translation fund is doing the same thing to commercialise medical research.<br />
We are ramping up the 20-year defence industry plan that is creating new businesses and new jobs right across<br />
the defence industry supply chain right across the nation, in stark contrast to the Labor Party that never even built<br />
a bath tub boat let alone engage in the important issue <strong>of</strong> developing our defence industries, particularly our naval<br />
shipbuilding plan.<br />
Our $50 billion infrastructure plan is being rolled out across the country including the Monash Freeway in<br />
Melbourne, the WestConnex in Sydney, the Bruce Highway in Queensland, the Northern Connector in Adelaide,<br />
the Forrestfield-Airport Link in Perth and the Midfield Highway in Tasmania.<br />
Our export trade deals are another critical part <strong>of</strong> the national economic plan with China, with Japan and with<br />
South Korea and they are ensuring new jobs and new markets, particularly in our agricultural sector, which saw<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the most amazing periods <strong>of</strong> growth in the December quarter <strong>of</strong> last year and is lifting living standards in<br />
rural and regional Australia. During Premier Li's visit, we announced better outcomes for Australian beef and<br />
exports to China, which backed up the arrangements we were able to achieve with Indonesia just weeks before.<br />
And we are changing our tax system to boost new investment that creates and supports jobs, that increases real<br />
wages starting with tax cuts and incentives for small and medium-sized businesses. And we are delivering on<br />
budget repair. Almost $25 billion in budget improvement measures have been delivered since the last election,<br />
since the last budget, which are getting on with the job <strong>of</strong> budget repair. These achievements <strong>of</strong> implementing the<br />
national economic plan for jobs and growth was what was at the heart <strong>of</strong> last year's budget and will be at the heart<br />
<strong>of</strong> this year's budget.<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS<br />
The SPEAKER (14:12): I would like to inform the <strong>House</strong> that we have present here in the chamber this<br />
afternoon a delegation from the Parliament <strong>of</strong> Singapore led by Madam Speaker Yacob. On behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>,<br />
we extend to you a very warm welcome.<br />
Honourable members: Hear, hear!<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Economy<br />
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does<br />
big business deserve a $50 billion handout? Do millionaires deserve a $16,000 tax cut? And how on earth, when<br />
wages growth is at record lows, does the Prime Minister believe nearly 700,000 Australians deserve a pay cut?<br />
Mr Joyce interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting.<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:13): Do Australian workers deserve to be told the truth<br />
by their unions? Do they deserve to be told that there was a $300,000 payment made by Thiess John Holland to<br />
the AWU in Victoria?<br />
Ms Claydon interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Newcastle is warned.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 47<br />
Mr TURNBULL: Did they deserve to be told that? We think they did but they did not and we are going to<br />
have to change the law to make sure they are. The honourable member likes to talk about how proud he is, as does<br />
the member for Isaacs, about the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's leadership <strong>of</strong> the Australian Workers Union—one<br />
secret payment after another, one long list <strong>of</strong> looking after big business. Did big business deserve to be given a<br />
special deal on an EBA in return for a large cash payment not disclosed? We do not think so. Clearly honourable<br />
members opposite did. They did. That is why they did not tell anyone about it.<br />
Let's look at what the AWU said the money was for. The AWU claimed that $300,000 was for 'back strain<br />
research'.<br />
Ms Butler interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: Picking up that much money can put your back out! He turns his back on us. We do not<br />
need any research into—<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
Mr TURNBULL: He turns away! If ever there was a shiver waiting for a spine to run up, it is his. He does not<br />
have the courage to face this parliament, to face the Australian people, any more than he had the courage to tell<br />
his members the truth. That is the question. He has all the opportunities <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> to tell us what that $300,000<br />
was really for. Was it forum tickets, conference sponsorships or training? None <strong>of</strong> those benefits—if you can call<br />
them that—were ever provided, any more than the money paid by ACI was used for paid education leave.<br />
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.<br />
Mr Porter interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting. The member for Gorton, on a point<br />
<strong>of</strong> order. He will state the point <strong>of</strong> order.<br />
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Certainly, Mr Speaker. It is on relevance. I asked whether, in fact, the Prime<br />
Minister believes that the 700,000 Australians deserve a cut to their penalty rates. Prime Minister, you have not<br />
made any mention—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The member for Gorton certainly did ask that,<br />
but he asked other things as well, including what big business deserved or did not deserve. I am listening very<br />
carefully to the Prime Minister.<br />
Mr Snowdon interjecting—<br />
Mr Husic interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Chifley is<br />
warned! If the member for Lingiari does not move immediately, I will take further action.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: Do Australian workers deserve to be represented by unions that tell them the truth? We say<br />
they do. Those opposite say they do not. Just like they opposed childcare reforms and just like they are opposing<br />
one million families being better <strong>of</strong>f, they are opposing workers being told the truth. Oh, yes. All <strong>of</strong> this<br />
hypocrisy, this covering up <strong>of</strong> one secret payment after another and one worker after another being sold down the<br />
river by money paid to unions—we are going to shine the light on that. We are going to ban those secret<br />
payments. You can vote against it if you wish.<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
Mr Watts interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The<br />
member for Gellibrand will leave under standing order 94(a).<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS<br />
The SPEAKER (14:17): I would like to inform the <strong>House</strong> that we have present in the gallery this afternoon<br />
the Hon. Peter Slipper, former Speaker and former member for Fisher; and a former member for Lowe, Mary<br />
Easson. It has been brought to my attention we also have present the Hon. Brian Howe, former Deputy Prime<br />
Minister and member for Batten. Welcome back.<br />
Honourable members: Hear, hear!<br />
CHAMBER
48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Climate Change<br />
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. You recently said: 'Keeping<br />
Australians safe is our highest priority. It's the first duty <strong>of</strong> my government and, indeed, every government.' Prime<br />
Minister, we know that burning more coal will make global warming worse. Scientists tell us that it may mean<br />
fewer cyclones, but they will be more intense when they hit. But on the very day that Queenslanders were<br />
preparing—<br />
Government members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease<br />
interjecting. The member for Melbourne is entitled to ask his question. The member for Melbourne will begin his<br />
question again.<br />
Mr BANDT: My question is to the Prime Minister. You recently said: 'Keeping Australians safe is our highest<br />
priority. It's the first duty <strong>of</strong> my government and, indeed, every government.' We know that burning more coal<br />
will make global warming worse. Scientists tell us it may mean fewer cyclones, but they will be more intense<br />
when they hit. But on the very day Queenslanders were preparing for Cyclone Debbie, your resources minister<br />
dropped a front-page story spruiking a new coal-fired power station in that very state, and you backed him. Given<br />
the destruction that cyclones wreak upon our country, why do you push policies like burning more coal, which<br />
will make cyclones more intense? Doesn't your duty to keep Australians safe include doing everything you can to<br />
stop cyclones becoming more violent?<br />
Mr Pitt interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler will leave under standing order 94(a).<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:19): Tropical Cyclone Debbie made landfall as a<br />
category 4 cyclone around midday yesterday, with destructive winds <strong>of</strong> up to 270 kilometres an hour. Right now,<br />
1,200 men and women <strong>of</strong> the Australian Defence Force and thousands <strong>of</strong> other emergency workers are there,<br />
cleaning up the wreckage left by the cyclone, ensuring that the energy, the electricity, to 63,000 homes is restored<br />
and ensuring that Australians are safe and that they recover from this cyclone. Every other member <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong><br />
is committed to supporting those people <strong>of</strong> North Queensland, and the honourable member wants to take this<br />
occasion to make his own political point. Mr Speaker, that question was contemptible. Now is the time to pull<br />
together, as we all have—state and federal, opposition and government—and stand behind the people <strong>of</strong> North<br />
Queensland, putting the men and women <strong>of</strong> the ADF, the volunteers and the emergency workers first to keep them<br />
safe. That is our commitment.<br />
Government members: Hear, hear!<br />
Energy<br />
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (14:21): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and<br />
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the <strong>House</strong> the threat that<br />
increasing energy prices pose to agricultural producers such as the Costa Group? Is the Deputy Prime Minister<br />
aware <strong>of</strong> any other policies to ease the cost <strong>of</strong> production for business and the cost <strong>of</strong> living for families?<br />
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources)<br />
(14:21): I thank the honourable member for his question. What is happening to power prices is also incredibly<br />
important, especially to the people around Shepparton. It is important to them because the gross value <strong>of</strong><br />
agricultural production around Shepparton in 2012-13 was $1.5 billion. By 2014-15 it was $2 billion—up by 33<br />
per cent. In the same period <strong>of</strong> time, the Victorian gross value <strong>of</strong> ag increased by 13 per cent. It goes to show you<br />
that we are turning around agricultural production, not just in our nation but in particular areas.<br />
I know that the member is very interested in horticulture. At the Global Food Forum yesterday, Brad Banducci<br />
said:<br />
... given the cost increases that are coming through—<br />
this is with regard to power—<br />
we are ... trying to outrun a bear ... but I’m not sure we can ...<br />
... we will have to in some way, very cautiously and carefully ... pass those through ... to our customers ...<br />
So the increase in power prices, by reason <strong>of</strong> ridiculous policies such as seen in South Australia—and now they<br />
are trying to be replicated in Victoria—is going to be paid for by people at the checkout, by working men and<br />
women at the checkout, by working men and women trying to pay for their groceries.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 49<br />
At the same forum, Harry Debney, the CEO <strong>of</strong> the Costa Group, Australia's largest grower, packer and<br />
marketer <strong>of</strong> premium quality fresh fruit and vegetable, employing over 6,000 Australians across more than 40<br />
farming wholesale distribution operations, said that electricity cost is one <strong>of</strong> their biggest issues. Costa produces<br />
20 per cent <strong>of</strong> Australia's mushrooms and they have just spent $2 million at a plant at Mernda to put in five<br />
backup generators. Private enterprise is having to do the job in Victoria <strong>of</strong> what they believe the government's job<br />
should have been, which is to keep reliable and affordable power going through. Even today we had one <strong>of</strong> our<br />
leading energy producers, ERM, in my <strong>of</strong>fice saying that, if the Victorians think they are going to fix it by gas, at<br />
$10 a gigajoule the gas power price would be $100 a kilowatt-hour. He said that at that price you should look at<br />
small modular nuclear reactors because they would probably be cheaper than the solution that is being suggested.<br />
Now we have the Labor Party in Victoria, with Hazelwood going <strong>of</strong>fline, Yallourn about to go <strong>of</strong>fline and Loy<br />
Yang B under threat, and what is the Labor Party doing? What are they doing beyond mimicking the problems <strong>of</strong><br />
South Australia? What is happening to the Labor Party that once represented labourers? It is very well for the<br />
member for Gorton, and he is right to represent hairdressers and beauticians, but he had better find out that most<br />
<strong>of</strong> them are small business people worried about power prices. After hairdressers and beauticians, you had better<br />
start looking after blue-collar workers, They are whom you used to look after. That used to be your constituency.<br />
They used to be the people you cared about. What happens to these blue-collar workers? What about the member<br />
for McEwen when he asked the Prime Minister about who is actually doing the hard work, talking about the ones<br />
farming our produce. There are the 700 Costa employees— (Time expired)<br />
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned! I say to the member for McEwen, I think the Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the Opposition is seeking the call. The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition has the call.<br />
Workplace Relations<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister.<br />
Today Labor is making a submission calling for a fair and responsible increase to the minimum wage. Can the<br />
Prime Minister advise whether the government has made a submission calling for a fair and responsible increase<br />
to the minimum wage? And, by the way, Prime Minister, do you even know what the minimum wage is?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:25): It is $672.70 a week, as the honourable member<br />
would be well aware. The government's position on the minimum wage hearing is the same as governments have<br />
been taking for years: to make an informative submission that enables the independent umpire, which the<br />
honourable member used to back in again and again but does not any more, to make an independent decision. The<br />
truth <strong>of</strong> the matter is this: you cannot find one line <strong>of</strong> consistency in the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's career other<br />
than rank cynicism and self-interest. He complains about the hardships <strong>of</strong> Australian families, and what does he<br />
do about it? Nothing. Does he support the childcare reforms? No, he opposes them. He complains about<br />
companies avoiding tax. What does he do when the multinational tax avoidance bill is in the <strong>House</strong>? He votes<br />
against it. For years, he used to say that company tax cuts were needed to promote investment, productivity and<br />
jobs. I can understand why he turns away from that, because it is hard to face up to hypocrisy at this level.<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 />
That was in this <strong>House</strong> in 2011, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. That proposition is not one limited to a point in<br />
time. That is a general proposition which every economist has agreed to and every government has agreed to for<br />
years and years, Labor and Liberal.<br />
The member for Lilley used to say this. He made that point as well. The member for McMahon wrote a book<br />
about it. The Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, again and again, said the best way to support business and support workers<br />
was to cut company tax, and now it is one <strong>of</strong> the great crimes <strong>of</strong> the 21st century. The hypocrisy knows no<br />
bounds. He talks about families; he opposes our childcare reforms, which will make families better <strong>of</strong>f. He talks<br />
about penalty rates and yet he has sold out one worker after another on penalty rates, again and again. He talks<br />
about leading the country like a union leader. What is that going to involve? Payments received and not disclosed?<br />
Hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars from one company after another was paid to the Australian Workers Union at<br />
the same time as they sold their members down the river. That is the style <strong>of</strong> the Labor leader today. It is a big<br />
threat to all Australians.<br />
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is now also warned. The member for Grey has the call.<br />
CHAMBER
50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Energy<br />
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry,<br />
representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the <strong>House</strong> why unreliable and expensive<br />
electricity is a success to job-creating industries in South Australia, like the southern bluefin tuna industry, which<br />
employs over 600 people in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Grey? How is the government acting to ensure that businesses are<br />
not jeopardised by unreliable and expensive power? Is the minister aware <strong>of</strong> any other approaches?<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:29): I thank the member for<br />
Grey for his question. Nothing proves Labor's one-eyed obsession with closing down coal-fired power stations<br />
and taking away baseload power more than the South Australian government's decision to close down the northern<br />
power station at Port Augusta. Today, this letter has emerged from Alinta, written by Alinta, to the South<br />
Australian government, demonstrating that Alinta would have kept open the Northern Power Station for $25<br />
million—$25 million which the South Australian government has wasted on many other projects over the years.<br />
For $25 million the South Australian government could have kept baseload power in South Australia. We could<br />
have avoided the year <strong>of</strong> blackouts that we have had—the businesses that have seen their produce destroyed, the<br />
insurance claims that need to be made after every blackout, the damage to our economy in South Australia, the<br />
highest electricity prices and the most unreliable energy in the country.<br />
The South Australian government jumped up and down about Arrium when Arrium was in danger, and we<br />
acted to fix it. They jumped up and down about Nyrstar a few years ago at Port Pirie. The Northern Power Station<br />
needed $25 million to supply baseload power to South Australia and Labor said: 'No, we'd rather close down your<br />
power station. We'd rather rely on unreliable power in renewable energy,' which was found, yet again, by another<br />
AEMO report yesterday to have been the reason for the blackouts that have been occurring in South Australia.<br />
The damage has been done by making our power supply so unreliable. The Premier <strong>of</strong> South Australia chose,<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> using $25 million to protect families, households and businesses, to conduct an experiment—an<br />
experiment he described himself as an experiment—and the damage has been real and lasting.<br />
With southern bluefin tuna, for example, which South Australia is the centre <strong>of</strong> with $118 million <strong>of</strong> exports a<br />
year, Australian tuna fishers had planned to expand their operations in Port Lincoln. Hagen Stehr had planned to<br />
build a new export factory facility for southern bluefin tuna for specialised frozen tuna in Japan and China. He<br />
says—not us: 'I will not build facilities because <strong>of</strong> the unreliable generation <strong>of</strong> power and the price <strong>of</strong> electricity,<br />
making it impossible to achieve financial return,' costing South Australia valuable export dollars and jobs for the<br />
future.<br />
That is the future under the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's policies for renewable energy targets. What has<br />
happened in South Australia he wants to take national. He must be stopped, and this government will stop him.<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:32): My question is to the Prime<br />
Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be<br />
extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment to settle litigation which<br />
alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse <strong>of</strong> AIH—a devastating collapse which saw<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this another example, just like penalty rates,<br />
where the Prime Minister believes—<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will resume his seat.<br />
Mr Pyne interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> will cease interjecting.<br />
Mr Sukkar interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin is warned. I am going to need to hear the question again to judge<br />
whether it is in order.<br />
Mr DREYFUS: My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on<br />
secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was<br />
party to a secret payment—<br />
Mr Fletcher: Too gutless to go outside the parliament, aren't you!<br />
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Bradfield then left the chamber.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 51<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will ask his question again. Just before you do, I will make it very<br />
clear: I am not going to keep repeating myself. All interjections are disorderly, but, when I have made it clear to<br />
the <strong>House</strong> that I am seeking to hear the question again because I have been prevented due to interjections, anyone<br />
who interjects is in very grave danger.<br />
Mr DREYFUS: My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on<br />
secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was<br />
party to a secret payment to settle litigation which alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse<br />
<strong>of</strong> AIH—a devastating collapse which saw thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this<br />
another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes it is one rule for him and his big<br />
business friends and another for workers?<br />
The SPEAKER: Having had the opportunity to now listen to the question, I say to the member for Isaacs that<br />
a large part <strong>of</strong> that question relates to a time prior to the Prime Minister assuming <strong>of</strong>fice and, indeed, prior to him<br />
becoming a member <strong>of</strong> parliament.<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: If members want to interject on me, I will just move on and we will not have the question at<br />
all. The rules for questions and answers are very different, and members know that—particularly former ministers<br />
who are now shadow ministers. Only the first part <strong>of</strong> that question is in order.<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:35): The government's policy is that trade unions who<br />
take secret payments—<br />
Opposition members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members will cease holding up props. The member<br />
for Hindmarsh is warned. The members who have been warned will now leave under 94(a), and they include the<br />
member for Lindsay. If there are any others, you are lucky. But, at the rate you are behaving, I will get you soon.<br />
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: Trade unions claim to be representing their workers. They are fiduciaries; they are in a<br />
positon <strong>of</strong> trust. We say, and the law will say, that they cannot take payments from the people with whom they are<br />
negotiating on behalf <strong>of</strong> their members. And that is the point. It is about accountability; it is about honesty; it is<br />
about integrity. The fact that the member for Isaacs stoops so low shows what a raw nerve we have hit. The one<br />
thing the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition will not do is say what the half-a-million dollars was really for—what the<br />
$300,000 was really for or what the $32,000 was really for. He can set everybody's mind at rest: if he is so proud<br />
<strong>of</strong> this record let him tell the truth.<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS<br />
The SPEAKER (14:37): I would like to inform the <strong>House</strong> that we have present today a delegation from the<br />
New Zealand Justice and Electoral Committee, led by Ms Sarah Dowie, the member for Invercargill. On behalf <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>House</strong> I extend a very warm welcome to you and to your delegation.<br />
Honourable members: Hear, hear!<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Energy<br />
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister<br />
update the <strong>House</strong> on the cost South Australians are faced with in order to stabilise the state's energy system, and<br />
the role the federal government continues to play in securing our energy future? Minister, are you aware <strong>of</strong> any<br />
alternative approaches?<br />
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:38): I thank the member for<br />
Barker for his question and I acknowledge his deep concern for the rising electricity prices across the state, like<br />
for the family-owned, fourth-generation South Australian business JT Johnson & Sons, which produces hay<br />
pallets for domestic use and for export. It has seen its energy bill go up by nearly $1 million. That is why we on<br />
this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> are focused on important reforms to rein in retail costs, to rein in network costs, to invest<br />
record amounts in battery storage, and also to get more gas into the market. Just today, with Ministers Sinodinos<br />
and Canavan, we were able to get a commitment from the pipeline operators that they would work with the gas<br />
suppliers to ensure that they would meet any shortfall for gas in the domestic market in the years ahead.<br />
Just today, Jay Weatherill, the Premier <strong>of</strong> South Australia, has been revealed as having no clothes, because just<br />
two weeks ago, when he was announcing his $550 million apology note to the people <strong>of</strong> South Australia, he was<br />
asked five times whether it would be cheaper to keep the Northern Power Station open. He said that keeping the<br />
CHAMBER
52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Northern Power Station open would not provide him with the services that South Australia needs. But today we<br />
have found out that it will. It would be cheaper—22 times cheaper—than his $550 million apology note to the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> South Australia. We have also found out today, with the announcement by ENGIE that it has secured<br />
the gas contracts, that the Prime Minister's efforts in getting the gas suppliers to put more gas into the domestic<br />
market are working. I spoke to the CEO <strong>of</strong> ENGIE and he was very grateful for the government's efforts. Now we<br />
are seeing ENGIE bring on the Pelican Point mothballed plant. It will ensure that a second layer <strong>of</strong> paint is now on<br />
Labor's white elephant in South Australia, which is a new government funded gas-fired power station.<br />
We know that the Premier <strong>of</strong> South Australia has undertaken a big experiment. We know that he was in denial.<br />
We know that he blamed the market operator, that he blamed the weather, that he blamed the federal government,<br />
that he blamed the lack <strong>of</strong> a carbon tax for the blackouts that have occurred across his state. But, now, the people<br />
<strong>of</strong> South Australia know the real cost <strong>of</strong> his failures and <strong>of</strong> his big experiment. Unfortunately, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition wants to take this 50 per cent RET national, which means increased prices for households and<br />
businesses, like JT Johnson & Sons, and a much less stable energy network, which Australia cannot afford.<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:41): My question is again to the Prime<br />
Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Should government policy on secret payments be<br />
extended to him? Peter and his wife were forced to live in a shed for over two years after their builder went broke<br />
and their HIH building insurance became worthless. The Prime Minister continued to live in his mansion while<br />
they had to live in a shed. Don't Peter and thousands <strong>of</strong> other victims deserve to know what role the Prime<br />
Minister played in ruining their lives? Isn't their story still continuing with his cuts to workers and families, while<br />
sending cash to big business and millionaires? (Time expired)<br />
Government members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: I will not give the Prime Minister the call just yet. Members on my right will not interject.<br />
The member for Corangamite is now warned! Again, the member for Isaacs well knows, because <strong>of</strong> my previous<br />
rulings and earlier rulings that he has been listening to, that matters prior to a member becoming a member <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament or indeed becoming a minister cannot be canvassed in question time and are out <strong>of</strong> order. The first part<br />
<strong>of</strong> that question refers to the Prime Minister's previous answer, but, from what I could hear—there were some<br />
interjections near the end and I was hoping to hear the member for Isaacs in the final few seconds—the only part<br />
that was in order was in reference to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The rest <strong>of</strong> the question was out <strong>of</strong><br />
order. I will again say that the Prime Minister needs only to refer to the section relating to his previous answer,<br />
and I am cautioning the member for Isaacs along the lines <strong>of</strong> my ruling the other day with respect to the member<br />
for McMahon, with the bulk <strong>of</strong> the question being out <strong>of</strong> order, and if I consider it to be deliberately so I will not<br />
be allowing any part <strong>of</strong> the question. But on this occasion I will allow the first part <strong>of</strong> the question. The Prime<br />
Minister has the call.<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): I wonder if the member for Isaacs could remind us<br />
whether he actually lives in his own electorate. Has he moved in. Oh, yes—another champion <strong>of</strong> the people. That<br />
is what we get from the member for Isaacs. Let's be quite clear about this. This Queen's Counsel <strong>of</strong>ten has the<br />
opportunity to explore his own electorate, but he certainly does not live there. He observes it objectively from a<br />
great distance, with an imperial equanimity given to someone who has no connection with the men and women<br />
and families he represents.<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley is warned. The member for Wills will leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Wills then left the chamber.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: What we see now is the desperation the Labor Party has sunk to, because all the Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the Opposition has to do is tell us what that money was really for. What was that money really for? He talks about<br />
secret payments. I have made no payments, secret or otherwise—none. The fact <strong>of</strong> the matter is if the honourable<br />
member is suggesting that no litigation can ever be settled on confidential terms, they can move a private<br />
member's bill. They would do a bit <strong>of</strong> damage to the honourable member's own pr<strong>of</strong>ession. It would never happen.<br />
I am sure the member for Isaacs has never been involved in a settlement like that—no, I suspect not; I suspect that<br />
is right. He has to keep those fees coming; he would not want to settle. The honourable member's pathetic attempt<br />
to amplify the politics-<strong>of</strong>-envy campaign by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition is as disingenuous as anything we have<br />
seen from the opposition benches. We are defending workers; you are selling them out. We did not sell out their<br />
penalty rates; Labor did. We did not take half a million dollars from an employer; that was the union the<br />
honourable member was leader <strong>of</strong>—taking money to sell members out and not telling them the truth about the<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 53<br />
money they are taking from the employers they are doing those dirty deals with. That is the difference: we want to<br />
see the light, we want to see the truth and we want to see the unions to own up to their members.<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth and the member for Burt are warned.<br />
Skilled Migration Program<br />
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:46): I have a sensible question for the Minister for Immigration and Border<br />
Protection. Will the minister update the <strong>House</strong> on actions the government is taking to ensure our skilled migration<br />
program does not disadvantage Australian workers? Is the minister aware <strong>of</strong> any alternative approach that<br />
jeopardises the job opportunities for hardworking Australians?<br />
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:47): I thank the honourable<br />
member for Canning very much for his question. It is a fact that this government has been about putting<br />
Australians first when it comes to putting people into jobs. That is the claim <strong>of</strong> this government not only in our<br />
words but in our deeds and actions. We have worked to tidy up the 457 program, which was exploited by the<br />
Labor Party when they were in government, exploited by the Labor Party that took the opportunity to bring<br />
foreign workers into this country and put them in places otherwise occupied by Australian workers. There has<br />
been a lot <strong>of</strong> hypocrisy from this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition on display in question time today, but the hypocrisy<br />
demonstrated by this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition has been on display for many, many years. In question time today<br />
there is a contest <strong>of</strong> character going on, and this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition fails it at every turn. They have sought<br />
today to besmirch the reputation <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister <strong>of</strong> this country, a man who started with nothing, worked<br />
hard, employed Australians and created businesses. They want to contrast him to this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition,<br />
who has run around for years conjuring up dodgy deals not in the interests <strong>of</strong> union workers but solely in the<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> union bosses. He used the 457 program—<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce is warned. The member for Perth has been warned; he can leave<br />
under 94(a).<br />
The member for Perth then left the chamber.<br />
Mr DUTTON: We saw the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition when he was secretary <strong>of</strong> the AWU,<br />
where he presided over deals where hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars were paid to his union to the benefit <strong>of</strong> the<br />
union bosses, without telling workers about it. At the same time, he was negotiating away the conditions <strong>of</strong> those<br />
workers. This is the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition: he wants to pretend one thing in this place, he wants the Australian<br />
people to believe one thing, but the reality is the opposite. This Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition has demonstrated in his<br />
current position and throughout his working life that he will take advantage <strong>of</strong> any situation to the benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
unions, and that is why the CFMEU and others completely own and operate this Labor Party. They have<br />
contributed $10 million to this Labor Party over recent years, and it is why this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition is in<br />
here, day in, day out, prosecuting the cause <strong>of</strong> union bosses. I see the former Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe<br />
up in the gallery today. He was part <strong>of</strong> a government that actually represented workers. He was part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
government that had members <strong>of</strong> parliament in the Labor Party who had had real jobs. The reality is, when you<br />
look at these union bosses, when you look at them starting from their leader down, they have not represented the<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> workers. They have not stood up for workers; they continue on each and every occasion to stand up<br />
for the union bosses ahead <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the union workers, and this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition stands<br />
condemned. (Time expired)<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: I again caution members on both sides, and I refer them to the statement I made a few weeks<br />
into this parliament: if the level <strong>of</strong> discourse continues in such a poor fashion I will continue to eject people under<br />
94(a). But I am making it very clear, as a reminder, that I also said I reserve the right to take more severe action<br />
and to do so without warning. If anyone who has been warned does not understand that and if those who have<br />
regularly been ejected do not understand it, they will understand it shortly.<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:51): My question is to the Prime<br />
Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Should the government's policy on secret payments be<br />
extended to situations where there are secret payments to settle litigation which alleged breaches <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Corporations Law, such as occurred in the collapse <strong>of</strong> HIH? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where<br />
the Prime Minister believes it is one rule for him and his big business friends and another for workers?<br />
CHAMBER
54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:51): I dealt with that in my previous answer, but is the<br />
honourable member seriously saying that litigation should not be settled? Is that what he would like? Is that,<br />
perhaps, the brief-less barrister's dream—a litigation without end? Is he saying that litigation should not be settled<br />
or that no litigation can be settled unless the terms are disclosed? If that is his proposal, then he should raise it and<br />
he can move a private member's bill. It is not one that would be welcomed by his pr<strong>of</strong>ession or, indeed, by<br />
anybody else.<br />
Workplace Relations<br />
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the<br />
Minister for Employment. Will the Minister outline to the <strong>House</strong> why corrupting benefits, as described by the<br />
Heydon royal commission, should be outlawed? Are there any alternative approaches?<br />
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:52): I thank the member for<br />
Menzies for his question. Of course corrupting benefits should be banned in this country. The Heydon royal<br />
commission recommended that corrupting benefits should be removed from the system. This government is taking<br />
action to ban corrupting benefit payments and make it a criminal activity.<br />
Let's put this in some context for the member for Menzies and for the rest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. The really hideous<br />
example <strong>of</strong> what went on at the AWU under this bloke over here, under this Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, is that <strong>of</strong><br />
the Cleanevent workers. We call them 'the Cleanevent workers', but let's look at what these people do. These are<br />
amongst the lowest-paid workers in the country, doing one <strong>of</strong> the toughest jobs. These are the people that turn up<br />
after an event—at the bachelor and spinster balls in South Australia, or the race days—and clean out the vomit<br />
from the portaloos, empty the toilets, take away the empty beer cans and the plastic mugs and try and put the place<br />
back into shape again. They are the lowest-paid workers in the community doing one <strong>of</strong> the toughest jobs. This<br />
bloke sold them down the river. These were the people who got paid 176 per cent less under the EBA that this<br />
man signed than they would have if they had had the award. And he has the hide to come into this chamber and<br />
lecture us about integrity and honesty and looking after the workers.<br />
Do you know what the AWU got in return? They got a $75,000 cash payment, and they got lists—really<br />
important lists—so that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition could expand his power in the ALP in Victoria, so he could<br />
use those lists to pretend they were members <strong>of</strong> the union, to sign them up to the AWU. Nobody was told about<br />
this practice, but it was a practice that expanded his percentage on the floor <strong>of</strong> the state conference in the<br />
Victorian ALP. It was a power he used to try and wipe out people in this place, like the former member for<br />
Maribyrnong, Bob Sercombe, who was a very decent fellow. He was wiped out <strong>of</strong> here. The member for Corio<br />
tried it on as well, and they tried to get rid <strong>of</strong> Simon Crean, if you remember, for those <strong>of</strong> us who were in the<br />
<strong>House</strong> then, but he fought them <strong>of</strong>. He fought <strong>of</strong>f the branch stackers and the faction led by this Leader <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Opposition, who had used the Cleanevent workers to gain power, to gain cash for his union. That is the practice<br />
that we want to stamp out, and he has the hide to send this pathetic attack dog into the <strong>House</strong> to attack the Prime<br />
Minister.<br />
Donations to Political Parties<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. In<br />
previous answers the Prime Minister has referred to cutting the pay <strong>of</strong> Australian workers and secret donations.<br />
Will the Prime Minister also cut <strong>of</strong>f the trail <strong>of</strong> secret donations by introducing legislation to require transparency<br />
for payments made to the following organisations: the Menzies 200 Club; Liberal Properties; Fafold; The<br />
Cormack Foundation; the Greenfields Foundation; Free Enterprise Foundation; Team 200 Club; Foundation 51;<br />
Ripon 250 Club; Enterprise West; the Geelong 500 Club? Or, again, is it a different rule if it is a Liberal Party<br />
organisation?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:56): I did not catch the names <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> those entities.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the ones I heard are associated entities. For example, I am sure that the Free Enterprise Foundation, which<br />
the honourable member mentioned, is an associated entity, the donations to which are disclosed on the Australian<br />
Electoral Commission website. I think the honourable member will find that entities that are associated with<br />
political parties disclose under the Electoral Act. But I am happy to refer his inquiry to the Special Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
State and I will take a note <strong>of</strong> the list <strong>of</strong> the entities provided.<br />
The government is fully supportive <strong>of</strong> complete transparency in relation to these matters. I think the honourable<br />
member will find that those entities that he mentioned, certainly the Free Enterprise Foundation, are associated<br />
entities and the donations are disclosed in accordance with the law.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 55<br />
Trade<br />
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment.<br />
Will the minister update the house on how the government's trade policies are supporting the jobs <strong>of</strong> hardworking<br />
Australians? Is the minister aware <strong>of</strong> any alternative approaches to trade that could jeopardise Australian jobs?<br />
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:58): I am very pleased to have a<br />
point <strong>of</strong> contrast between this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, asking about issues that matter to real Australians, and that side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> asking the grubby questions that we have seen. What this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> knows, what actually<br />
matters to hardworking Australians, is about opportunities to create jobs, to generate economic growth and to<br />
ensure that Australians know that they will have a brighter future tomorrow. This coalition government is<br />
delivering them that future. We are doing that in the trade portfolio. We are doing so through the trifecta <strong>of</strong> trade<br />
agreements that we put in place with the North Asia powerhouse economies, China, Korea and Japan. We have<br />
delivered in terms <strong>of</strong> the updated Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, as well as the fact that we played a<br />
leading role in pushing for early ratification <strong>of</strong> the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. We are also continuing to<br />
build on the existing agreements that Australia has put in place. In fact, if you look at the last seven days, it has<br />
been this coalition government that is making a difference for hardworking Australians by strengthening the<br />
relationship that we have with China and building on the success that we have with the China-Australia Free<br />
Trade Agreement. In fact, during Premier Li's visit last week, we announced an agreement, delivered by the<br />
coalition, to unlock a number <strong>of</strong> trade restrictions for Aussie meat exporters to China. An additional 36 Australian<br />
chilled meat processing facilities will now have access to one <strong>of</strong> the world's largest economies. This means more<br />
Aussie jobs, more job security and more exports for all Australians. That is what Australians are concerned about.<br />
That is what they are focused on, not the kind <strong>of</strong> drivel we have seen today from the opposition.<br />
Thanks to the hard work <strong>of</strong> this coalition, we continue to be the first and only country to have access for chilled<br />
beef into China. The most recent changes are estimated to be worth some $400 million per year for Australia's<br />
meat industry—our farmers and meat processors. And frankly, what better contrast could there be: between the<br />
coalition's track record <strong>of</strong> delivery when it comes to China and the track record <strong>of</strong> this failed Labor Party when<br />
they were last in government? Look at their track record when it came to beef. Look at the knee jerk reaction we<br />
saw from the previous, Labor, government when it came to Indonesia, when, overnight, they ruined our<br />
relationship with Indonesia by turning <strong>of</strong>f live cattle exports. And let us never forget that the China-Australia Free<br />
Trade Agreement—which underpins the livelihoods <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians, which is driving export growth,<br />
which is making sure that the Australian economy is even stronger—an agreement delivered by the coalition, was<br />
described by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition as a 'dud deal'. That is how they described the China-Australia Free<br />
Trade Agreement. It is not a dud. The only dud is the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition.<br />
Workplace Relations<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (15:01): My question is to the Prime Minister.<br />
Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked three times to rule out pay cuts for AFP <strong>of</strong>ficers, including his own<br />
protection detail. Given that the Prime Minister failed to categorically rule out these pay cuts three times<br />
yesterday, I ask again: will the Prime Minister rule out pay cuts for AFP <strong>of</strong>ficers for working late nights and<br />
weekends?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:01): As the honourable member knows, the enterprise<br />
agreement between the AFP and the government is being negotiated at an agency level, as it always has been—in<br />
other words, between the commissioner and the members. Those negotiations are ongoing, and <strong>of</strong> course it will<br />
require a vote <strong>of</strong> the members to be concluded. That is the first point. The second point is the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, seeking now to protect or defend the Australian Federal Police. In government they cut<br />
the funding for our security services again and again. Remarkably, after 50,000 unlawful arrivals came on 800<br />
boats, the Labor Party cut millions <strong>of</strong> dollars out <strong>of</strong> the customs service. They cut our abilities to defend our<br />
borders, just as their policies made our borders less secure.<br />
Again and again, Labor has failed to step up to keep Australia safe. They failed to invest in the equipment, in<br />
the ships that our defence forces need—not one naval vessel commissioned from one Australian yard in six years.<br />
And in terms <strong>of</strong> the AFP in particular, it is interesting to note that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition claims to be<br />
speaking for the AFP today but only earlier today his shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, was<br />
accusing the AFP <strong>of</strong> acting improperly—<br />
Mr Dreyfus: That's false!<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs.<br />
CHAMBER
56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Mr TURNBULL: and acting under political direction, when he knows as well as we all do that the AFP act<br />
utterly independently—rigorously independently—<strong>of</strong> government. They always have done and always will. That<br />
is the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party for you.<br />
Ms Plibersek interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has already been warned copious times. She will leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.<br />
Budget<br />
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (15:03): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the <strong>House</strong><br />
how the budget is driving investment and supporting wages for hardworking Australians, including family<br />
businesses like Aquatique, which has three stores and employs young people? Will the Treasurer outline any<br />
obstructions to this approach?<br />
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:04): I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She rightly<br />
talks about Aquatique in her electorate, which is a business that has a turnover <strong>of</strong> between $2 million and $10<br />
million. There are some 100,000 businesses like this around the country, and they employ 2.2 million Australians.<br />
The government's Enterprise Tax plan starts with those businesses by changing the definition <strong>of</strong> a small business<br />
from a business with a turnover <strong>of</strong> $2 million to a business with a turnover <strong>of</strong> $10 million. So, not only do they get<br />
a tax cut this year—right now, this fiscal year—but they also get access to the instant asset write-<strong>of</strong>f, which is an<br />
initiative <strong>of</strong> this government; they get access to pool depreciation provisions; and they get the tax monkey <strong>of</strong>f their<br />
back, as small and medium-size businesses.<br />
The member for Gilmore came into this place this week and voted for that tax cut for those businesses. But the<br />
member for Hindmarsh came into this chamber and voted against the tax cut for businesses like Precise<br />
engineering and manufacturing in Adelaide. That is a company that has a turnover <strong>of</strong> $2.9 million and just 20<br />
staff. That is a company that went through the hardest part <strong>of</strong> the transition in the car manufacturing industry, and<br />
it is surviving and is now growing. But the member for Hindmarsh came in here and said: 'No way. You should be<br />
paying higher taxes and you shouldn't be investing in your business and supporting better wages for your<br />
employees and more investment and more jobs.'<br />
The member for Bass also came in here. He has in his electorate Australian Honey Products. That is a company<br />
that has a turnover <strong>of</strong> $2½ million and 20 staff, and 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> their product is exported to Asian markets. That<br />
is a company that is a true Tasmanian success story. But the member for Bass thinks small businesses like<br />
Australian Honey Products should be paying higher taxes and should not have the opportunity to invest more, to<br />
grow their business, to take advantage <strong>of</strong> the trade export deals that this government is delivering and the Labor<br />
Party opposed, particularly when it comes to China. Our Enterprise Tax Plan is about ensuring that small and<br />
medium-size businesses in particular are able to get ahead. And we know who agreed with us on that. The Leader<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Opposition said that you cannot have someone in a job unless business is making a pr<strong>of</strong>it. He said, 'I don't<br />
have an us-and-them view about business.' That is what he said. He said that if a business is not making a pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
then people cannot be assured <strong>of</strong> a job.<br />
Well, the difference between this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> and that side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> is that this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong><br />
comes into the parliament and votes for what they believe in. We come in here because we know that if you want<br />
to drive jobs, if you want to lift incomes, if you want to support wages then you have to back the jobs and growth<br />
plan <strong>of</strong> the coalition government that was outlined in this budget past and will be in the next one.— (Time<br />
expired)<br />
Workplace Relations<br />
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister.<br />
Yesterday and today the Prime Minister has failed four times to rule out pay cuts for AFP <strong>of</strong>ficers, including his<br />
own protection detail, by claiming that negotiations were occurring at arm's length from government. But the<br />
previous Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, was willing to step in to resolve the pay increase problems<br />
with the Australian Defence Forces. Why is this Prime Minister unwilling to step up and take the same action as<br />
the former Prime Minister to look after AFP <strong>of</strong>ficers, who also keep Australian safe?<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:07): The AFP are very lucky they do not have Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the Opposition representing them because we know what he does—in return for $75,000 from Clean Event to the<br />
AWU they ended up getting $18 an hour when it should have been $50. That was a great outcome, a great case <strong>of</strong><br />
negotiation.<br />
Let us be quite clear: throughout my life I have represented many people; I have represented people with lots <strong>of</strong><br />
money and people with no money; I have represented the battlers and I have represented the big end <strong>of</strong> town. But<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 57<br />
the one thing I have always done is I have always done the best for them. Now I am representing every Australian<br />
and I am doing the best for them now—<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The<br />
Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business has the call.<br />
Mr Burke: On direct relevance—the question goes directly to the pay and conditions <strong>of</strong> the people on the<br />
Prime Minister's own protection detail, and he should be relevant at some point in the answer to them.<br />
The SPEAKER: Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business, I have heard your point <strong>of</strong> order. I listened very carefully<br />
to the question and I have a summary <strong>of</strong> it here. The Prime Minister is relating his material to the substance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
question. I am listening to him very carefully—he is relevant so far. I call the Prime Minister.<br />
Mr TURNBULL: When you take the lives and destinies <strong>of</strong> other people in your hands and when you<br />
represent them, you owe it to them to do your best, you owe it to them to tell them the truth and that is what I have<br />
done right through my life. But not the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition—he has hidden one payment after another, one<br />
cash payment from an employer after another. He would not even tell his members the truth about a political<br />
donation. That is what we are talking about here: we are talking about character, conviction and commitment. The<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition lacks them all. He would not stand up for anybody, apart from himself.<br />
I have built businesses, I have employed workers, I have striven to employ more Australians in more jobs in<br />
more businesses and now, as Prime Minister, I and all <strong>of</strong> my government stand up for Australians, defending their<br />
jobs, securing their future. What does the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition do? He sells them out, just like he sold out the<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the AWU—just like he would sell out Australia if he got to run it like union.<br />
Government members interjecting—<br />
The SPEAKER: Members on my right.<br />
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:10): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice<br />
Paper.<br />
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER<br />
Interference with Parliament<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (15:11): The question to you arises from a<br />
privileges report which was brought down in the Senate yesterday and which dealt with the raids with respect to<br />
the NBN that occurred during the election campaign on members' <strong>of</strong>fices. While that report covers some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ground that our own Standing Committee on Privileges and Members' Interests had also covered, it also dealt with<br />
whether or not there had been an improper interference with the parliament itself. It states in paragraph 3.37 that it<br />
had:<br />
… the effect <strong>of</strong> interfering with the duties <strong>of</strong> a senator, and with the functions <strong>of</strong> the parliament more broadly, by undermining<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong> the national guideline and diminishing the protection that should be available to parliamentary material<br />
Mr Speaker, while I appreciate that the report has only very recently been made available, I would ask you to<br />
reflect and report back to the <strong>House</strong> in the light <strong>of</strong> those issues that do have a bearing on the operation <strong>of</strong> this<br />
<strong>House</strong> and on what assurances might be sought from the Prime Minister, the government or government agencies<br />
to ensure that an improper interference with the parliament is not repeated.<br />
The SPEAKER: Can I firstly thank the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business for his question and for drawing<br />
these matters to my attention. As he is aware, I have addressed this matter from the perspective <strong>of</strong> the member in<br />
this <strong>House</strong> earlier on in this parliament and he rightly points out that we established a process to deal with it. On<br />
the additional matters he has raised with me, I can assure him I will give very serious but also speedy<br />
consideration, and I will report back to the <strong>House</strong> at the earliest opportunity.<br />
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE<br />
Economy<br />
The SPEAKER (15:13): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a<br />
definite matter <strong>of</strong> public importance be submitted to the <strong>House</strong> for discussion, namely:<br />
The budgetary and economic failures <strong>of</strong> this Government.<br />
I call upon those members who approve <strong>of</strong> the proposed discussion to rise in their places.<br />
More than the number <strong>of</strong> members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—<br />
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:13): This is the last sitting week before the fourth budget <strong>of</strong> the Abbott-Turnbull<br />
government. The Australian people have every cause to be concerned about this fourth budget <strong>of</strong> the Abbott-<br />
CHAMBER
58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Turnbull government because this government has form. This government has delivered to the Australian people<br />
economic management for which there has been a real price for the families <strong>of</strong> millions <strong>of</strong> Australians and for our<br />
country. In fact, we are still paying the price for the 2014 budget as we prepare for the 2017 budget. Just this<br />
week, as we speak, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are trying to get through some <strong>of</strong> the harsh cuts from<br />
the 2014 budget in their omnibus savings bill. The fact <strong>of</strong> the matter is that this government is projecting a surplus<br />
based almost entirely on those harsh cuts from the 2014 budget, which have not passed and will not pass this<br />
parliament. The dysfunction and the wrong priorities <strong>of</strong> this government mean that our economy has had a very<br />
real price to pay.<br />
Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister gave a very revealing quote about how he sees the economy and<br />
how he sees the Australian people. He said:<br />
Every day the government is delivering the economic growth that Australians deserve.<br />
Either the Prime Minister is not across what is happening or he has a very different opinion about what<br />
Australians deserve than this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> does, because the fact <strong>of</strong> the matter is our economy is growing<br />
below trend. Unemployment has increased and underemployment is at record highs, with 1.1 million Australians<br />
wanting more work but unable to find it. There are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago and wages<br />
growth is at record lows.<br />
The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the entire government think that the answer to record low wages growth<br />
is to cut wages further. It is telling us that the one thing that unites this government—the one thing that the<br />
Turnbull people, the Abbott people, the Dutton people and the Bishop people all agree on—is that people who<br />
work on Sundays should be paid less. I would mention the Morrison people, but there is only one <strong>of</strong> those left!<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite, on a point <strong>of</strong> order.<br />
Ms Henderson: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the member needs to refer to members by<br />
their proper titles.<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite is correct. I have made this point many times. I did not hear<br />
the member for McMillan because I was in consultation with the Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business on a serious<br />
matter, but he will refer to members by their correct titles. I refer him to the fact that I have sat people down who<br />
were deliberately flouting that ruling.<br />
Mr BOWEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current Prime Minister knifed the member for Warringah because,<br />
he said, we were not getting the economic leadership that Australia needed. What we have is a continual failure <strong>of</strong><br />
economic leadership from this Prime Minister and his Treasurer. This will be the current Treasurer's second<br />
budget. The last one had a one-point plan for jobs and growth, and we saw last week the spectacle <strong>of</strong> us asking the<br />
current Treasurer whether the centrepiece <strong>of</strong> the 2016 budget would even be in the 2017 budget. We asked 12<br />
times, and we did not get an answer about this one-point plan for jobs and growth. It was embarrassing. Then we<br />
had the Prime Minister leaving the Treasurer hanging out to dry all week and then briefing the papers that it would<br />
be in the budget. It just goes to show why the Prime Minister is out there saying he is going to take over the<br />
economic management and the salesmanship from his Treasurer.<br />
We should not be surprised because—there have been so many <strong>of</strong> these promises it is sometimes easy to miss<br />
one—this is what the Treasurer has done over the course <strong>of</strong> the last 18 months: he promised an increase in the<br />
GST and then retreated from it in that famous 46-minute waffle at the National Press Club; he promised big,<br />
swingeing personal income tax cuts and he told us how passionate he was about personal income tax cuts, and<br />
what has followed has been very little indeed; he went with his Prime Minister on a 48-hour frolic through the<br />
fields <strong>of</strong> state income taxes and withdrew all funding from public schools in Australia; he talked about the<br />
excesses <strong>of</strong> negative gearing before being rolled by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in cabinet;<br />
and he has loved to criticise tax increases and tax changes proposed by us, that is until he adopts them. He<br />
criticises them right up until the day that he adopts them.<br />
This Treasurer, even today, was talking about how we should not have more tax rises. He said that he opposed<br />
Labor's proposed increase in the tobacco excise and he railed against changes to superannuation tax, and then he<br />
got up and announced those very things in his last budget. Goodness knows what he is going to announce in this<br />
budget! Of course, this is the Treasurer who personally came up with the masterstroke <strong>of</strong> linking his unfair,<br />
unsustainable cuts not only to the National Disability Insurance Scheme but also to his childcare package. That<br />
was his baby all the way through.<br />
Of course, the Treasurer has his one-point plan. He says that that is his answer for increasing growth and jobs.<br />
That is his one-point plan. Of course the fine print, which he does not like talking about, tells us that this will<br />
deliver one per cent growth in the economy in 20 years time. In terms <strong>of</strong> wages, he was saying yesterday not to<br />
worry about the penalty rate cuts because the corporate tax cut is going to increase wages, apparently. What do the<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 59<br />
government's documents tell us? They tell us that it will increase wages—by $2 a day in 20 years time. There has<br />
never been a more exciting time to be an Australian! They will cut your penalty rates and give you $2 a day back<br />
in 20 years time! That is the great plan for the future that this government delivers us. What an exciting<br />
proposition for the Australian people—a big wage cut now, big business gets a big tax cut and you get your<br />
penalty rates cut!<br />
We saw yesterday the big four banks' economists talking about the corporate tax cut. To be clear, these are the<br />
banks who get the tax cut. These are supporters <strong>of</strong> the tax cut. The opening paragraph <strong>of</strong> the story said:<br />
Chief economists at Australia’s biggest banks have questioned the overall benefit to the economy provided by a cut to the<br />
corporate tax rate, at a time when the country’s biggest companies sit on record high levels <strong>of</strong> cash and continue to spend<br />
billions buying their own shares.<br />
These are the people who support the tax cut. These are the ones who get the tax cut, and you cannot even<br />
convince them that it is good for the economy. No wonder the Prime Minister wants to take over economic<br />
salesmanship from the Treasurer. We are seeing Peter Costello and Paul Keating say that this is the wrong plan for<br />
Australia. Anything that can unite those two must be a very bad idea, especially if they agree that this is a wrong<br />
plan for Australia!<br />
Of course, the most important thing is that this $50 billion just cannot be afforded at this time because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deficits and the debt blowouts which this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and their two predecessors have presided<br />
over. This government's budget disaster has seen the 2016-17 budget deficit go from $11 billion—forecast by<br />
them—to $37 billion. Of course, we have seen net debt forecasts increase by $100 billion. This is a Prime<br />
Minister who said that net debt at $188 billion was a colossal figure. I wonder what it is under his watch. How<br />
would he describe it under his watch when he said previously that such a figure was 'colossal'?<br />
This really leads us back, again, to a Treasurer who is constantly out <strong>of</strong> his depth and is not up to running a G20<br />
economy. This Treasurer is at war with his Prime Minister and at war with his Minister for Finance. Goodness<br />
knows the Australian people have every right to be concerned about what will be in this 2017 budget. Everything<br />
he promises he fails to deliver on. We know he is barely on speaking terms with his own Prime Minister.<br />
There was another resounding vote <strong>of</strong> confidence in the Treasurer just this week. We see every day in question<br />
time that those on the backbench go wild every time the Treasurer is up on his feet. They just cannot control<br />
themselves. The backbench go crazy when the Treasurer brings in his pet rock—they just go <strong>of</strong>f! They just go<br />
crazy. We saw some extra support from a frontbench colleague <strong>of</strong> the Treasurer with a ringing endorsement. He<br />
did not name the frontbench colleague, in fairness. I do not wonder why when he or she said <strong>of</strong> the Treasurer,<br />
'He'll need to perform or he's out.' What a ringing endorsement from his cabinet colleagues!<br />
Well, I agree with the said unnamed frontbencher from the other side. But I probably have a different view<br />
about what a better performance looks like. I will share it with the <strong>House</strong>. I would think a more believable plan to<br />
return to surplus based on believable policies would be a better performance, not discredited, unfair cuts. It would<br />
involve proper budget repair instead <strong>of</strong> attacking the most vulnerable in our economy. It would involve proper tax<br />
reform, such as negative gearing and capital gains tax reform. That would be a better performance from this<br />
Treasurer. How about a housing affordability plan? That would be a better performance. The Treasurer should not<br />
be replaced now; he should be replaced at the next election by a Labor government with a plan and the courage to<br />
tackle the issues facing Australia's future. (Time expired)<br />
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (15:23): The member for McMahon talked about<br />
paying the price. Well, we are absolutely paying the price for six years <strong>of</strong> incompetence <strong>of</strong> which he was a part.<br />
There were six years <strong>of</strong> incompetence when the member for McMahon was the worst immigration minister this<br />
country has ever seen. Then those opposite were unceremoniously turfed from the Treasury benches with an $18<br />
billion black hole. So we are paying the price for six years <strong>of</strong> Labor.<br />
What is worse is that those opposite have the audacity to come into this place, after trying to frustrate every<br />
attempt at turbocharging the economy or improving the budget, and complain. The member for McMahon and the<br />
Labor Party have been completely taken over by the hard left <strong>of</strong> their party. That is true <strong>of</strong> every single policy<br />
adopted by the Labor Party now. I see the member for Scullin smiling. I know he is very happy with his takeover<br />
<strong>of</strong> the party. That the member for McMahon opposes every single policy on improving jobs and investment in our<br />
economy is an absolute disgrace.<br />
In looking at how the economy is travelling, the government and I accept that there are always things that we as<br />
a government and parliament should do better. But we are the fastest growing economy in the G7. Let's not forget<br />
that. We had growth in the last quarter <strong>of</strong> 1.1 per cent, a very encouraging number. We have unemployment at 5.9<br />
per cent. Everything we are doing is geared towards increasing investment and increasing opportunities for<br />
Australians, which ultimately will increase wages and increase the number <strong>of</strong> jobs in the economy.<br />
CHAMBER
60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The member for McMahon sounded as though he was arguing against himself in his speech when arguing<br />
against the company tax cuts, because we have all seen various members <strong>of</strong> the government come to the dispatch<br />
box with the book written by the member for McMahon. I have not read it, and I would not buy it. But I have lots<br />
<strong>of</strong> good quotes from the book, I can assure you. As the member for McMahon has said:<br />
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition <strong>of</strong> reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives<br />
growth.<br />
So the member for McMahon was arguing against himself for 10 minutes.<br />
Dr Chalmers interjecting—<br />
Mr SUKKAR: I see the member for Rankin very loyally supporting the member for McMahon. He said:<br />
… Australia would go well out <strong>of</strong> a lower company rate than it is right now.<br />
The member from Rankin also said:<br />
You're right that Bill said that in the medium term it would be a good aspiration to have a lower company rate.<br />
So we had every member <strong>of</strong> the Labor economic team arguing for company tax cuts. But now the member for<br />
Scullin and the hard left <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party have completely taken over the economic narrative and they are now<br />
saying, 'No, we don't want to be internationally competitive.'<br />
We have also seen the Labor Party, hijacked by the CFMEU and others, arguing against the China-Australia<br />
free trade agreement. We all recall the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition referring to it as—<br />
Mr Bowen: We voted for it.<br />
Mr SUKKAR: The member for McMahon says, 'We voted for it.' So why did the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition<br />
refer to it as a dud deal? Why would the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition vote for a dud deal? I will tell you why. It is<br />
because the CFMEU pulls the levers in this Labor Party, and the CFMEU said, 'No, we don't want the China<br />
Australia Free Trade Agreement,' but then in the end they buckled. That is why, Member for McMahon, you did<br />
it. It is shameful that somebody who thinks they are the heir to a proud legacy has now repudiated every single<br />
area <strong>of</strong> consensus that we have shared for about 30 years. For 30 years we have not had to argue in this parliament<br />
about lower tax rates, whether that be personal income tax cuts or corporate income tax cuts. We have never, ever<br />
had to argue about that. Now we are re-litigating the arguments that we were having with the communists 40 years<br />
ago, because they are back. They are back, they are large and they are in charge.<br />
But we will keep arguing for it because we represent the millions <strong>of</strong> Australians who fund our entire system.<br />
We represent the millions <strong>of</strong> Australians who get up first thing in the morning and who do not see their children<br />
when they get home late at night because they are paying ever higher taxes. There is no dollar that the member for<br />
McMahon can say no to spending. There is no spending reduction that he will support. It is an absolute disgrace.<br />
We know the model from the Labor Party now. The model is higher taxes—<br />
Mr Husic interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member for Chifley is already under a warning from question<br />
time.<br />
Mr SUKKAR: We know that the Labor Party model now is higher deficits, higher debts and higher taxes for<br />
Australians. That is the model. We have progressed $24 billion in savings, most <strong>of</strong> which have been opposed by<br />
the Labor Party. We have also seen, shamefully, from the shadow Assistant Treasurer and others opposition to a<br />
multinational tax avoidance bill that has seen us collect $2 billion in additional revenue. Why would you vote<br />
against that, Labor Party? Why would you vote against that, member for McMahon? It is quite a day when the<br />
Greens show more economic sense than the Labor Party. It is an absolute disgrace that you would do that and that<br />
you would jeopardise our AAA credit rating. If the member for McMahon was still the Treasurer—but let's<br />
remember that you are not because you were unceremoniously dumped in the 2013 election—we would have lost<br />
the AAA credit rating at that point. And, now, the Labor Party have tried to frustrate every single attempt.<br />
We will keep going. We have been able to show the Labor Party ways in which we can repair the budget and<br />
improve the economy simultaneously—1.1 per cent economic growth in the last quarter. They are great numbers.<br />
We are the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I would expect that the Labor Party would applaud that.<br />
Mr Swan: We did that for six years, you clown.<br />
Mr SUKKAR: Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think being referred to as a clown by the former Treasurer is quite<br />
extraordinary. And we love seeing you there, Swannie. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will refer to those opposite by their<br />
titles. We would love to see the former Treasurer back on the front bench because we think you are the greatest<br />
electoral asset that we have. So come back to the front bench and keep the interjections going.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 61<br />
The member for McMahon started his remarks by saying we are paying the price. We are paying the price for<br />
six years <strong>of</strong> Labor. We are paying the price having gone from $20 billion surpluses to $40 billion deficits that we<br />
inherited under this government. We are paying the price for the former Labor government sending us in a<br />
trajectory <strong>of</strong> $667 billion <strong>of</strong> debt, increased spending and a slowing economy. Now, we are the economy that is<br />
the envy <strong>of</strong> the world. Of course, we have more to do.<br />
One thing that this government will ensure is that low-cost energy, a competitive advantage <strong>of</strong> our economy<br />
that we have enjoyed for many generations, continues into the future. The member for McMahon could not<br />
explain whether the Labor Party's 50 per cent renewable energy target was a target, an aspiration, an option or a<br />
goal, but what we do know is that Labor's policies on energy will make our heavy industry and manufacturing<br />
uncompetitive. So when they talk about states like South Australia and Victoria—and I am a proud Victorian;<br />
Victoria is the heart <strong>of</strong> manufacturing in our country—one <strong>of</strong> the primary economic and competitive advantages<br />
that we have had in low-cost energy is something that they have tried to frustrate every step <strong>of</strong> the way.<br />
Ms Keay: What about renewable energy in Tasmania?<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Braddon was under a warning from question time. She has continuously<br />
interrupted. She will leave under 94(a).<br />
The member for Braddon then left the chamber.<br />
Mr SUKKAR: We have made real progress on our budget. In the face <strong>of</strong> staunch opposition from those who<br />
created the problem, we have made absolute strides in improving our budget bottom line and in returning to<br />
budget surplus by 2021. We will ensure that that timetable is met. We will also ensure that our economy continues<br />
to be the envy <strong>of</strong> those in the G7.<br />
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:33): That was another contribution, just like in question time, that does not<br />
mention the fact that the deficit under that mob opposite has tripled since their first budget and does not mention a<br />
blowout in net debt <strong>of</strong> more than $100 billion. There was nothing about the consequences <strong>of</strong> that incompetence<br />
for Australia's AAA credit rating and what that means for mortgage repayments and confidence in our economy.<br />
We had another question time and another daily display <strong>of</strong> that rare combination that they have on that side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>House</strong>—<strong>of</strong> swaggering arrogance and staggering incompetence. It was another question time with them<br />
pretending that somebody else is in charge and pretending that they can have the power and ego <strong>of</strong> those jobs<br />
without the leadership or the responsibility, or taking responsibility for what has happened to the budget under<br />
their watch. It was another question time that showed that those opposite are not just out <strong>of</strong> touch; they are from<br />
another planet.<br />
All you need to know about this government is that, under this government, there are tax cuts for the top end<br />
and there are pay cuts for workers in the electorates that we are so proud, on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, to represent.<br />
Let's just consider some <strong>of</strong> the choices that are being made over there. They have chosen to keep a deficit levy that<br />
gives a millionaire a tax cut; at the same time, they have chosen to cut family tax benefits.<br />
Ms Henderson: Tell the truth.<br />
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite was warned in question time as well.<br />
Dr CHALMERS: Judged by the Prime Minister's actions, he thinks that the three biggest challenges that we<br />
have as a nation are: (1) low-income workers are paid too much; (2) multinational corporations pay too much tax;<br />
(3) it is not quite simple enough or easy enough to slander someone on the basis <strong>of</strong> their race. These are the<br />
priorities <strong>of</strong> those opposite.<br />
Deputy Speaker, while I think <strong>of</strong> it, the truest thing that was said in question time today was when your<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsider, the Speaker, said that the Treasurer's time had expired. We think that, too, on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. As<br />
they shuffled out <strong>of</strong> here with their long faces trying to avoid the Treasurer's gaze, he desperately searched around<br />
looking for some reassurance that his performance today was not as bad as he feared it might be and that he might<br />
not be up for the chop—the same fate that befell our old mate Joe. He looked around for some kind <strong>of</strong> reassurance<br />
and did not get it. All he saw were the long and ashen faces <strong>of</strong> those opposite who are mourning because they<br />
have lost the one thing that they care the most about—that is, any shred <strong>of</strong> economic credibility. They are in<br />
mourning on that side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> because that which they prize the most is gone.<br />
They think Australians are mugs. They think that if they tell them that they are all about jobs and growth<br />
enough, the Australian people will not cotton on to the facts that sit under that ridiculous slogan that they keep<br />
mouthing in here—the record underemployment, the record low wages growth, the negative quarter <strong>of</strong> growth in<br />
the quarter before last and corporate pr<strong>of</strong>its going through the ro<strong>of</strong> while wages are growing at record lows. All <strong>of</strong><br />
these things are the people-facing part <strong>of</strong> the economy—the part <strong>of</strong> the economy that those opposite do not<br />
understand now, have never understood and will never, ever understand.<br />
CHAMBER
62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
We remember the last time that the member for Wentworth was the temporary leader <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party—<br />
some <strong>of</strong> us were here in other roles; some <strong>of</strong> us were here in our current roles. We remember very well when he<br />
did his—as the member for Wakefield described it—'chicken Churchill' routine from this dispatch box about debt.<br />
As the member for McMahon said, he described the $188 billion worth <strong>of</strong> debt as a 'colossal' figure. He described<br />
it as a 'towering summit' <strong>of</strong> debt and, <strong>of</strong> course, now it is $317 billion. So if it was bad at $188 billion, what is it<br />
now on his watch?<br />
I am grateful to the member for Fenner because the member for Fenner reminded me as we were talking last<br />
week—as we do from time to time—<strong>of</strong> another little doozy that the member for Wentworth did from this dispatch<br />
box right here. He said:<br />
Mr Speaker, there will come a time when Australians will look wistfully at $188 billion <strong>of</strong> debt and ask not when our debt will<br />
rise to that peak, but when it will descend to it.<br />
It was a very good question. How right he was. Net debt is now $317 billion and rising, $133 billion more than<br />
what he inherited.<br />
It is long past time for those opposite to accept responsibility for the budget deterioration on their watch. Theirs<br />
is a recipe for division, inequality and immobility. Their trickle-down agenda does not accord with our values, not<br />
just Labor's values but Australian values—the fair go and they need to accept that that is the case. It does not<br />
accord with our values because an Australia which showers largesse on the wealthiest and most powerful while<br />
cutting the wages and payments to those on middle and lower incomes is not the country that we on this side<br />
recognise or cherish. On this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>, we are about growth which is inclusive, hard work which is<br />
rewarded and a decent safety net for those left behind.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:39): I might remind the member for Rankin, referring to the Speaker as 'my<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsider' might not be a good career move.<br />
Mr GEE (Calare) (15:39): I thank the <strong>House</strong> for this opportunity to talk about the wonderful economic<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> Australia and about the great job the Treasurer is doing in helping to drive Australia's economic<br />
growth. Economic growth was 1.1 per cent in the last quarter, 2.4 per cent for the 2016 calendar year. Once again,<br />
Australia is growing above the OECD average and faster than every G7 economy. The good economic news just<br />
keeps on getting better. Look at Australia's terms <strong>of</strong> trade—that is, the ratio <strong>of</strong> our export prices to import prices.<br />
That grew by 9.1 per cent, delivering a 15.6 per cent improvement on the December 2015 quarter. That is terrific<br />
economic news and, in particular, great news for our exporters.<br />
It is not only the cities that are driving this growth. Regional Australia certainly has a great economic story to<br />
tell.<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: Tell us about the economic contributions <strong>of</strong> the regions.<br />
Mr GEE: I am glad the honourable member asked that question because I will tell you. In the last 12 months<br />
to December 2016, there was a 23.7 per cent growth in the agricultural sector.<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: That is fantastic.<br />
Mr GEE: That is fantastic news, 23.7 per cent. Things are looking up on the land.<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: Tell us more.<br />
Mr GEE: I will. Compare and contrast that to Labor's last quarter when they were in <strong>of</strong>fice, when agriculture<br />
went backwards by 0.5 per cent. Under us, it increases but under Labor it decreases. It is a very sorry tale. I have<br />
more good economic news. I think we have to keep the good times rolling here. The gross value <strong>of</strong> farm<br />
production is forecast to increase by 8.3 per cent to a record $60 billion—<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: How much?<br />
Mr GEE: I kid you not—in 2016-17. This exceptional value <strong>of</strong> farm production comes <strong>of</strong>f the back <strong>of</strong> record<br />
crop production in every single Australian state and a strong performance across livestock industries as well. So<br />
things are looking up in regional Australia. You have got to give a lot <strong>of</strong> credit to this government when you look<br />
at things like the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement,<br />
the Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement. All <strong>of</strong> these agreements struck by the Liberals and Nationals have<br />
made a real difference.<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: Labor could not do it.<br />
Mr GEE: They could not do it; they could not get them over the line. I note that only just last week Australia<br />
and China signed a joint statement on enhancing inspection and quarantine cooperation between Australia and<br />
China. This will allow our beef producers to export more chilled beef into China worth more than $400 million a<br />
year.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 63<br />
Mr Hartsuyker: worth more than $400 million?<br />
Mr GEE: I kid you not, $400 million. It is great to see economic growth powering along in the regions. Of<br />
course, we are working hard to deliver over $24 billion in budget repairs. I have got to give credit where it is due<br />
to this hardworking Treasurer. He never stops working for this economy, maintaining the coveted AAA credit<br />
rating. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who have been obstructionist on all manner <strong>of</strong> issues. The<br />
backpacker tax is one such example. We saw the member for Hunter pull up stumps, not engage at all and, <strong>of</strong><br />
course, he got the rug pulled out from underneath him by the Greens at the end <strong>of</strong> the day—very embarrassing.<br />
Let's talk about the company tax cuts, the enterprise tax plan. From those opposite, there has been nothing but<br />
hypocrisy. As the member for Deakin pointed out in his address to the <strong>House</strong>, the member for McMahon said it<br />
was a 'Labor thing' to have the ambition <strong>of</strong> reducing company tax because it promotes investment, creates jobs<br />
and drives growth. Compare and contrast that to what we have seen over there, the errant hypocrisy. No wonder<br />
no-one trusts the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. He also said reducing the corporate tax rate sees more capital flowing<br />
into our domestic economy. What an errant hypocrite he is.<br />
Those opposite come into this <strong>House</strong>, they block and they obstruct but nevertheless there is hope for the<br />
country because the Liberals and Nationals are here delivering economic growth. We are here. We never sleep.<br />
We deliver economic growth right across our country and maintain our AAA credit rating. There are good times<br />
ahead not only for the nation but in particular for country communities around Australia. I commend the Treasurer<br />
for his great work.<br />
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (15:44): At the end <strong>of</strong> last year, there was a lovely little yarn in one <strong>of</strong> the Sydney papers<br />
about a cabinet leak. It said that preliminary figures had come to cabinet on the census completion rate. The story<br />
did not contain the actual number itself. What it did say, though, was that it had a decimal point in it. According to<br />
the story, 'one minister did not seem to get it. How could you have a fraction <strong>of</strong> a person or a fraction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
household?'<br />
With mathematical skills like that, it is really no surprise that, since the government have come to <strong>of</strong>fice, net debt<br />
is on track to soon double. When he was Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, the member for Wentworth launched the<br />
coalition's debt truck. When they were in opposition, they promised the budget would be in surplus in their first<br />
year and in every year after that. Yet we have now seen the deficits rising faster than they were in the global<br />
financial crisis, and—as the member for Rankin has pointed out—net debt is on track to soon double.<br />
The Australian people were promised a government <strong>of</strong> adults, but they got a government <strong>of</strong> screaming<br />
teenagers. If only the Treasurer were as ambitious for the country as he is for himself. If only the Treasurer could<br />
spend a little bit more time on focused tax reform than on updating his LinkedIn pr<strong>of</strong>ile, which is probably what<br />
he is doing these days. This is a Treasurer who, as the member for McMahon has pointed out, has flip-flopped on<br />
every possible tax reform issue—a higher GST, state income taxes and capital gains tax changes. He took capital<br />
gains tax changes to cabinet and was rolled. He was against cigarette excise. He was against superannuation until,<br />
as the member for McMahon has pointed out, he backflipped and took Labor's position.<br />
They have had four years in government, and they are still blaming Labor. Bart Simpson would be embarrassed<br />
to blame-shift like these guys blame-shift. They are patting themselves on their back today for closing<br />
multinational tax loopholes, for cracking down on multinationals, but at the same time they are rejecting Labor's<br />
sensible proposals to close debt loopholes that would raise eight times as much revenue. When it comes to<br />
inequality, these guys think Mount Everest is a level playing field! At a time when home ownership is at a 60-year<br />
low and wage growth is at a 30-year low, their solution to housing affordability is to tell people to 'get a good job<br />
that pays good money'. How do they propose to ensure that we have good jobs that pay good money? They are<br />
going to cut penalty rates. Take $77 a week away, and then see how you afford a house. This is at a time when, in<br />
the last quarter <strong>of</strong> last year, house prices rose 10 times as fast as wages.<br />
Not everyone is going to be worse <strong>of</strong>f under the Turnbull government. On 1 July, when the millionaires' tax cut<br />
kicks in, a neurosurgeon will get a tax cut <strong>of</strong> $7,000, a plastic surgeon will get a tax cut <strong>of</strong> $5,000 and a futures<br />
trader will get a tax cut <strong>of</strong> $2,000. Ninety-four per cent <strong>of</strong> the benefits <strong>of</strong> this millionaires' tax cut will go to the<br />
top one per cent—a group that has doubled its share <strong>of</strong> national income over the course <strong>of</strong> the last generation.<br />
Frankly, the changes that the government are bringing about through their unfair budgets are so unfair that the<br />
Sheriff <strong>of</strong> Nottingham is now voting for Xenophon in the Senate!<br />
We heard something very true today in question time. The Prime Minister said, 'I represented the big end <strong>of</strong><br />
town, and I've always done the best by them.' Frankly, the Prime Minister continues to do his best by the big end<br />
<strong>of</strong> town. Under this government, the big end <strong>of</strong> town get a proposed $50 billion tax cut. They get shielding from<br />
closing debt-deduction loopholes, and they see cuts in penalty rates for low-wage workers. Every decision made<br />
by the government seems almost calculated to increase inequality. At the same time, we have seen wages for the<br />
CHAMBER
64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
top 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> workers grow three times faster than for the bottom 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> workers, and the richest three<br />
Australians have more wealth than the poorest one million Australians. With inequality at a 75-year high, we have<br />
a Prime Minister who is <strong>of</strong>, by and for the top one per cent. The moral arc <strong>of</strong> the Liberal universe is short, but it<br />
always bends towards inequality.<br />
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:49): When I read the topic for this MPI today, I thought, 'Cripes—this is going<br />
to be the quickest MPI on record unless the opposition have their words muddled.'<br />
A government member interjecting—<br />
Mr HOWARTH: It is a very short list, isn't it? The Howard government balanced every budget. They were in<br />
power for more than a decade and did not make a slip. It was a cautious, conscientious and economic strategy,<br />
which had our nation purring along.<br />
Dr Leigh interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member for Fenner has had his turn.<br />
Mr HOWARTH: When they handed the account to Labor, there was money in the bank. There was money in<br />
the bank, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton; you would remember it well. But that is where the wheels fell <strong>of</strong>f, as we<br />
all know. During Labor's six years in the driver's seat, how many surpluses were there?<br />
Honourable members interjecting—<br />
Mr HOWARTH: I do not think there were any. The member for McMahon and the member for Lilley<br />
promised a surplus. How many times did they promise a surplus? It was over and over again. They promised and<br />
promised, but could not even break even—not even once. They left a trail <strong>of</strong> destruction and a whopping great<br />
hole, and spent billions <strong>of</strong> dollars that they simply did not have. They did not have it. They tried to buy friends,<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering all sorts <strong>of</strong> sundries and handouts, whether they wanted them or not. They tried to pass <strong>of</strong>f their willynilly<br />
spending as sound economic strategy. They were stimulating the economy—stimulating the national gag<br />
reflex, as it turned out, because Australians wised up and cut them loose.<br />
The problem, though, is that we inherited the fallout <strong>of</strong> Labor's reckless and irresponsible spending. When I say<br />
'we', I am not talking about the government. The truth be told, when we took the public purse from Labor, we<br />
knew it was going to be empty. It came as no surprise. But it is not the government who have to cop it. It is not the<br />
government who have to cop their incompetence; it is the Australian people.<br />
Mr Watts interjecting—<br />
Mr HOWARTH: Thank you, member for Goldstein. It is mums and dads, families and aged pensioners.<br />
Everyone under the age <strong>of</strong> 30 who is listening today is going to have higher taxes and increased spending. And<br />
what do we have from the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon? He has negative gearing and capital<br />
gains tax reform. Let's forget about what it does to rent or how much money it will actually raise. It will be<br />
bugger-all.<br />
They voted against the 2015 multinational tax avoidance bill. The member for Rankin is a smooth talker. Is that<br />
dude a smooth talker? He is a smooth politician. He is good at telling a story, but he does not come here to<br />
represent the Australian people and what is in their best interests; he represents what is best for him. He asks,<br />
'How do I get that "honourable" in front <strong>of</strong> my name?' The member for Fenner says: 'Blame the coalition. Their<br />
debt's bigger.' That is what they are saying. But seriously, what could we do with the $15 billion that we are<br />
currently paying in interest every year? It is $15 billion. Dolphin Stadium was just built in my electorate at<br />
Redcliffe. You could build 1,579 <strong>of</strong> those a year with $15 billion. I need an overpass at Carseldine worth about<br />
$100 million. We could build 150 <strong>of</strong> those every year. We could fund all the 72 joint strike fighters we are about<br />
to have delivered or 15 new Moreton Bay rail links at $1 billion each. We could quadruple the foreign aid budget<br />
or replace the education budget.<br />
The $15 billion a year in interest that was left to us compounds, and <strong>of</strong> course the deficit grows when you have<br />
that sort <strong>of</strong> interest. What do Labor do? They come in here and they block and block and block everything. They<br />
did not even vote to rein in multinationals in 2015. They did not even vote for that. The Labor Party are like the<br />
rogue tenant that took six years to evict and now they stand trying to guard their damage and refuse to allow the<br />
emergency services, us, to clean up the mess.<br />
The productivity in this place is horrible. I come in here some days and sit down and think, 'Do I have to listen<br />
to this? Fair dinkum. The productivity is shocking.' We do three MPIs a week. What would be great is getting rid<br />
<strong>of</strong> a couple <strong>of</strong> them. We get the shadow frontbench and the rugby scrum over there. Some <strong>of</strong> them are smart<br />
individuals. I have no problem with that. Then you have our frontbench and we work out how we could help the<br />
Australian people. On the weekend, Peter van Onselen ran an article in The Australian, saying:<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 65<br />
The uncomfortable truth that no politician wants to confront is that Australia doesn’t have a plan to pay down the national<br />
debt. Worse still, there isn’t even a plan to develop a plan.<br />
How are we going to pay <strong>of</strong>f $500 billion? I say we need bipartisan support. (Time expired)<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (15:54): Wendy is a single mum who lives in Maroubra in a<br />
rented flat with her 13-year-old daughter. Wendy works two casual jobs just to make ends meet and she is looking<br />
for more hours. She receives family tax benefit part A and part B and rent assistance. She lives from week to week<br />
and she told me that recently she had to borrow $1,000 from a friend just to register her car. Wendy is intent on<br />
bettering herself and she studies part-time for certificate IV in financial services accounting. She is trying to<br />
educate herself and her family out <strong>of</strong> the poverty trap. I guess you could describe Wendy as a decent, hardworking<br />
Aussie battler.<br />
But life has just become a lot harder for Wendy and her daughter because the Turnbull government have just<br />
decided, as part <strong>of</strong> their budget priorities, that they will freeze for two years family tax benefit part A and part B,<br />
making life harder for Wendy and her kid to make ends meet. Put on top <strong>of</strong> that the fact that the Turnbull<br />
government supports cuts to penalty rates for the lowest paid workers. So, when people like Wendy work on<br />
weekends, her penalty rates will be cut in the future. They have taken away the children's dental scheme, so<br />
Wendy now struggles to get access to dental services for her daughter. If the government had their way, they<br />
would charge a co-payment every time Wendy went to the doctor or took her daughter to the doctor. And, if<br />
Wendy's daughter is lucky enough to win a place at a university, if the government had their way she would be<br />
paying $100,000 just to earn a degree. It gives you a picture <strong>of</strong> this government's priorities when it comes to the<br />
budget and the fact that they are intent on making life harder for hardworking Australians like Wendy.<br />
On the flip side, if you are a large multinational business, if you are wealthy, what is the Turnbull government<br />
doing? They are giving you a tax cut whilst they are freezing the income <strong>of</strong> people like Wendy. Whilst they are<br />
cutting penalty rates, they are giving the biggest businesses in Australia a tax cut. If you earn more than $180,000<br />
a year, you will get a tax cut under the Turnbull government's budget priorities. These large corporations that they<br />
wish to give a tax cut to include the big four Australian banks. Yes, believe it or not, they want to give a tax cut to<br />
the big four Australian banks. Don't those big banks need a leg up! Don't they deserve a handout from the<br />
government in these difficult times! Aren't these big banks struggling to make ends meet and they need a tax cut<br />
from the government!<br />
Let's look at how the big banks have been performing over recent years. Let's look at the top <strong>of</strong> the list, the<br />
CBA, the Commonwealth Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia. They made $9.45 billion in pr<strong>of</strong>it last year. They are the people who,<br />
over the course <strong>of</strong> the last couple <strong>of</strong> years, brought us the CommInsure scandal, where they ripped <strong>of</strong>f hundreds <strong>of</strong><br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> customers on their insurance. They are the ones who brought us the financial planning scandal,<br />
where they ended up having to review the files <strong>of</strong> literally tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> their customers because some <strong>of</strong><br />
their planners had been ripping them <strong>of</strong>f and forging documents. That is the Commonwealth Bank, with a pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong><br />
$9.45 billion. And then there is NAB. They made a cash pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong> $6.48 billion, and what were they involved in?<br />
They recently sacked 41 <strong>of</strong> their planners for ripping <strong>of</strong>f their customers and they recently paid back $14.5 million<br />
to customers for ripping them <strong>of</strong>f. Then we go to Westpac. They made a cash pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong> $7.82 billion and they<br />
recently had a banker who was jailed for forging signatures and falsifying documents and they had to refund<br />
10,600 customers for charging them for insurance that they did not need.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> these banks had planners who had to be reported to ASIC and have been sacked. Three <strong>of</strong> them are being<br />
prosecuted for manipulating the bank bill swap rate. And, believe this or not, with all <strong>of</strong> these scandals, not one<br />
executive <strong>of</strong> the big four banks has bitten the bullet or has got the sack for any <strong>of</strong> these scandals. They are the<br />
people that the Turnbull government want to give a tax cut to, but they want to make people like Wendy pay a lot<br />
more. It says everything about the budget priorities <strong>of</strong> this government. Is it any wonder you cannot get your<br />
budget through the Senate? Is it any wonder that the Labor Party is opposed to reforms such as those that you are<br />
proposing. People like Wendy have the ear <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party. We listen to people like Wendy and we will defend<br />
people like Wendy. (Time expired)<br />
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (15:59): I rise today to speak about the budgetary success <strong>of</strong> our<br />
government. Before I talk about that, I want to speak about Wendy in the member for Kingsford-Smith's<br />
electorate. Isn't Wendy lucky that she was not confronting the sorts <strong>of</strong> cuts that Labor made—$23 billion in family<br />
tax benefit A and B over six years! This is an example <strong>of</strong> the unprincipled action that we are seeing from the<br />
Labor Party. What an absolute joke. Poor Wendy! We are investing record amounts in health and education and, if<br />
you consider our childcare reforms, we are standing up for those who earn the least, providing people who earn<br />
$65,000 or less with an 85 per cent subsidy. I say to Wendy, 'You are very fortunate that you are not living under<br />
a Labor federal government.' They trashed our economy, they trashed our budget, they drove up the debt and the<br />
deficit and now they are not working in the national interest with the government—<br />
CHAMBER
66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Mr Husic: Like you did when you were in opposition?<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member for Chifley!<br />
Ms HENDERSON: to maintain our AAA rating. The Labor Party do not care about the budget. They do not<br />
care about this economy. They do not care about a AAA rating. All they do—<br />
Mr Irons interjecting—<br />
Ms HENDERSON: As the member for Swan has said, they do whatever it takes. The biggest challenge that<br />
we confront as a government in running the economy is members opposite. We heard the member for Rankin talk<br />
about 'slaying them' in reference to the member for Deakin's contribution. Talking about slaying them, he was the<br />
architect <strong>of</strong> four surpluses that were never delivered! Four surpluses promised by the member for Lilley when he<br />
was the Treasurer were never delivered. It was an absolute shocker, and the Labor Party went to the last election<br />
promising $16 billion more in deficit than our government.<br />
Mr Howarth: Economic geniuses!<br />
Ms HENDERSON: As the member for Petrie has said, they are economic geniuses! Our national economic<br />
plan is underpinned by a determination to grow jobs and to build a stronger economy. And what have we done?<br />
We have introduced multinational tax avoidance and diverted pr<strong>of</strong>its tax bills. I refer to the member for Fenner.<br />
Even if I accept the member for Fenner's proposition, the fact <strong>of</strong> the matter is that this is an example <strong>of</strong> where the<br />
Labor Party have been disgraceful in their hypocrisy.<br />
Mr Husic: Another example?<br />
Ms HENDERSON: There are plenty more to come. The hypocrisy goes as far as the eye can see. The fact is<br />
the Labor Party opposed our efforts to combat multinational tax avoidance, which, in this year alone, are going to<br />
deliver a $2 billion saving, as forecast by the ATO. The Labor Party has stood in the way <strong>of</strong> delivering $2 billion<br />
in savings. Even the Greens were more economically responsible than Labor! The Labor Party does not have the<br />
guts or the courage to support us on the policies that it knows will deliver savings.<br />
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford-Smith is out <strong>of</strong> his place. If he wants to speak on the<br />
next bill, he will be silent.<br />
Ms HENDERSON: We stand up for this economy. The Labor Party has a responsibility to act responsibly in<br />
the national interest. At every single turn, the Labor Party is wrecking this economy and our government's efforts<br />
to rein in the budget and to run the economy responsibly.<br />
Consider also our efforts to cut corporate tax rates. In the UK it is 20 per cent, in Canada it is 26.5 per cent, in<br />
the US it is now going down to 15 per cent. The Labor Party previously supported corporate tax cuts. It said it was<br />
a Labor thing. The only thing that is a Labor thing is hypocrisy. The only thing that is a Labor thing is a focus—<br />
Mr Keogh interjecting—<br />
Ms Henderson: I will take the interjection. Why am I so angry? I am angry. We are all angry. Do you know<br />
what? The Labor Party is so reckless that it opposes $5 billion <strong>of</strong> its own savings. We are trying to run this<br />
government and this economy responsibly. Do you know why we are angry? We are dealing with the worst<br />
opposition ever. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating would be ashamed <strong>of</strong> the pathetic standards that we see from this<br />
Labor Party. We are focused on jobs and a strong economy, and Labor should start operating in the national<br />
interest.<br />
Mr Husic: You should have been here in 2010!<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley can leave under 94(a). He has had at least four warnings.<br />
He was already under warning from question time.<br />
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.<br />
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:04): As my colleagues have noted, yesterday, while justifying his<br />
stripping away <strong>of</strong> workers' rights in the form <strong>of</strong> penalty rate cuts, the Prime Minister stated that his government is<br />
delivering the economic growth that Australia deserves. Really? Does Australia deserve an economy growing<br />
below trend? Does Australia deserve high unemployment and record high job losses? Does Western Australia<br />
deserve to be ripped <strong>of</strong>f again by an outdated and unjustifiable GST distribution system? The Prime Minister<br />
screamed today in question time that he was doing his best for Australians. If this is his best, I would hate to see<br />
him on a bad day! Really, Prime Minister? If this is your best, try harder. Really, do better. We hear the jobs and<br />
growth mantra all the time. Here is a simple fact for Mr Turnbull: there are fewer full-time jobs than there were a<br />
year ago. It is not really growth, is it. There are 1.1 million Australians out there looking for jobs to support their<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 67<br />
families, and they cannot find them because they are not there. Is this really what our Prime Minister thinks<br />
Australians deserve?<br />
This government is supporting the slashing <strong>of</strong> take-home pay for everyday Australians while, at the same time,<br />
it is prepared to shell out a $50 billion handout for big business. It is hard to tell if the Treasurer is going to go<br />
through with it; he is not able to give anyone a straight answer. He has been asked 12 times in the media recently<br />
about their big, bold plans for jobs and growth—their corporate handout, that is—and, now, he cannot promise it.<br />
What the Treasurer has promised, however, is an increase in the GST—perhaps so Western Australians can pay<br />
more to send their money over the Nullarbor! In February last year, the Treasurer declared he could convince<br />
Australians that he should increase the GST. Although I would like to see how he would do that—and I would<br />
like to see him try—he cannot even convince his own party to back his ideas or to back him personally, for that<br />
matter.<br />
The Treasurer has been rolled by the party room on negative gearing reform. The cornerstone <strong>of</strong> his economic<br />
policy, the corporate handout, probably will not survive the budget. But, really, who can tell?<br />
The handout was a failure from the outset. It was never part <strong>of</strong> a comprehensive tax reform. It endangers<br />
Australia's AAA credit rating and even the big four banks are questioning the benefits <strong>of</strong> the policy. That's right:<br />
even the Prime Minister's banker friends have lost faith in his government's ability to drive Australia's economy,<br />
as have we all.<br />
This Prime Minister and Treasurer are also standing by the penalty rate cuts—they do it again and again. It will<br />
mean some <strong>of</strong> Australia's lowest paid workers, who rely on Sunday penalty rates, will take home $77 a week less.<br />
How does the Treasurer expect the economy to lift when people have less disposable income? As we know, the<br />
net debt has this year blown out to $317 billion. We have lost our AAA credit rating in Western Australia, due to<br />
the incompetent Liberal government, and we are looking down the barrel <strong>of</strong> the same fate for the rest <strong>of</strong> this<br />
country. This is the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's Australia, where you do not deserve an opportunity to work,<br />
you do not deserve the opportunity to own your own home and you do not deserve to be paid a fair wage for a fair<br />
day's work.<br />
I am looking forward to getting home for a few weeks, but I am also looking forward to getting back here in<br />
May to see what kind <strong>of</strong> budget this government is going to deliver. I am looking forward to seeing whether the<br />
Turnbull government has paid attention to the voters <strong>of</strong> Western Australia. As we all know, this government has<br />
recklessly and ruthlessly threatened withdrawal $1.2 billion <strong>of</strong> infrastructure funding—yes, they really have done<br />
that. This funding needs to be directed to job-creating, economy-building infrastructure projects such as Metronet<br />
and, very importantly, the funds need to go to developing a plan for a new outer harbour in Kwinana. It is a longterm<br />
nation-building project that will create much-needed jobs and economic opportunities for the people living in<br />
local communities across Brand and across Western Australia, and will provide further economic opportunities for<br />
the nation. It would help grow the local state economy and the national economy, which the Liberals have<br />
manifestly failed to do at all levels <strong>of</strong> government.<br />
Despite the benefits <strong>of</strong> this project, despite the new jobs, despite the calls from industry to support it, this<br />
federal government does not seem to understand that it is necessary infrastructure. They are not interested in it.<br />
They cobbled it together for the hopeless 2014 budget and they really need to pay attention and get interested<br />
quickly. I hope we see some commitment for it in the upcoming budget.<br />
The government fails the economy <strong>of</strong> Western Australia with its disregard for staggering unemployment<br />
figures. In the north <strong>of</strong> Brand, in the suburb <strong>of</strong> Parmelia in Kwinana, where I was born, we have seen growth in<br />
unemployment from an already shocking level <strong>of</strong> 15.2 per cent in the December 2015 quarter to 17.7 per cent in<br />
the December quarter <strong>of</strong> 2016. It is a massive increase <strong>of</strong> 2.5 per cent in a single year from an already high level<br />
<strong>of</strong> unemployment. This government has failed the people <strong>of</strong> Western Australia and has certainly failed the people<br />
<strong>of</strong> Kwinana and <strong>of</strong> Parmelia. I hope we will do better in this budget. I look forward to seeing whether it will cut—<br />
(Time expired)<br />
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:10): Those opposite have failed continually on the economy and they have failed<br />
continually when they were in government. If they ever return to the Treasury benches their plans for the<br />
economy will smash it again. These are the people who took a position <strong>of</strong> having $50 billion in the bank and<br />
turned it into $200 billion <strong>of</strong> debt—that is quite a feat. One in 10 manufacturing jobs were lost under their<br />
appalling economic stewardship and we saw a loss <strong>of</strong> confidence in the Australian economy, without precedent.<br />
So we were in an extraordinarily bad situation under the previous Labor government.<br />
Let's look at some <strong>of</strong> the proposals that they have before us. It is good to see the member for Fenner here,<br />
because he might be able to illuminate how this one works, because we all know he is a very thoughtful fellow<br />
and an author <strong>of</strong> some repute. I would really appreciate an interjection on this topic. One <strong>of</strong> the tremendously bad<br />
CHAMBER
68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
tax policies that those opposite have is to increase capital gains tax on everything by 50 per cent. You ask: what is<br />
the theme <strong>of</strong> that policy? Would you say that that is a business tax increase theme. But they describe it as a<br />
housing affordability policy. If it is a housing affordability policy you would think it would be related to housing.<br />
But if you look into their policy—and I am really looking for the member for Fenner to illuminate why this is the<br />
case—it applies to farms, to factories in regional towns, and to any investment to which capital gains tax currently<br />
applies, but you will be required to pay 50 per cent more tax. It would be tremendous to see a personal<br />
explanation from the member for Fenner on this extraordinarily complicated thing that is hard for people to<br />
understand, to explain how it helps housing affordability to increase tax by 50 per cent on someone who invests in<br />
a farm in rural Queensland. How does that work? I am not hearing any response on this. I would really appreciate<br />
it, because I am genuinely confused on this topic.<br />
The other good one is that they think a big business is one that has $2.1 million in revenue. Do you know what<br />
I think? I think that they think revenue and pr<strong>of</strong>it are the same thing. I think they think that if you have $2.1<br />
million in revenue that means you are making $2.1 million. Do you know what? It doesn't actually mean that. In<br />
fact, many small businesses in Australia have very small operating pr<strong>of</strong>it margins—it might be five per cent. Five<br />
per cent is very standard. So let's imagine you are turning over $2.1 million and you are making five per cent on<br />
turnover. Do you know what you are making? About $100,000, which is not much more than the average fulltime<br />
wage. Those opposite say that that is a big evil corporation that should not be provided with any tax relief.<br />
That is just an extraordinary proposal—that a business making $100,000 pr<strong>of</strong>it is a big business that should not be<br />
provided with any tax relief. It is quite extraordinary.<br />
My other favourite is the superannuation policy they took to the last election. This was the secret economic<br />
policy. They said: we are going to save exactly the same amount as the government—and this is a hard one<br />
because it has already happened, so it is hard for the member for Fenner to help us on this—but we are not going<br />
to tell you how. We are not going to tell you what our superannuation policy is. We know exactly how much it<br />
will save but we do not actually know what it is. That again is kind <strong>of</strong> a novel approach to policy making.<br />
Ninety per cent <strong>of</strong> Australians work in the private sector. Hardly anyone opposite has ever had a full-time job<br />
in the private sector. That is a reality.<br />
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—Oh, come on!<br />
Mr COLEMAN: No, we can do the numbers. I would be very happy to go through it. A very small proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> those opposite have had full-time jobs in the private sector, and that is an extremely big problem for people<br />
who would purport to say that they can run the economy.<br />
Under this government we have the fastest economic growth in the G7—2.4 per cent. We have economic<br />
problems internationally but strong economic performance in Australia. We have taken on this extraordinary<br />
burden <strong>of</strong> debt that those opposite left us, with $24 billion <strong>of</strong> budget repair. Importantly, we have delivered<br />
income tax cuts for hardworking Australians on average incomes. They think a small business earning $100,000 is<br />
a big evil corporation. We think that that is the sort <strong>of</strong> organisation that should be absolutely supported. We are<br />
about growing the economy. Those opposite do not understand how to grow the economy. Their record is<br />
appalling and it is so important that they are not given the opportunity to implement their terrible policies.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
BILLS<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017<br />
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017<br />
Returned from Senate<br />
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017<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 />
"The <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because it includes cuts to Family Tax Benefit that will leave 1.5 million<br />
families worse <strong>of</strong>f, freezes income free areas for 264,500 recipients <strong>of</strong> income support and student payments, and forces<br />
young people and single parents to wait one week to access income support; and<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 69<br />
(2) calls on the government to drop their unfair cuts to families and vulnerable Australians on very low incomes.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton) (16:15): The original question was that this bill be now read a<br />
second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That'<br />
be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the <strong>House</strong>, I will state the question in the form 'that<br />
the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:15): As I was saying before the break, I do support the<br />
amendment, and Labor will vote against this bill, because it will increase poverty in Australia. By freezing family<br />
tax benefits you are making the most vulnerable in our community worse <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
Schedule 1 <strong>of</strong> this bill freezes for three years the income-free areas for working-age and student payments,<br />
Newstart, youth allowance, the parenting payment and the carer payment. This means that for these people their<br />
payments will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. This will impact 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes.<br />
These people have no wiggle room in their household incomes. When their car breaks down, they struggle to find<br />
money to fix it. They do not holiday, and a night out at a restaurant or a movie is really a luxury for people in<br />
these circumstances. The threshold after which the parenting payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. For<br />
Newstart it is $102 per fortnight. There is no rationale for this three-year freeze. In my community not one week<br />
goes by where people do not talk to me about housing affordability and whether or not their kids are going to be<br />
able to afford to live in the community that they grew up in. <strong>House</strong> prices are going through the ro<strong>of</strong>, and rents are<br />
doing the same, so the cost <strong>of</strong> living for people in our community is increasing at a dramatic rate, yet the approach<br />
<strong>of</strong> this government through this bill is to freeze the incomes <strong>of</strong> the weakest, most vulnerable and poorest in our<br />
community. This bill will make life difficult for many more <strong>of</strong> those.<br />
Schedule 3 extends the waiting periods for those people accessing the parenting payment and youth allowance<br />
by one week while amending the current severe financial hardship provisions to a 'personal financial crisis'<br />
exemption. This is a truly harsh and heartless change with no discernible policy rationale at all. Schedule 4 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
bill freezes the indexation rate for family tax benefits part A and part B for two years from 1 July 2017. The<br />
impact will be significant on those families that rely on family tax benefits to get by. A family on $60,000 with<br />
two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. A single parent on $50,000 with two<br />
high-school children will be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. A single-income couple on $60,000 with three<br />
children under the age <strong>of</strong> 12 will be $600 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. It affects about 1.5 million families in Australia<br />
that will be worse <strong>of</strong>f, and 600,000 <strong>of</strong> these families are on the maximum rate <strong>of</strong> FTB-A, which means their<br />
household income is less than $52,000 a year.<br />
But, as I said earlier, at the same time, the government is proposing a five per cent tax cut over the course <strong>of</strong> the<br />
decade for the largest multinational businesses in Australia, with turnovers <strong>of</strong> over $1 billion, and they include the<br />
big four banks. It completely represents just how out <strong>of</strong> touch this government are and the fact that they have their<br />
priorities all wrong when it comes to this budget and this legislation. Even when indexation resumes, this cut will<br />
mean that, into the future, families will be receiving less each year than they would have been. This reform puts<br />
them behind the eight ball, and they can never catch up, particularly as, as the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia and the<br />
government's own Treasury have been forecasting, inflation is set to increase in Australia over the course <strong>of</strong> this<br />
year. It is astonishing to note that this bill is actually a 2014 budget measure. This is something that was chewed<br />
up and spat out by the Australian public the first time, and yet the government keeps bringing it back. They keep<br />
bringing these dodgy 2014 budget measures back, and this is further pro<strong>of</strong> that Malcolm Turnbull is just Tony<br />
Abbott in a more expensive suit.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member will refer—<br />
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: The Prime Minister is just the member for Warringah in a more expensive suit—<br />
thank you, Deputy Speaker.<br />
Schedule 2 <strong>of</strong> the bill relates to the automation <strong>of</strong> income stream review processes. This is a measure that we<br />
welcome, and one that will improve the accuracy and efficiency <strong>of</strong> the social security system and reduce the<br />
regulatory burden on income stream providers and recipients <strong>of</strong> social security payments. From 1 January 2018 a<br />
six-monthly electronic data collection process will be introduced for income stream information from financial<br />
service providers. Recently we have seen just how disastrous things can be when the social security system is not<br />
running at its best. Many in my community that I represent—as I am sure is the case for many other MPs in this<br />
place—got in touch with me to express their worry, concern and dismay at the letters that they had received from<br />
Centrelink which claimed that they owed money, but the debts that were owed were actually inaccurate and<br />
grossly overestimated. This proved deeply upsetting for many, and it is something that this government should do<br />
all it can to ensure never happens again. A more regular and accurate reporting system is a good place to start. The<br />
CHAMBER
70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
bulk <strong>of</strong> the measures in this bill, unfortunately, will leave many hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Australians worse <strong>of</strong>f,<br />
particularly through the family tax benefit freezes.<br />
It is hard to believe that the government would resurrect measures from their disastrous first budget, which<br />
really, in retrospect, led to the member for Warringah being deposed by the current Prime Minister on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
poor economic management. But here we are, with these unfair cuts coming up again and again. This<br />
government's priorities are enshrined in this bill. They are the wrong priorities. They attack the weak, the<br />
vulnerable and the poorest in our community, yet at the same time the government <strong>of</strong>fers tax cuts to the wealthiest<br />
individuals in Australia and the largest businesses, with turnovers <strong>of</strong> more than a billion dollars. That tells you<br />
everything about this government's twisted budget priorities, and that is why I and my Labor colleagues are<br />
opposed to this reform.<br />
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:23): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017,<br />
which, quite frankly, is a rotten piece <strong>of</strong> legislation that attacks Australian families and those already struggling to<br />
get by, especially in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Lindsay. I note that it was only last week that I spoke in this place about the<br />
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill, which has been<br />
reworked into the bill presented without notice, all thanks to and courtesy <strong>of</strong> a dirty deal with the crossbenchers in<br />
the Senate, namely the Nick Xenophon Team, One Nation and Derryn Hinch—apparently the people who were<br />
elected to this place to stand up against the major parties like us for everyday Australians. Well, I am not sure how<br />
they define sticking up for people, but this certainly is not it. And I must say honourable mention goes to Jacqui<br />
Lambie for her personal account <strong>of</strong> what it is like to live in the real world and rely on support. As someone who,<br />
as a parliamentarian, has given a personal account <strong>of</strong> life in reality, I commend her on her brave contribution.<br />
What this bill proves yet again is that this unfair Liberal government is incapable <strong>of</strong> standing up for ordinary<br />
Australians. In this bill, we see $1.4 billion being ripped away from Australian families who are already doing it<br />
tough—leaving 1.5 million families worse <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
Mr Khalil: Shameful!<br />
Ms HUSAR: It freezes the rates <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit A and B for two years—and, when you consider the<br />
rising cost <strong>of</strong> living around this country, the fact is this measure will hurt families who can least afford it. It is not<br />
right and it should not be happening, and those responsible for it should absolutely hang their heads in shame.<br />
Labor has time and time again stood up for Australian families against the Liberal government's attacks, ever<br />
since the shocking 2014 budget. The government prove day after day that they have an ideological obsession with<br />
taking money from people who are struggling so that they can hand huge sums <strong>of</strong> money to their big business<br />
mates. The family tax benefit measures contained within the bill are actually from the 2014 budget. It is<br />
unbelievable to think that this government is still trying to pass elements <strong>of</strong> that unpopular and unfair failure <strong>of</strong> a<br />
budget—a budget that was so unjust that it led to the downfall <strong>of</strong> a Prime Minister and his Treasurer. And, with<br />
the credit ratings agencies circling, the pressure for this government to be responsible could not be more urgent.<br />
Mr Khalil interjecting—<br />
Mr Pasin interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member for Wills and the member for Barker!<br />
Ms HUSAR: I might remind the member for Barker that no government members are speaking on this, and he<br />
had ample opportunity, if he had something to say, to add himself to the speakers list.<br />
But here we are again—and every single Liberal and National Party member is about to vote to cut $1.4 billion<br />
from 1.5 million families. This is not fiscal responsibility; this is lazy policy from an incompetent mob who would<br />
rather see people go without than solve the real problems. There are 600,000 families who are currently receiving<br />
the maximum rate <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit part A, which means their entire household income is less than $52,000<br />
each year. These are real people struggling to get by as it is, and this unfair Liberal government is reaching into<br />
their pocket and making them worse <strong>of</strong>f. They are pitting vulnerable people against other vulnerable people. It is<br />
unconscionable and unAustralian. And it goes to show that those opposite do not understand how hard it can be<br />
for low-income families.<br />
As the shadow minister for families and social services mentioned earlier, this measure was originally opposed<br />
by Labor following the 2014 budget, so the Liberals withdrew the legislation and took it out <strong>of</strong> their next budget.<br />
Now, without notice, and following the dirty deal I mentioned earlier with the Senate crossbench, here we are<br />
again, fighting to protect low-income families from this unfair government, fighting to stop unfair cuts that will<br />
make life harder for families that are already doing it tough. And, looking at the speakers list today, it is<br />
absolutely unsurprising to see that not a single government member is willing to get up and defend these<br />
changes—not one single one.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 71<br />
Mr Khalil: Gutless! Shameful!<br />
Ms HUSAR: They are happy to vote for the changes, but not one <strong>of</strong> them is prepared to defend them, because<br />
they know they are simply unfair. Well, I think that if you are happy to vote to rip away $1.4 billion from lowincome<br />
families, have the guts to stand up and say why. And, if you cannot defend it, do not support it. Stand up<br />
for the families in your own electorates and vote no.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay will resume her seat. The member for Barker?<br />
Mr Pasin: I would ask the member opposite to withdraw the reference reflecting on a member. I think you<br />
should withdraw the word 'gutless'. You might have to move back to your seat to do it.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Barker raises a good point. I heard that. The member for Wills is<br />
very lucky that he has not been asked to leave, because he is out <strong>of</strong> his place. I request that he remain silent and, if<br />
he does not, he will be leaving under 94(a). I call the member for Lindsay.<br />
Ms HUSAR: If you cannot defend it—and we just had a pathetic showing from the member for Barker—do<br />
not support it. Stand up for families in your own electorate and vote no. Recognise and understand that these<br />
families deserve more support, not less. You do not fix the problems that stem from poverty by taking more<br />
money away from people who actually need it. It is not rocket science.<br />
Mr Pasin interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Barker will be silent.<br />
Ms HUSAR: But we know already that the Prime Minister and those Liberals on the opposite side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
chamber will not stand up for low-income families, because their track record is one <strong>of</strong> cruel cuts and shameful<br />
decisions. But, in this particular case, I think it is pretty telling that there are no government MPs here to defend<br />
these cuts—only to sit opposite and throw slurs.<br />
Another element <strong>of</strong> this bill is a three-year freeze on the income-free area for all working age and student<br />
payments by the Commonwealth government. This means that, for three years, the income tests applying to<br />
payments for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the rising costs <strong>of</strong> living. We already<br />
know that many <strong>of</strong> these payments are incredibly difficult to survive on now. And we know the current thresholds<br />
are very low, too low. But these changes will make it even more difficult for the 204,000 Australians affected,<br />
because it means their income thresholds will effectively reduce over time, leading to an effective cut in their<br />
purchasing power if they are earning a small amount <strong>of</strong> income. It does not make sense to hurt these people. This<br />
measure will do nothing to lift people up and it will do nothing to encourage and support the poorest people to<br />
build a better life for themselves. Labor will not be supporting this measure.<br />
Similarly, we will not be supporting the measure that introduces a one-week waiting period before people can<br />
access parenting payments or youth allowance. Again, this measure simply does not make sense. It is just bad,<br />
lazy policy from a bad, lazy government. The only reason the government is introducing this waiting period is to<br />
save money and—instead <strong>of</strong> getting tax-dodging multinationals to do the heavy lifting, instead <strong>of</strong> hitting up the<br />
big banks that continue to rort their customers, instead <strong>of</strong> scaling back their unfair big business tax cut—they<br />
decide to save money by taking a week's pay from the poorest <strong>of</strong> the poor in Australia. It is absolutely astonishing.<br />
Senator Jacqui Lambie, as I mentioned earlier, spoke passionately last week about the realities <strong>of</strong> living on<br />
welfare. And that speech hit home, to more people than you can know—to many, many people, because they<br />
know that that is the reality and it is clear for all to see that this government has no idea how tough some people<br />
are doing it. They do not know and they do not want to, because ignorance is bliss. For someone who has also<br />
relied on welfare, the stigma and relentless shaming <strong>of</strong> this government <strong>of</strong> those people is cruel and unnecessary,<br />
and we see it time and time again from this government.<br />
The lifters and leaners, poor people who do not own a car or the simplistic comments <strong>of</strong> a simple Prime<br />
Minister who says: 'Get rich parents;' whether it's the 700,000 low-paid workers having their penalty rates ripped<br />
away or the 330,000 pensioners who are worse <strong>of</strong>f after this government changed the pension asset test, or the<br />
various other cuts this government spruiks day after day—they are always targeting those who can least afford it.<br />
This measure is just one more example <strong>of</strong> Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's clear disregard for those struggling<br />
to make ends meet.<br />
As the member for Jagajaga noted in her contribution, these unfair cuts come at a time when inequality is at a<br />
75-year high in Australia. Company pr<strong>of</strong>its are at record levels; wages growth is at record lows. The widening gap<br />
between the rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger in Australia, and the rich just keep on getting richer, and<br />
those in the middle and towards the bottom are missing out on the growing wealth <strong>of</strong> our nation.<br />
We need a government that will address this problem and ensure there is a little fairness in the system. Instead,<br />
we have got a government that actively punishes those at the bottom, while gloating about a $50 billion big<br />
CHAMBER
72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
business tax cut that will hand $7 billion straight to the big four banks. Not to mention that this will add $4 billion<br />
to the interest and the budget bottom line. For people so obsessed with the debt and deficit, obviously, they cannot<br />
get their accounting department right. And, in hurting 1.5million families, they cannot even front up to the<br />
chamber to defend their decisions. It is weak and it is poor leadership—and the people out there are getting tired<br />
<strong>of</strong> this unfair, arrogant government.<br />
Now there is one element <strong>of</strong> this bill that we have said we will support, and it wasn't tied to the unfair cuts<br />
contained throughout this amendment. It is a straightforward measure that will automate the process <strong>of</strong> collecting<br />
income stream information for social security recipients, improving the accuracy and efficiency <strong>of</strong> the social<br />
security system and reducing the regulatory burden on income stream providers. This measure would potentially<br />
help avoid another robo-debt disaster by providing a more regular and accurate reporting system. Labor has made<br />
it clear to the government that this measure would enjoy our support, if it was separated from the unfair elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> this bill. This shows that Labor has its priorities right and that this government is proving, yet again, that they<br />
have their priorities wrong.<br />
Now all <strong>of</strong> these unfair cuts are being rammed through this parliament at a rapid rate so the government can<br />
pay for their childcare changes. Well, we believe in child care and we believe in supporting working men and<br />
women, but we do not believe that increased support for child care should cost the poorest Australians through the<br />
nose by pitting people who need our help against other people who are vulnerable. Sadly, that is this government's<br />
default position. This bill is plainly unfair, and we will not be supporting it.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons): Before I call the member for Indi, I just remind the member for Wills<br />
that he is not in his own seat when he is making interjections. He should make sure he is silent at that particular<br />
time.<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:33): I rise in the <strong>House</strong> today to say that I will not be supporting the Social<br />
Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and to outline my reasons why. In doing so, just to put on the record, I<br />
do get the budget emergency argument but I do not get cruelty, I do not get inefficiency and I do not think we are<br />
being our best selves with this particular bit <strong>of</strong> legislation.<br />
There are clear reasons for me deciding not to support this legislation that go to the heart <strong>of</strong> balancing social<br />
justice with the need for the government to make savings. We pride ourselves on providing support for those in<br />
need. We, as a nation, must ensure that the safety net is maintained for the most vulnerable, even when the<br />
government takes action to seek the savings necessary to balance its budget.<br />
I believe the cuts proposed by government have the potential to impact significantly negatively on benefit<br />
recipients within my electorate, including the 20,231 aged pensioners and 32,024 pensioners with a concession<br />
card. These measures rely on increasing incomes to make the savings. They potentially increase red tape, in<br />
allowing more regular updating <strong>of</strong> pay rates. They set a waiting period for additional payments and they set a<br />
waiting period for all pauses in indexation for two years, reducing the cost over the forwards <strong>of</strong> the compounding<br />
indexation.<br />
In my electorate, there are more than 10,000 families who receive tax benefit A; 8,000 families who receive tax<br />
benefit B; nearly 500 who receive the partnered parenting payment; nearly 1,800 who receive single parenting<br />
payment; more than 9,000 who have a health care card; 2,700 have a low-income card; 4,500 are on a Newstart<br />
allowance; more than 20,000 receive the aged pension; and over 32,000 have a pensioner concession card.<br />
Without good argument—and I will be referring to the budget argument later on—I will not support legislation<br />
that leaves those in my community worse <strong>of</strong>f. I will not support legislation that makes life more difficult for those<br />
who are already disadvantaged.<br />
The changes proposed by the government are tinkering around the edges at an issue that requires a holistic<br />
approach. Good policy should not result in further inefficiencies for either the government or the recipients. Social<br />
services are <strong>of</strong>ten looked at as a series <strong>of</strong> welfare payments. But social services should not just be a time and place<br />
mechanism; they should act as a safety net with compassion at its core. I am worried we have lost the compassion<br />
in the development <strong>of</strong> our social policy. Compassion is frequently referenced as a reason for policy, but it is<br />
frequently left out <strong>of</strong> the equation when it comes to implementation. I believe these measures increase red tape.<br />
They will set a waiting period for additional payments, and the setting <strong>of</strong> a waiting period for all pauses in<br />
indexation for two years does not show compassion.<br />
In 2015 the government released the final report <strong>of</strong> the McClure review <strong>of</strong> Australia's welfare system—A new<br />
system for better employment and social outcomes. And, while some might call it semantics, the title <strong>of</strong> the report<br />
gives us a clear indication <strong>of</strong> where the government's focus lies: better employment. I believe the focus <strong>of</strong> social<br />
welfare, before anything else, should be about better social outcomes. Better employment will come as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
better social outcomes. A person's employment status or unemployment status cannot be looked at in isolation.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 73<br />
Employment security is one <strong>of</strong> our greatest challenges, but, sadly, having a job for life no longer exists. The<br />
workforce has been undergoing a massive transformation over the past three decades, and currently the average<br />
Australian stays with one employer for just three years and four months. If this plays out in the lifetime <strong>of</strong> a<br />
school leaver today, it means that they will have 17 separate employers in their lifetime. People are used to<br />
moving on, but the big shift we are seeing now is that there is no longer just one job for life; there is not even a<br />
career or an industry for life. People will be changing employers, pr<strong>of</strong>essions and industries and retraining as they<br />
go. Nowhere is the challenge <strong>of</strong> employment security felt more than in regional Australia, and no group feels it<br />
more than the young people.<br />
I believe the government should not be looking at welfare payments as a short-term cost but rather as a longterm<br />
investment, particularly when directed towards investment in our young people. Young Australians living<br />
outside the capital cities and other major urban population centres encounter a number <strong>of</strong> challenges that are not<br />
normally part <strong>of</strong> the everyday experience <strong>of</strong> young people living in metropolitan areas. These challenges include<br />
obtaining access to suitable and appropriate health and welfare services, education and training, paid employment,<br />
economic stability and recreational opportunities. In rural areas there are fewer employment opportunities, with<br />
far fewer career options, and household incomes are lower on average than those for people living in our cities.<br />
Regional employment and training opportunities can be scarce, and last week's release <strong>of</strong> the youth unemployment<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> 13.3 per cent for my electorate has shown that there has been little change in this number over the past 30<br />
years.<br />
We have a severe problem with unemployment. When people are working between jobs we absolutely need the<br />
social safety net to catch them, look after them and propel them forward to the next step. Making it a punishment,<br />
making them feel ashamed, making them feel embarrassed does not do what we want it to do. Our safety net<br />
system should have an adequate payment system based on need that encourages people to prepare for and seek<br />
work where it is reasonable to do so. It should support people who are unable to work. It should feature fair<br />
returns from work, individualised requirements for participation in the workforce and support services that build<br />
individual and family capacity. It should give people a sense <strong>of</strong> security so that they are able to fully participate in<br />
the community. But that is not what is happening. Our approach to social services results in people falling through<br />
the cracks, having to compete against one another and compete against the system.<br />
Let me tell you a story about one <strong>of</strong> my constituents. Let me call her RB. I know RB well. In my previous life<br />
as a teacher, she was one <strong>of</strong> my students. I have watched her growth and development and I can assure the <strong>House</strong><br />
that she is a woman <strong>of</strong> great integrity and great responsibility. In her middle age she suffers from chronic<br />
illnesses; however, she was unable to obtain her disability pension card for some time because she was earning<br />
just above the threshold. Having the card made all the difference, even while pension payments were minimal<br />
because <strong>of</strong> her partner's income. But following a small increase in her partner's income RB lost her pension card.<br />
In her words:<br />
… losing the card meant my health costs went up substantially, and that's not allowing for dental and optical as well. But<br />
perhaps more significantly it means my sense <strong>of</strong> independence and my self-esteem has suffered immensely and the burden on<br />
our relationship was also increased substantially.<br />
Sadly, she is not alone, and her experience is not particular to those receiving the disability pension.<br />
The experience <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> independence and self-esteem is an experience that is felt by so many people relying<br />
on the government to support them when they are most in need. It should not be a punishment. I want to remind<br />
the government that this is what happens when the design <strong>of</strong> a policy to help those most in need, those most<br />
disadvantaged and those on the margins is driven by economics and not by compassion or fairness. We can and<br />
we should have both. We need compassion, we need fairness and we need economic outcomes. I believe as a<br />
nation we are capable <strong>of</strong> combining all <strong>of</strong> these together. When we try to make it either/or we are less than our<br />
best selves.<br />
The need to balance the budget is not lost on me. I am a farmer and a businesswoman. I run my own household<br />
and I have degree with a major in economics. I understand macro- and microeconomics and I would like to work<br />
with the government to identify budget savings. There is no shortage <strong>of</strong> this discussion in our <strong>of</strong>fice. I understand<br />
the need for fiscal responsibility—but not at any cost and definitely not at the cost <strong>of</strong> those most in need.<br />
We have heard from Senator Jacqui Lambie the very personal stories <strong>of</strong> what it is like to be reliant on<br />
government support, <strong>of</strong> the personal toll when complex requirements means having to move between different<br />
providers and the very direct impact this has not only on individuals but their families and how this invariably<br />
leads people to fall through the cracks, <strong>of</strong>ten taking their family with them—and I have to say, if there was one<br />
question I heard repeated over and over again last weekend, it was: 'Cathy, did you hear Senator Lambie?' 'Cathy,<br />
did you hear Senator Lambie?' 'Cathy, what are you going to do about what she said? She's right you know. She's<br />
got it.'<br />
CHAMBER
74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
I would like today to take a step back and take a moment to talk about how my electorate sees how government<br />
can take a leading role in providing support. I would like to include in the budget some thoughts from the kitchen<br />
table conversations that we held in the Indi electorate in 2015. Kitchen table conversations was a process that<br />
involved over 600 people coming together, talking in small groups about their vision for their community, about<br />
the role for an elected representative and the issues they were facing.<br />
It was then followed by the Indi summit, which was a community-led initiative that engaged people in shaping<br />
their future by encouraging them to share and develop their ideas. It was an opportunity that allowed members to<br />
create a vision, to show leadership, to raise issues that were important to them and then for them to talk about the<br />
solutions. The idea was: government is not like some knight on a white charger that is going to come over the hill<br />
and resolve our problems—we know that that is not possible—so what do we need to do in our communities to<br />
resolve our own problems, and, given that I am the elected representative, what was the message that I could take<br />
from the Indi summit to Canberra?<br />
I was told: early intervention to reduce disadvantage, including targeted programs to address and manage issues<br />
such as violence, poverty and homelessness; support for programs that focus on early intervention to reduce<br />
disadvantage—programs that break the cycle <strong>of</strong> disadvantage by reducing homelessness and domestic violence;<br />
policies that change the mindsets and relationships between government agencies, local government, community<br />
groups, volunteers and citizens from 'doing to' to 'doing with'. The people in my community—just as Jacqui<br />
Lambie outlined so well—want to be part <strong>of</strong> the solution. They are very keen to move themselves to another and<br />
better place and to get a job to earn enough money to have the status and recognition that brings. They want to be<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the solution. They do not want to be done to. They do not want to be seen as numbers in the system or<br />
playthings for the government and the budget to balance one against the other by taking from Peter to give to<br />
Paul. In talking to the government about this, there is an enormous willingness in my electorate to work together.<br />
There is no shortage <strong>of</strong> discussion about how we could do this better, how we could make savings, how we could<br />
make the social security system work better and be more efficient and how we could target it better. In our rural<br />
communities, people understand that it needs to be targeted. You cannot have one size fits all; otherwise, you get a<br />
blanket approach and people get benefits who clearly should not be getting them. Rural communities see that and<br />
they understand it, so there is no shortage <strong>of</strong> opportunity to say to the government, 'We could work with you on<br />
this.' But, really, really importantly, we need to have early intervention that reduces disadvantage so that we are<br />
not paying huge costs at the other end, and we must do something about local poverty and homelessness.<br />
In bringing my comments to a close, I call on the government to provide leadership in social investment;<br />
investment encased in welfare support that builds confident, strong, vibrant and resilient communities. It is<br />
resilient communities that have the confidence and the skill to build local frameworks that provide local support in<br />
the face <strong>of</strong> adversity and times <strong>of</strong> need. My final comment is about a conversation I had in my <strong>of</strong>fice as I was<br />
getting ready for this speech. We were talking about a systems approach to disadvantage rather than a reductionist<br />
approach. A systems approach would recognise that schools, hospitals, GPs, churches, local members <strong>of</strong><br />
parliament, service groups and a whole-<strong>of</strong>-community approach have a role to provide the infrastructure to<br />
support and encourage people and lift them on their way. To the government, the minister and the relevant people:<br />
come and talk to us in rural communities. We have no shortage <strong>of</strong> ideas. We definitely want to be part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
solution both in balancing the budget, so that more money can come back to our communities for infrastructure,<br />
and for providing people with pride, confidence and the courage they need to live the lives they want in the places<br />
they want to live them.<br />
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:47): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I<br />
want to put on the record concerns from people in my electorate who this bill will have an impact on. People in<br />
regional communities will be hit very hard by measures in this bill. Zombie cuts are back. They are again a tax on<br />
those in our community who are the most vulnerable. In my electorate, over the last five years, we have talked a<br />
lot about hidden poverty, about the people who are slowly going under because their household income is stuck or<br />
falling yet the cost <strong>of</strong> living is increasing. On a daily basis, we hear from welfare organisations about a 40 per cent<br />
increase in people seeking help—organisations like the Salvation Army, Uniting Care in Kangaroo Flat and Forest<br />
Street Bendigo and St Vincent de Paul in Bendigo, whether supporting people with food relief, rent assistance or<br />
getting the car fixed—who are struggling to survive. This bill and the cuts before us will only make it worse.<br />
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Indi's comments. I hope members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government and other regional MPs were listening to some <strong>of</strong> the recommendations that she put forward and also<br />
listening to some <strong>of</strong> the stories she put forward about the experiences <strong>of</strong> people in her electorate. These are real<br />
people who are really struggling in our regional towns. These are towns where it is not just one person; in some<br />
cases, it is entire neighbourhoods that need support right now. The member for Indi talked about the social welfare<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 75<br />
net and the importance <strong>of</strong> having a strong social welfare net so that people do not collapse into dire poverty that<br />
then affects their lives going forward. These are the experiences <strong>of</strong> people in my own electorate.<br />
I held a listening post not that long ago at the front <strong>of</strong> Coles in Bendigo. A single mum approached me. She<br />
said, 'Lisa, I need help. I am struggling with Centrelink. I am caught up in the review system. I do not know how I<br />
am going to pay my rent this week. Who should I speak to? I have almost spent my entire family tax benefit<br />
payment that I received after the last tax year. How do I pay for food next week? How do I get my son to and from<br />
school and to his appointments next week?' She had moved to Bendigo under tragic circumstances, which a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
people find themselves in. It is a family break-up and she is without any support or any money. She is in that<br />
situation where she is most in need. She has skills herself. She has multiple degrees. She is out there trying to look<br />
for work but right now needs our support. This government is not there for her. It is very lucky for this particular<br />
individual that Max at Uniting Care Bendigo was able to help. The Bendigo community reached out and<br />
supported this family in my electorate to make sure that they did not go under, they were not evicted from their<br />
home and the children could go to school with lunches.<br />
We have a situation in Bendigo where children are not sent to school because mum or dad cannot afford to buy<br />
lunches, because all <strong>of</strong> their money is going towards rent. We talk about rent stress in this country and it is a real<br />
issue, yet the measures in this bill are going to make it even harder for people to survive going forward. We have<br />
inequality in this country at a 75-year high. What does that mean?<br />
<strong>House</strong>holds in this country are struggling to survive. More and more people are being evicted, more and more<br />
people are being forced to live in their cars and more and more people are just dropping out <strong>of</strong> our system. They<br />
are not productive in our economy, they cannot get the hours that they need at work and, therefore, they are<br />
literally going under. This is a hidden poverty problem that has now become a stark reality for so many people.<br />
In my own electorate <strong>of</strong> Bendigo, about 30 per cent <strong>of</strong> households are trying to survive on less than $600 a<br />
week and many families will be caught up in this government's cruel measures that we are now debating in this<br />
<strong>House</strong>. The two measures that I particularly wish to highlight are indexation and the family tax benefit—first <strong>of</strong><br />
all, the freezing <strong>of</strong> the income indexation threshold for people <strong>of</strong> all working ages and for students. This includes<br />
Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment and carers payment. This will affect about 204,000 Australians on<br />
the lowest incomes, including a lot <strong>of</strong> people who live in regional electorates. These are people living on very low<br />
incomes. The threshold has been frozen when it is already incredibly low. As an example, parenting payment will<br />
reduce after a person earns $188 a fortnight. For Newstart, it is $102 a fortnight. There is no rationale for freezing<br />
these thresholds for three years. It is the income test. I do not understand why a government, when somebody is<br />
earning money and wants to work more hours, would not let the income threshold increase. These are people who<br />
are trying to survive on low wages and earn a bit extra. If their wages increase, what they can earn before they<br />
lose their payment should also go up. All the government is doing is taking away the incentive for people to work<br />
and locking them into poverty. I believe we have to go the other way. I believe that we need to start looking at<br />
increasing the income threshold to encourage people to work more. It should be celebrated. When somebody is<br />
working and we encourage them to work more, yes, they get a bit more <strong>of</strong> a social welfare net and payment from<br />
us, and we should not lock them into poverty by cutting that payment. We should encourage them to earn more.<br />
We need to look at increasing the income bank, as we called it in my day, for students so they can build their<br />
earning capacity and we can see some <strong>of</strong> these people lifted up out <strong>of</strong> poverty.<br />
We have a university in my electorate and this is an issue that comes up a lot when I talk to students at the<br />
Bendigo La Trobe campus. Young people leave home to move to university, and we joke about it being a rite <strong>of</strong><br />
passage—when you are a student you survive on two-minute noodles, not that that is a healthy option, a smart<br />
option or a government policy we should ever be endorsing. We now have university students seeking food relief<br />
help because all <strong>of</strong> their Newstart and all <strong>of</strong> their wages are going on the cost <strong>of</strong> study, which is increasing, and<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> rent, which is also increasing. Average rents in Bendigo are now $250 per week. When you are on<br />
Newstart or youth allowance, it is very hard to make that payment. This is rent in a regional town, let alone the<br />
rents in Melbourne. When you have students who are reaching out for food relief, there is a structural problem in<br />
our system, and the indexation measures before us around freezing people's capacity to earn are only going to<br />
make that harder.<br />
The changes to family tax benefit are effectively a cut. A family on $60,000 with two primary school aged<br />
children will be about $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19. These are the same parents who have lost their schoolkids<br />
bonus. These are the same parents who, if they work in hospitality or retail, have just been hit with a penalty rates<br />
cut. Sixty thousand dollars is not a lot <strong>of</strong> money and it is actually higher than the average income <strong>of</strong> people in my<br />
electorate. A single parent on $50,000 with two children in high school will be about $540 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f in<br />
2018-19. High school is the time in young people's lives when costs start to increase for parents. They do not<br />
decrease; they actually increase, particularly in regional areas, where we have a youth unemployment problem.<br />
CHAMBER
76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
We do not have enough jobs for young people to get involved in and there is a spike in people aged 15 to 19 being<br />
unable to get work. We just do not have enough jobs in our region because this government has dropped the ball<br />
on job creation. Another example is single income couples on $60,000 with three children under the age <strong>of</strong> 12.<br />
They will be $600 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f. Six hundred dollars makes a big difference to families who are trying to<br />
survive on $60,000. It does not go far enough. This is from the same government that, in the budget, is going to let<br />
the people at the top end <strong>of</strong> the scale, the millionaires, basically receive a pay rise. The levy that was in place will<br />
cease, so millionaires will basically receive a tax cut <strong>of</strong> $16,000 or $17,000, while people at the lowest end and<br />
the people affected by these changes will be grossly worse <strong>of</strong>f. To a single income couple with three children,<br />
$600 is a lot.<br />
In the time that I have left, I wish to talk about penalty rates and the impact <strong>of</strong> the Fair Work Commission<br />
decision. We have seen this week from the Australia Institute that there will be a $650 million blow to the budget<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the cut to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers. That is just the<br />
beginning. Right now, employers in the beauty and hairdressing industry want the same cut to the wages <strong>of</strong> their<br />
employees. Also, clubs, pubs and hotels are doing exactly the same. So this problem for the government is going<br />
to blow out unless they join Labor and back our legislation to protect penalty rates. It is not only going to hurt<br />
those workers and lock them into poverty and needing more from our social welfare system; the starting figure for<br />
that budget cost, if we do not take action, will be $650 million. Read what the Australia Institute has put out; read<br />
it and understand it between now and when we come back for the budget when this parliament resumes.<br />
This bill is another cruel attack by this government on the most vulnerable in our community. The government<br />
are also attacking hardworking families, people on the lowest <strong>of</strong> incomes. The government do not seem to<br />
understand the impact <strong>of</strong> these decisions, or they do understand and they just do not care. You can tell that<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the volumes <strong>of</strong> speakers they have to defend these cuts—not one <strong>of</strong> their members is willing to get up<br />
here and defend these cuts. There are no marginal seat holders standing up and telling the truth. They are happy to<br />
heckle but will not engage in the debate. They will not listen to the real stories <strong>of</strong> how these cuts will affect<br />
people. We have so many families close to going under in our own electorates—people who are really struggling,<br />
people who might be working full-time, who are going to be hit with a cut to the family tax benefit. These are<br />
people working in industries like retail, like horticulture, like food processing. If you work in chicken, if you are<br />
lucky enough to be directly employed, you might be able to take home $50,000 a year. You are one <strong>of</strong> the families<br />
that are going to be cut. You work hard in food processing, but it is a minimum wage and you are likely to be<br />
affected by these changes.<br />
The government needs to start listening to the stories <strong>of</strong> people in their electorates, particularly those in<br />
regional communities. These cuts will hurt families, these cuts will hurt young people and these cuts will hurt our<br />
pensioners. This is at a time when the government is also not doing anything to support wages growth and is not<br />
doing anything to support increasing employment opportunities. Unemployment in our country is spiking and<br />
underemployment in our country is spiking, yet the government are not addressing this. Worse still, through the<br />
measures that are before us they are locking people into low household income and locking them into poverty. It<br />
is the wrong approach, particularly at this time with the state <strong>of</strong> the economy and the state <strong>of</strong> the community and<br />
people's living standards. I ask people to vote against this bill. (Time expired)<br />
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:02): It is my pleasure today to speak about the Social Services Legislation Amendment<br />
Bill, because this bill has significance to me and to my electorate, being an electorate that is predominantly in the<br />
outer suburbs. Today in question time the Prime Minister was asked to defend low-income earners. He was asked<br />
if he believed that big business deserved a $50 billion tax cut while the lowest income earners will continue to<br />
suffer. He was asked if he thought it was fair and responsible to increase the minimum wage. On both counts, he<br />
could not assure the Australian people that his government actually cared for them or was willing to fight for<br />
them. The Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill testifies to this—it testifies to this government's blatant<br />
disregard for Australian families and to their relentless attacks on Australian families.<br />
I want to start with family payments. The measure under schedule 4 <strong>of</strong> the bill will freeze indexation <strong>of</strong> family<br />
tax benefits parts A and B for two years, leaving 1.5 million families worse <strong>of</strong>f. The bill will cut $1.4 billion from<br />
Australian families. It will freeze family tax benefit rates for two years, meaning that the payments families<br />
receive will not keep up with the cost <strong>of</strong> living and 1.5 million families will be left worse <strong>of</strong>f. Almost 600,000 <strong>of</strong><br />
these families are on a minimum rate FTB A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year.<br />
That is not a lot, certainly not in this day and age. The cuts will leave a family on $60,000 with two primary<br />
school aged children around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018. A single parent on $50,000 with two high school children<br />
will be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19.<br />
I was in one <strong>of</strong> those families once, and I know what it means to be $540 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f. It does not sound<br />
like a lot to me now, at all, but back then, having two boys and trying to raise them on my own and send them to<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 77<br />
school, I know that that little bit <strong>of</strong> help that I got with the family tax benefit meant that my children had the<br />
books, the uniforms, the shoes and the bags to start the school year every year on time and with the things that<br />
they needed to get through that year. And I consider myself one <strong>of</strong> the lucky ones. I had a ro<strong>of</strong> over my head, I<br />
had a means <strong>of</strong> transport, but, most importantly, I had hope. I had hope <strong>of</strong> finding a job. Because I was studying<br />
and working towards getting a job, I had hope that one day I would be able to provide for my children and that<br />
one day I would be able to more easily afford the books, the uniforms, the bags, the pencils and pens and<br />
everything that they needed to go to school. I had hope that one day I would be able to pay the mortgage and that<br />
one day I would be able to pay for the groceries in full. Sadly in this day and age, with unemployment at a record<br />
high in my electorate, many people in my electorate and many people in the outer suburbs do not have that hope.<br />
I would like to move on to schedule 3 <strong>of</strong> the bill, which introduces a one-week waiting period before people<br />
can access parenting payment or youth allowance. This one is particularly significant to me. It makes it harder for<br />
people who are already in a difficult financial situation to access the financial hardship exemption by requiring<br />
that they are also experiencing a personal financial crisis. At the age <strong>of</strong> 25, I found myself in a very violent<br />
marriage. I had a three year old and a one year old. It was the hardest decision that I had to make to leave my<br />
violent husband, but it was a decision that needed to be made for the good <strong>of</strong> myself and my children. I will never<br />
forget the day that I walked into that Centrelink <strong>of</strong>fice, that building <strong>of</strong> grey concrete with its harsh lighting and<br />
the carpet that had been stepped on by millions <strong>of</strong> desperate souls before me. I will never forget being told that I<br />
would have to wait for my first parenting payment. I had absolutely nothing. I had not a cent to my name, and I<br />
did not know how I was going to feed my children for that next week until the parenting payment came through. I<br />
will never forget walking out <strong>of</strong> the building that day, turning the corner, leaning against the harsh concrete wall<br />
and breaking down in tears. I will never forget the face <strong>of</strong> a man approaching me and himself walking into the<br />
Centrelink <strong>of</strong>fice and wondering whether he saw on my face the shame, humiliation and desperation <strong>of</strong> what I had<br />
just been through. I will never forget those days.<br />
The government does not seem to understand that people in these situations, many <strong>of</strong> them mothers fleeing<br />
family violence, are not there to scam the government. We are not criminals. We are there because we have no<br />
other choice. Many <strong>of</strong> the people who seek these kinds <strong>of</strong> payments are not there out <strong>of</strong> choice. The very principle<br />
<strong>of</strong> a social security system is that it is there for people who need it. The very principle <strong>of</strong> it is that the measure <strong>of</strong><br />
our compassion as a society, the measure <strong>of</strong> our progress as a society, is how well we look after the most<br />
vulnerable in our society. It is that we never leave anyone behind. It is that we ensure that nobody is left in a<br />
situation where they are so desperate that they go to desperate means. This is what social security is about.<br />
I would like to move on to schedule 1 <strong>of</strong> the bill, which freezes the income-free areas for all working-age and<br />
student payments, meaning that for the three years the income tests applying to payments for parents, job-seekers<br />
and students will not keep pace with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. Again I reiterate the importance <strong>of</strong> ensuring that payments<br />
keep up with the cost <strong>of</strong> living. While the cost <strong>of</strong> living increases and wages stay stagnant, there is no chance for<br />
economic growth. That is not how you grow an economy. It is not how you grow an economy to give big business<br />
$50 billion in tax cuts while you cut the pay <strong>of</strong> the most vulnerable in our society. It is not how you grow an<br />
economy by giving business $50 billion worth <strong>of</strong> tax cuts while impeding the capacity and ability <strong>of</strong> people to<br />
spend by cutting their wages and freezing their earnings so they do not match the increases in the cost <strong>of</strong> living.<br />
This part <strong>of</strong> the bill will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes.<br />
I will talk again about my situation and my experiences. As a single parent raising my two sons, I was also<br />
looking for work at the same time. I was struggling to raise my kids on just $400 a fortnight. I would like<br />
everyone to think a bit about that. I would like you to think about how hard it is to try to raise a family on less<br />
than a third <strong>of</strong> what a backbencher gets in travel allowance for four days <strong>of</strong> sittings. That is pretty much what it<br />
amounts to. $400 a fortnight amounts to less than a third <strong>of</strong> what I get as a backbencher in travel allowance for<br />
four days <strong>of</strong> sitting. I have not forgotten what that is like. I have not forgotten what it is like to stand at the<br />
shopping centre counter and return half your shopping because you simply cannot afford it that week. I have not<br />
forgotten what it is like to delve through my purse and pick up coins just to be able to afford essentials like milk<br />
and bread. I will use every last breath that I have each time I walk through these doors to remind this government<br />
that there are people out there in my electorate, and in their electorates, for whom this is not something that they<br />
can push into the past—it is part <strong>of</strong> their everyday reality today.<br />
Labor has stood up for Australian families against this government's attacks on families. We will continue to do<br />
so. Just bear witness today to the number <strong>of</strong> people who have stood up to speak about this bill. Our list is endless.<br />
On the other side—crickets! Nobody is there to defend their attacks on families. If only just one <strong>of</strong> them could<br />
stand up here today and defend why they think it is okay to consistently attack families, to consistently attack<br />
those most vulnerable in our society, to consistently attack those who are so desperate, as I once was, that they<br />
have to go into a Centrelink <strong>of</strong>fice and take social welfare. We did not want to. We do not want to, but we have to.<br />
CHAMBER
78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
We rely on our government. It is part <strong>of</strong> the social cohesion and the trust that everyday Australians have in their<br />
government, knowing that their government looks after them, knowing that their government cares for them,<br />
knowing that they can trust that when they are in a dire situation, when they are desperate, when they find<br />
themselves in a situation that they have absolutely no control over, that their government, the people who they<br />
have elected to stand here in this very chamber, will fight for them.<br />
I will not stop fighting for those most vulnerable in our community, because I know what it is like from my<br />
own experience. I know what it is like from the people who walk into my electorate <strong>of</strong>fice every day and tell me<br />
how hard it is for them. I will not give up on them, and I implore this government to not give up on them as well.<br />
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (17:14): I just want to congratulate the member for Cowan on that speech on<br />
the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Like her, I know from my own experience what it is like to<br />
do it tough. I was prepping for my contribution this afternoon, and as part <strong>of</strong> that process I was going through my<br />
first speech. In my first speech I spoke about the experience <strong>of</strong> my family—my working class matriarchy, my<br />
background: my great-grandmother, in a country house out in the western district <strong>of</strong> Victoria, bringing up 13<br />
children on her own as a single mother. She was a domestic. She cleaned the properties and washed the clothes <strong>of</strong><br />
the wealthy in the western district. And she did it very, very tough, bringing up those 13 children on her own as a<br />
single mother, cleaning and washing until her hands were red raw. It was a tough life, and there was not much<br />
money to go around, particularly with those 13 mouths to feed.<br />
And then, to reflect on my grandmother, who I actually did not meet: my grandmother died when she was 54,<br />
when I was just six months old. She died <strong>of</strong> an undiagnosed heart condition, because, like her mother, she was<br />
from a very disadvantaged background and lived from week to week, a life <strong>of</strong> disadvantage and poverty. My<br />
grandmother brought seven children up on her own when my grandfather walked out on her when my mother was<br />
just born. She brought up those seven kids on her own in a housing commission house in Preston in Victoria.<br />
Again, she did it very, very tough. She was also a domestic. She had three cleaning jobs and basically worked<br />
around the clock: one job in a hospital, one in a theatre and one in a factory. Those three cleaning jobs kept food<br />
on the table. As I said, this poor woman, who worked so hard to keep food on the table for those seven children,<br />
bringing them up on her own, died <strong>of</strong> an undiagnosed heart condition at 54. So, that is another layer <strong>of</strong> my history<br />
where I do have a keen appreciation <strong>of</strong> what it is like to do it tough.<br />
And then there is my mum. My mum left school at 15, dragged kicking and screaming. She was desperate to be<br />
educated and acknowledged that education is the great transformer, the great way <strong>of</strong> breaking that cycle <strong>of</strong><br />
disadvantage. But unfortunately she had to pay her way, so to speak, and she had to contribute to putting food on<br />
the table, so she was dragged kicking and screaming from Preston girls' school and had to go to work at 15.<br />
You would have thought that that cycle <strong>of</strong> disadvantage, that cycle <strong>of</strong> poverty, that cycle <strong>of</strong> doing it tough<br />
would have ended with my mother and with my sisters and me. But, unfortunately, my father walked out on us<br />
when I was 11, and that threw us, too, into a potential cycle <strong>of</strong> disadvantage and hardship. It was essentially only<br />
education that broke that cycle. But I know what it is like to do it tough, because I have done it, and I have a<br />
family history <strong>of</strong> doing it tough, <strong>of</strong> being born on the wrong side <strong>of</strong> the tracks, so to speak—<strong>of</strong> being born to a<br />
matriarchy <strong>of</strong> cleaners. When my father walked out <strong>of</strong> us when I was 11 he left us with $30 in the bank and my<br />
mum on her own with three daughters to bring up: me at age 11, my middle sister at nine and my little sister at six.<br />
Through those first few years particularly, life was pretty tough, because Mum was not actually working at that<br />
stage. It was very tough given the fact that we did not have money for food, so every second night we would go to<br />
friends and families for dinner. Quite <strong>of</strong>ten, as so many single mothers do—they do not eat at dinner; the food is<br />
reserved for the children—my mother would not eat, so she got very thin in that process.<br />
As I said, I know what it is like to do it tough. I come from a family that has done it tough—three generations<br />
<strong>of</strong> a working class matriarchy who have done it tough. That is why I say that this bill is outrageous and just<br />
underscores the Turnbull government's completely unfair treatment <strong>of</strong> low- and middle-income Australians. Labor<br />
is not being obstructionist in any way on this bill. What we want is a bill that is fair but that does not target the<br />
lowest income earners in our community, the most vulnerable in our community, and that is what this government<br />
has done with this bill and with so much <strong>of</strong> its agenda. We thought it was going to be over in 2014. We thought<br />
those dark days <strong>of</strong> 2014, when that hideous budget was launched on the Australian community, were over. Yet<br />
they continue and they continue and they continue, because essentially it is part <strong>of</strong> the coalition government's<br />
DNA to target low- and middle-income earners while giving a $50 billion tax break to the big end <strong>of</strong> town, to big<br />
banks, to big business.<br />
Labor has made it clear. We are not being obstructionist in any way. We are standing up for what we value. We<br />
are standing up for what we believe in. And we are standing up for policies that support our values. We will not in<br />
any way support policies that cut across Labor values, that cut into the very fabric <strong>of</strong> society. Our social fabric<br />
includes access to education for all, no matter what your background is, no matter where you grow up, no matter<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 79<br />
how much your parents earn and no matter what your postcode is—access to education, access to universal health<br />
care, access to opportunity, access to disability services. Labor will never, ever support any proposal or policy that<br />
cuts into our values and cuts into what it basically is to be Australian, that cuts into our social fabric. We will not<br />
support any policies that target low- and middle-income earners and the most vulnerable in our community. That<br />
is what we have here—this is 2014 reheated. It is 2014 over again.<br />
This bill hurts the most vulnerable in our community because it freezes the income-free areas for all working<br />
age and student payments for three years. These are people who are on Newstart, who are on Youth Allowance,<br />
who are on the parenting or carer payment. It will freeze indexation <strong>of</strong> the rates <strong>of</strong> family tax benefit parts A and<br />
B for two years. It will extend the ordinary seven-day waiting period that currently applies to Newstart or sickness<br />
benefits to additional payments to parenting payment and Youth Allowance.<br />
Labor has stood up for Australian families again and again since the coalition government was elected in<br />
2013—not this one, the previous one, the Abbott government. We now have a different iteration; the leader may<br />
have changed but their policies are exactly the same—exactly the same targeting <strong>of</strong> low- and middle-income<br />
earners. Despite all the rhetoric and despite the fact that this man was going to be different and was going to make<br />
a difference, there has been no change at all. As I said, we have the policies <strong>of</strong> 2014 reheated and we have a leader<br />
<strong>of</strong> our nation who essentially stands for nothing. He is a leader who has backed down on his commitment to a<br />
republic, on his commitment to marriage equality, on his commitment to climate change—a leader who has<br />
abandoned all the policies he feels strongly about simply to have the job <strong>of</strong> PM under his signature block. That is<br />
essentially it.<br />
People in my community are constantly telling me, 'We had so much hope for this Prime Minister. We thought<br />
he was going to make a difference, and yet he has let us down significantly.' He has not delivered on what he<br />
fundamentally believes in—marriage equality, climate change and the republic. He has abandoned all those<br />
principles and all those views that he once promoted, advocated and clung to for the sake <strong>of</strong> having the title <strong>of</strong><br />
Prime Minister on his signature block. Members <strong>of</strong> my community throw their hands in the air because they<br />
cannot believe a man could abandon so much <strong>of</strong> himself to achieve this title. They say to me: 'We have a Prime<br />
Minister who is agenda less, a Prime Minister and the government that is visionless and that has no idea what it<br />
wants for the Australian people. There is no vision and so there is no plan for us to get there—just ad hoc ideas<br />
that are thrown around. They are floated for 24 hours and spiked the next day, floated for 24 hours and spiked the<br />
next day and so on. We have seen that on superannuation, on tax, on GST, on states collecting income tax. Late<br />
last year we saw the emissions intensity scheme proposed and spiked the next day. This government is running<br />
from one policy to another policy and another policy, because they have no idea, no direction, no vision and no<br />
agenda.<br />
One member <strong>of</strong> my community told me, 'We have a Prime Minister who treats this job like hobby.' It is so<br />
true—he does treated like hobby. He has no agenda—<br />
Mr Keenan: Really?<br />
Ms BRODTMANN: You have no agenda. Don't take it from me—this is actually from a member from my<br />
community. I think I am repeating the truth. This is the perception, and I am just sharing with you some views <strong>of</strong><br />
the people <strong>of</strong> Canberra. I can share more with you, if you would like, Minister. I have imparted some <strong>of</strong> those, but<br />
the one thing that keeps coming up to me is that the Prime Minister is one big disappointment and the government<br />
is another big disappointment. They say to me, 'We had so many expectations.' The big-disappointment<br />
government is completely out <strong>of</strong> touch with what is going on in Australia and completely out <strong>of</strong> touch with the<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> Australians, are deeply those on low and middle incomes<br />
Mr Keenan: You're very negative today.<br />
Ms BRODTMANN: I am not negative; I am speaking the truth, Minister, and I am speaking the truth that is<br />
coming from the people <strong>of</strong> Canberra. I am passing on the views <strong>of</strong> Canberrans to the minister and he should<br />
appreciate this feedback. I do not know that he would get it from the other side <strong>of</strong> the chamber—<br />
Ms Macklin: I think he would get a strong message from Western Australia—from these two West<br />
Australians. They should have got the message.<br />
Ms BRODTMANN: Indeed. That is right. They should have—exactly.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons): The member for Canberra, I appreciate you are passing on that<br />
information, but you might want to come back to the subject <strong>of</strong> the debate.<br />
Ms BRODTMANN: I am passing on the views <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Canberra, Deputy Speaker. They passed on<br />
their views on what happened in 2014 to me. In 2014 I went out doorknocking just after the budget. I always like<br />
to go out doorknocking after a budget—be it our budget or a coalition government's budget—to get a sense <strong>of</strong><br />
CHAMBER
80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
what the community feels about it. Is it good or bad? What are the good elements, what are the bad elements? You<br />
cannot get a purer form <strong>of</strong> feedback than from knocking on someone's door, cold calling on someone, and asking<br />
them what they think about a piece <strong>of</strong> legislation or a particular budget.<br />
I spoke to one mother who was absolutely petrified about what was happening with the cuts to Newstart and<br />
wondering how on earth her child could survive all those weeks with no support. That was a very common theme<br />
in 2014—concerns about the outrageous cuts to Newstart. There was one mother, and I will never forget her.<br />
When I knocked on her door and asked if she had any feedback on the budget, she said, 'No, I don't have any<br />
feedback.' I left and, as I was walking down the street, she came running down the street in tears. She basically<br />
said, 'I'm so upset by the budget that I couldn't speak when you knocked on my door. But I want to tell you as a<br />
single mother I'm absolutely terrified about the opportunities for my child in getting access to education and also<br />
about my future. I'm terrified about what this budget will mean for my family.' I have done it tough, Deputy<br />
Speaker, and I do not want any Australian family to do it tough. That is why this government's proposal is<br />
absolutely outrageous; it is the 2014 budget reheated. The government should be ashamed <strong>of</strong> itself.<br />
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:29): I thank all members for their contribution to the<br />
second reading debate and, by way <strong>of</strong> summation <strong>of</strong> that second reading debate, I will note that the Social<br />
Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 seeks to secure the next instalment <strong>of</strong> remaining unlegislated savings<br />
from previous budgets. This bill secures further savings <strong>of</strong> $2.4 billion over the 2017-18 forward estimates period,<br />
building to $6.8 billion over the medium term. This new bill contains three measures from the original omnibus<br />
bill, including, firstly, the maintaining <strong>of</strong> income free areas and means test thresholds for certain payments and<br />
allowances at their current levels for three years; secondly, the automation <strong>of</strong> the income stream review process,<br />
which will lead to improvements in the accuracy <strong>of</strong> income support payment reporting and reductions in customer<br />
debts; and, thirdly, the extending and simplifying <strong>of</strong> ordinary waiting periods for the parenting payment and for<br />
youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice.<br />
The bill also includes a new schedule to maintain the current family tax benefit payment rates for two years at<br />
their current levels from 1 July 2017. That measure will achieve savings <strong>of</strong> about $2 billion over the 2017-18<br />
forward estimates, which will build to $5.5 billion over the medium term. It is important to note that under this<br />
new measure there will be no cuts to family tax benefit payments. Indeed, over the two-year maintenance period<br />
many families will still see some increases in their payments as a result <strong>of</strong> increases to particular income<br />
thresholds for family tax benefits.<br />
The government has also reversed a previous decision to increase family tax benefit payment rates to <strong>of</strong>fset, in<br />
part, the effect <strong>of</strong> the phase-out <strong>of</strong> FTB supplements, which was contained in the Social Services Legislation<br />
Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill. Not proceeding with that increase in FTB payment<br />
rates will reduce costs by a further $2.3 billion over the current forward estimates period compared to the previous<br />
social services omnibus savings bill and will reduce costs over the medium term by about $11 billion.<br />
This bill builds further on the $6.3 billion in budget improvements achieved over the forward estimates through<br />
the first omnibus savings bill, which passed the Senate on 15 September 2016 and included a saving <strong>of</strong> $1.6<br />
billion over the forward estimates and $7.1 billion over the medium term gained from the abolition <strong>of</strong> the family<br />
tax benefit supplement for households with incomes <strong>of</strong> more than $80,000. It is, <strong>of</strong> course, the government's<br />
intention to secure the passage <strong>of</strong> both this bill and the child care bill so that one may pay for the other.<br />
I would like to acknowledge the very positive way in which the crossbench has worked with the government to<br />
deliver this significant reform package that will make a real and positive difference to nearly one million<br />
Australian families through improved childcare services, and I commend the 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 Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting<br />
other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [17:37]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Ayes ...................... 68<br />
Noes ...................... 73<br />
Majority ................. 5<br />
AYES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 81<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Clare, JD<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 />
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 />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
AYES<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<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 />
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 />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<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 />
Sudmalis, AE<br />
Taylor, AJ<br />
Tudge, AE<br />
Van Manen, AJ<br />
Wallace, AB<br />
Wilson, RJ<br />
NOES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK (teller)<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 />
Pasin, A<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
CHAMBER
82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Wood, JP<br />
Zimmerman, T<br />
NOES<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
Question negatived.<br />
The SPEAKER (17:41): The question now is that the bill be read a second time.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [17:42]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<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 />
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 />
Ayes ...................... 73<br />
Noes ...................... 69<br />
Majority ................. 4<br />
AYES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK (teller)<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 />
Pasin, A<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Clare, JD<br />
Collins, JM<br />
Danby, M<br />
Dreyfus, MA<br />
Ellis, KM<br />
Fitzgibbon, JA<br />
NOES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<br />
Claydon, SC<br />
Conroy, PM<br />
Dick, MD<br />
Elliot, MJ<br />
Feeney, D<br />
Freelander, MR<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 83<br />
Georganas, S<br />
Gosling, LJ<br />
Hart, RA<br />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<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 />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
NOES<br />
Giles, AJ<br />
Hammond, TJ<br />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Katter, RC<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 />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Bill read a second time.<br />
Consideration in Detail<br />
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.<br />
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (17:48): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (7) together:<br />
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.<br />
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.<br />
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.<br />
(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), omit the Schedule.<br />
(5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), omit the Schedule.<br />
(6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), omit the Schedule.<br />
(7) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit "family assistance and".<br />
As the member for Grayndler usefully pointed out, we could do these amendments one by one and we could<br />
divide on them one by one. I was actually going to do this in a minute, but now that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> is so<br />
up on things we might as well remind them that this government wants to take $1.4 billion out <strong>of</strong> the pockets <strong>of</strong><br />
families. That is actually what you are doing. That is actually what this bill that you have all voted for right now is<br />
all about. All <strong>of</strong> you, go out into your electorates and tell all the families—1½ million families—that you are<br />
going to take money out <strong>of</strong> their pockets. That is what you have just voted for. This detailed amendment is trying<br />
to take that out <strong>of</strong> the bill. No doubt, in a minute, you will all do the same thing again—you will all vote to keep it<br />
in the bill. You are all like lemmings. You are just going to do what you are told. You do not care what the<br />
families in your electorate actually think. Now, he has come over because he still does not know what is going on!<br />
I just say to the minister at the table that the purpose <strong>of</strong> these amendments is to take all <strong>of</strong> these cuts, which are<br />
going to hurt the poorest people in the country, out <strong>of</strong> the bill so that we do not have so many people losing so<br />
much money as a result <strong>of</strong> this government going back to the 2014 budget well and hitting very vulnerable<br />
Australians.<br />
A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—<br />
Mr Katter: We have no idea what the amendments are. With all due respects to that opposition spokesperson,<br />
it would have been nice if she had told us what we were voting on. We are being asked to vote here without any<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> what we are voting on. Without criticising the chair, I must emphasise to the opposition<br />
spokesperson—<br />
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [17:55]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
CHAMBER
84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Clare, JD<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 />
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 />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
Ayes ...................... 68<br />
Noes ...................... 73<br />
Majority ................. 5<br />
AYES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
Chesters, LM<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 />
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 />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<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 />
NOES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK (teller)<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 />
Pasin, A<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 85<br />
Robert, SR<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 />
Sharkie, RCC<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 />
The SPEAKER (18:01): The question is that this bill be agreed to.<br />
The <strong>House</strong> divided. [18:01]<br />
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)<br />
Abbott, AJ<br />
Andrews, KJ<br />
Banks, J<br />
Broadbent, RE<br />
Chester, D<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 />
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 />
Ayes ...................... 73<br />
Noes ...................... 70<br />
Majority ................. 3<br />
AYES<br />
Alexander, JG<br />
Andrews, KL<br />
Broad, AJ<br />
Buchholz, S<br />
Ciobo, SM<br />
Coulton, M<br />
Drum, DK (teller)<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 />
Pasin, A<br />
Porter, CC<br />
Price, ML<br />
Ramsey, RE (teller)<br />
Sharkie, RCC<br />
Sukkar, MS<br />
Tehan, DT<br />
Turnbull, MB<br />
Vasta, RX<br />
Wicks, LE<br />
Wilson, TR<br />
Wyatt, KG<br />
Albanese, AN<br />
Bandt, AP<br />
Bowen, CE<br />
Burke, AS<br />
Butler, MC<br />
Byrne, AM<br />
NOES<br />
Aly, A<br />
Bird, SL<br />
Brodtmann, G<br />
Burney, LJ<br />
Butler, TM<br />
Chalmers, JE<br />
CHAMBER
86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Champion, ND<br />
Clare, JD<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 />
Husar, E<br />
Jones, SP<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 />
Perrett, GD (teller)<br />
Rishworth, AL<br />
Shorten, WR<br />
Stanley, AM<br />
Swanson, MJ<br />
Thistlethwaite, MJ<br />
Watts, TG<br />
Wilson, JH<br />
NOES<br />
Chesters, LM<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 />
Hill, JC<br />
Husic, EN<br />
Katter, RC<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 />
Owens, JA<br />
Plibersek, TJ<br />
Ryan, JC (teller)<br />
Snowdon, WE<br />
Swan, WM<br />
Templeman, SR<br />
Vamvakinou, M<br />
Wilkie, AD<br />
Zappia, A<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Bill agreed to.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (18:07): 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 />
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (18:09): I am speaking tonight on the Social Services Legislation Amendment<br />
(Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017. The trial that is covered by this bill will give jobseekers an<br />
opportunity to gain short-term seasonal work without the risk <strong>of</strong> losing their Newstart payment or other social<br />
security benefits. It is a trial that Labor will support. Trial participants will be able to earn up to $5,000 in eligible<br />
seasonal employment, such as fruit or nut picking, in regional or remote Australia without this impacting their<br />
Centrelink payment. Currently, single Newstart recipients without children can earn up to $104 a fortnight and<br />
young jobseekers receiving Youth Allowance (Other) can earn $143 a fortnight before their payment is reduced.<br />
Newstart recipients can earn $1,036 a fortnight before their payment reduces to zero. Youth Allowance (Other)<br />
recipients can earn $648.50 a fortnight before their payment reduces to zero. The trial would allow Newstart and<br />
Youth Allowance (Other) recipients to participate in specified seasonal horticultural work, such as fruit picking,<br />
and earn up to $5,000 in a 12-month period before their payments begin to be reduced. The existing income test<br />
will begin to apply to trial participants once they have exceeded the $5,000 limit. The trial will be capped at 7,600<br />
participants. It is due to start on 1 July this year and will last for a period <strong>of</strong> two years. The bill also introduces a<br />
seasonal work living away and travel allowance, which is an additional incentive for jobseekers to travel in order<br />
to participate in the trial. The allowance will be administered by the employment service provider and is valued at<br />
$300.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 87<br />
Labor certainly does support the importance <strong>of</strong> helping jobseekers to find work. That, <strong>of</strong> course, is why we will<br />
support the trial. We want to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards in place so that employers and<br />
employment service providers will not be able to misuse the program. We would like to see the government make<br />
sure that the program upholds labour standards so that employers cannot rip <strong>of</strong>f participants or undercut their<br />
competitors. We support evidence based policy making, so we will certainly be carefully reviewing the results <strong>of</strong><br />
the trial evaluation.<br />
We are also acutely aware that unemployment currently sits at 5.9 per cent—the highest it has been for more<br />
than 12 months. What is most concerning is that the rate <strong>of</strong> unemployment in Australia today is higher than in the<br />
United States, the UK and New Zealand, and youth unemployment is now at 13.3 per cent. Youth unemployment<br />
remains stubbornly high, particularly in regional and remote parts <strong>of</strong> Australia. In total, more than 650,000 young<br />
people were unemployed or underemployed, and that is defined as having some work but wanting more hours.<br />
That was in February 2017. Underemployment, at 18 per cent <strong>of</strong> the youth labour force, is the highest in the 40<br />
years since the survey began. Underemployment—and this is a very serious issue facing this country—now<br />
affects more young people than unemployment.<br />
As the latest Brotherhood <strong>of</strong> St Laurence report Generation stalled notes:<br />
In the past 15 years the average gap has widened between the actual working hours <strong>of</strong> young underemployed people and the<br />
hours they would like to work.<br />
The report makes clear that the growing number <strong>of</strong> young people combining study with work does not explain the<br />
rise in underemployment. On the contrary, the rise in the percentage <strong>of</strong> casual and part-time jobs has mostly been<br />
among young workers who are not studying. So clearly, as policymakers, all <strong>of</strong> us need to consider new<br />
approaches that address the problems <strong>of</strong> unemployment and underemployment.<br />
Not only do these high rates <strong>of</strong> youth unemployment and underemployment create significant risks for the<br />
young people affected but Australia's economic future is also put at risk. We are all aware that as a nation we are<br />
ageing. Youth unemployment risks more than just the livelihoods <strong>of</strong> young people who cannot find work; it also<br />
undermines the income tax base we will need as a nation to support our ageing population. Labor believes that, as<br />
a nation, we need a renewed focus on supporting young people to find work and reach their full potential, for both<br />
the individuals concerned and our country to reach their full potential.<br />
It is very easy in a debate like this to get caught up in the numbers and the figures, but, <strong>of</strong> course, we all have to<br />
remember that we are talking about young people—real people. I just want to give one example. Nineteen-yearold<br />
casual worker James Bowen was featured in a recent BuzzFeed article. He said he has been paying about twothirds<br />
<strong>of</strong> his weekly income on rent. James currently works 10 to 20 hours a week in retail on the Gold Coast but<br />
is desperately trying to find a full-time job. He says he applies for about 30 jobs a month. It is not unusual for him<br />
to fill out a dozen applications a day. He says he rarely gets calls back from businesses after he has applied for<br />
jobs. He receives about $23 a fortnight from Centrelink, which covers the cost <strong>of</strong> a few meals. He is considering<br />
moving to Brisbane to look for work, but he has been put <strong>of</strong>f by the cost <strong>of</strong> housing. I just want to say to those<br />
opposite that they really need to stop blaming people like James—young Australians who want to work but who<br />
cannot find work. They cannot find jobs that simply do not exist. Sadly, James' story is becoming increasingly<br />
common.<br />
I hosted a jobs and skills forum in my own electorate just last week in West Heidelberg, and this issue <strong>of</strong> youth<br />
unemployment and underemployment was a particular focus. People at the forum particularly wanted to discuss<br />
better ways to help young people transition from school into further study or work. I am very sorry to say that,<br />
unfortunately, those opposite really have not been doing enough to make a difference for these young people's<br />
lives.<br />
Of course, we all remember that back in 2014 the government axed the terrific Youth Connections program.<br />
This was a highly successful program that helped vulnerable young people to transition through education into<br />
work. Intensive, case-managed support helped these vulnerable youngsters become job ready. Unfortunately, the<br />
Abbott government axed it—they just got rid <strong>of</strong> it. In that same 2014 budget, the Abbott government tried to<br />
introduce a six-month wait for Newstart for young jobseekers under the age <strong>of</strong> 30. This became probably the most<br />
reviled measure from the 2014 budget—the government telling young jobseekers that they would have absolutely<br />
nothing to live on for six months.<br />
To this day, this government is still trying to introduce a five-week wait for young people under the age <strong>of</strong> 25. I<br />
say to the government again: how on earth do you think young people are going to live with nothing to live on for<br />
five weeks? But that is what this government still wants to pursue through this parliament. Then, <strong>of</strong> course, there<br />
is the other cut to young people that the Treasurer has recently told us he is still going to pursue. He wants to push<br />
young people aged between 22 and 24 <strong>of</strong>f Newstart onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut <strong>of</strong> around $48 a<br />
CHAMBER
88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
week—almost $2½ thousand a year. That is what this government wants to take out <strong>of</strong> the pockets <strong>of</strong> young<br />
unemployed people. It was good that the government could not get that cut through the parliament last week, but<br />
the Treasurer has made it clear he is to going to pursue it. These cuts are still the policy <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull<br />
government.<br />
We know the government also still wants to deregulate Australian universities, making it harder for young<br />
people to afford to go to university. Fees for university <strong>of</strong> up to $100,000 would leave our young people trying to<br />
get a higher education with enormous debts. We have had attack after attack on young people from this Liberal<br />
government. Of course, most recently we have seen the Prime Minister's refusal to do anything about protecting<br />
weekend penalty rates. We have a Prime Minister who is happy to see a pay cut <strong>of</strong> up to $77 a week for retail and<br />
hospitality workers—people who are working in pharmacies, chemists. Many <strong>of</strong> the people facing a cut to their<br />
penalty rates are young Australians—young people who cannot do without their penalty rates. They really depend<br />
on their penalty rates to get by. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he does not care at all about those young<br />
people. He is not going to do anything to stop the cuts in penalty rates.<br />
We on this side know that it is incredibly difficult for people who are trying to manage on Newstart or youth<br />
allowance. We have even had the Business Council <strong>of</strong> Australia come out and say that the current level <strong>of</strong><br />
Newstart is too low, but all this government does, through whatever method it has, is continue to say that all<br />
income support recipients are either criminals or rorters. The government wants to do anything it can to cut the<br />
incomes that these people are trying to survive on. These are very, very serious cuts that the government is still<br />
saying is its policy.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the most extraordinary contradictions is that, right this minute, we have had the government vote to<br />
freeze the income-free areas for jobseekers. So a few minutes ago everyone in the Liberal and National parties<br />
voted to freeze the income-free areas for jobseekers. They just voted for that. They did a deal with Independent<br />
senators to push through these cuts to jobseekers, which mean that with each year they can earn less and less in<br />
real terms before no longer qualify to receive their payment—Newstart or youth allowance, for example. It is a cut<br />
to the same income-free area that this trial would actually relax for participants. Talk about not knowing what they<br />
are doing! This is a really important point. On the one hand the government is saying to unemployed people that<br />
you are going to make it harder for them to earn a dollar, and then in this bill you say that you are going to give<br />
them some relief. The evidence is in the government's own figures. The changes that would freeze the income-free<br />
area would actually see 264,500 Australians on the lowest incomes—the absolutely lowest incomes—have their<br />
thresholds being frozen. The thresholds are already incredibly low.<br />
That is what everyone over there just voted for. Just to give one example, the parenting payment threshold after<br />
which the payment is reduced is $188 a fortnight. Everyone over there just voted to freeze that. Then they come in<br />
here a minute later and say they want to put forward this trial that proposes to relax the same income-free area for<br />
participants in the trial. We support the trial and the improvements to the income-free area. But, honestly, you can<br />
hardly expect a pat on the back for attempting this trial while at the same time you are freezing the income-free<br />
areas for these very low-income and vulnerable Australians.<br />
So while we support the trial today we certainly will not be forgetting the government's record <strong>of</strong> targeting<br />
young Australians. This is a small trial. It is worthy <strong>of</strong> support and we will support it today. For that reason I<br />
commend the bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:24): I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment<br />
(Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill. But the government's farcical bungling <strong>of</strong> its own backpacker<br />
tax will go down in parliamentary history as one <strong>of</strong> the worst own goals ever. There was a video doing the rounds<br />
on the internet recently <strong>of</strong> a goalie who bounced the ball into play, but he bounced it so badly that it dribbled into<br />
the back <strong>of</strong> his own net. Well, that video sums up the backpacker tax debate—a bad bounce, a bit <strong>of</strong> dribble, and<br />
an own goal.<br />
This government introduced a damaging tax at 32.5 per cent that had fruit growers in my electorate howling<br />
and backpackers scrambling for the departure lounge. Then the government cut the rate to 19 per cent, without<br />
doing any research about whether the lower rate would be any more competitive, before reluctantly settling on 15<br />
per cent, but only after getting its arm twisted by Labor and the Senate crossbench. And the performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Deputy Prime Minister, the agriculture minister, throughout that period? Well, that was something to behold. The<br />
vision <strong>of</strong> the supposed farmers' friend vigorously supporting a taxation regime that hurts farmers will not be<br />
forgotten in a hurry. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Nationals colleagues failed to stand up for farmers before<br />
the election, when the government passed the 32.5 per cent backpackers tax, and they stayed quiet in all the<br />
months afterwards. It was only after farmers and Labor pressured the government that action was taken.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 89<br />
But, out <strong>of</strong> that ridiculous period I am pleased to see some semblance <strong>of</strong> common sense emerging. Members<br />
may recall that early in the backpackers debate, on 22 September last year to be precise, I was interviewed by the<br />
ABC's The World Today and I suggested that one solution to the issue <strong>of</strong> farm labour shortages could be to <strong>of</strong>fer a<br />
Centrelink amnesty to jobseekers. Essentially, I argued that Newstart recipients and pensioners should be able to<br />
pick fruit and not have the earnings assessed by Centrelink. My idea was that such an approach would act as an<br />
incentive for Newstart recipients to seek work that might otherwise seem unattractive because <strong>of</strong> the pay or the<br />
travel or the inconvenience, and it would also be administratively simple, with Centrelink simply ignoring<br />
earnings from such an endeavour. The thinking behind the proposal was simple. I wanted to get people onto farms<br />
as quickly as possible to pick the fruit.<br />
I opposed the government's backpacker tax. I opposed it at 32.5 per cent. I opposed it at 19 per cent. I opposed<br />
it at 15 per cent. I reluctantly supported 12 per cent but my preference has always been to abolish it. I opposed the<br />
backpackers tax not because I have a great love for backpackers, though I am sure most <strong>of</strong> them are lovely young<br />
people, but because it is bad for Tasmanian farmers. It makes it harder for them to get labour on their farms to get<br />
their fruit picked. My sole motivation throughout this entire sorry debate has been to ensure we have people on<br />
farms picking fruit when it is at optimum ripeness so that farmers can get top dollar for it on the market.<br />
To date, Australians have generally demonstrated a reluctance to take up fruit picking. It is long, hard work, the<br />
pay is not fantastic, it is <strong>of</strong>ten isolated and it is seasonal. For people living in towns it can be expensive,<br />
cumbersome and disruptive to travel to a farm and back and then have to deal with Centrelink, and then see most<br />
<strong>of</strong> your earnings disappear. For many it has simply been easier not to do it and to instead seek more stable and<br />
secure ongoing employment. For that reason, fruit picking has been ideal for backpackers, who are usually fit and<br />
young and regard the job as a rite <strong>of</strong> passage and part <strong>of</strong> their holiday experience. It also gives them a pathway to<br />
extended working holiday visa benefits.<br />
I am happy to see backpackers continue to work on Tasmanian farms but I would dearly love to see jobs taken<br />
up by Tasmanians whenever possible. I saw my proposal as a way to achieve that. Unfortunately, the idea was not<br />
taken up at the time by the government, which means we lost the benefit <strong>of</strong> getting Australians onto farms this<br />
season. In recent months, however, I am pleased to see the government has opened itself to the idea <strong>of</strong><br />
encouraging more Australian labour onto Australian farms, albeit reluctantly and only after pressure was exerted.<br />
The amendment before us is not as simple a solution as I had proposed. In fact, it is a red tape picnic. With so<br />
many rules, conditions and limitations it will keep bureaucrats busy for hours to work out eligibility. But, it is a<br />
start.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> a trial to get young Australians working on farms, eligible job seekers will now be able to earn<br />
$5,000 a year in 2017-18 and again in 2018-19, with farm earnings not affecting their Newstart or youth<br />
allowance. There is a bunch <strong>of</strong> eligibility criteria, but the guts <strong>of</strong> it is that someone can, essentially, work on an<br />
approved farm for a limited amount <strong>of</strong> time and keep the cash. It is a sensible proposal that I am happy to support,<br />
and that I am happy my party is supporting. Assuming full-time hours, someone earning the minimum adult wage<br />
<strong>of</strong> $17.70 an hour will reach their $5,000 limit in 7½ weeks. Fruit picking seasons generally last longer than seven<br />
weeks, so this trial program, which is capped at 7,600 participants, could well fall short. Personally, I would like<br />
to see it go further. I know there are many people on the age pension, for example, who would not mind earning a<br />
little extra pocket money. How fantastic would it be to see our seniors picking fruit, without the government<br />
picking their pockets? Fruit gets picked, older Australians are socially connected and get some fresh air and<br />
exercise, and we expand the available labour pool on our farms. It is a win-win all round.<br />
This amendment, as it stands, is welcomed by the industry. I have spoken with Phil Pyke <strong>of</strong> Fruit Growers<br />
Tasmania, and he is genuinely excited about the opportunity this presents. As members know, the fruit and<br />
produce <strong>of</strong> my electorate is some <strong>of</strong> the best in the world, and this measure will help ensure it gets to market,<br />
rather than rot on the vine or the tree. Just today The Advocate newspaper in my state reported on the situation<br />
facing Sassafras apple farmer John Brown. Mr Brown told the paper he has thousands <strong>of</strong> bins worth <strong>of</strong> apples to<br />
pick but nobody to do the work, and he stands to lose hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars. Mr Brown says a<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> the backpacker tax fiasco and other sectors employing his usual labour pool was the cause <strong>of</strong> his<br />
shortage. Mr Pyke from Fruit Growers Tasmania told The Advocate there is a shortage <strong>of</strong> farm labour across<br />
Tasmania, especially on apple farms. He says:<br />
We haven't seen it get to this level before.<br />
Mr Brown described the backpacker tax as 'a disgrace', and I agree with him. He is pleased with this amendment<br />
but he says he needs fruit pickers now, not after 1 July:<br />
We are desperate. We're about 60 pickers short and need more pickers in the next few days<br />
CHAMBER
90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
It is a shame that this government took so long to act, and that it did not listen to me back in September when I<br />
first raised the idea <strong>of</strong> a Centrelink amnesty for jobseekers. If this government had acted sooner, we would have<br />
people on farms right now, picking fruit.<br />
It is my sincere hope that this two-year trial will encourage unemployed people, and especially young<br />
unemployed people, in places like Derwent Valley, Brighton and the Central Highlands onto local farms.<br />
Workforce planning undertaken by councils in my electorate shows that over the next three years there will be a<br />
36 per cent increase in agriculture jobs in those areas alone. The more local people we can get onto local farms<br />
now, the better placed they will be to take up the full-time jobs that may eventuate over the next three years.<br />
We know times are tough and that it is incredibly difficult to live on Newstart or youth allowance. Australians<br />
are choosing not to work on farms not because they are lazy, but because it is <strong>of</strong>ten more expensive to take the job<br />
than not. It can be difficult, in fact nigh on impossible, for people on these income support payments to afford the<br />
petrol that it would take every day to get to and from work on what can be isolated farms. There are many in this<br />
country who acknowledge the rate <strong>of</strong> Newstart and youth allowance is too low. Indeed, even the bleeding hearts at<br />
that well known hotbed <strong>of</strong> communism, the Business Council <strong>of</strong> Australia, have said Newstart is so low it is an<br />
impediment to jobseeking.<br />
Unlike the government, Labor is committed to reviewing the level <strong>of</strong> Newstart. These amendments give people<br />
on Newstart a glimpse <strong>of</strong> what life can be like on a working wage. The $5,000 annual limit equates to just under<br />
an extra $100 in weekly income when averaged over the year. I doubt anyone will be booking air travel to Paris or<br />
buying shares, but it is nothing to sneeze at. If seven weeks <strong>of</strong> working on a farm gives someone the positive<br />
encouragement they need to get out <strong>of</strong> bed and groom themselves for a day at work, and then a little more<br />
incentive to find ongoing work, then I reckon it is money well spent. And I reckon it is a safe bet that most <strong>of</strong> that<br />
extra money will be spent where it can do the most good—in local shops.<br />
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (18:35): I was part <strong>of</strong> the Nick Xenophon Team negotiating on the working-holiday<br />
maker reform package, and we were able to secure this excellent initiative, which will see more Australians<br />
working in horticulture and more Australians in the labour force. The Nick Xenophon Team comes to this<br />
parliament with the intention <strong>of</strong> ensuring that, wherever possible, we will seek to improve government policy and<br />
legislation. We are not obstructionist. We are determined to work constructively with government, and this bill is<br />
a shining example <strong>of</strong> that intention.<br />
This legislation relates to a two-year trial which will allow more than 7,000 Australian jobseekers to do<br />
seasonal work and earn up to $5,000 without affecting income support payments. This is a major breakthrough.<br />
Until now, there was a disincentive for unemployed Australians to engage in seasonal work, as it meant that they<br />
would immediately lose their support payments. For growers in my electorate, this trial means that they will have<br />
better access to a wider and deeper pool <strong>of</strong> labour and will be supported by jobactive providers. This will give<br />
more jobs to more Australians—Australians on Newstart and youth allowance will be targeted, and they will be<br />
targeted into temporary work.<br />
This bill will have a real and positive impact on unemployed Australians. If you are only <strong>of</strong>fered a short period<br />
<strong>of</strong> work, particularly if you are a long-term unemployed person, you would be particularly anxious that you would<br />
lose you income support payments. If you consider that if you lost your income support payments you would have<br />
to deal with Centrelink to get those supports reinstated—we all know what an arduous process that is—it is clear<br />
that job seekers are being deterred from entering seasonal fruit picking work.<br />
This bill seeks to reduce those barriers to entering into short term employment. Under the trial, unemployed job<br />
seekers who travel more than 120 kilometres to a farm will receive a $300 living away from home allowance on<br />
top <strong>of</strong> the wage for working on a farm, on top <strong>of</strong> their Centrelink payments. This is crucial to attracting<br />
metropolitan-based job seekers to the regions and attracting regional-based people to harvest in the regions.<br />
Jobactive providers will also be eligible for incentives under this trial, receiving up to $100 per participant per<br />
week. Again, this is a crucial measure to ensure that employment providers view seasonal work as a viable option<br />
to place people and <strong>of</strong>fer them an incentive to work on a farm.<br />
It is well known that there is high unemployment in the regions and this continues to grow. This is coupled with<br />
the fact that for too long successive governments have focused on the major cities and turned their back on<br />
regional and rural Australia. Schemes such as this one will encourage unemployed people from regional and<br />
metropolitan areas to work in areas they might not have considered before. I believe many will find they like the<br />
work they do in this trial and many will possibly stay on in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Certainly<br />
farmers tell me there are many jobs on farms after harvest, even with pathways to management. This makes this<br />
bill and this trial incredibly exciting.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 91<br />
My community has been faced with robocalls, television and radio ads and Facebook posts in the last 48 hours,<br />
run by the CFMEU, saying that I was not supportive <strong>of</strong> Australian jobs and that I was seeking for foreign workers<br />
taking Australian jobs. This is a lie, and I want to use the debate on this bill to confirm that. Here is a perfect<br />
example <strong>of</strong> the work that the Nick Xenophon Team is doing, in conjunction with government, to promote<br />
Australian jobs. Seasonal work is predominantly undertaken by international backpackers and migrants. While it<br />
has been used as a tool by backpackers as a means to make some money, and is <strong>of</strong>ten an opportunity to meet the<br />
requirements to stay another year in Australia, in my discussions with local growers it is clear that they are<br />
desperate for more workers in the agricultural sector, particularly during peak periods. All <strong>of</strong> those who undertake<br />
seasonal work will be trained in the tasks they are performing. For overseas workers, this can present issues.<br />
Growers have spoken to me about the significant language barriers they face in many instances when they try to<br />
communicate with their workers. There is also an issue that overseas workers will work for one season and then<br />
leave. This means training must be performed over and over again, at a significant cost to the farmer. If<br />
Australians are engaged in seasonal work there is a higher chance that they will return the following season. This<br />
means less training costs. It also gives the worker an opportunity to grow and develop new skills.<br />
I want to address claims made by the CFMEU and the ACTU that I do not stand up for Australian jobs. I want<br />
to let the parliament and people <strong>of</strong> Australia know that these claims are blatant lies and fearmongering. My <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
has been inundated with constituents who are upset and angry that they have been robocalled by these unions.<br />
They are not upset and angry with me—the majority <strong>of</strong> callers are quite satisfied with the policies <strong>of</strong> my party,<br />
because they understand the difference between facts and lies. I say to the CFMEU, save your union members'<br />
hard-earned dues. Do not waste their money. Where were these robocalls when we had large amounts <strong>of</strong> 457 visa<br />
approvals? Let's look at this. Between 2007 and 2012-13, 457 visa approvals increased from 87,000 to 126,000.<br />
When was that? During the last Labor Government's years.<br />
It is hypocritical for the finger to be pointed at the Nick Xenophon Team, when time and again we have stood<br />
up for Australian jobs and Australian families. I urge the Government to protect Australians from these<br />
unsolicited robocalls. Such calls should be required to clearly provide, at the beginning a message, information<br />
indicating where the call is coming from and who is funding the call. The receiver should then have the option to<br />
continue the call or terminate the call.<br />
In relation to 457 visas, I want to see greater scrutiny in employer testing <strong>of</strong> the market. I want to see a<br />
tightening <strong>of</strong> the skilled occupation list and, importantly, I want to see an intensive focus on training Australians<br />
in occupations on those lists. We must put our effort into supporting the building <strong>of</strong> our own workforce in areas <strong>of</strong><br />
need, particularly in regional Australia. With increasing unemployment, especially youth unemployment, we<br />
should need very few, if any, 457 visa holders in our country. Once again, we have shown initiative and<br />
willingness to negotiate with the government to achieve an outcome that will be significantly better for up to<br />
7,600 unemployed Australians who are recipients <strong>of</strong> Newstart and youth allowance. Hundreds <strong>of</strong> growers <strong>of</strong><br />
Australian produce will benefit from this. Importantly, this trial will be reviewed, and I believe the program will<br />
show an economic benefit across the regions and will be extended to other industries in regional Australia. I also<br />
urge the government to ensure that funding is set aside for this program to be promoted. Promotion needs to be<br />
undertaken with industry and business groups as well as economic development <strong>of</strong>fices in regional councils and<br />
jobactive providers.<br />
In summary, I thank the government for its negotiations in good faith on this trial. I hope that everything<br />
possible is done to promote it and that we see it blossom into a fully-fledged, permanent incentives scheme.<br />
Unemployed Australians will benefit. Australian farmers will benefit. Regional Australia will benefit. I commend<br />
this bill to the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (18:43): I thank all the members for their contributions<br />
during the second reading debate state <strong>of</strong> this bill. By way <strong>of</strong> summation <strong>of</strong> the second reading debate, I would<br />
note that the bill introduces a measure that was announced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal<br />
Outlook, which will provide a two-year trial <strong>of</strong> incentives aimed at increasingly the number <strong>of</strong> eligible jobseekers<br />
who undertake horticultural seasonal work such as fruit picking. The measure responds to valid concerns about<br />
the ability <strong>of</strong> the Australian horticultural industry to attract significant numbers <strong>of</strong> seasonal workers by<br />
introducing three incentives aimed at increasing the number <strong>of</strong> job seekers who undertake horticultural seasonal<br />
work. Incentives will commence as a trial from 1 July 2017 for two years, and will be capped at 7,600<br />
participants. There are three incentives. Under the first, Newstart and youth allowance recipients who have been<br />
receiving those payments continually for at least three months will have access to a seasonal horticultural work<br />
income exemption. Under this exemption, eligible Newstart and youth allowance recipients who participate in the<br />
trial will be able to earn $5,000 a year for eligible seasonal work without it being assessed under the social<br />
security income test.<br />
CHAMBER
92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Eligible jobseekers will be able to access the $5,000 income test incentive in each <strong>of</strong> the 2017-18 and 2018-19<br />
financial years. The concession will apply only to earnings from specified horticultural seasonal work, and<br />
eligible employment for this measure will be seasonal, short-term employment in the horticulture industry picking<br />
and packing fruit, nuts or other crops in rural and regional Australia. Qualification rules will be relaxed for this<br />
group so that they continue to qualify for Newstart and youth allowance, other, while undertaking eligible<br />
horticultural seasonal work. The amendments in the bill relate mainly to this incentive. This income test<br />
concession will provide a strong incentive for jobseekers to participate in the trial and undertake horticultural<br />
seasonal work and a practical opportunity to build work experience and skills.<br />
The second incentive is a seasonal work living-away and travel allowance <strong>of</strong> up to $300 a year for eligible<br />
jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work more than 120 kilometres from their home. This payment<br />
removes a disincentive to undertake seasonal work by recognising the additional expense that may be incurred by<br />
jobseekers travelling significant distances from their principal place <strong>of</strong> residence to take up an eligible seasonal<br />
job. The bill includes a provision so that seasonal work living-away and travel allowance would not be assessed as<br />
income for income support purposes. The third incentive is for employment providers, who will be eligible for a<br />
provider seasonal work incentive payment <strong>of</strong> $100 per week for up to six weeks a year for each eligible jobseeker<br />
they place with eligible farmers.<br />
These three incentives are expected to cost $27½ million over the forward estimates. This amount includes<br />
funding for the Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services and the Department <strong>of</strong> Employment to evaluate the effectiveness <strong>of</strong><br />
these incentives during the two-year trial period. The incentives for jobseekers to undertake seasonal work will<br />
help in responding to the concerns <strong>of</strong> the Australian horticulture industry about their ability to attract sufficient<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> seasonal workers. They are aimed at helping to increase the number <strong>of</strong> unemployed Australians who<br />
participate in seasonal work and therefore the number <strong>of</strong> seasonal workers available to work on Australian farms<br />
and orchards. The incentives will also provide jobseekers with a practical opportunity to enter the workforce and<br />
to build work experience and skills. They are certainly in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the Australian horticulture industry<br />
and jobseekers, and I support the parliament for the passing <strong>of</strong> these measures.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): There being no further speakers, I will now put the question<br />
that the bill be read a second time.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Bill read a second time.<br />
Assent<br />
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> assent to the bill.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (18:47): 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 />
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017<br />
Second Reading<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That this bill be now read a second time.<br />
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (18:48): I want to make a contribution to the Fair Work Amendment<br />
(Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 and I also move an amendment:<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> calls on the Government to:<br />
(1) abandon its support <strong>of</strong> the decision <strong>of</strong> the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly<br />
700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and<br />
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut”.<br />
Labor will not stand for corruption in any form, and we will support legislation that is properly drafted that applies<br />
to companies and registered organisations. There is no tolerance for corruption, whether in fact it is a company<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer bribing a union <strong>of</strong>ficial or an <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> a registered organisation, or for that matter whether it is a company<br />
bribing another company or bribing a public <strong>of</strong>ficial or bribing a foreign <strong>of</strong>ficial. Bribing <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> entities<br />
should be unlawful, and we believe there should be no tolerance in terms <strong>of</strong> either making or receiving a bribe.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 93<br />
We also say that whilst we are going to consider this bill closely we do question the motivation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government. This bill is based on three <strong>of</strong> the 79 recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Heydon royal commission. The Heydon<br />
recommendations were made 16 months ago, yet this lazy and incompetent government, led by a do-nothing<br />
Prime Minister, took no action to respond to any <strong>of</strong> Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double<br />
dissolution election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two anti-worker pieces <strong>of</strong><br />
legislation that were the Prime Minister's justification for taking the nation to the polls. This government did<br />
nothing in response to the Heydon recommendations—until, <strong>of</strong> course, they realised that they were on the wrong<br />
side entirely when it comes to cutting penalty rates.<br />
If they wanted to have a genuine mandate from the Australian people for some <strong>of</strong> these reforms, it would have<br />
been proper for them firstly to consider the recommendations and respond to those recommendations prior to the<br />
last election. They chose not to do that: no formal response by the government to the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Dyson Heydon royal commission prior to the election and no policy pronouncements other than the two double<br />
dissolution bills—which, by the way, had not changed in any significant way from the time they were introduced<br />
in December 2013, before the royal commission had even commenced. So, there is no point saying that the two<br />
double dissolution bills arose out <strong>of</strong> the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the royal commission, because in fact they were<br />
introduced into this place before the royal commission started.<br />
We now have before us this bill which, arguably, takes up three <strong>of</strong> the 79 recommendations <strong>of</strong> the commission.<br />
We have made our views known about the motivations, the efficacy and the integrity <strong>of</strong> that royal commission.<br />
We did find, as we might recall, the royal commissioner did accept an invitation to raise money for the Liberal<br />
Party while he was commissioner <strong>of</strong> the royal commission. He chose to accept it—in fact, he tried to suggest that<br />
he was not sure what the invitation was. We all recall the invitation with its massive Liberal logo. Of course, he<br />
was willing to go along. There was even a spot where you could put your credit card details, so you could send<br />
more money the Liberal Party. This royal commissioner accepted that invitation during his time as commissioner.<br />
We, <strong>of</strong> course, have had questions about the integrity <strong>of</strong> that commission and the political motivations <strong>of</strong> its<br />
recommendations. Despite our serious misgivings about the political nature <strong>of</strong> the executive commission—and<br />
that is what a royal commission is; it is not a commission <strong>of</strong> the parliament; it is not a court <strong>of</strong> law; it is an<br />
executive government commission—and despite the reservations we have with respect <strong>of</strong> those recommendations,<br />
the motivations <strong>of</strong> the commission, the integrity <strong>of</strong> the commissioner, nonetheless, we do not support and we will<br />
never tolerate corruption in any form.<br />
That is why I want to make clear that we will seriously consider this bill. We want to make sure that this bill is<br />
not designed in a way that is unfair to workers or that is uneven in its application. We do not want to see the<br />
effects <strong>of</strong> this bill being manifestly unfair and so we are going to seriously look at the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
provisions that go to the <strong>of</strong>fences within the bill. We are also going to look at the exemptions, particularly in<br />
relation to cash payments or in-kind payments to registered organisations, because there are a lot <strong>of</strong> legitimate<br />
reasons that employers and unions work together for the public good or, indeed, for the good <strong>of</strong> the workforce <strong>of</strong><br />
that company and the members <strong>of</strong> that union.<br />
The government thinks that there should be no relationship between employers and unions because their hatred<br />
<strong>of</strong> unions is so great. They think there are only two types <strong>of</strong> unions—militant unions or acquiescent unions, and<br />
they are all corrupt. That is the world view <strong>of</strong> the merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull. That is what he thinks <strong>of</strong><br />
unions; that is what the whole front bench thinks <strong>of</strong> unions. That is why they are so motivated to destroy the union<br />
movement. They do not believe it is a significant tenet <strong>of</strong> democracy. They like to undermine unions on every<br />
occasion they can and that is why they have been obsessed since they were elected in 2013—obsessed—with<br />
bringing in laws to target unions. We think that has been very unfortunate, given the other challenges that are<br />
currently occurring in workplaces.<br />
There are some very unfair laws and there is a lack <strong>of</strong> enforcement <strong>of</strong> laws in this country in workplaces. Too<br />
many deaths in workplaces occur, and we could do better to prevent those deaths. Too many people are underpaid,<br />
and we could do a lot better by enforcing the law and improving the law so that workers in this nation are not<br />
underpaid. In fact, this government has been going on for some time saying that they will respond to the 7-Eleven<br />
scandal. Remember that? They talked about the 7-Eleven scandal; they were concerned about the 7-Eleven<br />
scandal.<br />
It is a terrible case in which thousands <strong>of</strong> workers have lost money. It is argued that there is at least $100<br />
million that the company underpaid its workforce, but I would say that it is higher than that. That is one company,<br />
one franchise arrangement—many employers but one franchise—with enormous amounts <strong>of</strong> money. The Minister<br />
for Employment, Senator Cash, has for months been talking about the remedy the government has in mind to deal<br />
with exploitation. But where is the bill? They told Fairfax it was coming and the Fairfax papers put it on the front<br />
page, but we did not see the bill. Then they told the Telegraph and the Telegraph ran a story about it coming into<br />
CHAMBER
94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
the parliament—no, there was no bill introduced into the <strong>House</strong>. And then more recently it was introduced into the<br />
<strong>House</strong>. Well, where is it? That bill has now been withdrawn so we can talk about other matters. In other words,<br />
the obsession is so great within the government in relation to unions that they were willing to remove the only<br />
legislation they have ever proposed since elected in 2013 that deals with worker exploitation that is happening<br />
now in workplaces.<br />
Their callous disregard for workers in this country has no precedent. It is reflected in the amendment I moved<br />
ins<strong>of</strong>ar as they are not supporting a parliamentary remedy to negate the effect <strong>of</strong> the Fair Work decision that will<br />
cut the real pay <strong>of</strong> 700,000 workers. You may as well just put your hand in their pockets and take their income<br />
out. We are awaiting that other bill. Given that it has now been junked—it is been deferred yet again by the<br />
government, which never ever attends to worker exploitation because their obsession with unions is so palpable<br />
and so great.<br />
Having said all <strong>of</strong> that, we will look at this legislation in good faith, because as I said we do not tolerate<br />
corruption in any form. We have zero tolerance for it. Quite frankly, if there is a corrupt union <strong>of</strong>ficial, I want that<br />
person prosecuted and, if the <strong>of</strong>fence is so great, jailed. If a company's chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer or any <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> a<br />
company has bribed another person in an unlawful manner under existing laws, I would like to see that person<br />
brought to justice. Unequivocally, I have no time for that conduct.<br />
I have to say there has been no consultation process whatsoever for those people who will be affected. As I<br />
understand it, the registered organisations have not been consulted, employers have not been consulted in any<br />
significant way, if at all, and yet they have introduced this bill into the house without consultation but that really is<br />
a consistent pattern from this government. It is important then, when we look to this bill and we consider this<br />
matter, to ensure that there is an appropriate Senate committee for those who may be affected, if this bill is<br />
enacted, to have an opportunity to explain whether they have concerns with the bill.<br />
The terms <strong>of</strong> the new <strong>of</strong>fences differ from the model legislation recommended by the commissioner. They<br />
differ from existing bribery and corruption <strong>of</strong>fences in the Criminal Code, and we cannot have any confidence that<br />
this legislation does not unfairly target workers, and that is what we are hoping to determine through a proper<br />
process. The so-called corrupting benefits <strong>of</strong>fences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code <strong>of</strong>fences <strong>of</strong><br />
bribery <strong>of</strong> a public <strong>of</strong>ficial, bribery <strong>of</strong> a foreign <strong>of</strong>ficial and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial, although there are key differences in the construction <strong>of</strong> the provisions. For example, there are different<br />
tests <strong>of</strong> intention for making or receiving a bribe which would seem to make it easier to prosecute a union <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
than the employer: a company pays a bribe intending to influence a union <strong>of</strong>ficial to act improperly or a registered<br />
organisation <strong>of</strong>ficial asks for a bribe intending that the company believes that the <strong>of</strong>ficial will tend to be<br />
influenced to act improperly.<br />
In comparison, in the equivalent bribing Commonwealth <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong>fences the test is intending to influence for<br />
both giving and receiving a bribe and the maximum penalty is 10 years, whereas in the equivalent corrupting<br />
benefits Commonwealth <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong>fences the test is intending that the person will tend to be influenced for both<br />
giving and receiving the corrupting benefit and the maximum penalty is only five years.<br />
The new <strong>of</strong>fences do not require dishonesty on the part <strong>of</strong> the person making or receiving the bribe. The word<br />
'dishonesty' is not within the construction <strong>of</strong> the bill. It is unclear whether the requirement that the intention has to<br />
be that the union <strong>of</strong>ficial is influenced to act improperly effectively establishes the element <strong>of</strong> dishonesty. The<br />
equivalent <strong>of</strong>fences in relation to Commonwealth <strong>of</strong>ficials require dishonesty but do not require the <strong>of</strong>ficial to be<br />
influenced to act improperly. The bill also prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or<br />
to a person nominated by the union and prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash or in-kind payments.<br />
The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions and benefits provided for employees and<br />
possibly covers provisions <strong>of</strong> union training services, tax-deductible donations and payments for services in<br />
accordance with the law or a judgement, but the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones<br />
excluded in the bill. That regulation, I understand, would be a disallowable instrument, but the variations could<br />
occur nonetheless in that manner.<br />
The <strong>of</strong>fences do not require the requests for cash or the payment <strong>of</strong> it to be dishonest. It seems possible,<br />
therefore, that a union <strong>of</strong>ficial would be making a request if they approached an employer on behalf <strong>of</strong> an<br />
employee who has been made redundant and were seeking payment <strong>of</strong> entitlements lawfully due to that exemployee.<br />
If this situation is captured by the new <strong>of</strong>fence provisions, it is an absurdity and it is wrong.<br />
The bill places obligations on unions and employers to disclose any benefits they or related entities may receive<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> the operation <strong>of</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> an enterprise agreement. What this government seems to fail to<br />
understand—and, again, it is their world view or perhaps their ideological blinkers—is that, for people who have<br />
actually engaged in workplace bargaining, these types <strong>of</strong> disclosures are legally required to be made by employers<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 95<br />
to their workforce and by unions. If anyone understood the enterprise bargaining process and understood the<br />
requirements under the Fair Work Act, they would understand that you need to explain the provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
agreement and provide access to that to everyone who needs to vote on that agreement.<br />
I do not have any problems in principle with the intention <strong>of</strong> this bill to ensure proper disclosure on this or any<br />
other matter that might be in an enterprise agreement because Labor's position is that every provision—every<br />
clause—should be provided to the workforce and to the membership <strong>of</strong> a union or unions in order for them to be<br />
able to vote in favour or against the draft enterprise agreement. My understanding is that that is a requirement<br />
under the Fair Work Act. If there are any problems with the current arrangements—if there is a deficiency—I<br />
think we can sort that out in the Fair Work Act. I do not think it needs to be about finding another mechanism<br />
here, but, again, I am happy to listen to why the government considers that important when there is already a<br />
requirement for all those matters to be disclosed.<br />
If you were to read the construction <strong>of</strong> the bill—if you would listen to the rhetoric <strong>of</strong> the government—you<br />
would think that there could somehow be an agreement between an employer or employers and a union or unions<br />
and that somehow the workforce and membership would not access the provisions <strong>of</strong> the agreement. That is just<br />
not lawfully possible. If it does happen it is a deficiency with enforcement because the Fair Work Commission has<br />
to make sure that the parties to an agreement have complied with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the act, and they are<br />
required to do that.<br />
I know those opposite would far prefer that the Fair Work Commission did not deal with many matters. In fact,<br />
they would suggest that they would like to see more individual agreements in place that would just be filed in the<br />
employers' filing cabinet. The recommendations they have sought to make in terms <strong>of</strong> changes to the Fair Work<br />
Act are that they wanted individual arrangements that could be varied for employees to be no longer oversighted<br />
by a third party—not by the Fair Work Ombudsman and not by the Fair Work Commission—and just kept in the<br />
employers' file. They wanted no third-party oversight. We do not agree with that, and we would not agree that any<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> an enterprise agreement should not be provided to every employee who would be under that<br />
agreement or for every member <strong>of</strong> a union.<br />
The opposition has no difficulty with formalising the process <strong>of</strong> unions and employers making these types <strong>of</strong><br />
disclosures as long as the requirements apply equally to both parties and so long as it is not a superfluous<br />
provision given the requirements under the Fair Work Act.<br />
This legislation, too, is narrowly focused. It really begs the question: are there comparable provisions to stamp<br />
out other forms <strong>of</strong> corrupt payments between companies? Do we have sufficient <strong>of</strong>fences to ensure that we can<br />
deal with corrupt payments to public <strong>of</strong>ficials and foreign <strong>of</strong>ficials, the <strong>of</strong>fences to which I referred earlier? If in<br />
fact those laws are fine and work, why is it then that those <strong>of</strong>fences are constructed in a different manner to the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fences that are contained within this bill?<br />
Labor has no tolerance for corruption—not within the union movement and not within the corporate world.<br />
There is a whole series <strong>of</strong> things we can do to make sure that there is less corruption in society. For example,<br />
recently the government ensured that there is whistleblower protection within registered organisations, and yet<br />
they have denied comparable laws in the corporate sector. We would ask the government, 'If you want to ensure<br />
greater accountability and greater transparency, why is it you do not have the same whistleblower protection in the<br />
corporate sector that you have for registered organisations?' In fact, the reason the government managed to pass<br />
the whistleblower provisions that relates to registered organisations is they made undertakings to Senator<br />
Xenophon and Senator Hinch. Those undertakings were that they would move next to provide whistleblower<br />
protections to the corporate sector. Nothing has happened. Their benefactors seem to be getting <strong>of</strong>f scot-free.<br />
Malcolm Turnbull's best mates, the big end <strong>of</strong> town, seem to be exempt from whistleblower protections. Why is<br />
that? It is not just about dealing with <strong>of</strong>fences; it is about dealing with disclosure provisions and ensuring that<br />
people can come forward and be protected under the law.<br />
There are other matters that we can raise on other occasions, and we will do just that. We will be looking at the<br />
bill to see if it treats people evenly, if there is no unfairness towards workers and if the exemptions to payments<br />
that are made to registered organisations are sufficient in that they cover those matters where there is a public<br />
good. I will just mention a couple <strong>of</strong> examples. For example, if it is the sole or predominant purpose to provide an<br />
entity that might be owned by a union the ability to train people on health and safety then we want to make clear<br />
that that is expressly exempt. I believe it is exempt, but we want it to be expressly exempt. I have had people raise<br />
with me that there are trust funds established between companies and unions to look after widows. The Maritime<br />
Union <strong>of</strong> Australia and a company have set up a trust fund for a widow because <strong>of</strong> the death <strong>of</strong> a worker <strong>of</strong> that<br />
company who was also a member <strong>of</strong> that union. They wanted to set up a fund to look after the family <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deceased worker. Is that arrangement exempt from these provisions or will the construction <strong>of</strong> that arrangement be<br />
such that it will not be exempt? If so, that is an issue for us. There are charitable reasons why employers and<br />
CHAMBER
96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
registered organisations may find themselves providing money to an entity that may be owned or part owned by a<br />
registered organisation. Will those charitable intentions and arrangements be exempt from capturing the <strong>of</strong>fences<br />
outlined in this bill? That is important.<br />
On this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> we think that you can argue with employers and you can argue with unions. That<br />
happens all the time. But those relationships between employers and unions are <strong>of</strong>ten longstanding. They may<br />
argue up hill and down dale over employment conditions, but they also, for example, support their industry. You<br />
will hear unions backing in industry. The maritime union will support the maritime industry. Forestry workers<br />
support the forestry industry. The CFMEU are strong supporters <strong>of</strong> that industry and, indeed, the mining and<br />
construction industries. The SDA will support the retail industry and the like. So there are reasons why there is<br />
common ground.<br />
The view <strong>of</strong> the government is that there is no common ground between employers and unions. But that is not<br />
the real world. That is the fanciful world <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party where every union is the enemy and every union<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial is corrupt or either acquiescent or militant. That is not the real world. I think people on the other side<br />
should get out a bit more and find out that those relationships are important. Whilst they will always disagree from<br />
time to time, they resolve those disagreements most <strong>of</strong>ten. Sometimes they agree on things beyond just<br />
employment conditions. I understand that the government does not like those forms <strong>of</strong> relationships and does not<br />
believe that people should work for their betterment beyond just employment matters. But I think the government<br />
should consider what I am saying in relation to that.<br />
I just want to touch on the amendment. The government has introduced this bill, as much as anything, it seems<br />
to me, to deflect from its position on the penalty rates decision. Every member on the other side has voted at least<br />
procedurally in this place to stop us debating the bill introduced by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition and to stop the<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> the bill. Whilst it might have only been a procedural vote, effectively every member on the other side has<br />
said that they do not want to stop the decision taking effect. These are the same members <strong>of</strong> this place who were<br />
happy to abolish the order that increased the wages <strong>of</strong> truck drivers and abolish the independent umpire. The<br />
government actually did that. So if it can intervene by using this place to stop truck drivers' wages going up,<br />
surely it is within its remit to use this place in a manner that will stop retail and hospitality workers' wages going<br />
down?<br />
I am looking at the member for Dunkley. He is getting ready for his lines. He is going to say a few things. We<br />
know what the member for Dunkley thinks about penalty rates. He has made some pretty remarkable statements<br />
about penalty rates. He does not think they should exist in many circumstances. But he is not alone. He is a new<br />
member. I do not want to spend all my time talking about the member for Dunkley. He is a new member; he might<br />
be a one-termer, too. But the fact is that there are at least 60 members <strong>of</strong> the government who are on the record<br />
saying they want to either cut or abolish penalty rates. So we have some work to do. But, given that almost every<br />
crossbencher in the Senate has now backflipped on their original position on penalty rates, and given that Senator<br />
Hinch, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hanson have now backflipped and decided to support Labor's bill in the<br />
Senate, it is very lonely being a government member on this position—very lonely, indeed. I do not just want to<br />
get their votes on this bill; I want them to apologise for their position. I want them to apologise that they are<br />
willing for people in their electorates to be hurt by this decision. They should apologise, but, first, they need to<br />
join Labor in supporting our bill.<br />
I have moved the second reading amendment because I think, in the context <strong>of</strong> what is going on in relation to a<br />
recent decision by the Fair Work Commission, it is only proper that members in this place certainly say a couple<br />
<strong>of</strong> things: firstly, there is zero tolerance for corruption; secondly, the real income <strong>of</strong> low-wage workers, at a time<br />
when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation, is protected and supported by this place. That is the debate we<br />
should be having and that is the debate we will have.<br />
Finally, I want to say that we will continue to examine the provisions <strong>of</strong> the bill. If this will lead to less<br />
corruption in the corporate world—<strong>of</strong> corporates trying to bribe union <strong>of</strong>ficials—and if it will lead to less<br />
corruption elsewhere, we are up for that consideration. If, on the other hand, this is an uneven application <strong>of</strong> a bill<br />
and is, in any way, unfair to workers and their representatives at the expense <strong>of</strong> employers, then we would have<br />
some problems. Despite the rhetoric <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister, we will work constructively with the government on<br />
this bill. If they are well intentioned and fair, then we will certainly see if we can reach accommodation.<br />
I think we should all be standing up against corruption in whatever form it takes and whoever it involves. That<br />
should be a significant role <strong>of</strong> this place and that is why I want to do that. After this bill comes back from a Senate<br />
committee, I would like to see if we can improve this, if necessary, to ensure that we see less corruption in this<br />
country.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): Is the amendment seconded?<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 97<br />
Mr Dreyfus: I second the amendment.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the<br />
honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to<br />
substituting other words. If it suits the <strong>House</strong>, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed<br />
to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (19:18): I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting<br />
Benefits) Bill 2017. We are fortunate to live in a country where we are all afforded representation, whether it is<br />
through parliament, association or union, and we have many things to be grateful for in a society where we are<br />
free to unite and negotiate as one. That is, traditionally, what a trade union should be for: a fair go where there is<br />
minimal communication or representation where there is none. There was a period when having representation<br />
could literally mean the difference between life and death, where workers were deprived <strong>of</strong> their rights and<br />
overworked, but no longer.<br />
We have passed beyond the era <strong>of</strong> necessity. Trade unions have become politicised and have their own<br />
agendas. Once upon a time, trade unions represented their workers' needs and agenda. Now, in so many cases, it is<br />
the reverse. We see these problems emerge when trade unions stop being solely about the rights <strong>of</strong> their workers<br />
and become their own entities. We see these problems emerge when trade unions start to work for things that<br />
differ from the needs and safety <strong>of</strong> their members. We see these problems when trade unions begin to advocate for<br />
themselves at the expense <strong>of</strong> their members.<br />
That is where this legislation comes in. This bill bans secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions<br />
which may influence the outcome <strong>of</strong> any enterprise bargaining agreements and potentially tempt trade unions to<br />
forget the interests <strong>of</strong> their members, on whose behalf they are meant to be negotiating. Money is a funny thing<br />
and can seemingly cause even the most vigilant trade union to neglect their duties.<br />
The second part <strong>of</strong> this legislation requires disclosure <strong>of</strong> any legitimate payments that arise as a result <strong>of</strong> an<br />
enterprise agreement. Just like any businessperson—or, indeed, a politician—trade union members have a right to<br />
know the interests <strong>of</strong> those who have so much influence over the outcome <strong>of</strong> something that has so much <strong>of</strong> an<br />
effect over their lives. We regularly update our own register <strong>of</strong> interests—information that is publicly available—<br />
so that our constituents, whom we represent, know exactly what our interests are and so that we can demonstrate<br />
that we are not privately influenced by one business, one membership or one donor over work that we do on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> our electorates. Trade unions must be compelled to do the same. If the payments they receive from firms<br />
are legitimate and do not compromise their members' interests, they have nothing to hide. If the opposition are<br />
indeed for workers, as they insist so regularly and earnestly, they should have no concerns or hesitation about<br />
supporting this legislation.<br />
We have seen multiple examples <strong>of</strong> this kind <strong>of</strong> behaviour by trade unions in recent times. One <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
remarkable examples to me is the instance where the Building Trades Group <strong>of</strong> Unions Drug & Alcohol<br />
Committee, an entity controlled by the CFMEU, received a payment <strong>of</strong> $100,000 from Thiess-Hochtief during<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the Epping-Chatswood rail link in Sydney, supposedly for industrial peace. One would think this<br />
would be bad enough, but what happened? That $100,000 was invoiced as being for drug and alcohol safety<br />
training and siphoned <strong>of</strong>f into the CFMEU's general account. I am sure that we all can see the inherent problems<br />
with this, and it is certainly not the only example <strong>of</strong> these secret payments occurring.<br />
The Heydon Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found that these payments were<br />
commonplace between businesses and trade unions to secure favourable treatment and prevent hostilities. Perhaps<br />
they are private kickbacks used for personal gain, such as with former CFMEU <strong>of</strong>ficial Dave Hanna using free<br />
building materials and labour to renovate his home. Perhaps the payments are made in response to threats to boost<br />
the union's c<strong>of</strong>fers, such as the NSW CFMEU demanding donations <strong>of</strong> employers to a rehabilitation fund. Or<br />
perhaps the payments are used to—and fancy this—increase an <strong>of</strong>ficial's own status and power within the Labor<br />
Party! It is a wonder that there are not more speakers from those opposite. You would have thought that many<br />
would be able to <strong>of</strong>fer us insights from having first-hand experience <strong>of</strong> these 'corrupting benefits'. Those opposite<br />
talk about things like penalty rates for the average employee but support unions who make deals that mean<br />
employees <strong>of</strong> the generally larger businesses get much lower penalty rates than those <strong>of</strong> small businesses. Those<br />
opposite support big business over small business while hypocritically opposing our own tax cuts.<br />
As the Prime Minister said when addressing the <strong>House</strong> on this bill last week:<br />
The role <strong>of</strong> union leaders is to put their members first. They are paid by members to represent their interests, which members<br />
rightly trust will be the first priority <strong>of</strong> their union.<br />
This behaviour and these deals are an absolute betrayal <strong>of</strong> workers' and members' trust. Any honest union leader<br />
or business should have no problem with this legislation; after all, it is only targeting unions which are not faithful<br />
CHAMBER
98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
to their members and which place their own agenda above the needs <strong>of</strong> the members. The sole motivating factor<br />
for union <strong>of</strong>ficials should be the welfare <strong>of</strong> their members, certainly not their house renovations, their political<br />
agenda or their status within a political organisation.<br />
Union members pay their union dues to their unions to represent them and it is their right to know exactly what<br />
their enterprise agreement entails and what was involved in the negotiation. If any payments were involved in the<br />
formation <strong>of</strong> those agreements, workers have a right to know what and why. They are paying for a service and<br />
paying for that service to be conducted without risking the integrity <strong>of</strong> the agreement being compromised by<br />
payments amounting to something close to bribery or extortion. Imagine the response when, having just signed up<br />
to a new enterprise agreement, workers should find out that the people that they were counting on—that they were<br />
trusting to have their best interests at heart when negotiating the agreement—were receiving payments on the side<br />
from the very organisations that were meant to be standing by their side. I ask those in the <strong>House</strong> at the moment,<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> their roles prior to being elected to this place, to just imagine themselves in that situation. You would<br />
feel the betrayal, the disappointment, the distrust and be wondering what demands were relented upon with the<br />
agreement to the payment. You would worry about what aspects were sacrificed in an agreement to line the<br />
pockets <strong>of</strong> trade union <strong>of</strong>ficials at the expense <strong>of</strong> benefits, or which paved the way for cheaper employee pay or<br />
conditions.<br />
Let's discuss another example, something a little closer to home. Thiess and John Holland, 'engineering,<br />
contracting and service providers to the infrastructure, energy, resources and transport services sectors', were<br />
found to have paid the Australian Workers' Union $300,000 plus GST to ensure minimal industrial disruption<br />
while EastLink was completed. This payment was disguised in false invoices for 'training', 'back strain research',<br />
'AWU magazine advertisements', 'forum tickets' and 'conference sponsorships', none <strong>of</strong> which were ever provided<br />
and the payments were never disclosed to members <strong>of</strong> the AWU or to employees.<br />
Now EastLink is one <strong>of</strong> Melbourne's primary freeways. It is critical to traffic flow and to easing congestion<br />
between the eastern and south-eastern suburbs. EastLink finishes—or starts, depending on the way you look at<br />
it—at the northern tip <strong>of</strong> my electorate and connects my constituents and other commuters with the Monash<br />
Freeway, the Eastern Freeway, Peninsula Link, Princes Freeway, Burwood Highway and Maroondah Highway, to<br />
name a few. This road is a tolled road and is predicted to be for many years to come. One would certainly hope<br />
that my constituents have not had to subsidise this secret payment to the AWU.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the worst instances <strong>of</strong> these secret payments have been used to entice unions to sell out their members<br />
to benefit their own interests. What kind <strong>of</strong> representation is this? These are the people who trust and rely on these<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials who have let them down. We need to make sure that corrupt trade union <strong>of</strong>ficials cannot betray their<br />
members any more.<br />
These kinds <strong>of</strong> payments have been found in successive royal commissions over the past 30 years. The Heydon<br />
Royal Commission recommended banning the practice <strong>of</strong> secret payments, and that is precisely what this<br />
government will do. By making it a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence to give, receive, <strong>of</strong>fer or solicit such payments, the coalition<br />
government is demonstrating its commitment to restoring integrity and fairness in the workplace. These secret<br />
payments are dubious at best and criminal at worst. It is especially concerning when members are not being told<br />
what their union is doing or not doing on their behalf.<br />
This legislation is in defence <strong>of</strong> workers—ordinary people who rely on their union to represent them and<br />
advocate for their interests. Criminal penalties for making, receiving, <strong>of</strong>fering and requesting secret payments will<br />
apply equally to both the employer and to the trade union, ensuring that to do so is in no-one's interest. Penalties<br />
for secret, illegitimate payments will include up to two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000<br />
for companies. Penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will include up to 10 years in prison or $900,000<br />
for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. These figures are significant enough that they should deter even<br />
the wealthiest <strong>of</strong> employers and unions from doing the wrong thing by their members and employees.<br />
Over the past few decades, millions <strong>of</strong> dollars have flown freely into the c<strong>of</strong>fers <strong>of</strong> unions with absolutely no<br />
extra assistance or support for members being forthcoming. Whatever the purpose <strong>of</strong> the payments—be they for<br />
personal advantage, pr<strong>of</strong>essional advancement, political advocacy or other—members are paying a fee for which<br />
they should rightly expect advocacy and nothing but advocacy for their workers' rights by their union. Same as<br />
any other service provider—a bank, a referral service—consumers should always be told if people or an<br />
organisation receive a commission for advocating on their behalf. If an outcome has been compromised, members<br />
should know about it. If their trade union has stopped short <strong>of</strong> the best outcome, members should know about it.<br />
This legislation has the hallmark <strong>of</strong> the coalition government taking action on this matter. We are a government<br />
that strive to protect the individual and to ensure transparency in trade union activity. With the passage <strong>of</strong> this bill,<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 99<br />
even legitimate payments will be made known to members and employees prior to enterprise agreements being<br />
voted on. It is their right to know.<br />
There have been a number <strong>of</strong> high-pr<strong>of</strong>ile bills that are part <strong>of</strong> a broader view to reform relations in the<br />
workplace to be respectful, transparent and fair to workers, union members and employees alike. This is one <strong>of</strong><br />
them. Banning secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions, and requiring disclosure <strong>of</strong> any<br />
legitimate payments and financial benefits will restore integrity to the workplace. This is why this bill should be<br />
supported by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, those opposite and everyone in parliament. I welcome their support for<br />
this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits. (Time expired)<br />
ADJOURNMENT<br />
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong> do now adjourn.<br />
Telecommunications<br />
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (19:30): I rise tonight to talk about a major issue in my electorate. Residents living in the<br />
new Belmond estate in Clyde have—believe it or not—been without a phone, internet or guaranteed mobile<br />
service since November 2016. In 2017, how does it make any sense that residents who have bought a new home<br />
have no guaranteed way to communicate for several months, especially in the case <strong>of</strong> an emergency?<br />
Over the last few months, we have been meeting with local residents, and we have heard, understandably, a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> alarming stories. In one instance, a woman was watching tennis on television when a man tried to<br />
break into her home and threatened her life. Due to a lack <strong>of</strong> phone reception and coverage, she struggled to call<br />
the police at a time <strong>of</strong> a great stress. In a second instance, a resident's brother passed away in the United Kingdom.<br />
Family overseas were trying to call her, but she did not receive the urgent message until she left the estate the next<br />
day. These stories are a disgrace. How can it be reasonable that a suburb <strong>of</strong> Melbourne—the fastest-growing<br />
suburb in Australia—would not have a phone service, particularly for those in a time <strong>of</strong> need?<br />
I first became aware <strong>of</strong> this issue in January 2017, when a constituent, Elyse Cumine, contacted my <strong>of</strong>fice and<br />
advised that she did not have access to a phone line or internet at her new residence in Clyde. She also advised<br />
that over 40 local residents were experiencing the same difficulties. These concerns were subsequently raised with<br />
the Minister for Communications, Telstra and NBN Co. But after receiving responses, the residents were<br />
obviously concerned because their problems had not been remedied. They raised these concerns with me and the<br />
media.<br />
On 6 March 2017, The Age journalist Lucy Battersby wrote a pivotal article exposing the delays in connecting<br />
NBN services at Belmond estate in Clyde and pointing out that additional civil works had to be completed before<br />
the services become operational. According to Ms Battersby, due to the roadworks, NBN Co still had to install 7.8<br />
kilometres <strong>of</strong> fibre optic cable from Belmond on Clyde to the nearest point <strong>of</strong> interconnect exchange to complete<br />
the connection. I think the article by that journalist was pivotal in achieving some outcomes I will talk about<br />
shortly.<br />
In early March, I also met with residents on two occasions. Initially, we met at the estate. They were good<br />
people. We met on a Sunday morning. Then we had a special meeting at my <strong>of</strong>fice on Tuesday, 15 March. At this<br />
meeting, residents received a briefing from representatives from NBN Co, Telstra and the City <strong>of</strong> Casey. They<br />
were advised why the services had not been provided, and they were <strong>of</strong>fered some temporary solutions. The<br />
representatives apologised to the residents for the frustration and inconvenience that had been caused. However,<br />
they were still left very dissatisfied about the temporary solutions after the meeting. Even with the Universal<br />
Service Obligation, they were required to pay extra for a satellite phone and were told that fixed phone and<br />
internet services were still months away. Telstra <strong>of</strong>fered the fixed voice service, but a number <strong>of</strong> the residents had<br />
problems with the satellite phones and returned them.<br />
It is unacceptable in a modern area such as in my electorate that, when residents apply under a Universal<br />
Service Obligation, a guaranteed phone service cannot be provided. You could understand this in a remote area or<br />
in an area that had experienced a natural disaster, but in one <strong>of</strong> the fastest-growing areas in Australia it is<br />
completely unacceptable. I would strongly suggest that the Minister for Communications and Telstra work<br />
together to improve this Universal Service Obligation, which should absolutely guarantee a phone service to those<br />
in need.<br />
I would certainly like to thank the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network for urging NBN and<br />
Telstra to provide temporary coverage and for attending the special meeting at my <strong>of</strong>fice. Today I am pleased to<br />
advise that NBN Co has finally stepped in to provide an NBN service to the residents in Belmond on Clyde. That<br />
CHAMBER
100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
is long overdue. It was supposed to be in May, apparently, but I think a bit <strong>of</strong> attention seems to have gone a long<br />
way.<br />
However, there are some key things that need to be done. The City <strong>of</strong> Casey needs to work with<br />
telecommunication providers like Telstra to approve, as quickly as possible, the building <strong>of</strong> a new mobile phone<br />
tower to provide mobile coverage to those living in the Belmond estate. NBN Co needs to assist residents with<br />
installing the NBN from today as quickly as possible. We need to ensure that this does not happen in the future. It<br />
is not good enough that areas all over the country may be experiencing this. The NBN should have already been<br />
rolled out. It was only because <strong>of</strong> great residents like Elyse Cumine and that brave group <strong>of</strong> residents that came<br />
together in my <strong>of</strong>fice that we now have a service that should have been provided the moment they shifted in in<br />
November 2016<br />
Page Electorate: Community Events<br />
Page Electorate: Telecommunications<br />
Mr HOGAN (Page) (19:35): I would like to inform the <strong>House</strong> about the wonderful Sikh festival that is<br />
occurring in Woolgoolga from 14 to 16 April to celebrate Vaisakhi, marking the start <strong>of</strong> the Sikh year. It is the<br />
celebration <strong>of</strong> the establishment <strong>of</strong> the Khalsa order in 1699, making it a major event in the Sikh calendar. It is the<br />
first day <strong>of</strong> baptism as the Sikhs know it today. The festival also historically marks the beginning <strong>of</strong> the wheat<br />
harvest season. As part <strong>of</strong> the three days <strong>of</strong> celebrations, there will be a parade through the streets <strong>of</strong> Woolgoolga<br />
on Saturday, 15 April, blessing the town with Sikh scriptures. The large parade includes floats, men and women<br />
dressed in the traditional colourful dress <strong>of</strong> saris and turbans, and musicians and sword displays. The parade will<br />
finish at the Woolgoolga Beach Reserve, where the Sikh community will provide the wider community with a<br />
wonderful free lunch <strong>of</strong> Indian cuisine.<br />
The organising committee <strong>of</strong> this celebration is the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple management committee. I would<br />
like to acknowledge the executive members—Jindertal Singh, Kulbir Singh, Joginder Singh and Malkit Singh—as<br />
well as other committee members. I would also like to personally congratulate the committee and the wider Sikh<br />
community on what is a very important and significant date in the Sikh calendar<br />
I would also like to inform the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> some fantastic projects that are coming to fruition in the Bonalbo and<br />
Tabulam areas. Next month, on Saturday, 8 April, a bronze statue <strong>of</strong> a working dog will be unveiled as a tribute to<br />
Bonalbo and all the working dogs for the important role they play on the land. I would like to thank all those who<br />
made this tribute possible: Sharon Tucker, David Whitney, Michelle Malt and Todd Weston from the Bonalbo<br />
Show Society; Paul and Kerry Horne from the Dog n' Bull Hotel; Andrea and Michael Whitaker from the Bonalbo<br />
post <strong>of</strong>fice; and many other businesses within the town which helped raise funds needed on top <strong>of</strong> the $5,000<br />
federal government grant. I would also like to make special mention <strong>of</strong> Fraser Ramsey who was very much<br />
involved in the project.<br />
Also, this month I will be looking forward to attending the opening <strong>of</strong> the new bridge on Duck Creek Road at<br />
Old Bonalbo. The new bridge will be <strong>of</strong>ficially named McKee's Bridge and replaces an old timber bridge built in<br />
1929. The bridge has been funded through our Bridges Renewal Program and is one <strong>of</strong> many bridges which have<br />
received funding in the Kyogle LGA.<br />
There is more for Bonalbo. I am also very much looking forward, as I know Bonalbo residents are, to a new<br />
mobile phone tower which is going to be switched on this month. Telecommunications are an extremely important<br />
issue in Bonalbo, and the long-awaited tower is one <strong>of</strong> two towers planned for the area as part <strong>of</strong> our Mobile<br />
Black Spot Program. It will bring coverage to an area well known as a mobile black spot area.<br />
There is more for Bonalbo. I am also this month very much looking forward to the Bonalbo and District<br />
Community Hall announcing a solar grant through our Solar Communities program which is going to help the hall<br />
reduce energy costs by installing solar panels. I congratulate Donna Van-Lewan, Darryl Melling, Vilya Detozser,<br />
Marion Conrow and Bill Mills for the work they do as part <strong>of</strong> the hall committee and the Bonalbo community.<br />
Close by, in Tabulam, a new skate park is going to be opened soon as well. It has been identified as a priority<br />
for the youth <strong>of</strong> Tabulam and the district community. The community based Tabulam skate park committee led<br />
the charge. It resulted from a partnership between the community and the federal government through our<br />
Stronger Communities program and the Kyogle Council. It was developed in consultation with local youth. A<br />
sketch provided to Kyogle Council by Daniel Sorrenti was developed into the final design by the council, working<br />
with Daniel and two other locals, Anthony Staveley and Josh Campbell. I would like to acknowledge members <strong>of</strong><br />
the Tabulam skate park committee: Deborah Stavely, Hayley Jenkins, Kelly Khelloul and Adrian Keef. I also<br />
acknowledge Frank Burgess and Warwick Jansen from the Tabulam and District Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce. I also<br />
thank George and Alison Martin from the Tabulam Hotel, Peter Cootes and Trish Martin from Tabulam Rural<br />
Agents, Ridley Bell from Mountain Blue, and Gordon Lemaire for their assistance with the fundraising. Well<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 101<br />
done to all involved in this fantastic project. I am looking forward to opening and starting all these projects this<br />
month.<br />
Taxation<br />
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (19:40): Mr Speaker, you will know that last week, on 24 March, the<br />
Commonwealth Grants Commission updated their per capita relativities for use in the distribution <strong>of</strong> GST revenue<br />
among the states and territories for 2017-18. I note that the member opposite has a great interest in this because<br />
the Western Australian government and the Western Australian community feel that they have been hard done by.<br />
I have to say that is also true for the people <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory. Sadly, despite the fact that we did not<br />
anticipate these changes, the overall impact on the Northern Territory is to reduce the relativity from 5.28 to 4.66.<br />
Even on the figures <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Grants Commission, they believe these changes would be around $269<br />
million for the next financial year, which would be around four per cent <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory's current budget.<br />
So, effectively, it is a four per cent cut in the revenue for their budget. If you use the Northern Territory Treasury<br />
figures for 2017-18 compared to the Northern Territory forward estimate figures, the number is $385 million, or<br />
almost six per cent <strong>of</strong> their budget.<br />
It is really difficult for a jurisdiction like the Northern Territory, with a budget <strong>of</strong> only about $6½ billion<br />
dollars, to have to tolerate the impact <strong>of</strong> these sorts <strong>of</strong> cuts. It is fair to say that the method <strong>of</strong> reviewing the<br />
redistribution is accepted across the states and territories and we have to take the rises and the falls, but,<br />
nevertheless, this is going to cause a great deal <strong>of</strong> hurt in the Northern Territory. I note that the Commonwealth<br />
Grants Commission is charged with reviewing its methodologies and reporting back to states and territories and<br />
the federal government by February 2020, but that is not going to help us at the moment.<br />
There is a real problem here because, as the Grants Commission acknowledges, the Northern Territory does not<br />
have the same fiscal capacity as other jurisdictions. In their report they say:<br />
The Northern Territory’s below average fiscal capacity is primarily due to its above average assessed expenses which arise<br />
from its above average shares <strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> high cost population groups, including exceptionally high proportions <strong>of</strong><br />
Indigenous people and people in remote areas.<br />
Having represented the Northern Territory in this parliament for quite a few years, I can attest to the accuracy <strong>of</strong><br />
those statements. But it raises a real issue about how they are going to maintain the provision <strong>of</strong> infrastructure and<br />
services to the Northern Territory community, and it will create great pressure on the budget for the Northern<br />
Territory and great demands on the Northern Territory Chief Minister and Treasurer to meet the needs.<br />
I could go into a diatribe about the failures <strong>of</strong> the former CLP government to anticipate these sorts <strong>of</strong> things. I<br />
will make the observation that they were pretty crook, they were hopeless and, in fact, there is no question at all<br />
that much <strong>of</strong> where we are now is a direct result <strong>of</strong> their incapacity to govern properly and to govern for all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory. It raises the possibility that the Commonwealth government might, as the Grants<br />
Commission concedes, provide the Northern Territory with increased assistance through Commonwealth<br />
payments. I would say to the Commonwealth that you need to look very carefully at the possibility, for example,<br />
<strong>of</strong> increasing funding to the National Partnership on Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment and using<br />
that avenue to provide capital for the Northern Territory to provide additional services to people living in remote<br />
communities—principally Aboriginal people. That would take a lot <strong>of</strong> pressure <strong>of</strong>f the Northern Territory<br />
government's own budget. It would build upon the successful investments made by the Stronger Futures program,<br />
which was introduced by Labor when in government.<br />
I say to the government: here is an opportunity. Sit down and negotiate in good faith with the Northern<br />
Territory government, the Chief Minister and Treasurer, and provide a capacity for them to get additional funding<br />
from the Commonwealth for these very important services.<br />
Cyclone Debbie<br />
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:45): Firstly, I would like to express my sympathy<br />
for the residents <strong>of</strong> Collinsville, Sarina, the Pioneer Valley and surrounds. I am sure the last 24 hours have been<br />
harrowing, but please know you have the Australian government's full support. As Tropical Cyclone Debbie<br />
receded overnight, our thoughts and prayers now turn to action. The priority now is recovery and ensuring the<br />
impact on lives and livelihoods is minimised. The effect <strong>of</strong> Tropical Cyclone Debbie on Capricornia has been<br />
multifaceted, highlighting the span <strong>of</strong> the region. I have spoken with the five mayors that cover my electorate, and<br />
their concerns are as diverse as the region itself. At this time, it is vital that the communities in outlying areas are<br />
not neglected.<br />
Collinsville has been badly affected. While the cyclone passed through the mining town as a category 2, many<br />
<strong>of</strong> the homes there are fibro. They have, therefore, sustained significant damage. Power lines and trees are down<br />
and communications have been cut. It is a community that is proud and tough and where neighbour takes care <strong>of</strong><br />
CHAMBER
102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
neighbour. Prior to the storms hitting, local construction company Up Built assisted residents to prepare properties<br />
free <strong>of</strong> charge. Although communication lines to the mine site are still down, Glencore Mines have reported that<br />
there has been no damage to critical infrastructure and that everyone is safe. While production remains suspended,<br />
they are hoping to resume within the next 24 hours, with employees due to return to work today and tomorrow.<br />
In Sarina, Woolworths now has power, and shops are starting to open. There is still significant flooding,<br />
especially around Jackson Street and Range Road, but the rain continues. The Bruce Highway is now open into<br />
Sarina, but water around the showgrounds is still rising, so it may be cut <strong>of</strong>f from the north.<br />
In the Pioneer Valley, water is now the enemy. We have been speaking to locals in the sugarcane industry. The<br />
wind and rain overnight has left hundreds <strong>of</strong> hectares <strong>of</strong> sugarcane crops flattened. The relentless rain is<br />
preventing them from assessing the damage, but there is anticipation <strong>of</strong> at least 25 per cent in losses. The longer<br />
the rain continues, the higher the damage, as the sugar cane becomes waterlogged. A large percentage <strong>of</strong> crops<br />
appear to have snapped, rendering the cane useless. It will be another 48 hours until the full extent <strong>of</strong> damage is<br />
known.<br />
The area affected by Tropical Cyclone Debbie accounts for about 29 per cent <strong>of</strong> total agricultural production in<br />
Queensland, based on 2011 ABS statistics—that is, 21 per cent <strong>of</strong> farm businesses in Queensland. Seventy per<br />
cent <strong>of</strong> Queensland's sugar cane comes from this region. With harvest set to start in under three months, the<br />
financial impacts on these farm businesses will be huge, but right now we need to get them out <strong>of</strong> their isolation<br />
and get their electricity back on so that they can get back on track. Of particular concern are the industries that<br />
keep these regions alive—mining, tourism and agriculture. The longer it takes for these industries to reopen, the<br />
longer the economic impact on the communities.<br />
I applaud the efforts <strong>of</strong> every level <strong>of</strong> government and the swift action taken by the Prime Minister to deploy<br />
the Australian Defence Force. These forces proved essential following Cyclone Marcia. The speed <strong>of</strong> deployment<br />
for this event will make recovery that much easier for people on the ground. The Insurance Council <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
has declared a catastrophe event for the damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. Insurance companies have<br />
been quick to show support. The Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, jointly funded by the<br />
Australian government and state governments, have been activated for affected regions in Capricornia. We have<br />
had some practice and we are getting very good at responding to extreme weather events. The people <strong>of</strong> Central<br />
Queensland are resilient. At times like this, the best <strong>of</strong> us shines through. But we cannot be complacent. The<br />
people <strong>of</strong> these regions will need our ongoing support to get back on track.<br />
One thing I can say for sure is: I hope the member for Melbourne does not take sugar in his latte because he<br />
will certainly be getting a very bitter taste from the canegrowers <strong>of</strong> Central and Northern Queensland.<br />
Alvarez, Mr Jose Antonio<br />
Nassar, Mr Leslie<br />
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:49): I rise tonight to pay tribute to a well-loved local who passed away in late<br />
March, aged only 48. Jose Antonio Alvarez was a dearly-beloved member <strong>of</strong> the Mount Druitt Labor Party and<br />
was very active in our local branches. They will feel his loss greatly. Jose was <strong>of</strong> Spanish descent. He came to<br />
Australia while he was very young and made a strong contribution to our country. He suffered with his own<br />
challenges, but he was an example <strong>of</strong> a person who did not let mental illness stop him from making a huge<br />
contribution to his community in a wide variety <strong>of</strong> ways. He said little, he thought deeply, he acted a lot. These<br />
are the things that I admired about Jose. He was quietly determined but also had a very strong competitive streak.<br />
He refused to let the challenges <strong>of</strong> life stop him from giving the best <strong>of</strong> himself to those worse <strong>of</strong>f, to those people<br />
in need or to causes he felt strongly about. His quiet nature changed when it came to politics, though. He was<br />
always up for a debate, fiercely defending Labor values in any argument.<br />
Jose was a member <strong>of</strong> Calvary Chapel Bidwill Outreach Centre church and volunteered consistently at its<br />
outreach program from Mondays to Saturdays for seven years. He would spend time with local youth that came<br />
through the outreach. He would play his favourite game, chess, or chequers or ping-pong with whatever kids came<br />
through the door. Some young people bought their hard maths homework to him for help, as well. His quiet<br />
confidence and intelligence attracted young people who might not otherwise be comfortable around rowdy<br />
crowds.<br />
Jose finished a Bachelor <strong>of</strong> Accounting and was progressing through a Masters <strong>of</strong> Accounting. He plied his<br />
trade as the bookkeeper for his church and for others. His church pastor, Al Cifelli, knew Jose for over 24 years<br />
and remembers him very fondly. Pastor Cifelli said, 'We were honoured to be his friend. Not only that, he was<br />
family to us.' Pastor Cifelli also recounted a story where Jose defended Mt Druitt from becoming the butt end <strong>of</strong> a<br />
world record. The second-best chess player in Australia once came to Mt Druitt with the intention <strong>of</strong> easily<br />
beating 50 players faster than it had even been done before. But Jose had plans <strong>of</strong> his own and he held his own<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 103<br />
long enough to dent the time and prevent the record from being broken. He felt devastated about impacting on the<br />
world record, but he felt a quiet pride about defending Mt Druitt's honour.<br />
In 2009, Jose moved back home and became his mother's carer. He held her in high regard and they built an<br />
especially deep bond while he was caring for her. Jose was the Vice President <strong>of</strong> the Mt Druitt Labor branch until<br />
last year and was an energetic supporter <strong>of</strong> so many <strong>of</strong> us in the area. I have stood with him at railway stations in<br />
bitter cold and in early morning heat. He was always willing to help out. I was so grateful for the assistance he<br />
extended. He was always putting her shoulder to the wheel and was one <strong>of</strong> those unseen heroes. While we said<br />
goodbye to him on Saturday he will never be forgotten. He will be a part <strong>of</strong> our local area for many years to come,<br />
because our memories will always serve to honour what he has done for us.<br />
Another person I wanted to honour is someone who lost his life last year. We have many talented and creative<br />
people using new technology to change how we communicate and to challenge the way we look at things by<br />
turning innovative ideas into reality. When I think <strong>of</strong> that type <strong>of</strong> person I think <strong>of</strong> someone like Leslie Nasser.<br />
Leslie used digital innovation to make the world a more interesting place. He was known for his satirical column<br />
at Crikey, and founded and managed TweeVee TV, which moderated tweets for the live broadcast <strong>of</strong> the ABC's<br />
Q&A program. In fact, Q&A executive producer Pete McEvoy described Leslie as the 'engineering genius behind<br />
Q&A'. When Twitter took up the Q&A hashtag, traditional media followed suit with their own versions. So he<br />
was a trailblazer. For ABC radio he was stubborn in his insistence that specialty content should be made available<br />
to all Australians on demand and then added the means to produce podcasts. The social media operations he<br />
developed for Victoria Police became the standard model for online dispatches. In his time at digital agency<br />
Razorfish, Leslie produced building-scale art projects such as helping Samsung stream their projects on the sails<br />
<strong>of</strong> the iconic Opera <strong>House</strong>.<br />
He made his home in Idaho with his US-born wife and three daughters and from there he ran his own business,<br />
Wrangling Cats. But, unfortunately, in October last year he died when hit by a car while out walking with two <strong>of</strong><br />
his three daughters. Leslie, you will not be forgotten. Thank you for the laughs, thank you for the memories and<br />
thank you for your pioneering spirit.<br />
GST<br />
Swan Electorate<br />
Mr IRONS (Swan) (19:55): I did not rise to speak about GST, but after hearing the Labor member for Lingiari<br />
talk about GST in the Northern Territory, which is run by a Labor government, I cannot ignore it. I just mention to<br />
any Western Australians listening that the Labor member was complaining about the fact that their ratio has<br />
dropped to 4.66, while Western Australia's ratio is at 0.34. So this has become a national issue, I think. I know<br />
Kevin Rudd realised it. He acknowledged it back in 2007 and said he would fix it, but he did not. But our Prime<br />
Minister has at least started the conversation about the floor in the system—meaning putting in a minimum floor.<br />
At the same time he has written to all the state premiers to initiate that program. I think he should be<br />
acknowledged for the work he is doing to put some fairness back into the GST distribution system.<br />
I would now like to update the <strong>House</strong> on some <strong>of</strong> the projects in Swan that the coalition government has<br />
delivered. I recall when I was first elected to parliament as the representative for Swan, the new members' briefing<br />
advised that the work <strong>of</strong> a member could be broken up into three roles: parliamentary, party member and<br />
constituency representative. The latter has always been my priority, representing the good people <strong>of</strong> Swan in the<br />
great state <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
I have spoken previously in this chamber on how important it is to me to be the representative <strong>of</strong> Swan, to<br />
consult with the community, to establish the needs <strong>of</strong> our electorate and then develop a plan through which we are<br />
able to meet those needs. I am very proud <strong>of</strong> the projects I have been able to deliver during my nine and a half<br />
years as the local member.<br />
Like in any growing community, a big part <strong>of</strong> those needs is delivering community infrastructure that benefits<br />
our community and actively assists. I am eager to continue working with constituents, local governments and<br />
organisations in the electorate <strong>of</strong> Swan in achieving and delivering results that are <strong>of</strong> great benefit to our fantastic<br />
community.<br />
Before we came to Canberra last week, I made a visit to the Belmont City Bowling Club to see their $12,000<br />
grant from the Stronger Communities Program, which was able to be used for some new equipment, which I<br />
spoke about last week. That is just one example <strong>of</strong> how the coalition has made a difference in the Swan<br />
community. From the two rounds <strong>of</strong> the Stronger Communities Program more than 20 local clubs and<br />
organisations in Swan have been given funding to help improve their buildings and facilities. This is something I<br />
am very proud to have achieved for the local community.<br />
CHAMBER
104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the other community groups that have benefitted include: South Perth Senior Citizens Centre; the<br />
Victoria Park Swimming Club, which has an upgraded fitness centre; the Belmont Men's Shed, new tools and<br />
equipment; the Belmont Toy Library, fitout and equipment; Manna Inc, a new van for transporting the people who<br />
come to their place to get free meals during the day; the Curtin University Boat Club, which has a new trailer and<br />
trolley; the Dynamic Flame Badminton Club, to purchase new equipment; Perth Football Club, for new equipment<br />
and some dugouts around the boundary <strong>of</strong> the oval; and Connect Victoria Park, for reinvigoration <strong>of</strong> Connect<br />
Victoria Park, which is one <strong>of</strong> the local not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it organisations in the electorate. There are many more, and all<br />
<strong>of</strong> these grants have made a huge difference to the local communities.<br />
The coalition has also made a considerable investment in tackling crime in Swan. Since the coalition was<br />
elected in 2013, with the assistance <strong>of</strong> another Western Australian member, Mr Keenan, the member for Stirling,<br />
we have been granted $145,000 for CCTV cameras in the City <strong>of</strong> Belmont. I spoke to one <strong>of</strong> the local sergeants<br />
the other night who said that they had been very useful in their system and have been helpful in apprehending<br />
criminals who are taking advantage <strong>of</strong> cars parked in car parks. On top <strong>of</strong> that, we are in the process <strong>of</strong> funding<br />
$300,000 to upgrade lighting in the Town <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park to tackle crime in hotspot suburbs such as Burswood<br />
and St James, where at the moment the lighting is dull and inefficient.<br />
And then we have countless campaigns that I have led for Swan. Some took longer than others, but in the end<br />
Swan has had great success. I also recall my campaign for something that is close to me, which is the campaign<br />
for better health services in the Belmont area. The Belmont area now has access to many great health services,<br />
which were lacking when I came into parliament. It includes a Medicare Office, a HBF <strong>of</strong>fice, the Belmont City<br />
Medical Centre and the Belvidere Street after hours service.<br />
I have more to say but I have another matter I would like to raise quickly. It concerns an article in The<br />
Australian today about the CFMEU being fined by a federal court for industrial bullying over the Perth Airport<br />
project in my electorate.<br />
The SPEAKER: It being 8 pm the <strong>House</strong> stands adjourned.<br />
<strong>House</strong> adjourned at 20:00<br />
NOTICES<br />
The following notices were given:<br />
Mr Morrison: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related<br />
purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the reporting and dissemination <strong>of</strong> information<br />
relating to petroleum, other fuels and fuel-related products, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from<br />
the enactment <strong>of</strong> the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act 2017, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to ozone protection and synthetic<br />
greenhouse gas management, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to electoral, broadcasting and<br />
criminal matters, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to provide resources to and in relation to persons who are, were or<br />
will be members <strong>of</strong> the Parliament, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters in connection<br />
with the enactment <strong>of</strong> the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Keenan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Keenan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the criminal law and law enforcement,<br />
and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Tehan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to veterans’ entitlements and military<br />
rehabilitation and compensation, and for related purposes.<br />
Mr Taylor: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation administered by the Prime Minister, and for<br />
related purposes.<br />
Mr McCormack: to move:<br />
That, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following<br />
proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee<br />
has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Chancery Project Paris, France—Base building refurbishment, International<br />
Energy Agency tenancy fit-out.<br />
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105<br />
Mr McCormack: to move:<br />
That, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following<br />
proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee<br />
has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out <strong>of</strong> new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Human Services, Geelong, Victoria.<br />
Mr McCormack: to move:<br />
That, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following<br />
proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee<br />
has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out and relocation <strong>of</strong> the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Canberra, ACT.<br />
Mr McCormack: to move:<br />
That, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following<br />
proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee<br />
has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue,<br />
Northam, Western Australia.<br />
Mr McCormack: to move:<br />
That, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred<br />
to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Moreton Unit Relocation<br />
Project, HMAS Moreton, Bulimba, Queensland.<br />
Mr Pyne: to move:<br />
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for<br />
the sitting on Thursday, 30 March, 2017.<br />
Mr Pyne: to move:<br />
That orders <strong>of</strong> the day Nos. 2 to 6, 8 to 10 and 12, Government Business in the Federation Chamber, be discharged from<br />
the Notice Paper.<br />
Ms McGowan: to move:<br />
That this <strong>House</strong>:<br />
(1) notes that:<br />
(a) Financial Assistance Grants to local government have been subject to an indexation freeze since the 2014-15 federal<br />
budget;<br />
(b) in the Local Government National Report, the Minister for Regional Development promised that the indexation will<br />
resume on 1 July 2017;<br />
(c) local governments are concerned that the Australian Government will make the decision to continue the freeze on the<br />
indexation <strong>of</strong> Financial Assistance Grants in the 2017-18 federal budget;<br />
(d) these cuts meant that local councils missed out on $925 million in vital funding to provide better infrastructure and<br />
better services for our local communities—in Victoria this equated to $200 million in cuts to funding for local roads and<br />
community services;<br />
(e) the impact <strong>of</strong> these cuts was magnified in rural and regional areas as these local governments have a small ratepayer<br />
bases and ageing infrastructure; and<br />
(f) the Municipal Association <strong>of</strong> Victoria estimates that in 2016-17, $5 million has been lost in the electoral division <strong>of</strong> Indi,<br />
with $655,873 lost in the Murrindindi Shire Council, $404,138 lost in the Mansfield Shire Council, $837,291 lost in the Moira<br />
Shire Council, $334,086 lost in the Benalla Rural City Council, $592,385 lost in the Alpine Shire Council, $792,548 lost in<br />
the Rural City <strong>of</strong> Wangaratta, $705,367 lost in the Indigo Shire Council, and $320,685 lost in the Wodonga City Council; and<br />
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:<br />
(a) do what it has promised—lift the freeze on indexation <strong>of</strong> the Financial Assistance Grants in the 2017-18 federal budget;<br />
and<br />
(b) develop a more sustainable funding model so that local governments can plan for the future and continue to deliver<br />
services for our communities.<br />
Questions without notice: Additional answers<br />
None.<br />
CHAMBER
106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird) took the chair at 10:00.<br />
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS<br />
Northern Territory<br />
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:00): The Northern Territory is still assessing the impact <strong>of</strong> devastating GST<br />
cuts. Chief Minister Michael Gunner and Treasurer Nicole Manison are hoping to be in Canberra later this week<br />
to meet with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The point is: we have a massive amount <strong>of</strong> unmet need and<br />
historical infrastructural deficit in the Territory that will stop us from realising the development <strong>of</strong> the north and<br />
the realising <strong>of</strong> the huge potential <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory for our nation. We need to lead in closing the gap, not<br />
continue to go backwards. We have huge potential in the Top End and we want the opportunity to develop our<br />
industry and resources and to maximise our unique access to those massive Asian markets. More than ever, we are<br />
looking to our local industry and businesses and ways that we can boost our local economy and grow local jobs.<br />
We are also looking for the infrastructure investment that has been promised by this government, which to date, to<br />
be honest, has not been delivered. We have got absolutely nothing to date from the Northern Australia<br />
Infrastructure Facility.<br />
Then there is the Minister for Defence Industry, the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, who has promised us<br />
a share <strong>of</strong> the defence pie, stating that defence expenditure will not be localised into one state—we all know that<br />
he is talking about South Australia. But we in the Northern Territory are part <strong>of</strong> a Commonwealth. You may say<br />
that other states will be benefiting, but we are not seeing it in the Territory, where we have a very significant<br />
defence presence but very little local contracting or infrastructure services to support it. I have just been meeting<br />
this morning with the Executive Director <strong>of</strong> the Master Builders Association NT, David Malone, and some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the MBA. As they say, this government is not currently joining the dots for local defence companies.<br />
On the one hand, it is promising to ensure the benefits <strong>of</strong> defence industry expenditure will be shared nationally,<br />
but then the government is unable to align contracting and tendering packages to meet the pool <strong>of</strong> local skills and<br />
capacity. Northern Territory businesses and industry are cut out <strong>of</strong> a lot <strong>of</strong> defence industry tenders right from the<br />
get-go, as these contracts are tailored to meet the pr<strong>of</strong>ile and experience <strong>of</strong> southern companies. This must change.<br />
We in the Northern Territory want to be given the same respect as any other Australian businesses.<br />
Recently I have hosted visits from shadow ministers, including the member for Canberra and the member for<br />
Grayndler, and next week I will host the shadow minister for defence, the member for Corio. We are meeting key<br />
industry groups, government, local construction companies and small operators to discuss how they can compete<br />
and attract defence industry contracts big and small. We have the capacity in the Northern Territory and we hope<br />
that we are given the opportunity to use it.<br />
North Sydney Electorate: War Memorials<br />
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (10:03): As we approach Anzac Day 2017, our minds turn to those<br />
commemorative events, marches and dawn services that will unite Australians in gratitude for those who have<br />
served Australia in times <strong>of</strong> war and conflict. At the heart <strong>of</strong> those events will be the war memorials constructed<br />
by a grateful nation in every town and suburb across Australia. They are a permanent marker that reminds us <strong>of</strong><br />
the sacrifice <strong>of</strong> those men and women who served. We as a community have a deep obligation to ensure those<br />
memorials are preserved, and that is why programs like the federal government's Saluting Their Service<br />
Commemorative Grants Program are just so important.<br />
My electorate is home to many memorials, and I want to acknowledge the efforts <strong>of</strong> the North Sydney RSL<br />
Sub-Branch to see two <strong>of</strong> those restored and refurbished. The Northbridge War Memorial was built in the early<br />
1950s and was the centre <strong>of</strong> commemorations undertaken by the Northbridge RSL Sub-Branch. In 2001 the subbranch<br />
ceased to exist and, without a sub-branch to maintain the memorial, it fell into disrepair. It has not,<br />
however, been forgotten and, with the support <strong>of</strong> Willoughby City Council and the federal government, the North<br />
Sydney RSL Sub-Branch has overseen its restoration. It was a special moment for me to be able to attend a flagraising<br />
ceremony at the memorial earlier this month to mark the completion <strong>of</strong> its restoration. The flag raising was<br />
attended by representatives <strong>of</strong> the community and the RSL and the Mayor <strong>of</strong> Willoughby, Gail Giles-Gidney,<br />
along with her fellow councillors Hugh Eriksson, Rachel Hill and John Hooper. I was particularly pleased that we<br />
were also joined by Keith Arneman, who signed up at the age <strong>of</strong> 18 to serve in World War II and fought in the<br />
Middle East. Keith was the last member <strong>of</strong> the Northbridge RSL Sub-Branch and we honour his service and that<br />
<strong>of</strong> his peers.<br />
The North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch are also working to see the North Sydney cenotaph in St Leonards Park<br />
refurbished. I am pleased that all three levels <strong>of</strong> government—federal, state and North Sydney Council—are<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107<br />
supporting them in their endeavours. Constructed through the donations <strong>of</strong> residents across the North Shore, the<br />
cenotaph records the names <strong>of</strong> 500 local citizens who made the ultimate sacrifice for Australia. The most recent<br />
grants will see its ornate brass lamps, which stand on the four corners <strong>of</strong> the cenotaph, returned to working order<br />
for the first time in many decades. This follows many years <strong>of</strong> efforts to see it restored, and I was pleased to play a<br />
small part in this as a North Sydney councillor over a decade ago. It is now the centre <strong>of</strong> commemorations on<br />
Anzac Day, with several thousand residents joining veterans at the dawn service held each year.<br />
I want to congratulate all those at the North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch who have worked to ensure these two<br />
memorials continue to stand proudly as reminders <strong>of</strong> the sacrifice <strong>of</strong> so many. I particularly acknowledge the subbranch<br />
president, Alex Wilson, and his committee, particularly Bronte Pollard. These memorials, and so many<br />
others across my electorate, will be the centre <strong>of</strong> Anzac Day commemorations in a few weeks time. They are a<br />
tangible demonstration <strong>of</strong> our commitment to ensuring that the bravery <strong>of</strong> those who fought for Australia is never<br />
forgotten.<br />
Dobell Electorate: Legal Aid<br />
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:06): Brooke is a Central Coast mum who lives with severe post-traumatic stress<br />
disorder and anxiety as well as other medical problems. To cope with family violence and sexual assault, Brooke<br />
turned to alcohol, and when that became too much her daughter was removed from her care. Brooke could not<br />
keep up with her mortgage payments, and the bank threatened to take her home, so she turned to the Central Coast<br />
Community Legal Centre for help. The Central Coast Community Legal Centre represented Brooke in<br />
negotiations with the bank, linked her with a financial counsellor, and worked closely with the bank to halt<br />
foreclosure and help with mortgage payments. At the same time, they brought in a case management service to<br />
help with alcohol rehabilitation and other support services. With the help <strong>of</strong> the caring and dedicated staff at<br />
Central Coast Community Legal Centre, Brooke was able to keep her home and is working hard to get her<br />
daughter back.<br />
Jack is an elderly Indigenous man with disability, including visual and mobility impairments. Jack also has a<br />
low level <strong>of</strong> literacy. On the advice <strong>of</strong> a lender, Jack took out a personal loan. He had already accrued a large<br />
credit card debt with the same lender and was encouraged to take out the loan to refinance his credit card debt. He<br />
did not realise how big the repayments were going to be or that meeting them would mean making the choice<br />
between food and essential medicine or paying back the loan. When he asked the Central Coast Community Legal<br />
Centre for help, they found his personal loan was for a larger amount <strong>of</strong> money than Jack owed on the credit card.<br />
They helped him complete an application for financial hardship assistance, which saw his loan repayments<br />
reduced to $20 per week. They also arranged a financial counsellor to help him with budgeting and to better<br />
manage his financial affairs.<br />
These are two <strong>of</strong> the nearly 6,000 people helped by the Central Coast Community Legal Centre last year. Sadly,<br />
a further 1,700 were turned away. From 1 July this year, the Central Coast Community Legal Centre will have its<br />
funding cut by around $74,000. Without this funding, the service will have to cut either a director or the<br />
Aboriginal access worker. This will seriously jeopardise their ability to help people in need like Jack—people<br />
experiencing family law issues, problems with debt, including Centrelink's robo-debt, and discrimination. They<br />
are a vital support for victims <strong>of</strong> family and sexual violence.<br />
The value that community lawyers provide my community is enormous. Their work helps keep families<br />
together, people out <strong>of</strong> jail and people employed, and it protects those who need it most. The government should,<br />
and must, reverse these cuts as a matter <strong>of</strong> urgency. We cannot see more people living like Jack, more people<br />
placed in situations where they are in desperate need and do not get the support that they need to find help.<br />
Bennelong Electorate<br />
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:09): Last Saturday morning, I attended three local events that confirmed<br />
with me how special and strong the community in Bennelong is. First up was the Ryde Little Athletics season<br />
finale fun day/age group trophy presentation. I had the honour <strong>of</strong> starting the parents 60-metre dash. After pulling<br />
the trigger, I joined in the race. I didn't catch; I didn't gain, but it was fun. The heart was pumping and the spirit<br />
was great. It is always exciting to see the parents do what they implore the children to do, and this is part <strong>of</strong> an<br />
initiative that we are trying to get the parents to do what the children do. It is a great organisation promoting<br />
positive activity amongst our young people. Club President David Sutherland and all <strong>of</strong> the organisers are<br />
community champions and should be congratulated. David introduced me to a special young athlete: Nathan<br />
Barbara. He is a double amputee but active in the club; an athlete who competes with prosthetic legs that he<br />
manages to walk and run with—a true example <strong>of</strong> a wonderful attitude to life; a real champion, and his parents are<br />
justly proud.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
I also mention North Ryde Dockers AFL club, who partnered with the athletics day, cementing a shared<br />
appreciation <strong>of</strong> the benefits <strong>of</strong> active recreation for young people. After my 60-metre dash, I then ran—well, I<br />
drove—to Eastwood to open and participate in the Australian Asian Association <strong>of</strong> Bennelong, the AAAB,<br />
Harmony Cup football competition. Hugh Lee and the association are outstanding community ambassadors; real<br />
advocates for respect and harmony in our community. It was my absolute pleasure to support their initiative and to<br />
participate. I joined in the AAAB celebrities team—they said 'celebrities plus me'—and we got smashed by<br />
Medibank, who were semipr<strong>of</strong>essional. Despite my best efforts in defence, I think my best football days are<br />
behind me, and very few. Local teams supporting Harmony Day included Ryde City Council; the Australian<br />
Chinese Soccer Association; Commonwealth Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia; Korean Soccer Association <strong>of</strong> Australia;<br />
Woodies Eastwood Rugby—they tried to tackle and were yellow-carded; Ryde Community Forum; Ryde<br />
Police—an arresting team; and the United Cultural Community @t Ryde. The national anthem, both the verses,<br />
were sung beautifully by a local celebrity—who did not join our celebrities team!—Rosanna Gallo.<br />
Finally, after doing my best as the AAAB celebrities team's super sub, I departed for Ryde civic hall for an<br />
amazing Korean banquet lunch. It was the Korean Society <strong>of</strong> Senior Citizens Day celebration. I shared my meal<br />
with my neighbour from Reid, Craig Laundy—who was very gracious and drank beer, which he does very well—<br />
another great champion <strong>of</strong> this diverse community. President <strong>of</strong> the Korean Society <strong>of</strong> Sydney— (Time expired)<br />
Denison Electorate: Welfare Reform<br />
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:12): Older Australians are getting a raw deal from this government. Indeed, just<br />
last week in the Sunday Tasmanian, a survey <strong>of</strong> local pensioners found that many are struggling, that a staggering<br />
74 per cent <strong>of</strong> respondents run out <strong>of</strong> money every fortnight and that 63 per cent go without necessities, including<br />
fresh food. So for a start, we need to fix the age pension because it is obviously far too low and should be lifted<br />
immediately to a liveable amount. Instead, this government seem determined to diminish retirement incomes for<br />
many older Australians, in particular for superannuants and those on part-pensions. While some measures, like the<br />
2014 budget proposal to index pensions to CPI have rightfully been abandoned, pensioners are still being targeted<br />
in a ruthless campaign. For example, the changes to the asset test, which I voted against, have left some in my<br />
electorate entirely without a part-pension. Indeed, just recently I met with a constituent who has lost his entire<br />
part-pension and has to live on just $26,000 a year—entirely from his superannuation. Moreover, the cuts to partpensions<br />
for defined benefit recipients are hitting hard many people who are, in fact, on very modest incomes.<br />
Even those approaching retirement have been targeted with changed rules around the accumulation phase <strong>of</strong><br />
super.<br />
More broadly, one <strong>of</strong> the most alarming findings in the Sunday Tasmanian was that 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> pensioners<br />
were concerned about being caught up in the Centrelink debt recovery process—and no wonder because this<br />
program is terrorising older Australians. While I am glad I was able to successfully lobby the Commonwealth<br />
Ombudsman to investigate the matter, the government still stands by it. Regrettably, things are only set to get<br />
worse as the program is expanded to cover the age pension.<br />
Nor are the government doing any better with aged care because they have cut $1.2 billion from residential<br />
aged care and are refusing to take any action to crack down on the rorting by some home-care service providers.<br />
The Sunday Tasmanian research should be a powerful wake-up call to all <strong>of</strong> us. Pensioners are saying things like,<br />
'I only buy necessities and hope I don't get sick,' or 'The budget is gone by about day nine or 10 <strong>of</strong> every fortnight,'<br />
or 'No lunch or c<strong>of</strong>fee with friends; can get lonely.' No-one should have to live like this in our fabulously rich and<br />
fortunate country, so all members in this place and, especially the Prime Minister and his cabinet, really should<br />
read the newspaper article I refer to and, to that end, I seek leave to table the relevant edition <strong>of</strong> the paper.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird): Is leave granted?<br />
Mr Robert: The paper is freely available to everyone in the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.<br />
Mr WILKIE: If I could make the point though that this is not easily available on the mainland.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the member's point but leave is not granted.<br />
Anzac Day<br />
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (10:15): As this is the last sitting week before Anzac Day, can I take the<br />
opportunity to encourage all Australians, including my constituents in Menzies, to participate in the various Anzac<br />
Day services, both on Anzac Day and beforehand. Over these four years, we are commemorating the centenary <strong>of</strong><br />
the Great War, and it is worth recalling that more than 400,000 Australians enlisted to fight in the Great War, and<br />
another 3,000 nurses in addition to the 400,000 men. The population <strong>of</strong> Australia at that stage was about five<br />
million. To put that in context, 400,000 out <strong>of</strong> a population <strong>of</strong> five million—but you need to halve that because the<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109<br />
400,000 were males—so we are talking about one in five <strong>of</strong> males in Australia enlisted. And, then, if you break<br />
that down to the ages <strong>of</strong> people who enlisted—<strong>of</strong> eligible ages—somewhere in the order <strong>of</strong> one in two to one in<br />
three young adult men, some <strong>of</strong> them barely out <strong>of</strong> adolescence, enlisted to fight in the Great War. It is no wonder<br />
why that war had such a significant impact on the psyche <strong>of</strong> this country.<br />
There is nowhere in Australia, in your electorate, Deputy Speaker, or mine, or every small city or town, every<br />
village or, indeed, hamlet throughout this country where there is not a memorial which has on it the names,<br />
sometimes <strong>of</strong> dozens, <strong>of</strong> people who went to fight in the Great War and many <strong>of</strong> whom did not return and many<br />
more <strong>of</strong> whom were injured. We commemorate, in particular, this year what has been described as the last great<br />
cavalry charge in history, the Battle <strong>of</strong> Beersheba, where the Australian Light Horse was involved liberating<br />
Beersheba. That started the breakthrough against the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent progression through<br />
what is now Israel, Jerusalem and the Levant. Indeed, there was some 31 light horsemen who were killed in that<br />
charge and another 36 who were injured. As I said, I encourage all Australians to participate in Anzac Day<br />
services. In my electorate, or close to my electorate, on the Sunday before Anzac Day at 2.45 pm at the Croydon<br />
RSL and at 3 pm at the Doncaster RSL and, then, on Anzac Day itself there at dawn services at Croydon at 5.45<br />
am and at Doncaster, also at 5.45 am. There are services at Templestowe with a march beginning at 8 am and a<br />
service at 8.30, and a service, also with a march, beginning at Warrandyte at 10.30 am and a service at 11 am. It is<br />
our opportunity to say how grateful we are to the men and women who served and continue to serve this country<br />
in the Australian Defence Forces.<br />
Field, Mr David<br />
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:18): I want to highlight the remarkable work <strong>of</strong> my local constituent David<br />
Field <strong>of</strong> Kingscliff. David has been volunteering for the Australian Volunteers for International Development<br />
program since 2011. In 2011 to 2013, he was assigned to the Philippine Red Cross updating their lifesaving and<br />
lifeguarding techniques. On the major tourist island <strong>of</strong> Boracay, he established a pr<strong>of</strong>essional lifeguard service as<br />
well as junior water safety projects and a cultural sporting activity to highlight water safety.<br />
In 2013, he brought a senior Red Cross trainer to Australia to learn about surf lifesaving under the Zahn<br />
lifesaving scholarship, a scheme set up by David and funded by a local Kingscliff business owner. This trainer<br />
returned to Cebu and went on to set up a volunteer lifesaving service. In 2014, David accepted another volunteer<br />
position in lifesaving development, this time in Danang in Vietnam. Following the completion <strong>of</strong> the project,<br />
David was asked to return and develop more program to achieve and maintain world standards in beach<br />
management and water safety.<br />
David has relied upon the willingness <strong>of</strong> fellow North Coast surf lifesavers to travel to Vietnam to help him<br />
develop surf lifesaving and drowning prevention awareness. He has hosted three such tours by Australian<br />
lifesavers, including a tour in 2016 by 29 junior lifesavers and their parents from the Cudgen Headland Surf Life<br />
Saving Club. Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving New South Wales have also been very generous in<br />
their support, including assisting David with the shipping <strong>of</strong> second-hand rescue equipment from Australian surf<br />
clubs to Vietnam. To facilitate lifesaving development, David has <strong>of</strong>ten had to step beyond the constraints <strong>of</strong> the<br />
volunteer program and create opportunities to raise the level <strong>of</strong> involvement. David has also arranged surf<br />
lifesaving carnivals in Vietnam and has organised for lifeguards to attend world conferences and visits to<br />
Australia for additional lifesaving education and training—all financed with the Zahn scholarship.<br />
In addition to his work on the Australian government's volunteer program, David has been active in lifesaving<br />
development in Thailand since 2001, and in 2004 he founded the Phuket Lifeguard Club with a group <strong>of</strong> likeminded<br />
Thais to improve water safety standards in Southern Thailand. In 2009, the Phuket Lifeguard Club took<br />
over the contract to provide lifeguard services at 11 local beaches, and they then became the Phuket Lifeguard<br />
Services—a program modelled on David's experience as a pr<strong>of</strong>essional lifeguard with Surf Life Saving Australia.<br />
In its first season managing those local beaches, fatalities during the monsoon season dropped to single figures,<br />
after a high in 2008 <strong>of</strong> 44. David will continue his work in Phuket in 2017 with a team <strong>of</strong> Australian lifesavers<br />
who will train more than 100 lifeguards.<br />
This journey <strong>of</strong> lifesaving development and projects and raising awareness in South East Asia has been a really<br />
passionate interest not only <strong>of</strong> David but also <strong>of</strong> his wife Susan and sons Blake and Lachlan. Individuals like<br />
David are an inspiration to us all. I would like to thank him for his dedication to volunteering and improving the<br />
lives <strong>of</strong> others both here locally in his surf lifesaving commitment but <strong>of</strong> course all <strong>of</strong> that in South East Asia. He<br />
has made a huge difference and I commend him on the remarkable work that he is doing both locally and<br />
internationally.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Chisholm Electorate: Child Care<br />
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (10:21): Across Chisholm, child care is something that so many people are concerned<br />
about. Childcare costs are intrinsically linked to the family budget. In talking to parents with young children<br />
across Chisholm, whether they work as retail shop assistants, in small businesses, as teachers, nurses, carers,<br />
hospitality workers, tradesmen or volunteers, the issue and cost <strong>of</strong> child care is something that needs to be<br />
factored into their daily lives. As with anything in life, we need to plan the budget and important matters such as<br />
child care.<br />
I am proud to be a member <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull government and I am most proud <strong>of</strong> the fact that we get things done.<br />
We are pragmatic and we deliver. This is underpinned by the Turnbull government's understanding that families<br />
are the backbone <strong>of</strong> our society, and we understand that every day parents are making choices in the best interest<br />
<strong>of</strong> their family. The flexibility <strong>of</strong> the Turnbull government's childcare reforms means that families can access a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> care options to suit the growing changes <strong>of</strong> their family's needs. Covered by the changes include in-home<br />
care, family day care, long day care, occasional care and outside-school-hours care, which includes before and<br />
after school and vacation care.<br />
The Jobs for Families Child Care Package gives parents more choice and opportunity to work and provides<br />
children with a high-quality early education. We make no apology for the fact that our childcare package is for<br />
families who want to work or want to work more, whilst providing a safety net for those who need it. We believe<br />
in helping Australian families and giving them the opportunities to get ahead. For some, access to child care can<br />
mean the difference between working and not working. More affordable access to child care puts the opportunity<br />
<strong>of</strong> work within reach for so many more families.<br />
This is a very fair and agile package, which is pragmatic and workable. It will provide the greatest hours <strong>of</strong><br />
support in child care to the families who work the longest hours and the greatest subsidy and financial support to<br />
the families who earn the least. Additionally, an activity test will ensure that taxpayers support for child care is<br />
targeted to those who depend on it in order to work or work additional hours. The government is committed to<br />
reducing regulation and red tape for childcare providers. We will make the transition to the new system as simple<br />
as we can, to avoid burdening providers with paperwork and red tape.<br />
In Chisholm, we have 11,770 children using approved child care, we have 5,900 families using approved child<br />
care and we have 122 childcare services. The Turnbull government continues to deliver—delivering for families<br />
in Chisholm and across Australia and helping Australian families, the backbone <strong>of</strong> our society.<br />
Community Celebrations<br />
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager <strong>of</strong> Opposition Business) (10:24): Labor extends its best wishes to Assyrian<br />
communities in Australia and around the world celebrating Assyrian New Year or Akitu. Assyrian New Year is<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the oldest celebrations in history and dates back to ancient Assyrian and Babylonian empires over 6,000<br />
years ago. Akitu is a celebration which marks the beginning <strong>of</strong> spring and symbolises the awakening <strong>of</strong> nature.<br />
Assyrian people gather with family, friends and community to welcome the season <strong>of</strong> blossoms with dancing,<br />
music, traditional food and poetry. Australia's Assyrian community in Sydney marks this special occasion with a<br />
festival at Fairfield Showground every year, attracting thousands <strong>of</strong> people, highlighting the vibrant cultural<br />
heritage that is celebrated in our diverse multicultural society. Every celebration is part <strong>of</strong> our Australian story.<br />
On behalf <strong>of</strong> Labor, I extend warm wishes to those celebrating Ridvan. Ridvan is a 12-day festival which<br />
celebrates the beginning <strong>of</strong> the Baha'i faith in 1863. Ridvan, translated as 'Paradise', is named after the garden <strong>of</strong><br />
Ridvan outside Baghdad where the founder <strong>of</strong> the Baha'i faith stayed for 12 days after the Ottoman Empire exiled<br />
him. During celebrations, particularly on the first, ninth and last days, people abstain from work and take part in<br />
gatherings, parties and picnics. It is a joyous occasion and <strong>of</strong>ten includes reflection, prayer and reading from the<br />
Baha'i writings. The Baha'i faith teaches that the service <strong>of</strong> humanity can bring lasting happiness, and it is in this<br />
spirit that Ridvan is celebrated.<br />
I extend Labor's best wishes to Sikh communities in Australia and around the world celebrating Vaisakhi.<br />
Vaisakhi celebrates the beginning <strong>of</strong> the harvest season and commemorates the formation <strong>of</strong> Khalsa Panth, the<br />
baptism <strong>of</strong> five Sikh men who <strong>of</strong>fered to uphold and preserve the Sikh faith by sacrificing their lives and<br />
establishing a spiritual community. During Vaisakhi, a day <strong>of</strong> remembrance, friends and family come together to<br />
read sacred texts, enjoy festive foods and socialise with loved ones. The teachings <strong>of</strong> Sikhism promote equality,<br />
unity, meaningful interactions and respect. These are values which are entrenched in the Australian story and<br />
enhance our experience <strong>of</strong> a modern, multicultural Australian society.<br />
Between now and when parliament returns, we will also have the Easter celebrations. For the Eastern and<br />
Western Christian churches, the dates are different, the Eastern churches relying on the actual observation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
vernal equinox, and the Western churches using 21 March as a fixed date. But, even though the dates change, the<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111<br />
celebration is the same. So, whichever date people are observing for the feasts <strong>of</strong> Holy Week, from Palm Sunday<br />
to Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Saturday and ultimately Easter Sunday, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Labor Party I<br />
wish you, in advance, a very happy Easter.<br />
Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitors<br />
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:27): You know, as a backbencher, you can achieve quite a lot. I look back over my<br />
last few years in the parliament and think <strong>of</strong> Australia-wide intervention orders—an idea that came out <strong>of</strong> our<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice and has now been implemented—to protect victims <strong>of</strong> family violence. I look at Safe Haven Enterprise<br />
visas, which provide a pathway for residency for some <strong>of</strong> those 30,000 people on the legacy visas.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the things I have pushed for, which came out <strong>of</strong> a conversation with a young man called Blair Gould,<br />
was continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes. I was very pleased to see that, nine months<br />
ago, we made an election commitment worth $54 million that we would roll this out for children under 21 across<br />
Australia. It saddens me that, nine months later, we still have not delivered on this election commitment. We are<br />
on our second health minister, and it is time that we delivered continuous glucose monitors, subsidised for<br />
children with type 1 diabetes.<br />
I met with a 10-year-old girl called Alexa Cameron who explained to me what that monitor was doing for her.<br />
She put it in a really succinct way: 'It allows me to be a child. And I get to eat one more scone.' And this is really<br />
what it is about. Blair said to me the other day that he had pricked his finger 7,000 times since being diagnosed<br />
with type 1 diabetes.<br />
To the credit <strong>of</strong> the local Lions club, they have actually come in—<br />
A division having been called in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>—<br />
Sitting suspended from 10:28 to 10:42<br />
Mr BROAD: Before the suspension I was talking about continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1<br />
diabetes. This issue was raised with me by a young man called Blair Gould, who I met in Birchip. He explained to<br />
me that he had had his finger pricked 7,000 times. I also came across another very impressive young lady called<br />
Alexa Cameron, who showed me a continuous glucose monitor. She said that it meant that she could manage her<br />
blood sugars. What she really said was that it meant that she could actually have another scone.<br />
In the election campaign in July, the federal government committed $54 million to subsidise continuous<br />
glucose monitors for children under 21 years <strong>of</strong> age with type 1 diabetes. It saddens me that, nine months in, we<br />
still have not delivered on this election commitment. This is a commitment that should be honoured—that must be<br />
honoured. My understanding is that the minister is working on it, but it is time that we deliver this for the children<br />
<strong>of</strong> Australia. This is certainly a very worthwhile project. It was only because it was raised with me, that people<br />
came and saw me, that I became aware <strong>of</strong> this. At its very core, it is about children having the opportunity to be<br />
children—to grow up—and so that we can ensure not only that they can manage their disease but also that their<br />
lives are better. It is time to deliver this. Let us deliver it now.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird) (10:43): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members<br />
constituency statements has concluded.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
Report<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong> take note <strong>of</strong> the report.<br />
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (10:43): As a member <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> Standing Committee on<br />
Agriculture and Water Resources, I welcome this report. The direct value to the Australian economy <strong>of</strong> honey and<br />
other hive products produced by managed honey bees is estimated at $100 million per year. This may not sound<br />
like a lot when compared to the contribution made by other industries or sectors; however, what should be taken<br />
into account is the indirect contribution honey bees make through the pollination service they provide to other<br />
agricultural sectors. Quantifying this value to the Australian economy is not exactly easy; however, the Australian<br />
Honey Bee Industry Council estimates that pollination services provide around $4 billion per annum to the<br />
agricultural industry. This is why the committee felt that establishing an inquiry into this matter and, in particular,<br />
having a focus on the biosecurity <strong>of</strong> the Australian honey bee industry, was an important economic issue to<br />
pursue.<br />
It is a particularly important industry for Tasmania. It employs a number <strong>of</strong> people in rural areas and provides<br />
important economic benefits to local communities. Honey and associated apiary products are an important part <strong>of</strong><br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Tasmania's clean and green image, with Blue Hills Honey in Mawbanna, which is in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Braddon,<br />
just one example <strong>of</strong> Australia's top producers. The varroa mite poses a particular threat to the Australian honey<br />
bee industry, which is clearly not immune to risks and faces a range <strong>of</strong> biosecurity threats. Biosecurity threats to<br />
this industry were an important concern to the committee, particularly the threat posed by the varroa mite.<br />
Australia is the only bee-carrying landmass where varroa is not yet present—and I stress, not yet. Sadly, it is quite<br />
possibly a matter <strong>of</strong> when, not if.<br />
Varroa infestation can have catastrophic consequences on honey bee colonies, ultimately culminating in the<br />
collapse <strong>of</strong> the hive. Of the two species <strong>of</strong> Varroa, V. destructor poses the greatest risk to Australia's honey bee<br />
and horticultural industries, which is <strong>of</strong> significant concern for Tasmania. The ongoing risk <strong>of</strong> bee pests like<br />
varroa arriving in Australia is extremely high. Well-known Tasmanian bee industry stalwart, Lindsay Bourke,<br />
presenting to the committee as Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Australian Honeybee Industry Council, indicated that there are<br />
between three and four detections <strong>of</strong> pest bees or bee pests at the border each year. Tasmania as an island state has<br />
a biosecurity risk advantage, and therefore fewer pests and diseases are present in our environment in comparison<br />
to that <strong>of</strong> our counterparts in mainland Australia. We therefore need to ensure that biosecurity measures are<br />
strictly enforced. However, our island status, and therefore our natural biosecurity barrier, is no match for the<br />
varroa mite, as experienced in the enormous impact it has had on the island nation <strong>of</strong> New Zealand.<br />
Strong quarantine facilities are extremely important, not only for Tasmania but for the whole nation, to protect<br />
the viability <strong>of</strong> the industry and <strong>of</strong> our agricultural sector. As stated in the report, the best and first line <strong>of</strong> defence<br />
is pre-embarkation. The committee heard that Australia employs a range <strong>of</strong> strategies to try and prevent<br />
biosecurity incidents as related to honey bees. These include activities beyond, at and behind Australian borders.<br />
The committee was provided with evidence to demonstrate the work that occurs along the biosecurity defence<br />
continuum, and that the key to our biosecurity defence is pre-embarkation inspections. It was important for me to<br />
ensure the committee's report included recommendations that strengthened pre-embarkation inspections, and this<br />
is reflected in recommendation 4. The committee has recommended the Australian government undertake analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> pest bee risk gradings for Australian ports including airports, which currently do not have a rating, and include<br />
pre-embarkation inspections and processes at various ports, and for this assessment to be completed by the end <strong>of</strong><br />
this.<br />
Interception at likely entry points into Australia was identified as another key method <strong>of</strong> dealing with the<br />
intrusion <strong>of</strong> bee pests. It is pleasing to hear about the collaborative approach being undertaken against the<br />
significant threat that the arrival <strong>of</strong> varroa presents to the Australian honey bee and wider agricultural industries.<br />
These approaches, such as selective breeding programs, are recommended by the committee to be undertaken with<br />
international industry partners; in particular, learning from the experiences <strong>of</strong> other countries who have had to<br />
deal with varroa, such as New Zealand.<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> smuggling bees also warrants further investigation. Along with the committee, I wish to see a<br />
detailed examination <strong>of</strong> this issue. The committee stresses the urgency <strong>of</strong> ensuring the national bee pest<br />
surveillance program is assessed, with a request to immediately initiate the necessary research and development<br />
required to do this. This is to ensure the program is effective, efficient and optimised, and for particular focus to<br />
be given to catch boxes. The committee heard the number <strong>of</strong> catch boxes and sentinel hives at ports are<br />
insufficient in number, and not in strategic and logical locations at port. In fact, some are too far away, which does<br />
not allow for an optimum response to an incursion.<br />
Of course, an appropriate response to the risk <strong>of</strong> a varroa incursion, and thus early interception, requires<br />
funding. The committee recommends the Commonwealth appropriately fund model 3 <strong>of</strong> the surveillance program.<br />
This would result in additional ports having the capability to detect an incursion and would be at a cost <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately $1.9 million per annum, which is relatively small considering the impact varroa would have on our<br />
agricultural sector. It is imperative that the Australian government investigate the member for Paterson's<br />
suggestion that an easy-to-use smartphone application be developed to help members <strong>of</strong> the public take part in<br />
eradication programs.<br />
The biosecurity <strong>of</strong> the Australian honey bee industry is a very important issue, and this report goes a long way<br />
to resolving some <strong>of</strong> the key issues facing the industry.<br />
Mr GEE (Calare) (10:50): I wish to thank the committee for the compilation <strong>of</strong> this report. I think it is a very<br />
useful contribution in this field and makes some very interesting points, not least <strong>of</strong> which is the importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
honey bee industry in Australia. That industry, worth an estimated $100 million per year, is comparatively small,<br />
but its value to Australia's economy is much greater. It has been estimated that pollination services provide $4<br />
billion per annum in value to agricultural industry in Australia. That is a big and important contribution.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113<br />
I thank all the committee members for their work in this field. It is important to note that without honey bees<br />
for pollination many fruit, nut, vegetable, legume and seed crops could not bear fruit or seeds. That is why this<br />
area is so important. Although a range <strong>of</strong> insect species can pollinate plants, honey bees play a vital role in<br />
pollinating many horticultural crops. In addition to the pollination <strong>of</strong> crops, bees can also assist the grazing<br />
industry by improving the yield and persistence <strong>of</strong> common fodder crops such as clover. This can reduce<br />
agricultural input costs and may also have environmental benefits by reducing the need for graziers to use<br />
fertilisers or other chemicals. This industry does not receive the recognition that it really deserves, and its<br />
importance needs to be highlighted when reports such as this are handed down.<br />
I need to mention the wonderful work on honey bees that is being carried out in the electorate <strong>of</strong> Calare. There<br />
are many people working diligently in this field, including those who run Maya Sunny Honey, which produces a<br />
100 per cent raw honey range handcrafted wholly by Andrew Wyszynski. Andrew's passion for bees started at a<br />
very young age in the countryside <strong>of</strong> Poland, where he helped and learned from his parents on their apiarist farm.<br />
Maya Sunny Honey has 250 hives, and its products are stocked all over Australia, including at David Jones,<br />
Harris Farm and even here in Canberra at the National Gallery <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
I could not discuss honey bees in Calare without mentioning the Mudgee Honey Haven and Frank and Trish<br />
Maiolo, who run the honey haven. It is one <strong>of</strong> the premier tourist attractions in the Mudgee district, established in<br />
1990. Frank and Trish currently have 400 hives. They produce a variety <strong>of</strong> honey products, including pure honey,<br />
creamed honey, gourmet honey, BeePower active honey, health and beauty honey products and mead-honey wine,<br />
which is made using a time-tested ancient recipe, fermenting pure Australian honey to create unique flavours and<br />
aromas. There are three mead-honey wines in the range: honey mead, spiced mead and honey liqueur. Members <strong>of</strong><br />
the committee will no doubt be very keen to sample some when they are in the Mudgee area.<br />
Dougal Munro has been beekeeping since the age <strong>of</strong> five, when his father had a large apiary. When he was not<br />
tending to the large family orchard or their massive vegetable garden, he could be found inspecting the bees.<br />
Dougal's farm is located at Springside, just south <strong>of</strong> Orange, and is a little over 120 acres. His parents purchased<br />
the property in 1979. It was in addition to their separate and much larger farm closer to Orange, which has been<br />
owned and farmed by Dougal's family for almost a century. Dougal currently has 120 hives at the property near<br />
Orange, where he also farms garlic, potatoes, artichokes, asparagus, horseradish, apricots, peaches, nectarines,<br />
cherries, plums, figs, mulberries, kiwifruit and quinces. There is even one lonely sugar maple that he has for<br />
maple syrup. He is another great achiever in the field.<br />
So is Cottesbrook Honey, which is based at Fitzgeralds Mount, between Blayney and Bathurst. Tracey and<br />
David Parker operate 600 hives there, and they have been doing that since the 1980s. Cottesbrook Honey<br />
specialise in producing premium varieties <strong>of</strong> honey, honeycomb, creamed honey, beeswax and other beehive<br />
products. Not only do they keep hives but they also process and pack their own honey.<br />
I also have to mention the Australian Queen Bee Line, who are based in Orange. Charlie and Brenda Casido<br />
run honey production there. They have got a centre. They carefully gather pure honey products from their own bee<br />
communities located throughout eastern Australia. Their collection area ranges from southern Queensland right<br />
through to Victoria in the south. Charlie and Brenda produce honey and honeycomb products, royal jelly, pollen<br />
and beeswax. Their bees are also hired to a number <strong>of</strong> orchards in our region, to pollinate stone fruit and cherries.<br />
We all know how important orcharding and horticulture are to the Calare electorate. Australian Queen Bee Line<br />
are currently selling around 10,000 queen bees Australia wide. They are also exporting around 10,000 queen bees<br />
to the international market. I caught up with them at last year's Australian National Field Days and was able to<br />
gain a greater understanding <strong>of</strong> what they actually do there. They are doing a wonderful job. It brought home to<br />
me that bees are the unsung heroes <strong>of</strong> horticulture, because, when you listen to all <strong>of</strong> the work that the Casidos do<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> pollination at our orchards, it is quite amazing. They are providing bees to Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait,<br />
Iraq, the Philippines and Canada. Charlie and Brenda say that there is a huge demand for queen bees in Canada, <strong>of</strong><br />
around 65,000. However, they can only supply 10,000 <strong>of</strong> them, due to seasonal conditions. They have currently<br />
got five permanent staff and five casual staff on call.<br />
I also have to mention Goldfields honey, which is situated at Vittoria, between Orange and Bathurst. Grant and<br />
Vikki Lockwood have been operating Goldfields honey for approximately 40 years. They have 5,000 hives and,<br />
along with producing honey products, also provide pollination services across the central west <strong>of</strong> New South<br />
Wales as well as Victoria and parts <strong>of</strong> Queensland.<br />
I note that the report makes six recommendations to the government aimed at improving early threat and<br />
detection strategies for the biosecurity <strong>of</strong> Australian honey bees. The government will be responding to the<br />
recommendations in due course, but I think it is fair to say the government has not been idle in protecting<br />
Australia's biosecurity. The government is aware <strong>of</strong> the potential for bees to be illegally imported into Australia. A<br />
proactive investigation by the Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Water Resources was launched in February 2015<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
and remains open. A number <strong>of</strong> pathways have been examined, and no instances <strong>of</strong> illegal bee smuggling have<br />
been detected to date. However, in 2000, a New South Wales beekeeper was prosecuted after being detected<br />
trying to smuggle queen bees into Australia concealed in pens, <strong>of</strong> all things. So there is a need for constant<br />
vigilance in this field.<br />
Australia does have systems in place to increase our protection from introduced bee pests and diseases such as<br />
varroa mites, including incursion prevention systems which include the requirement for all vessels arriving into<br />
Australia from overseas to provide the department with a pre-arrival report so that a biosecurity risk assessment <strong>of</strong><br />
the vessel can be undertaken prior to its arrival. Cargo can only be imported to Australia under approved, strict<br />
biosecurity conditions that effectively manage pest and disease risks. There are inspections at the border to<br />
intercept smuggling and reduce the risk <strong>of</strong> entry <strong>of</strong> foreign bees and any pests and diseases they carry. There are<br />
also early detection systems in place such as general surveillance activities at airports, seaports and premises<br />
under approved arrangements. The National Bee Pest Surveillance Program is also in place, which uses sentinel<br />
hives, catch boxes and other methods to detect exotic bees and bee pests. There are emergency response<br />
procedures in place as well. So I think the government has been proactive, but there will be a response to the<br />
recommendations <strong>of</strong> the report in due course.<br />
Can I conclude by thanking the committee for their important work in this field. It means a lot to electorates<br />
such as Calare that have a heavy investment in horticulture. Can I also conclude by thanking all <strong>of</strong> those involved<br />
in the honey bee industry in the electorate <strong>of</strong> Calare and across Australia for the important work that they do in<br />
our communities and for our regional economies. It is important work. It is work that is not recognised enough,<br />
but hopefully, through this report and this process, they will get the credit that they so richly deserve. I thank them<br />
in this <strong>House</strong> today.<br />
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:00): I rise to speak today on the report <strong>of</strong> the Standing Committee on<br />
Agriculture and Water Resources entitled Safe keeping: inquiry into the biosecurity <strong>of</strong> Australian honey bees. The<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> honey bees to our lives cannot be understated. The importance <strong>of</strong> a healthy bee population to this<br />
country is critical to how we live and to what we eat. The committee report notes—quite clinically, I think—the<br />
significance <strong>of</strong> the pollination services that honey bees provide. If honey bees were in a position to send us all an<br />
invoice for their important work <strong>of</strong> fertilising flowering plants by the transfer <strong>of</strong> pollen, the Australian Honey Bee<br />
Industry Council tells us we would be up for $4 billion every year. I think the bees are worth much more. I think<br />
these beautiful insects are invaluable. We must do all that we can to protect them from disease to allow them to do<br />
their good work, which they do for free.<br />
I am a beekeeper. I am not sure if there are any other members <strong>of</strong> parliament in this place that also keep bees.<br />
My husband, Jamie, and I have kept bees for a number <strong>of</strong> years. We have become keen apiarists. It is the most<br />
delightful pastime, if sometimes accidentally painful. In fact Jamie will rob a hive <strong>of</strong> its summer honey tomorrow<br />
while I am here in this place. I am sad to miss out on this exercise because there is nothing quite like gently<br />
opening up the lid <strong>of</strong> a super and hearing the low rumble <strong>of</strong> a colony <strong>of</strong> bees getting about their important work.<br />
There is a mix <strong>of</strong> exhilaration and trepidation in invading their home, which is what we are doing, but we are<br />
doing it to check on the health <strong>of</strong> the hive and to rob the hive <strong>of</strong> its excess <strong>of</strong> honey. This honey is made up <strong>of</strong> the<br />
teaspoon <strong>of</strong> honey the worker bees will each produce in their very short, yet very productive, six-week lives. The<br />
tone <strong>of</strong> the buzz <strong>of</strong> the bees changes as we get about our beekeeping work. We do this work quietly, quickly and<br />
gently and, at all times, try to keep our heart rate down, which can be difficult as the modulation <strong>of</strong> bees changes<br />
as you disrupt their day. But, from my experience, it is best to remain calm and purposeful when working with<br />
bees—and <strong>of</strong> course dirty beekeeping clothes help a lot with one's confidence.<br />
Helping harvest the Shoalwater honey later this week will be our cousins, David and Christina Galloway from<br />
Cumbria in the north <strong>of</strong> England, who visited the parliament earlier this week. In fact they also keep and care for<br />
bees, and we spoke in this building about their hives that are infected with the destructive varroa mite. We talked<br />
about how they have to actively manage this pest that has decimated beehives around the world. They told us how<br />
the mite first arrived in the south <strong>of</strong> the UK, in Devon, in 1992 and progressively made its way through the whole<br />
country. There was no stopping this pest, and now all British beekeepers can do is to manage the infestations.<br />
Thankfully the destructive varroa mite is not in Australia, and that is in part due to our isolation. But being an<br />
island is not enough, as New Zealand has discovered, as has the remote island <strong>of</strong> Hawaii. The vigilance <strong>of</strong> this<br />
nation's biosecurity measures and the proactive manner in which authorities seek out potentially devastating pests<br />
are the principal reason we remain free from the destructive varroa mite. I commend the committee on its work<br />
and support its recommendation that the National Bee Pest Surveillance Program implement an enhanced program<br />
to intercept pest bees and infected bees at ports around this country. This they will do through more sentinel hives<br />
and catch boxes—very practical, very effective and very efficient means to protect our healthy honey bee<br />
population. These traits are hallmarks <strong>of</strong> the beekeeping community.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115<br />
I also want to congratulate the committee on taking on board an idea put forward by my friend and colleague<br />
the member for Paterson, the thoroughly modern Meryl Swanson. She recommended that the government<br />
investigate developing an easy-to-use smartphone application that will enable the public to report pest bees that<br />
they spot in their gardens, on their farms and in their towns. The increased popularity <strong>of</strong> amateur beekeeping will<br />
make such an easy-to-use app a very useful weapon in the fight to maintain our biosecurity. Education <strong>of</strong> the<br />
public is critical. The importance <strong>of</strong> biosecurity in quarantine procedures to protecting the Australian environment<br />
and maintaining a healthy bee population, which is the healthiest in the world, will be critical.<br />
The report noted that queen bees have been intercepted—mailed—through the post from overseas. I can assure<br />
members, you can receive bees in the post. It is quite an interesting process, but you can only get them from<br />
Australia. Seeking to import queen bees from overseas is one <strong>of</strong> the most reckless things any beekeeper can do. It<br />
endangers our whole agricultural industry, and I urge those people who are thinking <strong>of</strong> doing it to never do it.<br />
There are many people working very hard around this country to prevent bee diseases making it to Australia<br />
but, should what beekeepers fear the most and the varroa mite make it to this country, there will be a need for<br />
further urgent discussions on how we can quarantine infected sites. Western Australia is separated from the rest <strong>of</strong><br />
this country for the most part by arid lands and desert. Tasmania is separated by the sea. Should the varroa mite<br />
arrive, then the discussion will turn to how we use the landscape <strong>of</strong> this country to maintain healthy populations as<br />
far as possible.<br />
There has been a long history in Western Australia <strong>of</strong> trying to keep out pests from the east. We have been<br />
pretty successful with the Collingwood Football Club but, sadly, not the rabbits—as many will know, there is a<br />
rabbit-pro<strong>of</strong> fence that started construction in 1901. That was rabbit-pro<strong>of</strong> fence No. 1. It stretched 1,834<br />
kilometres. Some years later, when that did not seem to work, we built another rabbit-pro<strong>of</strong> fence, rabbit-pro<strong>of</strong><br />
fence No. 2, which stretches 1,166 kilometres. People were trying to do their best but, ultimately, it was an effort<br />
in futility, and <strong>of</strong> course rabbits are everywhere.<br />
We have tried to keep cane toads out <strong>of</strong> Western Australia. Again, we have failed, although people are trying<br />
very hard in the north-west <strong>of</strong> our state to keep them moving further down from Kununurra. They arrive on trucks<br />
out <strong>of</strong> the Northern Territory and, as I said, all we can do is do our best. But, nonetheless, these pests persist.<br />
Western Australia has strict biosecurity laws. If you come to Western Australia, you will be asked to throw all<br />
your fruit and any bee or honey products in a bin. There will be dogs at the airport—cute little beagles—that are<br />
seeking to protect Western Australia's agriculture industry by making sure you do not have a stray apple, banana<br />
or jar <strong>of</strong> honey in your luggage. If you arrive at the Perth domestic airport and someone asks you to open your bag<br />
and relieve yourself <strong>of</strong> all your fruit, please do it quickly and quietly. There is never a fuss; we are just trying to<br />
keep Western Australia safe from these eastern pests.<br />
Jamie and I brought our first queen bee and starter colony from Ms Tiffane Bates, a queen bee breeder and<br />
apiary keeper <strong>of</strong> the UWA Centre for Integrative Bee Research—known as CIBER. The work <strong>of</strong> this centre was<br />
the star in a remarkably popular documentary called More than Honey. I encourage people to look this up on the<br />
web; it is easily accessed. It talks about the devastating effects <strong>of</strong> colony collapse disorder, which we are seeing<br />
around the world.<br />
Ms Baits was awarded a Churchill Fellowship and has undertaken extensive research on how bees can be bred<br />
resistant to varroa mites. Ms Baits in her reports for her Churchill Fellowship called Australia the last honeybee<br />
oasis. That we are, and this oasis we hope to remain. But it is important for research by Ms Baits, her colleague<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Boris Baer and others at the UWA centre for bee research to continue. Their focus is on discovering<br />
genetic traits in bees or existing bee stock that are able to survive an infestation <strong>of</strong> the varroa mite and build and<br />
maintain healthy working colonies <strong>of</strong> good temperament while minimising the use <strong>of</strong> chemicals.<br />
Temperament is an unusual word to hear in relation to bees but, I can tell you, having gone through a few<br />
different queens, we have experienced beehives and colonies with a good temperament that were nice and quite<br />
gentle to work with, and then there are bees that are a bit more aggressive and they are very difficult to work with.<br />
This is where the pain comes in in beekeeping.<br />
I sincerely hope our biosecurity measures hold out against this beehive-destroying pest, the varroa mite, and I<br />
am pleased that research is continuing should the worst occur. There are more funds going towards bee research.<br />
There is a cooperative research centre for honey bee products, also located in WA and now with a new <strong>of</strong>fice out<br />
in Yanchep. It will assist efforts in <strong>of</strong>fering pollination security to the agriculture industry <strong>of</strong> WA and increase the<br />
ability <strong>of</strong> the industry to attract and train pr<strong>of</strong>essional beekeepers and increase the number <strong>of</strong> hives. This is <strong>of</strong><br />
great importance, as I said, to the agricultural industry <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Again, I urge anyone in this <strong>House</strong> that might also be a beekeeper to get in touch. There are lots <strong>of</strong><br />
parliamentary friends groups in this place, but I am yet to see one that is for beekeepers. It might be a small group,<br />
but nevertheless I think maybe we should start it.<br />
I thank the committee for their very hard work, I support their recommendations and I hope we as a parliament<br />
can continue to work together on such committees to look after these beautiful insects, bees, that provide so much<br />
to our community and our lives.<br />
Debate adjourned.<br />
CONDOLENCES<br />
Robinson, the Hon. Ian Louis<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That the <strong>House</strong> record its deep regret at the death, on 23 March 2017, <strong>of</strong> the Honourable Ian Louis Robinson, a former<br />
Minister and Member <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> for the Division <strong>of</strong> Cowper from 1963 to 1984 and Page from 1984 to 1990, place on<br />
record its appreciation <strong>of</strong> his long and meritorious public service, and tender its pr<strong>of</strong>ound sympathy to his family in their<br />
bereavement.<br />
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:11): Last week, the<br />
New South Wales North Coast lost a great community advocate. Ian Robinson served as an elected representative<br />
for three electorates across five decades. He was first elected to represent the seat <strong>of</strong> Casino in the New South<br />
Wales parliament, serving from 1953 to 1963, before making the switch to federal politics. He represented the seat<br />
<strong>of</strong> Cowper, the seat that I have had the honour to represent for over 15 years now. Mr Robinson represented the<br />
seat <strong>of</strong> Cowper from 1963 to 1984. In 1984 he successfully stood as a candidate for the new seat <strong>of</strong> Page and held<br />
Page in 1987 before losing to Labor's Harry Woods in 1990. Ian Robinson served as Deputy Chairman <strong>of</strong><br />
Committees from 1976 to 1983. He also served as Assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General from 1971 to<br />
1972, and he served on a range <strong>of</strong> parliamentary committees, including Public Accounts and also Foreign Affairs<br />
and Defence.<br />
Over his 37 years as an MP, Mr Robinson established a reputation as a tireless advocate for rural communities.<br />
He fought passionately for regional development and for better infrastructure for country towns and communities.<br />
On reading the Hansard transcript <strong>of</strong> Mr Robinson's first speech to the Australian parliament, delivered just down<br />
the hill at Old Parliament <strong>House</strong>, I was reminded <strong>of</strong> the old saying that the more things change the more they stay<br />
the same. In that speech, he spoke <strong>of</strong> the challenges <strong>of</strong> decentralisation and regional development, battles still<br />
being fought by the Nationals more than 50 years later. He also spoke <strong>of</strong> the need to improve country roads,<br />
construct new dams, build a base <strong>of</strong> productive industries and provide options to allow people to have fulfilling<br />
careers in the regions. These were all relevant issues in 1964, and they remain relevant to Australian regional life<br />
today, and the Nationals continue to fight on behalf <strong>of</strong> regional communities for the same values. He also<br />
mentioned the vexed issue <strong>of</strong> electoral redistributions, another issue that remains contentious for communities<br />
along the New South Wales North Coast.<br />
In many respects, he was typical <strong>of</strong> the Country Party tradition that is now carried on by the Nationals. Before<br />
entering politics, he was a dairy farmer, a journalist and a businessman. As with so many Country Party and<br />
National Party representatives before and after him, his time as an MP was merely an extension <strong>of</strong> his lifelong<br />
commitment to community service. Although he was a politician for most <strong>of</strong> his career, he was not a career<br />
politician.<br />
Ian is survived by his beloved wife, Florence, and I extend my condolences to her and the Robinson family.<br />
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (11:14): It is a great honour to rise to speak <strong>of</strong> the late Hon. Ian Robinson, a great<br />
friend <strong>of</strong> my father, Tom McVeigh, who served alongside him in the Australian parliament in the 1970s and<br />
1980s. Ian Robinson was one who, in his long political and public life, never changed—wearing it on his sleeve<br />
and enclosing it in his heart, never to be erased—his allegiance to and support for his beloved Country Party. He<br />
was the ultimate advocate for its philosophies, aims, objectives and policies and was a resolute defender <strong>of</strong> the<br />
same. He was grounded in these attributes by his mother and father, highly regarded and successful dairy farmers<br />
in the Casino district <strong>of</strong> northern New South Wales; thus he had the advantage <strong>of</strong> both the practical and the<br />
theoretical knowledge <strong>of</strong> rural life. He knew how to milk a cow—unlike some, who believe milk comes from a<br />
plastic bottle, he knew it came from a cow's udder—and was a delegate to important rural meetings.<br />
Ian Robinson was never one to criticise. He had, rather, the courage to let the people decide after he had had a<br />
go. He was elected to the New South Wales parliament in his early 20s. He developed a reputation, through his<br />
logical comments expressed s<strong>of</strong>tly and without rancour towards opponents, to such an extent that, when Sir Earle<br />
Page died during an election campaign and the seat was won by a Labor Party representative, the powers that be<br />
persuaded him to resign from the New South Wales parliament to contest the seat at the next federal election. He<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 117<br />
won the seat and held on to it until his retirement. He quickly made his mark, and in the Sir William McMahon<br />
government was an assistant minister, strongly supported by party leader the Rt Hon. JD Anthony. He used to<br />
travel all around Australia, advocating and defending policies, and used to open field days and shows on account<br />
<strong>of</strong> his friendly manner and personal skills. On the defeat <strong>of</strong> the McMahon government he became, as it were, a<br />
tutor to the young recently elected Country Party members, all <strong>of</strong> whom warmed to him.<br />
He developed a very strong personal friendship with my father, Tom, and Tom was the only parliamentarian to<br />
be invited to help him in his various election campaigns. They were old-fashioned campaign street meetings with<br />
a loudspeaker in the back <strong>of</strong> a truck, where much enjoyment for both sides came from the to and fro <strong>of</strong> ideas. Yes,<br />
I am told that on one occasion rather rotten tomatoes were thrown, but they missed. Ian was assisted by his wife,<br />
Cynthia, who was a pr<strong>of</strong>essional journalist. Cynthia and their son predeceased Ian. The late dinners at their home<br />
in Grafton overlooking the Clarence River, I am told, were occasions <strong>of</strong> great fun. Both knew that, when staying<br />
over, Tom, my father, did not appreciate that his room was also the normal lodgings for their cat, and as a matter<br />
<strong>of</strong> courtesy the door and windows were sealed to ensure the cat slept outside. The cat always found a way through,<br />
I am told, and there was little doubt that Ian had a hand in that, simply in order to annoy Tom. Ian Robinson had a<br />
wonderful sense <strong>of</strong> humour.<br />
Ian was always immaculately dressed, even on visits to managers on his dairy farm. He was always generous to<br />
them and very supportive. He was the old-style politician who knew almost all <strong>of</strong> his constituents by name, their<br />
children, their schools attended, the names <strong>of</strong> their working dogs, home dogs and cats. He had a very special<br />
loyalty to his New South Wales Country Party leader, Leon Punch, whom he called 'Punchy', federal colleagues<br />
the Hon. Bruce Cowan and Reverend Phil Lucock, and his federal leader, the Rt Hon. JD Anthony. He was a<br />
lifetime member <strong>of</strong> the Masonic Society. He <strong>of</strong>ten laughed at how a friend <strong>of</strong> his—who will remain anonymous,<br />
but let's just say he is very well known to me—arranged for Ian to be photographed shaking hands with the Pope<br />
as the Pope moved through a guard <strong>of</strong> honour in the King's Hall in the old Parliament <strong>House</strong> prior to an <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
dinner. He proudly displayed the photo in his electorate <strong>of</strong>fice in a prominent place for all who visited to see.<br />
During recent times, Ian shared his life with his second wife, Florence, at their Grafton home, and our thoughts<br />
are with her at this time. Finally, I personally recall fondly the visits to the beautiful Clarence River region <strong>of</strong><br />
northern New South Wales to visit Ian with my father, Tom, and the fact that he always had lollies available for<br />
my younger brother, Peter, and I when we visited Canberra as young boys. Vale Ian Robinson. May he rest in<br />
peace.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks): I understand it is the wish <strong>of</strong> honourable members to signify at this<br />
stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.<br />
Honourable members having stood in their places—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber.<br />
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (11:19): I move:<br />
That further proceedings be conducted in the <strong>House</strong>.<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Proceedings suspended from 11:20 to 11:23<br />
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That the following Address in Reply to the speech <strong>of</strong> His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:<br />
May it please Your Excellency:<br />
We, the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our<br />
loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address<br />
to Parliament—<br />
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:23): I am pleased to make my contribution to the address-in-reply and the debate<br />
on the Governor-General's speech. In December 2013, when I delivered my first speech in parliament, I said:<br />
The people <strong>of</strong> Indi have a vision for a community where people feel they belong and have a sense <strong>of</strong> purpose, where people<br />
pull together and help each other, where diversity, acceptance and tolerance are valued; a community that has quality services,<br />
infrastructure, education, jobs and health and opportunities for the next generation.<br />
In this speech today in parliament I want to talk about some <strong>of</strong> the work we have done since that first speech was<br />
made, the agenda for this term <strong>of</strong> parliament and the call to action to the people <strong>of</strong> Indi to take the Indi way <strong>of</strong><br />
working and move it on to the next stages.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
I would particularly like to begin by acknowledging and recognising the work <strong>of</strong> my community. As an<br />
Independent member <strong>of</strong> parliament, the community plays an integral role in ensuring that I act as an effective<br />
local member. My community understands the issues, and I need to make sure that I stay connected to my<br />
community so that I understand the issues. The Indi way, as we call it, started with the involvement and<br />
enthusiasm <strong>of</strong> country young people, the young people in my community, and it continued with a commitment to<br />
training, support and empowerment <strong>of</strong> volunteers. We took the enthusiasm and the energy and together we<br />
moulded it and gave direction to that want to make the world a better place. And we encouraged, with all our<br />
volunteers, a commitment to values, to be respectful, to be our best selves, to acknowledge difference and to take<br />
responsibility for ourselves and our actions. Ultimately, this model builds on the understanding that our<br />
democracy is important to us. But democracy means everybody has the chance to have their voices heard, to<br />
engage in political action and to actually work for the change that they want to see. In north-east Victoria we<br />
value democracy, we value participation and we want to make sure it is continued.<br />
Part <strong>of</strong> my role as a member <strong>of</strong> parliament is the facilitation and the development <strong>of</strong> anybody who is interested<br />
in learning about politics. There are a whole lot <strong>of</strong> ways that we do that. We have volunteers who come to<br />
Canberra. We have learning and training programs through the <strong>of</strong>fice. I go out to communities. I speak to schools.<br />
Schools come to Canberra. We have leadership development programs. There are a myriad <strong>of</strong> ways <strong>of</strong> explaining<br />
to people that, as the representative, it is my job to take the ideas <strong>of</strong> the community to Canberra and, not being a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> a party, I do not rely on my party for the ideas; I actually rely on my community. We call this the Indi<br />
way.<br />
Initially, we were driven by a sense <strong>of</strong> dissatisfaction and disillusionment. I know it is common right across<br />
Australia that people are sick <strong>of</strong> the way politics works. They do not trust that things are going the way they<br />
should. That certainly was the feeling in Indi, but we did not fall into that trap. We did not go down that negative<br />
path. We took those feelings <strong>of</strong> disconnect and dissatisfaction and asked, 'What can we do with it? How can we<br />
get a member <strong>of</strong> parliament who is actually going to have our vision and will represent us but be the<br />
representative and not necessarily the power base that perhaps you get from parties?'<br />
In Indi we have a saying that the future is made or determined by those who turn up. Not only did young people<br />
turn up to run the campaign and not only do many people now turn up to be part <strong>of</strong> the political activity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
electorate, but in this speech today I want to make a call out to those who stood up in the 2016 election and did the<br />
work, did the hours, did the miles, did those numerous meetings and gave the intellectual power that they had to<br />
do the planning for the election and help with the community development side <strong>of</strong> it. We had over 700 signed-up<br />
volunteers, all <strong>of</strong> whom had signed on to the value statement and contributed to the election. But it was led by this<br />
amazing team <strong>of</strong> wonderful people: Alana Johnson, Anne Shaw, Chris Hazell, Denis Ginnivan, Jacqui Hawkins,<br />
John Davis, Judy Brewer, Karen Nankervis, Michelle Dunscombe, Nick Haines, Phil Haines, Roberta Baker,<br />
Roland Wahlquist, Ross Kearney, Rowan O'Hagan, Ruth McGowan, Susan Benedyka, Tammy Atkins, Tony<br />
Lane, Cam Klose, Julie De Hennin, Trish Curtis, Mark and Jill Howard, Angela Killingsworth and Jane Taylor.<br />
They were the core group, but it is always dangerous when you name some people, because it was also everybody<br />
else who made the difference.<br />
The election in northeast Victoria was cold and wet and rainy and long, and many, many volunteers stood for<br />
hours in the very miserable cold weather not only doing how-to-vote cards but also having conversations with<br />
people, engaging them and talking about how other people could get involved—a deep and heartfelt thankyou for<br />
that work. I know you are going nowhere, that you are staying involved and that you will continually stay in touch<br />
with me and make sure that I represent our interests in this parliament.<br />
But Indi will only thrive as more organisations, groups, communities and people gain the skills and confidence<br />
to act on their own solutions, make their own plans and take effective action to get results. There is absolutely no<br />
point coming and seeing me, as a member <strong>of</strong> parliament, and describing a problem. It is <strong>of</strong> interest, but it does not<br />
get the answer we need. All too <strong>of</strong>ten people come to me with a problem and say, 'Cathy, can you do something<br />
about it? Can you go to the minister?' What we have come to understand is, sure, that is an action, but, if you give<br />
a country problem to a city minister, they will give you a city answer. You get a much better response if you bring<br />
together known ways <strong>of</strong> working and give the minister a solution to the problem—that is, if you say: here is the<br />
problem, here is what needs to be done, here we are as a community and here is how we can work together. That<br />
is what we have been doing in Indi. I was so pleased last week to be able to bring representatives <strong>of</strong> the dairy<br />
industry to parliament. People from the dairy industry came up. They are going through a really tough time, but<br />
they had sat down, defined the problem and worked out answers to what needed to be done, and they came to<br />
Canberra. We had a very constructive day meeting the Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and<br />
Regional Development and the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, talking about these issues<br />
and setting up partnerships that we know we can move together, and I was really pleased to do that.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 119<br />
Also last week, the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program came to Canberra. It is another example <strong>of</strong><br />
a community group learning about leadership—coming up here, spending the day and actually getting a hold on<br />
how parliament works and how they can advance it. I just made a little error there—it was Alpine Valleys who<br />
met the Prime Minister. It was not the dairy group; they were busy doing other things. When the Alpine Valleys<br />
Leadership group spoke to the Prime Minister they talked to him about the need for leadership training and<br />
empowering communities so that people who put up their hand to be president, secretary or treasurer <strong>of</strong> a group<br />
can not only learn how to do those jobs but learn how to network and engage with their community, and also with<br />
parliament.<br />
I was so pleased, because the Prime Minister said he was really interested in this idea <strong>of</strong> community leadership<br />
and how we could get it working nationally. I know in New South Wales it is not so popular, but in Victoria we<br />
have 10 geographically based community leadership programs. We get some money out <strong>of</strong> the Victorian<br />
government, all <strong>of</strong> us put in kind in, and every year we graduate about 30 community leaders, who then go back<br />
and work in their community in a networked way. The good thing about them coming to Canberra is that they get<br />
to understand how parliament works so they can then take on their own issues and start working in the system.<br />
These delegates are a really good example <strong>of</strong> how effective people can be in their own communities.<br />
Together with that work, the thing we did in Indi in 2015 which was so strong was a series <strong>of</strong> kitchen table<br />
conversations. Something like 400 or 500 people turned up around kitchen tables to talk about their issues. We<br />
then pulled that together to have the Indi Summit, <strong>of</strong> which we have a report. The Indi Summit said, 'These are the<br />
issues that we care about in our electorate and we are going to commit to doing things about these issues.' Of<br />
course, among those there are some issues that I have a particular interest in and will work on, namely renewable<br />
energy and employment for young people. The arts are really big in Indi, so how do we develop and grow the<br />
arts? How do we get a stronger voice for young people? How do we make sure our Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
Islander people are represented? They are some <strong>of</strong> the topics that we are now working really closely on with our<br />
community.<br />
What I am really pleased about is that we have set the model in place. We have now had four years <strong>of</strong> it<br />
working and it shows that community groups are interested and able to do things about their own problems. They<br />
can then come and work together with their political representatives. Then, with access to government and<br />
opposition, and to ministers, we can do the Canberra work to get rid <strong>of</strong> the roadblocks that are stopping change, to<br />
get the incentives that we need. Many <strong>of</strong> them are there; we need to bring them back into the community. I am<br />
really pleased that that model is doing so well.<br />
In my next three years <strong>of</strong> being the member for Indi, I want to talk to government about how we can do a much<br />
stronger job on policy development, particularly rural and regional policy development, that builds strong<br />
partnerships with the people on the ground, the grassroots groups who know exactly what is going on. Sometimes<br />
they might not have the exact answer, but together they can work to solve things. Too <strong>of</strong>ten in government we<br />
work backwards. We say, 'What happened?' and we spend our time catching up. I spoke in parliament yesterday<br />
about the problems we have with our train line, and all I could say is that we are spending huge amounts <strong>of</strong> time<br />
and energy trying to fix a problem that should not have been there in the first place. We are doing catch-up. I see<br />
the member for Corangamite is here in the <strong>House</strong>, and I know the enormous problems she has with mobile phone<br />
delivery, with roads, with transport. We are all playing catch-up. The truth <strong>of</strong> the matter is—<br />
Ms Henderson: We have made some great achievements though, all the same.<br />
Ms McGOWAN: Of course, and similar to me. We are making huge progress.<br />
Ms Henderson: Huge progress.<br />
Ms McGOWAN: We are, but we would much rather not be doing it. We would much rather be putting all that<br />
skill into designing the future for our communities. We would much rather take those skills that we have, the<br />
programs that we have and the community connections we have and go, 'Here's how we can actually do what the<br />
Prime Minister wants to do, which is to use the innovation and creativity that we know our communities have.'<br />
I am not for one moment saying that we are not having a great effect. Clearly that is why we got re-elected—<br />
because we are able to deliver for our communities. But I am really looking forward to not having to do all that<br />
repair work. I am looking forward to being part <strong>of</strong> a parliament that actually works with communities, that looks<br />
at a 20-year plan and says, 'Here's how our rural and regional communities are going to take their place as major<br />
contributors to the future <strong>of</strong> Australia.' In that particular area, I have been working with the Minister for Regional<br />
Development, Senator Fiona Nash, on a regional policy for Australia. I am optimistic that that minister is going to<br />
have some good news for us shortly. I have been working with the Prime Minister on how that might work out<br />
well.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the really important things about Canberra and policy that we have noticed is that government<br />
sometimes tends to make 'policy by grants', as we call it. There is no-one in rural Australia who does not want a<br />
grant. There are many <strong>of</strong> us who have spent years and years applying for grants, jumping through hoops—and<br />
maybe being successful—but it does not actually do what we need to do, which is create the long-term<br />
longitudinal space where we can grow the country. We need policy to do that. We need a good white paper that<br />
comes out. Maybe we need another summit that brings people together and builds engagement. We need a process<br />
where government has a big picture for Australia—so states, local government and our community groups all<br />
work together on it—and there is adequate funding in the system.<br />
I am really appreciative that the government has announced the Regional Ministerial Taskforce. That is a huge<br />
step in this direction. When I asked the Prime Minister a question in question time, he responded to that with a list<br />
<strong>of</strong> grants—all this grant money that the government is giving out. I acknowledge the grants—and I know that we<br />
do well in Indi with our grants—but it does not address the big problem that we have to talk about, which is<br />
investment in policy and programs that are going to be there for the long term and that will give the opportunity<br />
for the government to leave a legacy in our community. It is a cohesive approach to regional policy, an<br />
opportunity to work together, to bring communities together, to have that white paper, to have a summit and to<br />
build the coalitions <strong>of</strong> engagement that we know we need.<br />
John Anderson, when he was Deputy Prime Minister and responsible for regional development, used the<br />
technique <strong>of</strong> a national summit to great advantage. He would bring communities together and he would introduce<br />
them to each other so that some <strong>of</strong> the more prosperous communities in Victoria could meet with communities in<br />
other places that perhaps were not doing so well. He created a national understanding about issues. Organisations<br />
would then go and work together—for example, Australian Women In Agriculture. We were a national<br />
organisation. We got to meet and greet and work together and then create a national project with John Anderson<br />
and the department to do some fantastic work. I know there are many, many opportunities for that. For me, a rural<br />
policy needs to be enduring, bipartisan and enjoy community support. It needs to be robust and meaningful. If the<br />
government could do that, could get the process right as well as the outcome, it would be such a legacy—a legacy<br />
which would stay with us for a very long time.<br />
In talking about the role here in Canberra in doing that, I would now like to focus a few <strong>of</strong> my comments on<br />
how regional politicians have an important role to play here. I speak to my colleagues in the <strong>House</strong> today and<br />
acknowledge their commitment to rural and regional Australia. I know that we all do good work individually, but<br />
the idea <strong>of</strong> all the regional politicians collectively working together on the little slice that we have would be really<br />
welcome. When I was on the agricultural standing committee and we did a review into agricultural research, the<br />
standing committee came to northeast Victoria and met with the researchers and farmers. We had some really<br />
productive results from that. If we cannot get the policy right, cannot get the government to agree to a white paper<br />
or cannot get the government to have a national summit, I call on the government to ask one <strong>of</strong> its standing<br />
committees to do a review <strong>of</strong> the grants programs and how they work in regional Australia—and then to make<br />
some recommendations. If we are going to go that way, how do we make it better? How do we make it needs<br />
based?<br />
Finally, I would like to talk briefly about some <strong>of</strong> the exciting work that is happening in my electorate and the<br />
pride that I have in the work that the community is doing. I spoke about the dairy industry and the great work they<br />
are doing, and I spoke about the leadership program and the work they are doing. Earlier this week, I had an<br />
opportunity to talk about the youth work that is happening. Next week we have a youth policy camp, where local<br />
governments right across the electorate are getting young people together. They did one <strong>of</strong> these camps last year,<br />
and a significant number <strong>of</strong> young people stood for local government, as a result <strong>of</strong> learning how to, in a<br />
bipartisan and non-political way. So we now have a significant number <strong>of</strong> young people in our country areas who<br />
are on our local councils. They will be there for the long term and learn their way. That has been a wonderful<br />
outcome.<br />
In the area <strong>of</strong> renewable energy, almost every single town in my electorate has a community based group<br />
looking at renewable energy. I have been absolutely delighted to talk to the Prime Minister about the importance<br />
<strong>of</strong> community energy systems. I will be talking to the Minister for the Environment and Energy later on today<br />
about how we need a national approach to supporting community energy systems. There are over 60 communities<br />
already in Australia developing their own community based energy systems, and they are going to go from<br />
strength to strength. The wonderful thing that I see happening is that in little towns like Yackandandah, for<br />
example, the community gets together and actually learns about electricity rather than just being consumers. Two<br />
hundred or 300 people are turning up to public meetings. They are understanding about the poles and wires<br />
companies and the political debate we are having, and they are really inputting into that.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 121<br />
With that goes some other really exciting things. I was in Yackandandah on the weekend for the Yackandandah<br />
Folk Festival. I had the really lovely experience <strong>of</strong> standing at the crossroads in Yackandandah where there was a<br />
big tent set up. I think it was called 'waste watch'. It was the Yackandandah environment group. There were 5,000<br />
or 6,000 people at this festival, and on the crossroads they had a tent and all <strong>of</strong> the wheelie bins came to this one<br />
spot. They had a team <strong>of</strong> volunteers—I think close to 20 working on shifts—going through all <strong>of</strong> the rubbish, in<br />
full view <strong>of</strong> everybody, sorting all <strong>of</strong> the rubbish into disposables and recyclables and making sure that they did<br />
not do waste filling.<br />
That was a noble thing, but the really important thing that happened to me while I was there watching was that<br />
I had this overwhelming sense <strong>of</strong> being taught to be a much more responsible person regarding waste. I could see<br />
the accumulation <strong>of</strong> waste and I could see these really good community people separating it all out with gloves<br />
and protective clothing on. But it was the public education <strong>of</strong> it such as, 'We don't want to use plastic water bottles<br />
and disposable cups.' I had such an education about what not to do because <strong>of</strong> what the community did. What I am<br />
trying to say about the Indi way is that the community take responsibility and do their own work and, in the<br />
process, they educate us, and then we build up a whole community <strong>of</strong> people who have responsibility.<br />
So, back to the beginning: I got elected because people were disillusioned and disenfranchised. Four years later,<br />
I am so proud to say I am representing an electorate that is no longer that way. It is rapidly becoming engaged and<br />
it is better understanding the politics and how to make a difference to get the change that the member for<br />
Corangamite and I know we need. I am going to finish with a quote that I used in my first speech:<br />
The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating; the paths to it are not found, but made, and the<br />
making <strong>of</strong> these pathways changes both the maker and the destination.<br />
We are showing that we are changing the destination.<br />
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:43): It is my great pleasure to rise to reply to the Governor-General’s<br />
address. I was elected in 2013, and at the time my election I spoke about being a strong local voice. I hope, like<br />
you, Acting Deputy Speaker Wicks, that I have demonstrated that, by being a part <strong>of</strong> the Liberal Party, I can not<br />
only be part <strong>of</strong> a great party but also be a strong local voice for my community, identifying the issues that matter,<br />
going out and fighting like there is no tomorrow and delivering in spades for my electorate.<br />
I am so proud to represent the federal electorate <strong>of</strong> Corangamite. It is a wonderful part <strong>of</strong> the world, with 7½<br />
thousand square kilometres <strong>of</strong> magnificent coastline; wonderful parts <strong>of</strong> Geelong all the way through to Colac,<br />
with 188 kilometres <strong>of</strong> coastline, including the Great Ocean Road; and amazing agricultural areas, small country<br />
towns and an incredible national park stretching all the way up to Ballarat.<br />
I grew up in Geelong. I love my town. I love my electorate. When I go out into my community and represent<br />
the people <strong>of</strong> Corangamite I do it with a fierce passion. I do it with a fierce sense <strong>of</strong> wanting to make a difference<br />
and I do it because I am absolutely determined that we deserve the very best. I do believe that under the Turnbull<br />
government we are delivering in spades for regional Australia, and I am incredibly proud <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> our<br />
initiatives.<br />
I hope that the people <strong>of</strong> Corangamite recognise that I have indeed been willing to go in and fight for them on<br />
the issues that matter. I hope that they have seen that I demonstrated that over the terrible Wye River Christmas<br />
Day bushfires, which <strong>of</strong> course caused so much devastation in 2015 in Wye River and Separation Creek. I am<br />
incredibly proud that the federal government, through the Natural Disaster Recovery and Relief Arrangements—<br />
the NDRRA—has put so much investment into that community. That community has gone through so much.<br />
When a group <strong>of</strong> home owners came to me to say, 'We are being treated very badly by AAMI insurance, and<br />
many, many months after that fire we still do not have our insurance policies resolved', I was so pleased to go in<br />
and fight for them to hold AAMI insurance to account, to say that this is not good enough, to take their claims to<br />
the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, and to institute, with the great support <strong>of</strong> the<br />
minister, an ASIC inquiry into the conduct <strong>of</strong> AAMI insurance, which is still ongoing.<br />
I hope that the people <strong>of</strong> Corangamite will see that from the very beginning, when I first was preselected as the<br />
Liberal candidate back in 2009, I fought tooth and nail for the Princess Highway duplication project. I narrowly<br />
missed out on being elected in 2010, but I continued that fight. Now, with great pride, we are injecting more than<br />
half a billion dollars into that road. The duplication <strong>of</strong> the Waurn Ponds to Winchelsea section has now been<br />
completed—and, boy oh boy, the people <strong>of</strong> Winchelsea and the township <strong>of</strong> Winchelsea are absolutely sparkling<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> the investment in that road—and the next section between Winchelsea and Colac is now well<br />
underway. I am so proud, and I say, 'Shame', to the Grattan Institute, which said that this was a road to nowhere.<br />
This is a road to somewhere very special. It takes people down to places like Colac right through to south-western<br />
Victorian to Warrnambool and beyond, and, <strong>of</strong> course, to the magnificent Great Ocean Road.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
I am so incredibly proud because I think that this really does symbolise so much <strong>of</strong> why people across Australia<br />
backed our government at the last election. I am very proud to stand up for rural and regional Australia. I reflect<br />
on the member for Indi's contribution, and can I say that much can be achieved by being a member <strong>of</strong> this<br />
government and by being member <strong>of</strong> our great Liberal Party.<br />
In contrast to Labor, which did not spend one dollar on mobile blackspots, we are now tackling blackspots<br />
across the nation, with a $220 million investment. Eighteen mobile base stations have been committed in the<br />
Corangamite electorate. A number are up and running. One in Carlisle River is just about to be turned on. Much<br />
more hard work is required to get them all up and running, but it does demonstrate that, whether you live in a<br />
large regional city or a tiny town, your voice matters. We have not seen that same approach from the Labor Party.<br />
We have taken the same approach to the NBN—a more equitable NBN than was proposed by Labor and one<br />
which significantly subsidises rural and regional communities. I am very proud that right across the electorate the<br />
NBN is being rolled out and making a real difference.<br />
Another very important issue in Corangamite is rail. It is extraordinary—and this has been a project that has<br />
been on the radar for many years, including when my mum was the member for Geelong in the 1990s—that the<br />
Labor Party at a state level had very few infrastructure projects in the pipeline. We know that Daniel Andrews<br />
cancelled the East West Link contract after saying there was no contract. That was clearly untrue and a terrible<br />
untruth. It was one <strong>of</strong> the most economically reckless decisions in Victorian history. It cost Victorian taxpayers a<br />
staggering $1.2 billion, and now we have a poor cousin <strong>of</strong> that project, the Western Distributor, which is only half<br />
<strong>of</strong> the western link <strong>of</strong> the East West Link, and we desperately need that full western road link into Melbourne. It is<br />
a complete nightmare travelling from Geelong to Melbourne at the moment.<br />
I have to say we are very proud <strong>of</strong> the $3 billion we have committed to the first state government willing to<br />
build the East West Link. We have a very strong commitment to that project from the state Liberal opposition<br />
under the leadership <strong>of</strong> Matthew Guy, in contrast to the terrible decision made by Daniel Andrews.<br />
Of course, this was a project that was previously supported by both sides <strong>of</strong> politics, so again what we have<br />
seen from the Labor Party is a very unprincipled decision where the likes <strong>of</strong> the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition and<br />
former Prime Minister Julia Gillard—and I include the member for Corio—were not willing and did not display<br />
the guts to stand up to Daniel Andrews and say, 'We need this infrastructure in Victoria.' Similarly, the Regional<br />
Rail Link is, regrettably, a project that is simply not doing the job. The Regional Rail Link was meant to make<br />
travel between Geelong and Melbourne so much faster, and what we have seen in the Regional Rail Link is, I<br />
think, a monumental failure. It is now servicing the suburbs in western Melbourne—places like Tarneit and<br />
Wyndham Vale—and the people <strong>of</strong> Geelong and Corangamite are being left behind.<br />
I was very pleased under the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister to make a commitment <strong>of</strong> $1 million to duplicate<br />
the rail between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds, and yet we have seen no action from state Labor in progressing<br />
that project. Where is the business plan? Where is the feasibility study to get these projects moving? We as a<br />
region have so much potential. Geelong, Torquay, Ocean Grove, Colac and everywhere in between—it is such a<br />
wonderful place to live, to work and to raise a family, and yet we are seeing major challenges in the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> vital infrastructure to support the growth in our community.<br />
It is a reflection on the state Labor government that it took a campaign led by me as the federal member<br />
doorknocking week after week, month after month to get the duplication <strong>of</strong> the rail track through Geelong onto<br />
the state government's agenda, and now I am again calling on the state to get on with the job <strong>of</strong> doing that work<br />
and progressing that duplication.<br />
Another great achievement <strong>of</strong> this government in Corangamite is the way that we have led the way in funding<br />
the upgrade <strong>of</strong> the Great Ocean Road. Before I was elected I was absolutely delighted to make a commitment <strong>of</strong><br />
$25 million from the Commonwealth matched by $25 million from the former Liberal State government, and we<br />
were able to deliver a $50 million upgrade <strong>of</strong> the Great Ocean Road, making a real difference to places like<br />
Anglesea and Lorne with the upgrades they received. The Boggaley Creek Bridge was upgraded, as was the<br />
Separation Creek Bridge. Now I have been holding a number <strong>of</strong> summits with communities. I held a summit in<br />
Lorne and another one in Apollo Bay, reaching out to the community because we have now committed another<br />
$25 million, which was matched by the state after lobbying for that matching funding for some six months. All in<br />
all, there is $100 million in an upgrade program in what is an incredibly important, iconic road not just in our<br />
region, not just in Australia but internationally. We have absolutely led the way, in circumstances where the<br />
previous federal Labor member, Darren Cheeseman, and his government at the time had not supported any federal<br />
investment in one <strong>of</strong> Australia's most important and iconic roads. The road is an incredible memorial to the men—<br />
returned soldiers—who built it, starting in 1919.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 123<br />
You and I are regional members, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. I am aware <strong>of</strong> the way in which you, as the<br />
member for Robertson, have delivered for your community. It is not because <strong>of</strong> Liberal policy; it is because you<br />
identified the needs in your community. You have the $72.5 million Central Coast Medical School and Research<br />
Institute, with $32 million coming from the federal government, and the new ATO <strong>of</strong>fice, which will deliver 600<br />
new jobs into Gosford by the end <strong>of</strong> the year. Along with what we are doing in Corangamite, this did not happen<br />
because <strong>of</strong> Liberal policy; this happened because we regional members took our jobs very seriously. We identified<br />
the issues, the needs and the priorities in our electorates and we went out and we fought. That is absolutely<br />
fundamental to my job. Each and every day, Madam Deputy Speaker, like you, I am going out fighting for jobs,<br />
infrastructure and the environment in my community.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> our hallmarks is the way in which, despite our challenges in manufacturing, we can see a greater and<br />
more diversified economy in Geelong. A number <strong>of</strong> years ago, we secured the Advanced Manufacturing Industry<br />
Growth Centre based in Geelong, at Waurn Ponds, at Deakin University, which is an extraordinary university<br />
doing amazing things and leading the way in showing how a university can work with industry to forge new<br />
opportunities, groundbreaking research and new jobs. Perhaps the best example <strong>of</strong> that is Carbon Revolution,<br />
which started <strong>of</strong>f as a university project. A group <strong>of</strong> students got together to test a lightweight vehicle for a race,<br />
and they decided that their vehicle would be more lightweight if they used carbon fibre wheels. From that, now<br />
we have an incredible business in Carbon Revolution, which built a new factory, supported by $5 million from our<br />
government—not the Labor Party, as the member for Corio wrongly and very dishonestly states—funded by a $15<br />
million contribution to the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. This company is leading the way<br />
globally in developing these lightweight wheels, and it has just raised $50 million to develop even further. We are<br />
proudly a very strong advanced manufacturing growth centre.<br />
I will not hear any discussion about the failure <strong>of</strong> auto manufacturing. Ford sadly has ended its manufacturing<br />
in Australia, but it still has some 500 people working in Geelong and at the Lara proving ground—500 employees,<br />
engineering and designing cars for Ford's global market. And just yesterday I met with the chair <strong>of</strong> Chemring,<br />
another incredible company, which has flown under the radar to a large degree. It is making flares for the defence<br />
industry, including flares for the F35 project. Some 100 people are working out at Chemring's Lara factory. There<br />
are so many wonderful advanced manufacturers in our region, supported by our belief and our investment in<br />
advanced manufacturing, not just through the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund and our $155<br />
million Growth Fund but also our Geelong Region Job Connections program, underpinned by other very<br />
important investments like the establishment <strong>of</strong> an Australian Bureau <strong>of</strong> Statistics centre <strong>of</strong> excellence on the<br />
waterfront. In so many ways, I am incredibly proud <strong>of</strong> the way in which our government is continuing to invest in<br />
our region.<br />
The National Disability Insurance Agency headquarters is under construction—a $120-million building under<br />
construction. Even the state government's WorkSafe building, also under construction, has been underpinned by a<br />
low-interest loan <strong>of</strong> $68 million from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. So, again, the Commonwealth is<br />
playing a very significant role in the development <strong>of</strong> that building.<br />
In these closing minutes <strong>of</strong> my address today, I want to make a few observations about the big fights that are<br />
yet to be had. We are so proud <strong>of</strong> what we have delivered right across the economy, standing up for communities<br />
big and small: the NBN; mobile base stations; supporting Avalon Airport to become an international airport;<br />
supporting the dairy industry and farmers; and focusing on energy security and job security, and on national<br />
security, which is resonating in places like Torquay, Ocean Grove and Geelong because <strong>of</strong> the real issues and<br />
concerns about community safety, which I feel we are seeing really becoming an alarming issue under the current<br />
state government.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> my big objectives is to secure a City Deal for our region, and I am delighted with the support that we<br />
have received from the likes <strong>of</strong> G21, which is a great organisation bringing together our five regional councils. It<br />
was my great honour to organise a meeting with the Prime Minister and G21 last week here in Canberra.<br />
Together, we are working to try and bring a City Deal to our region, which brings state government, local<br />
government and the federal government together, along with other major institutions like Deakin, and industry, to<br />
form an agreement, with one vision and one plan, to make sure we can continue to drive investment in our region.<br />
Fixing the regional rail link is an absolute priority. We must see significant movement from the state in fixing<br />
the regional rail link and getting on with regional rail. It is so vitally important.<br />
Another big focus for a City Deal, I believe, is tourism. We saw a complete lack <strong>of</strong> interest from the previous<br />
federal Labor government when it came to supporting tourism in our region. Let us not forget that the Great<br />
Ocean Road is the centrepiece <strong>of</strong> a $2.1 billion regional tourism economy, and we need to keep that investment<br />
going. I am very pleased that I am working with a group <strong>of</strong> people—and I will have more to say in the coming<br />
weeks about a very significant project to continue to drive tourism investment and to increase the yield.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
So we see a City Deal as being very important. As part <strong>of</strong> that, like what the state Liberal government did in the<br />
1990s when my mother was the member for Geelong, I think that an independent planning authority to drive and<br />
fast-track that investor confidence and development is very important, which obviously mimics what has occurred<br />
with the likes <strong>of</strong> the Townsville City Deal.<br />
I will finish by saying: I am very conscious <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the social challenges in our community, Madam Deputy<br />
Speaker Claydon—and I welcome you to the chair, and recognise you as the deputy chair <strong>of</strong> our <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Representatives</strong> Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; we have just announced an inquiry into<br />
family violence law reform, and I am very cognisant <strong>of</strong> the real issue that this is in the community, along with<br />
issues like ice addiction and other challenges for families.<br />
So I am incredibly proud to be the member for Corangamite and to have been re-elected. I will continue to<br />
stand up and fight for my community at every opportunity.<br />
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:04): I rise to take part in the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech<br />
today. It is important, in looking forward to what should be done in this term <strong>of</strong> the parliament, to reflect on where<br />
we are now.<br />
Unfortunately, what we are seeing in this parliament is a government that is led by someone who lacks<br />
authority amongst his own party. The Prime Minister is someone with very little authority amongst the coalition,<br />
as is quite obvious from the marriage equality issue, where the Prime Minister—despite his previous commitment<br />
to having a free vote and to changing the law to allow for marriage equality—has been unable to deliver that; the<br />
Prime Minister seeming to have been comprehensively rolled in his own party room in relation to taking real<br />
action on climate change; and <strong>of</strong> course, just this week, the Prime Minister's efforts in relation to the extradition<br />
treaty. So we have a Prime Minister who lacks authority and who is unable to lead his own party, let alone the<br />
nation. And behind him what do we see? We see dysfunctional and divided Liberals who are much more<br />
interested in fighting amongst themselves than they are in pursuing the national interest. That is really regrettable<br />
and, unfortunately, does not bode well for good government in this country.<br />
On the other side <strong>of</strong> the aisle, we have a Labor Party opposition that is incredibly united. We are an opposition<br />
team who are looking together with one set <strong>of</strong> values and one set <strong>of</strong> voices for the future <strong>of</strong> this nation and what<br />
needs to be done in relation to this nation's future—and there are a lot <strong>of</strong> challenges facing our nation. Inequality<br />
is at 75-year highs. Wages growth is in the doldrums. It is the slowest it has been since the wage price index<br />
started being kept in 1997. We have high unemployment but also very high underemployment, with 1.1 million<br />
Australians unable to get the additional work that they want even though they may already have some hours every<br />
week. Those challenges are contributing to, as I said, increasing inequality. We have a situation now where the<br />
income distribution is getting more and more spread out and where more and more <strong>of</strong> the nation's income and<br />
wealth is accumulating at the top <strong>of</strong> the income and wealth distribution, so we are seeing very, very broad spreads<br />
between people who are very poor and people who are very wealthy.<br />
We are also in a situation where we are facing quite significant challenges in democracy, where we have a<br />
nation <strong>of</strong> people who do not really have faith in political institutions anymore, do not really trust democracy and,<br />
even worse, do not really see the relevance <strong>of</strong> politics to their lives. That is a real problem, <strong>of</strong> course, because<br />
politics is where decisions are made about the allocation <strong>of</strong> resources, the raising <strong>of</strong> revenue and the creation <strong>of</strong><br />
rules that determine the outcomes for our country and have real impacts on people's day-to-day lives, whether it is<br />
family tax benefit cuts, the way that child care works, the fiscal conditions and what they mean for the economy<br />
more broadly, something as simple as how schools are funded—that is not really that simple, but it sounds<br />
simple—what resources are allocated to hospitals, or how much attention is given to reducing and eliminating<br />
family violence. All <strong>of</strong> these things are affected by decisions that are made in politics by elected representatives.<br />
So a lack <strong>of</strong> trust in political institutions and a cynicism about politics means it becomes too easy for people to<br />
withdraw from, disconnect from and ignore politics altogether. But the problem with doing that is that, if you<br />
vacate the field <strong>of</strong> politics, you are leaving it to someone else. You are leaving it up to other people to make the<br />
decisions that will affect your life and your family's lives. That is why it is really important, now more than ever,<br />
that people do not just disengage from politics but do take an interest, get involved and work on strengthening<br />
institutions, not walk away from them.<br />
Labor have a clear set <strong>of</strong> values that we articulate consistently and have done over many decades <strong>of</strong> our<br />
existence. We certainly change and adapt with the times—we are a party <strong>of</strong> progress—but we are very clear about<br />
the fact that we stand for community, we stand for empowering working-class households, we stand for<br />
empowering middle-class households and we stand for reducing inequality and not accepting the idea that<br />
somehow increasing inequality is just a law <strong>of</strong> nature—because it quite clearly is not. It is a function <strong>of</strong> the<br />
decisions that are made in politics and elsewhere, and, if that is true, the decisions that are made in politics and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 125<br />
elsewhere can turn increasing inequality around and can deal with the disadvantage that is being created amongst<br />
a lot <strong>of</strong> Australian households.<br />
To give you an example <strong>of</strong> these issues, something that is highly affected by politics and by the decisions that<br />
are made about the allocation <strong>of</strong> resources, the rules that are made and the revenue that is raised is training and<br />
skills in this country. Everyone in this parliament, I suspect, is well aware that the bottom is falling out <strong>of</strong><br />
apprenticeships in Australia, and that is certainly the case in my electorate. It is a really important challenge for<br />
my electorate. In fact, apprentice numbers have declined by one-third in my electorate since the government was<br />
first elected in 2013. Since the current coalition government was elected in 2013, apprentice numbers have<br />
dropped by one-third. There have been $2½ billion <strong>of</strong> cuts to skills and TAFE nationally by this government since<br />
it was elected.<br />
That is a real problem. The fact that skills and vocational education are being undermined in this country and<br />
the fact that people are not taking up apprenticeships is a real problem, because it is just not the case anymore that<br />
there is a wide range <strong>of</strong> entry-level jobs out there for people to go into while they are still at school or when they<br />
finish school. In my day, I, as a 14-and-nine-month-year-old, went and got a job at a convenience store, <strong>of</strong><br />
course—I had worked in my parent's small business before then—and ended up working at one <strong>of</strong> the big<br />
supermarkets. It is getting harder and harder for kids to find those entry-level jobs that give them something to put<br />
on the resume and the skills that they need for employment—skills like knowing how important things are,<br />
knowing how to work with co-workers that might be different to you, or knowing how to pay the right amount <strong>of</strong><br />
respect to the boss but not allow yourself to be exploited at the same time; those sorts <strong>of</strong> skills that are second<br />
nature to people who have had a lifetime in work.<br />
Kids are not getting the same opportunities, and one really important thing that we can do to make sure that<br />
young people are able to be equipped for the jobs <strong>of</strong> the future is to really focus on education. That means dealing<br />
with vocational education and training. That means doing something about the funding arrangements for schools,<br />
which are so unfair and unrealistic in this country and are leading to some schools been much worse <strong>of</strong>f than<br />
others, when that just should not be the case. It means doing something about access to university, and not making<br />
it harder for people to go to university if that is what they want to do. And, at the very, very front end, it means a<br />
focus on early learning, education and care.<br />
It has been unfortunate to see some <strong>of</strong> the acrobatics that the government has engaged in in relation to child<br />
care in recent weeks here in the parliament. There are certainly some good moves that are being made by the<br />
government in relation to child care but, at the same time, asking for those to be funded by cuts to school-aged<br />
kids' families and also ignoring the needs <strong>of</strong> the very, very disadvantaged kids, by <strong>of</strong>fering only 12 hours <strong>of</strong> care<br />
rather than 15, which is the difference between one day and two days, the government has really displayed a<br />
regrettable lack <strong>of</strong> understanding and sympathy not only for the highly disadvantaged households but also for the<br />
middle-class and working-class households that are being asked to take cuts to their own living standards in order<br />
to fund the early learning and care reforms.<br />
I mentioned schools funding. It is very important that we continue the focus on schools funding. You will recall<br />
that the government, when it was elected back in 2013, claimed to be on a unity ticket with Labor in relation to<br />
schools funding. That, unfortunately, turned out not to be true. They had those signs up on election day: 'We will<br />
match Labor's schools funding dollar for dollar.' That was what they were claiming at the time, but it just was not<br />
true. In fact, in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Griffith, schools are going to lose around $10 million in the next few years alone.<br />
Nationwide, that is a function <strong>of</strong> the fact that the Liberals are cutting around $30 billion from schools funding over<br />
the decade. If you want to get a sense <strong>of</strong> what that number means on the ground, it is the equivalent <strong>of</strong> sacking one<br />
in seven teachers—that is what that amount <strong>of</strong> money could represent. That means that schools in my electorate<br />
will be hurt.<br />
I have been talking to schools in my electorate about what they are doing with the additional funding that they<br />
got because <strong>of</strong> the work that Labor did in government to commission a report on how schools funding could be<br />
reformed. Those schools are reporting back to me about the incredible things that they are doing not only in the<br />
classroom but also with the supports that they are putting around disadvantaged kids, the focus they can give to<br />
gifted and talented kids at the other end and all <strong>of</strong> the work that they are doing with the additional funding that<br />
they have.<br />
The Liberal-National government's school cuts that are coming down the pipeline are going to mean less oneon-one<br />
attention for kids, they are going to mean fewer teachers and they are going to mean students being left<br />
behind or not reaching their full potential. That is why we are so concerned about these education cuts: for the<br />
kids themselves—for their own futures—but also for the future <strong>of</strong> the nation. Education not only is important to<br />
the living standards <strong>of</strong> a particular household or a particular person but also determines whether we are going to<br />
be a nation with a workforce <strong>of</strong> the future that has the skills, the attributes and the knowledge needed in order to<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
do the jobs <strong>of</strong> the future; to pay the taxes <strong>of</strong> the future; to contribute to having a strong country where we can<br />
continue to fund the services that everyone relies on—the hospitals <strong>of</strong> the future and the schools <strong>of</strong> the future; and<br />
to continue to come to terms with the fact that we do, as a society, owe obligations to people who, for example,<br />
are on the age pension—so that, instead <strong>of</strong> having a situation where conservative governments try to hack into the<br />
age pension every other year, we actually have a good, strong economy that can deliver the taxes needed to pay<br />
for the services and the supports that people need.<br />
I mention the age pension specifically, because I know that a lot <strong>of</strong> people in my electorate have been very<br />
concerned about the government's repeated attempts to cut the age pension. Some have been successful and some<br />
have been unsuccessful, but a consistent feature <strong>of</strong> this government has been their attempts to reduce the age<br />
pension. We saw it in the disastrous 2014 federal budget—possibly the worst federal budget in the history <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Federation. I do not know if there has been another budget that had such a terrible effect on confidence for this<br />
nation. You saw in the aftermath <strong>of</strong> that budget that people just stopped going out and spending money on c<strong>of</strong>fees,<br />
stopped going to the newsagent and stopped consuming and doing all the things that they were doing before. The<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> this drop in confidence really hit the economy. Of course, when consumption slows down economic<br />
growth slows down, and we saw that very clearly in the months and years following the 2014 federal budget.<br />
In my state <strong>of</strong> Queensland that was a particular hit. It was during the term <strong>of</strong> the Newman government—a<br />
government that sacked 20,000 public sector workers. When you sack 20,000 people in Queensland, that <strong>of</strong> course<br />
has consequences not just for those people but also for local small businesses. People who lose their jobs do not<br />
tend to spend as much money. People who are afraid that they are going to be next to lose their job, because you<br />
have a government taking the axe to the public service, are not going to be out there consuming and patronising<br />
small businesses. So we had already had that massive blow to our state's economy and confidence and then, to<br />
have on top <strong>of</strong> that, the 2014 federal budget was a great shock, certainly to people in my electorate.<br />
There were a lot <strong>of</strong> attempts to make cuts in the 2014 budget. I actually do not know if I could nominate the<br />
worst; there were so many terrible ones. Remember they axed the Interactive Games Fund. They decided that they<br />
would cut funds to the Australian Taxation Office. They cut funds to the Australian Securities and Investments<br />
Commission. They took an axe to all sorts <strong>of</strong> things in that 2014 federal budget. The 20 per cent cut to public<br />
funding for universities was in the 2014 federal budget. There were axes taken everywhere. Everything was cut<br />
except, I think, Joe Hockey's cigar budget. But, other than that, there were axes taken left, right and centre in the<br />
2014 federal budget. But, for me, one <strong>of</strong> the worst was the attempt to cut the pension by fiddling with the<br />
indexation arrangements.<br />
Labor in government had looked at the age pension indexation arrangements and said that it is not really<br />
enough to look at what the CPI says, for a couple <strong>of</strong> reasons—firstly, because pensioners have different living<br />
costs than the general population. So we added the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index as another index<br />
to be used for the age pension, and you took whichever was the greater <strong>of</strong> two. But you also want to benchmark it<br />
against average weekly earnings, so that as community living standards rise so do pensioners' living standards and<br />
you do not have this increased inequality. So it was also benchmarked against average weekly earnings.<br />
But this government, in 2014, decided to try to get rid <strong>of</strong> those indexations and benchmarking and to just leave<br />
pensioners in a situation where they would be worse <strong>of</strong>f. It was disingenuous and it would have left pensioners<br />
$80 a week worse <strong>of</strong>f. Luckily, there was a very significant community campaign brought against these cuts and<br />
Labor campaigned against them as well and we were able to defeat them. But we have not been able to do so with<br />
all <strong>of</strong> the pension cuts that this government has introduced. Unfortunately, if you elect a coalition government,<br />
you get coalition policies implemented. Oppositions can do only so much to stop coalition governments from<br />
implementing coalition policy. Unfortunately, the coalition government's instinct to cut the pension has, in some<br />
cases, been successful.<br />
We are particularly worried about the current attempts to scrap the energy supplement, which will cut $1 billion<br />
from pensioners, people with a disability, carers and Newstart recipients across the country. If the Liberals are<br />
able to cut the energy supplement, that will mean that that supplement will be scrapped for new pensioners from<br />
September this year. It will mean a cut <strong>of</strong> $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, or $365 a year, and couple<br />
pensioners will be $21.20 a fortnight worse <strong>of</strong>f, or around $550 a year worse <strong>of</strong>f. This might not sound like a lot<br />
<strong>of</strong> money to the Prime Minister. But I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, if you are a pensioner going<br />
to the pharmacy to get things that you need, these cuts will hurt. It is very disappointing to see the government yet<br />
again looking to find savings—that is, cuts—from pensioners, and at the same time continuing to pursue their<br />
ridiculous enterprise tax plan, which is a $50 billion tax giveaway to big business, multinational corporations and<br />
Australia's big banks.<br />
At the same time as the government are saying that pensioners need to tighten their belts, they want to reduce<br />
the nation's taxes by giving $50 billion away to big business, multinationals and big banks. In other words, they<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 127<br />
want to make it even harder to pay for the services that Australians need, put even more pressure on the federal<br />
government, and increase the deficit even more—which is a pretty significant feat, given that they have managed<br />
to triple the deficit since their projections in 2014. They have already tripled the deficit, and now they want to give<br />
away $50 billion <strong>of</strong> tax revenue. That is going to make things even worse. And they turn to us and say: 'Well,<br />
what are you doing about savings? What are you doing about budget repair?' It is very simple: how about you<br />
don't give away $50 billion <strong>of</strong> tax revenue? How about we in this country look at superannuation tax concessions<br />
that are generous? How about we—finally, as a nation—agree that we need to do something about negative<br />
gearing? It is very clear that we need to do something about negative gearing and capital gains tax. Labor has been<br />
out very strongly leading the national debate on negative gearing and on housing affordability. It is regrettable that<br />
the government has failed to get on board, but I am hopeful that they will, at some point.<br />
The other cuts that we are still feeling from the 2014 budget—and that the government are still pursuing—are<br />
their cuts to hospital funding over the decade. At the last election, we committed to restoring the historic<br />
agreement with the states to 2020, which would have meant an additional $400 million for Queensland public<br />
hospitals. My electorate already has world-class public hospitals, like the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which I<br />
visited recently with the shadow minister for health. Cutting funding to hospitals makes it more difficult for<br />
hospitals to provide those world-class services, and more difficult for them to engage in service innovation, like<br />
the service innovation going on at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.<br />
Probably even more <strong>of</strong> a concern to people in my electorate is the fact that Medicare remains under siege by<br />
this government. Based on the latest figures, the GP bulk-billing rate in my electorate is woeful—it is 68.1 per<br />
cent. We rank 141st out <strong>of</strong> 150 electorates for bulk-billing rates. That is just for GP bulk-billing rates; our overall<br />
Medicare bulk-billing rate is even lower, at 66.8 per cent. That means that there are people in my electorate who<br />
just cannot access bulk billing. As many as eight per cent <strong>of</strong> people in the Brisbane South Primary Health<br />
Network will choose to delay a visit to the doctor or—worse still—avoid seeing a doctor at all. Eight per cent in<br />
my electorate; that is about 13,000 people who live in the electorate who might be at risk <strong>of</strong> compromised health<br />
care as a consequence <strong>of</strong> not be able to get access to bulk billing.<br />
I wrote to the new Minister for Health, on the day that he was sworn in, to raise with him my very strong<br />
concern about these figures and about the compromised health care in my electorate if the current situation, where<br />
bulk billing is languishing, is allowed to continue. I also wrote to him about the rising costs <strong>of</strong> private health<br />
insurance—something that people in my electorate are very concerned about. The latest figures from Private<br />
Healthcare Australia indicate that about 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> people in my area are covered by private health insurance.<br />
There was a 5.6 average premium increase in 2016, and that followed on from an average increase <strong>of</strong> 6.2 per cent<br />
in each <strong>of</strong> the first two years <strong>of</strong> the coalition government. That is putting people in my electorate under a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
stress.<br />
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:24): In 1899, the famous poet and literary<br />
figure Henry Lawson, in his poem 'Twas a Land Set Apart, wrote:<br />
'Tis a land where national honour<br />
Might rise with a stainless name!<br />
And the people be wise and prosper,<br />
And freedom forget her shame!<br />
And the wealth <strong>of</strong> the people only<br />
Be told by the wealth <strong>of</strong> the State—<br />
—and so on. I have quoted a verse in my two previous address-in-reply speeches. I felt, given the new extent <strong>of</strong><br />
my electorate boundaries, it was appropriate to use some lines from Lawson, born on the Grenfell goldfields in<br />
1867—and now part <strong>of</strong> the Riverina electorate.<br />
Australia and the land it has become is a place we call home and are proud. It is 'a land set apart', and the<br />
greatest assets, the richest attributes, <strong>of</strong> this great southern land are its people.<br />
We live in a time <strong>of</strong> great prosperity, with much to be thankful for, and it is with grateful thanks that I stand<br />
here today. 'Politics is not about power; it is about people.' Those were amongst my concluding words in my first<br />
address-in-reply to this parliament on 21 October 2010, and—as I stand here now, in the 45th Parliament <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia, the representative <strong>of</strong> a Riverina electorate quite different to the one which elected me almost 6½ years<br />
ago—that statement is truer than ever. No matter where you go or what you do, no matter the time or place,<br />
politics is always about people—people ahead <strong>of</strong> power. It is the conversations and interactions I have with people<br />
around the Riverina and Central West and across Australia's small businesses which inspire me each and every<br />
day.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
People have inspired me my whole life. As a newspaper editor, the purpose <strong>of</strong> print was the people, the<br />
readers—meeting people and sharing their stories; going into bat for my community and its people. Every person<br />
has a story; every individual has a unique tale to tell. To use the community's newspaper to be our champion and<br />
to see Wagga Wagga and the Riverina and its people prosper: that was my aim, and so it was my aim, as a small<br />
business owner, building from my home's garage in Wagga Wagga, to grow and create a multiplier effect across<br />
the Riverina region. A small business, too, is about people. As our small business grew, so did the local printer,<br />
moving premises, buying bigger equipment and, perhaps most importantly, hiring more staff, proving again that<br />
regional people can mix it with the best.<br />
To represent people in this parliament is a great privilege; it is a great honour. I stand here today as the<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> eight shires which were not previously in the Riverina electorate, and the greatest part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
challenge <strong>of</strong> our new geography was meeting its people. From Tootool to Tullamore, from Yerong Creek to Peak<br />
Hill, the people <strong>of</strong> my electorate are resilient, hardworking, fantastic, wonderful people. The number <strong>of</strong> shires and<br />
communities we welcomed to the Riverina electorate at the last election is high, and its geography is very<br />
different. The shires and communities around Cootamundra, Cowra, Forbes, Grenfell, Harden-Murrumburrah,<br />
Lockhart, Parkes and Young are each country towns with a vibrant community and a very, very bright future.<br />
While the map has changed, the character <strong>of</strong> our electorate remains the same. We are all, in the Riverina and<br />
Central West, proudly country. We all want more jobs. We all need better mobile-telephone coverage. We all<br />
want to see good local roads and booming local businesses. Today, as it is every day, ours is a story <strong>of</strong> regional<br />
Australia—a story <strong>of</strong> great hope for our nation's future. We have a desire to see our communities grow, services<br />
grow and small businesses grow. And, more than anything, we hope our towns will be stronger and more resilient<br />
for the next generation.<br />
When thinking about the issues which were clear in Riverina at the last election and the priorities which will<br />
drive me in this term <strong>of</strong> parliament, I want to talk about three main points: supporting small business, building<br />
inland rail and connecting country communities. If we are to build buoyant country towns, these three are the<br />
character <strong>of</strong> my Riverina and Central West electorate, and these are ambitions the Nationals share. The roads, the<br />
bridges and the rail lines, which are the arteries <strong>of</strong> our region, will entwine our enterprises—our farmers and our<br />
primary producers—with the markets which will buy from them and with ports. It will see small business succeed.<br />
It will create the jobs and opportunities country people want, with a future on which they know they can rely. And<br />
the Nationals' plan will see that destiny manifest.<br />
Country communities are naturally communities <strong>of</strong> small business. In cities such as Wagga Wagga or Parkes,<br />
or in remote places such as Tullamore or Warroo, the local economy is only there because <strong>of</strong> small business.<br />
Small business is our country's job creator. Australia's 2.1 million small businesses employ almost five million<br />
Australians—more than any other sector in our economy. In the Riverina and Central West, the more than 15,000<br />
small businesses I proudly represent keep jobs available locally. They do a grand job. They create opportunities<br />
for locals to invest, and they sell the goods and services our nation needs and people worldwide need.<br />
Small business is naturally at home with the Nationals. Of the 15,000 small businesses in my electorate, around<br />
a third are farmers. As this government moves to expand the definition <strong>of</strong> small business to a turnover <strong>of</strong> $10<br />
million from its current threshold <strong>of</strong> $2 million, many <strong>of</strong> its beneficiaries will be farmers. Ask any country person<br />
and they will tell you that when the season is good so is the town, and if farmers do well so do local farmmachinery<br />
small businesses and car dealers, as well as people who run shops in a country town's main street. In<br />
fact, everybody prospers. If farmers do well then people in our cities are fed and clothed. Our economy grows<br />
and—just as recent data on exports shows—Australia's economy becomes the envy <strong>of</strong> the world. That proud story<br />
starts with small businesses in rural and regional Australia, someone taking a risk to pursue their dream. Whether<br />
that is starting a small business from home, whether it is diversifying the farm into different commodities, or<br />
whether it is trying to grow and give another local person a job, country small businesses and their people are<br />
what make regional Australia so great.<br />
That is why our plan to back small businesses will work. It will cut taxes for small businesses and make their<br />
paperwork simpler. It will mean more small businesses are able to write <strong>of</strong>f new equipment sooner and it will<br />
make it easier for them to hire someone new. As the Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-National government's Minister for<br />
Small Business, I know this is a plan that will work across Australia. It is something people have raised with me<br />
from Wombat to Western Australia and it is something designed to put small business in the driver's seat. Locally,<br />
I know it will work too.<br />
The Nationals' plan for inland rail and the critical country roads which connect to it is a boon for our local<br />
economy, our region and our people. Country people know it is not just an upgrade <strong>of</strong> safety for those who use the<br />
road, although that is a top-<strong>of</strong>-the-mind issue. Investing in roads and building inland rail makes freight more<br />
efficient. It constructs a corridor <strong>of</strong> commerce, the benefit <strong>of</strong> which sits almost entirely with small business.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 129<br />
Thanks to our plan, inland rail is very much the character <strong>of</strong> the Riverina and central west. Every single<br />
community in my electorate benefits from the planned inland rail route, which calls the Riverina electorate home.<br />
It is going to be the backbone, the spine, <strong>of</strong> the electorate. With hubs at Wagga Wagga in the south and Parkes in<br />
the north, the benefit from bulk freight is clear. Farmers and small businesses will benefit from ongoing work on<br />
the Riverina Intermodal Freight and Logistics Hub at Bomen, in north Wagga Wagga, a project I support and<br />
which has obtained considerable federal funding. It is about jobs. It is about investment. This inland rail will be a<br />
boon for farmers and small business. The jobs, investment, construction and ongoing work will not only diversify<br />
our local economy but also ensure regions throughout the Riverina and central west have the bright future they<br />
expect, demand and, indeed, deserve.<br />
This is particularly true <strong>of</strong> the Riverina electorate's northern hub at Parkes. It is the only place on Australia's<br />
map where the Melbourne-to-Brisbane and Sydney-to-Perth rail lines intersect. Parkes is a freight hub community.<br />
Its people and communities today are the realisation <strong>of</strong> the dream that Australia's bulk freight should move<br />
efficiently through its inland. I have met so many people whose lives and livelihoods in town are linked with<br />
moving Australia's assets. The people in Parkes understand this is a benefit which will live for generations. Their<br />
mayor, Ken Keith, understands that. He appreciates it and is in there supporting it. Parkes' can-do attitude and<br />
infrastructure-focused local leaders, such as Councillor Keith, together with investment from local business, show<br />
that it is a town passionate about its future—just like Forbes, with its mayor, Councillor Graeme Miller. To listen<br />
to people in Parkes is to hear the story <strong>of</strong> what we can do, not what we used to have. It is the same with Forbes<br />
and right throughout that northern area <strong>of</strong> my new electoral boundary. The passion and dedication <strong>of</strong> locals is<br />
what drives me. The hundreds <strong>of</strong> small businesses and the vibrant chambers <strong>of</strong> commerce in Parkes and Forbes<br />
are what inspire me. In fact, the Parkes Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce was the first one I met as small business minister,<br />
just days after my appointment.<br />
I am also inspired by the story <strong>of</strong> Northparkes mine, led ably by Stef Loader and her team. I have recently<br />
learned that Stef will be moving on from her role and I wish her all the very best in whatever the future may hold<br />
for her. She is a great person and an inspiration. She will certainly leave the mine in an enviable position. It is a<br />
facility which is leading the world in innovative mining techniques and employs several hundred people locally.<br />
The mine is a generous contributor to the local community and the reason that many locals continue to call Parkes<br />
home.<br />
The Riverina story is a story <strong>of</strong> the region's farmers as well—productive and resilient people who feed and<br />
clothe the nation and ensure Australia's economy is one <strong>of</strong> strong export growth and high-quality product. The<br />
very best product comes out <strong>of</strong> the Riverina and Farrer electorates. I say that not just because the member for<br />
Farrer is sitting behind me but because <strong>of</strong> a few things I will mention in a minute.<br />
Travel anywhere in my electorate and people will tell you about mobile coverage. With challenges <strong>of</strong> varying<br />
topography and long distances between towns and populations, few people in my electorate were untouched by<br />
the need for better mobile coverage. When we came to government in 2013, country communities across the<br />
Riverina and central west—as well as right around Australia—were crying out for better mobile coverage.<br />
First, it is a matter <strong>of</strong> safety. For those who live in remote locations or who travel on country roads, the inability<br />
to connect to emergency services when they need it most is a risk country people simply could not and should not<br />
have had to cop. More than this, the reality <strong>of</strong> small business in regional Australia today is that business happens<br />
24/7. Connecting to commodity information and being able to buy and sell product in real time thanks to reliable<br />
mobile and internet coverage is amongst the greatest investments this government can and is making. That is why<br />
I know our plan to keep delivering for country communities is working.<br />
While this government has invested in two rounds and will soon invest in a third <strong>of</strong> the Mobile Black Spot<br />
Program with more than $220 million over three years, the Labor Party is still yet to understand the benefits, I am<br />
afraid to say. Money from rounds 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Mobile Black Spot Program has ensured increased mobile phone<br />
coverage and connectivity is provided to communities from Bedgerabong to Koorawatha, Ladysmith to<br />
Woodstock and many places in between. And there is more to come. Further funding is planned thanks to the<br />
Nationals and my constituent the Minister for Regional Development and Young based Nationals Senator Fiona<br />
Nash, who understands how vital communication is to country communities.<br />
This government continues to deliver for rural and regional Australia. I am proud to be part <strong>of</strong> the team<br />
ensuring the people and communities <strong>of</strong> my electorate and other regions receive the programs, services and<br />
funding they deserve. I am proud <strong>of</strong> the recent achievements I have been able to deliver for the Riverina,<br />
including more than $12 million in funding in community development grants, which have seen money flow to<br />
upgrades <strong>of</strong> the Forbes netball courts and the Parkes Airport as well as the Forbes saleyards and a massive<br />
investment towards the upgrade <strong>of</strong> the levee bank in Wagga Wagga. There is over half a million dollars in funding<br />
to help make our towns safer through the Safer Streets Program. This will ensure police, local councils and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
communities have a better ability to reduce crime. I have had the opportunity to announce funding <strong>of</strong> closedcircuit<br />
television in Cootamundra, Forbes, Temora and Wagga Wagga.<br />
By working together with governments at all levels, particularly local councils, we are upgrading and repairing<br />
bridges in all corners <strong>of</strong> the nation, and my electorate has benefited from our focus on funding ageing bridges<br />
through the Bridges Renewal Program. Five upgrade projects, including in the Riverina and Central West, have<br />
been successful. There has been $595,000 for the replacement <strong>of</strong> Kadina Bridge in the Parkes Shire, $9.8 million<br />
in Wagga Wagga for the replacement <strong>of</strong> the Eunony Bridge, $2.1 million in Gundagai for the replacement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Gobarralong Bridge, $100,000 in Caragabal for the replacement <strong>of</strong> Beazleys Lane Bridge and $838,000 for the<br />
widening <strong>of</strong> McHenrys Creek Bridge in the Hilltops Council area. I was so pleased also to play a role in the<br />
Carrathool bridge upgrade. They had waited for decades for a bridge not to replace—because they cannot replace<br />
the heritage truss bridge that they have—but to be built right next door. It was with some amount <strong>of</strong> sadness but<br />
also huge jubilation that we announced that. I say sadness because the great advocate for that, Margaret<br />
Merrylees, after whom the bridge will, hopefully, be named passed away on 21 August 2016. The first sod was<br />
turned by Margaret as well as New South Wales Minister for Roads Duncan Gay and me on 2 November 2015.<br />
They had waited for decades, and the Nationals and the coalition federally as well as in New South Wales<br />
delivered.<br />
I was also pleased to play a role during the last term <strong>of</strong> government in ensuring that buyback for water is going<br />
to be capped at 1,500 gigalitres. That is going to provide so much security, hope and confidence in the areas <strong>of</strong><br />
Coleambally, Griffith, Leeton, Hillston and Narrandera. They were part <strong>of</strong> the Riverina electorate boundaries from<br />
1901, but they now sit proudly with the member for Farrer, and I know that she will do a good job continuing to<br />
represent those areas. They are tremendous people. I am sorry in one sense to lose them, but I know they are in<br />
good hands with the member for Farrer.<br />
The big-ticket items and the large dollar sums do attract a lot <strong>of</strong> attention and deliver great outcomes for our<br />
communities, and rightly so. However, it is <strong>of</strong>ten the smaller, more local projects and amounts <strong>of</strong> money we spend<br />
as a federal government that can mean the most. The highly successful Stronger Communities Program, now<br />
replaced by the Building Better Regions Fund, with a specific focus on regional Australia, has enabled key local<br />
projects to be funded to benefit community groups and organisations with everyday needs. Great examples<br />
include $5,000 for a new antenna and transmitter for the community radio station in West Wyalong in Bland<br />
Shire, $6,000 for air conditioning <strong>of</strong> the Beckom Hall in Coolamon Shire and just a bit over $8,000 for a<br />
community barbecue in Ariah Park in Temora Shire. These are a few examples <strong>of</strong> many smaller amounts <strong>of</strong><br />
funding that deliver a great benefit to my country communities.<br />
With a positive plan that delivers for country people and their communities, I stand in this place proud, always,<br />
that we remain focused on regional people, the very people who elect us. The people <strong>of</strong> regional Australia have<br />
shown yet again that they want the Nationals to be their champion in the federal parliament. As I stand here today,<br />
the Nationals are the only party which can lay claim to holding all its seats in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> and<br />
the Senate, as well as welcoming another member <strong>of</strong> parliament—the member for Murray—at the last election.<br />
We did very well. For a political party in our modern climate, that result is truly extraordinary.<br />
For decades—in fact, for almost the 100 years since our party was formed—they have been writing us <strong>of</strong>f; the<br />
pundits have been predicting the demise <strong>of</strong> the National Party. Newspaper columns and popular opinion every day<br />
say that the Nationals' best days are behind us. How wrong they are and how wrong they were the last election.<br />
With many <strong>of</strong> my colleagues across the country in very tight contests, none <strong>of</strong> us underestimated the scale <strong>of</strong> the<br />
challenge on 2 July. Let me tell you: no Nationals member will ever take their electorate for granted. None <strong>of</strong> us<br />
did that, because we know that our electorates deserve the best. None <strong>of</strong> us took for granted that we would get the<br />
credit for the infrastructure that we have built and the investment that we have made in our communities. We do<br />
not look for glorification; we just want to see things get done, and, under a coalition government, that is what<br />
happens. We all knew, and we continue to know now, that regional people are unique. They are special and they<br />
deserve a dedicated voice which understands their needs, their wants and their aspirations. Central to this is the<br />
fact that they want someone who listens. National Party members, and Liberal Party members too, listen to our<br />
electorates. We are in focus. We are in tune.<br />
When the new boundaries <strong>of</strong> the Riverina electorate were gazetted in February last year, my local Nationals<br />
team and I knew that we had a big challenge before us. In my electorate, many communities with which I had not<br />
been familiar were welcomed into our electorate's map. In the past in Parkes and Forbes, the Nationals' John Cobb<br />
in Calare and Andrew Gee, then in the state seat, were local members for many years. The people <strong>of</strong> Parkes and<br />
Forbes had good local members in those two, and people there knew that the Nationals cared. I want local people<br />
in those towns to know that I care for them too. The same is true <strong>of</strong> the other communities in the then shires <strong>of</strong><br />
Cootamundra, Cowra, Harden, Lockhart, Weddin—which takes in Grenfell—and Young, previously represented<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 131<br />
by the member for Hume and by the member for Farrer. They had had coalition members in the past but they had<br />
not had a National, in some cases, for more than 20 years. In each <strong>of</strong> these towns the hearts <strong>of</strong> the people beat a<br />
familiar tune: country people proud <strong>of</strong> their communities and passionate about our future. That is the philosophy<br />
<strong>of</strong> country people: having a go.<br />
In the time remaining, I would like to personally thank the many members <strong>of</strong> my campaign team who were<br />
spread across the Riverina and central west: Bruce Adams, Erin Adams, Ian Armstrong and his wife, Jennifer,<br />
Laura Bruce, Cathy Cleary, David and Ruth Fagan, Wes Fang, Pam Halliburton, Margaret Hill, Dominic<br />
Hopkinson, Barney Hyams, John Minogue, Dorothy Nash, Mark Olson, Gretchen Sleeman, Richard Sleeman,<br />
Lesley Vennell, Robert Vennell and Anabel Williams. There were many more and they all came together to make<br />
sure that the Nationals had a good result.<br />
I also pay tribute to and thank my three beautiful children, Georgina, who came with me on many road trips—I<br />
think she enjoyed it a bit too much—Alexander and Nicholas, and my wonderful and unwavering wife, Catherine.<br />
Her ability to make me realise the importance <strong>of</strong> taking time out to honour and celebrate the special moments and<br />
milestones <strong>of</strong> our collective lives is important. She keeps me humble. It serves as a reality check for me and<br />
ensures that I can continue to be the best father and husband that I can be. This is a tough role, and it is one that<br />
we all put ourselves up for, whether we are Labor, Liberal, National Party or whatever, so we all need the love<br />
and support <strong>of</strong> our family and friends. It is important to remember that no-one is alone. Politics is not about<br />
power; it is about people. I re-dedicate myself to the service <strong>of</strong> the communities and the people I represent.<br />
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:44): I might start my comments by responding to the Minister for<br />
Small Business. My mother's maiden name is McCormack, so it is possible we could be related. We might have a<br />
genetic grey-hair situation. That might be part <strong>of</strong> the reason that we are both grey-haired! I just listened carefully<br />
to what he was saying in relation to his concern for his constituency. I am sure he is sincere in many respects, but<br />
I think it is clear that, as a result <strong>of</strong> the government's position in relation to penalty rates, it is regional<br />
communities that are going to feel it most acutely. According to the McKell Institute, regional economies will be<br />
more affected by the cuts—by taking real income out <strong>of</strong> those economies. It therefore did not surprise me that the<br />
minister did not really go on about penalty rates in defending the government's position. Given that he is the small<br />
business minister, you would have thought that he would have attempted to put up a defence in relation to their<br />
position.<br />
What has happened in the last week is that we have now had every crossbencher in the Senate abandon the<br />
government and the government's position in relation to penalty rates. We now have Senator Hinch, Senator<br />
Hanson and Senator Xenophon—who have long held the view that penalty rates should be cut—on the record<br />
saying they will support Labor's bill in the Senate. That is a remarkable turnaround. I suspect their motives are<br />
more about defending their own futures than those <strong>of</strong> workers who are being paid small amounts <strong>of</strong> money, and<br />
who will be paid less if the decision takes effect. But it also highlights how out <strong>of</strong> touch this government is, that<br />
they still stand there arguing the case that it is okay for the Fair Work decision to take effect. The Prime Minister<br />
has set the precedent, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as intervening in an order <strong>of</strong> an independent body to prevent truck drivers' wages<br />
going up. All he need do is support Labor. He can support a bill in the <strong>House</strong> that will negate the order that would<br />
be made by the commission for retail and hospitality workers' wages to go down. But he cannot hide behind the<br />
argument that it is an independent tribunal, because he has intervened on at least two occasions: in the truck<br />
drivers' matter, to which I just referred, and also in the CFA matter—which was also an interference by the<br />
parliament to realise the government's will, if you like. Hiding behind the notion that the decision is made by an<br />
independent body is a nonsense. It is a fiction. The Australian public considers that the only reason why the<br />
government supports the decision—given that it has intervened in earlier decisions—is that it wants to see a cut in<br />
real wages <strong>of</strong> those workers. Up to 700,000 workers and their families will be worse <strong>of</strong>f as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parliament failing to act.<br />
Tomorrow in the Senate, a bill that mirrors the bill introduced by Bill Shorten into the <strong>House</strong> will be debated<br />
and voted on. That bill is likely to succeed. That bill is likely to pass through the Senate, and it is then incumbent<br />
on the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> to consider the bill, and the government has to think hard about whether it wants<br />
to maintain its very anti-worker position. This is quite extraordinary: Senator Xenophon, who has not only<br />
supported cuts to penalty rates but actually introduced a private member's bill to cut penalty rates, and Senator<br />
Hanson, who has been on the record supporting cuts to penalty rates for years, and Senator Hinch—the same—<br />
have now all wilted as a result <strong>of</strong> the campaign by Labor—and by workers, unions and others, community groups,<br />
and advocates for decency in this country—and will support our legislation. I welcome their vote, though I<br />
suspect their motives. I do not really care about their motives at this point, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as the vote is concerned, but I<br />
think it matters over the longer term. Can you really trust these people to do the right thing, if they are only doing<br />
it at the moment to save their hides?<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The government is now running out <strong>of</strong> opportunities to do the right thing here. We will continue to argue that<br />
they should do that, because 1 July is not that far away. From 1 July, some part <strong>of</strong> that penalty rate cut will take<br />
effect. We know that money will be lost in real terms at a time when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation,<br />
and people who are currently struggling to make ends meet will find it even harder. And yet the government<br />
stands by and lets it happen. But they have an opportunity; we have provided them with that opportunity—that<br />
lifeline. They just need to take it.<br />
The cuts to penalty rates and to the income <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> workers may be made worse, given that<br />
there are now three other awards that are potentially subject to a cut in penalty rates. You might recall that the<br />
Prime Minister said that it was absurd and a nonsense for Labor—in fact he referred to me specifically—to<br />
suggest that there could be further cuts to penalty rates. He attacked me on radio for saying so, and yet there are<br />
now three other awards that are now before the commission. And it is as likely as not—probably more likely than<br />
not—that their conditions will be changed for the worse as well, because the arguments made in the other matters<br />
are comparable to the arguments that will be put by advocates to support the cut.<br />
So there is going to be an immediate cut on 1 July for hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> workers. There are now more<br />
awards that are subject to arbitration by the commission to consider cutting their penalty rates, and the<br />
government cannot guarantee that there will not be further workers affected beyond that point. They cannot<br />
guarantee that and they are living a lie if they think they can say that they know it will not happen. In fact it is<br />
happening to more workers, and it may happen even beyond those workers under those three awards, namely<br />
beauticians, hairdressers, and restaurant, hotel and club staff, who are already low paid. They struggle and this<br />
will make things worse. You add to that the decision by the government to cut the Family Tax Benefit Part A and<br />
Part B and you see a further 1½ million Australian families worse <strong>of</strong>f—$1.4 billion will be ripped from the<br />
pockets <strong>of</strong> Australian families by this government. Around 600,000 <strong>of</strong> these families receive the maximum rate <strong>of</strong><br />
the Family Tax Benefit Part A, which means their household incomes are less than $52,000 per year.<br />
To give you an example <strong>of</strong> what this cut will mean to families: a family on $60,000 per annum with two<br />
primary-school-aged children will be around $440 worse <strong>of</strong>f in 2018-19; a single-parent family on $50,000 with<br />
two high-school children will be around $540 worse <strong>of</strong>f; and a single-income couple or a single-parent family<br />
with three children under 12 will be around $605 worse <strong>of</strong>f. Government members may not think that is a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
money, as they have said in part-explanation <strong>of</strong> why they are supporting the cuts to penalty rates. But when you<br />
are living on the margins, week by week, not being able to pay bills—particularly those big bills that come in, like<br />
utility bills—pay the mortgage, pay the rent or pay those certain fees that come in from time to time, if one <strong>of</strong><br />
your family members gets ill and has to pay beyond what can be covered by Medicare, it becomes a real problem.<br />
And I am afraid that this approach to cutting low-paid workers and middle-income earners, and also attacking<br />
low-paid workers, is really a pathway to what is happening in the United States.<br />
Whilst I have some great admiration for many <strong>of</strong> the things that have happened in that country, and they have<br />
been a remarkable country in many respects, they have very significant inequality and it has got worse and worse<br />
over the last three or four decades, to the point where you really have people now working full time below the<br />
poverty line, where middle-class incomes have gone backwards in real terms and, in some instances, in nominal<br />
terms. The average wage in America has not changed in nominal terms since the Clinton administration. That<br />
means that there has been a very mighty fall in real income for those workers. They have hollowed out their<br />
middle class. They have impoverished their working class. They are about to rip away the efforts made by the<br />
former administration to have some form <strong>of</strong> universal health care for those people that need it most. That is not<br />
the country I want to live in, and yet I think that is the design <strong>of</strong> many on the other side who want to see lower<br />
wages, less support and less investment in education. They want to walk away from needs-based education,<br />
having promised it before the 2013 election, and erode access to health care in this country in some respects. The<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> those things would mean that we were heading down that American path, and that would be an<br />
absolute shame. It would change this country fundamentally and it would contradict the fair go and the fact that<br />
we consider ourselves to be somewhat egalitarian. And that would be a terrible thing.<br />
That is why the government has to reconsider some <strong>of</strong> its policy positions. It needs to firstly look at the effects<br />
that some budgetary matters will have upon people struggling. It should immediately join Labor in supporting the<br />
bill introduced by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition to stop the effects <strong>of</strong> the penalty rates decision. It should also, in<br />
doing so, say that we should not allow any further awards to have their rates <strong>of</strong> pay or conditions reduced by<br />
cutting their penalty rates without compensation.<br />
These are opportunities for the government to take. We can score political points against them on these matters,<br />
but that is not the important thing here; the important thing here is: we know the parliament can fix it; we know it<br />
is within the remit <strong>of</strong> the parliament and within the remit <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister, and he should set about doing<br />
that.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 133<br />
One <strong>of</strong> my beliefs as to why he has not done that to date is: he does not really understand how hard it is for<br />
people who struggle economically. I am not suggesting for a moment that he has not had his own personal<br />
difficulties. All <strong>of</strong> us have, at one time or another. And he has made a lot <strong>of</strong> money, and good luck to him. But I<br />
do say this: he also made money from money. He was reasonably well <strong>of</strong>f in his 20s, having inherited a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
money. And he has never had trouble paying a bill; let us put it that way. That might be a problem—that he cannot<br />
understand what it means for these people because he has never confronted it—but you would expect, then, a level<br />
<strong>of</strong> empathy or understanding, if you are going to be the leader <strong>of</strong> the nation.<br />
If he cannot draw on his own personal experience because he does not have any in this area then you would<br />
expect him to sit down with the people affected. He made a big song and dance about sitting down with some <strong>of</strong><br />
the truck drivers and talking about that order <strong>of</strong> the commission. He sat and talked to volunteers in the CFA<br />
because he was concerned about their issues. How can it be that a Prime Minister can make hay in those areas and<br />
yet, when it comes to the lowest paid in the country—retail workers, hospitality workers, and, possibly, the way it<br />
is looking, hairdressers and beauticians, and restaurant staff relying on tips—not ask them what it means for them<br />
to suffer a cut in real income? It is a real indictment on him and on this government that they do not have any<br />
understanding. And it appears they now have no friends, either, when it comes to this position, because they are<br />
left standing alone in the <strong>House</strong> and in the Senate. The quicker they come to the realisation that they must take<br />
action and join Labor to support this legislation, the better—the better for them but, far more importantly, the<br />
better for those workers who are looking towards 1 July and trying to work out how they are going to pay for the<br />
bills once their wages have been cut.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon): The time being approximately 1 pm, the Federation Chamber is<br />
suspended until 4 pm.<br />
Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00<br />
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (16:00): Each <strong>of</strong> us<br />
comes to this place with ideals, values, goals and an earnest desire to contribute to the future <strong>of</strong> our nation. Read<br />
the maiden speech <strong>of</strong> any member <strong>of</strong> this <strong>House</strong> or any Senator, and you will see those hopes and expectations in<br />
their purest form. You will notice that these speeches are devoid <strong>of</strong> the vitriol, game-playing and insincerity that<br />
the Australian public have come to characterise as the mainstays <strong>of</strong> our political system. It is a great shame that<br />
this perception <strong>of</strong> Australian politics has become the norm and that public confidence in parliamentarians has been<br />
on a downward trajectory for many years. It is a great pity that the 24-hour news cycle tends to amplify<br />
dysfunction, characterise debate as division and promote quick fixes over long-term solutions. It is our great<br />
challenge, as members <strong>of</strong> this place, to contest the prevailing culture through hard work, clear thinking and,<br />
frankly, better behaviour. It has never been my style to engage in the intrigue, game-playing or name-calling that<br />
occurs in this place, and I am not about to begin, but I think we all realise there is a discord between what goes on<br />
here and the expectations <strong>of</strong> the Australian people. We all need to do better.<br />
This debate is an essential opportunity for each <strong>of</strong> us to revisit the ideals, hopes and optimism expressed in our<br />
maiden speeches and to ensure that they are what underpins our work rather than what is trending on Twitter or<br />
what appears popular according to a poll. In my maiden speech, which I delivered on 25 October 2010, I spoke<br />
specifically about practical priorities for my electorate, including infrastructure, business and veterans. I am<br />
pleased to have delivered on all <strong>of</strong> these three issues and to have worked closely with the McPherson community<br />
to strengthen the southern Gold Coast.<br />
In the middle <strong>of</strong> last year I secured federal infrastructure funding to upgrade the M1 from four lanes to six<br />
between Robina Town Centre and Reedy Creek Road. Just last week it was announced that agreement has been<br />
reached with the state government and that early construction will commence in the middle <strong>of</strong> this year. This is<br />
great news for motorists who spend considerable time every morning and every afternoon stuck in what is known<br />
locally as the Robina carpark and stuck further south <strong>of</strong> the M1. I will continue my fight for the widening <strong>of</strong> the<br />
M1 through to Tugun. Whilst planning for this further upgrade is about to start, it is essential that there are no<br />
delays to construction and that there is a continuous build through to Tugun, not the stop-start that has dogged the<br />
upgrade so far on the southern Gold Coast.<br />
But this is not all that is needed on the M1 I have already raised with the state government and with my federal<br />
colleagues the need to address urgently two bottlenecks: southbound at the Bermuda Street merge and northbound<br />
at the KP McGrath merge. There is capacity already there to extend the slip lanes and by doing so to relieve the<br />
delays at those two key points. I can assure locals that I will continue to fight to fix the bottlenecks and widen the<br />
M1 all the way through to Tugun as a priority.<br />
Of course, the M1 is not the only infrastructure priority, and over the last three years I have helped secure $95<br />
million for stage 2 <strong>of</strong> the Gold Coast light rail, $38 million for the Gold Coast City Council in Roads to Recovery<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
134 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
funding to improve Gold Coast roads and $1.7 million to fix local dangerous accident blackspots. I have helped<br />
secure funding to fix telecommunication blackspots with the construction <strong>of</strong> a new mobile base station on<br />
Currumbin Creek Road and sped up the rollout <strong>of</strong> the NBN locally. I have also delivered the new smart tracking<br />
system at the Gold Coast Airport in Coolangatta. When it comes to local businesses the coalition has certainly<br />
delivered over the past three years by cutting half a billion dollars in red tape and regulation, reducing the tax<br />
burden by cutting company tax rates and providing immediate tax deductions for assets up to $20,000. We have<br />
opened up overseas markets like never before with our crucial trade agreements. In McPherson, I have helped<br />
secure important support for local businesses, with over $466,000 in commercialisation funding, $84,000 in<br />
industry skills funding, $14,000 in business growth grants and $32,000 for vocational excellence grants.<br />
As I have said many times before, the education sector is thriving in my electorate, with Australia's largest<br />
private university, Bond University—a leader in innovation—and many other local schools and training<br />
organisations <strong>of</strong>fering cutting-edge skills and qualifications. In fact, I have secured more than $5.1 million in<br />
Australian Research Council grants for local research projects; $224,000 in Endeavour fellowships and<br />
scholarships, $134,000 in New Colombo Plan scholarships to help local students study overseas, and $140,000 to<br />
Southern Cross University for specialty mathematics programs. The coalition has also helped fund the Gold Coast<br />
Science and Tech Festival and a range <strong>of</strong> programs in local schools as well as provided over $2 million in<br />
infrastructure funding for local schools.<br />
It would take more time than we have today to outline the full extent <strong>of</strong> the funding that has flowed to the<br />
southern Gold Coast since the coalition came to <strong>of</strong>fice in 2013. It has been my great honour and privilege to work<br />
with the community, but there is one section <strong>of</strong> our community, in particular, that I have to confess is my great joy<br />
to work with, and that is our veterans and service men and women. During the past term <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice we had the<br />
incredible opportunity to acknowledge the Centenary <strong>of</strong> the Gallipoli Landing and many other significant<br />
anniversaries. For our local community, I am delighted to have delivered over $130,000 to local RSLs and<br />
community groups to commemorate the Centenary <strong>of</strong> Anzac and practical support for local veterans, with close to<br />
$100,000 in BEST grants to help veterans, and provided a range <strong>of</strong> support through various Saluting Their Service<br />
and Veteran and Community grants. These are important in helping ensure that the legacy <strong>of</strong> our veterans is<br />
remembered for generations to come. Local veterans organisations have also had several opportunities to meet<br />
with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs as I posted roundtable discussions that have been very productive.<br />
Our local RSLs and veterans organisations are a shining example <strong>of</strong> our many community organisations that<br />
work for the betterment <strong>of</strong> not only their members but also all southern Gold Coast residents. Our many Surf Life<br />
Saving clubs are another example, with so many local volunteers giving generously <strong>of</strong> their time. It is<br />
tremendously positive or our government to be providing over $300,000 to local Surf Life Saving clubs to help<br />
them purchase vital equipment.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the things that I am very proud <strong>of</strong> is recognising our many volunteers through my annual McPherson<br />
awards. These awards are a way for our community to say thank you to those who have given their time and really<br />
are the heart and soul <strong>of</strong> our community. We have three categories: community achiever, Surf Life Saving<br />
achiever and young achiever. Nominations are now open for the 2017 awards, and I encourage the southern Gold<br />
Coast community to nominate a local hero. Fostering the spirit <strong>of</strong> volunteerism and supporting the community is, I<br />
believe, an important part <strong>of</strong> my job as the local member. The intrinsic spirit <strong>of</strong> our local communities is<br />
something I believe in very strongly. It is where the solution to so many issues can be found.<br />
We need to support the community sector, as we have through the Volunteer Grants Program, where 29 <strong>of</strong> my<br />
local community organisations shared in $120,000 for equipment to make their work easier. This is a great<br />
program, first introduced by the Howard government, which I am very pleased we have restored. I am also<br />
heartened that one <strong>of</strong> the first pieces <strong>of</strong> legislation the Turnbull government introduced this term was a bill to stop<br />
the hostile takeover <strong>of</strong> the CFA in Victoria by the union movement. Community volunteer organisations like the<br />
CFA do not need more intervention and obstruction. In fact, we need to be removing red tape wherever possible.<br />
Smaller government and stronger communities—that should be our aim. So it is a positive sign <strong>of</strong> our core belief<br />
in community that we have moved so decisively in this matter. By contrast, it is a sign <strong>of</strong> Labor's enduring pact<br />
with the unions that they could allow such a threat to the CFA to even eventuate.<br />
It is my hope, and it will certainly be my aim, to ensure that the coalition's policy positions during the 45th<br />
Parliament are similarly based on our core beliefs. As I said at the beginning <strong>of</strong> this speech, our policies need to<br />
have the solid foundation <strong>of</strong> our expressed values and ideals. The values that so many <strong>of</strong> us articulate in our<br />
maiden speeches are a yardstick <strong>of</strong> why we choose to serve our communities in the parliament. I am not<br />
advocating for ideology-driven government. Of course we need to be practical. Our values must always be<br />
couched in the mainstream and expressed through the prism <strong>of</strong> the national interest. By articulating policies<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 135<br />
founded on our shared values and common beliefs, we will be able to give the Australian public a much clearer<br />
picture <strong>of</strong> what we stand for. Policy that is based on whims, trends or fashion is never as enduring.<br />
I also want to point out that, in arguing for a more constructive parliament, I am not advocating for less robust<br />
debate. Indeed, part <strong>of</strong> the problem with the current political climate is that debate is too <strong>of</strong>ten shut down and that<br />
tactics like vilifying and name-calling are employed as a substitute for serious discussion. Debates are too <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
divided along partisan lines and personalities rather than the merits <strong>of</strong> an argument. Robust debate is the<br />
cornerstone <strong>of</strong> any thriving democracy, and we should never hide from it. So, in arguing for better standards, I am<br />
also arguing for more robust debate, but debate where arguments <strong>of</strong> merit are not drowned out. Common sense<br />
must prevail. The national interest has to be put above partisan interests, and we must remember that the<br />
Australian people want their elected government to govern. The public want the opposition and crossbenchers to<br />
respect that fact and seek constructive common ground.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the other qualities that I mentioned earlier that will help change the negative public perception <strong>of</strong> our<br />
political culture is hard work. I have been honoured, over the first term <strong>of</strong> the coalition government, to have been<br />
tasked with a number <strong>of</strong> leadership roles, including: chairman <strong>of</strong> the joint Public Works Committee, member <strong>of</strong><br />
the Speakers Panel, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science, Assistant Minister for<br />
Science and now Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills. These are all roles that I have taken up<br />
with vigour and in which I am pleased to have made a contribution. These additional roles have allowed me to<br />
apply my specific skills and knowledge, especially when it comes to science and technology, and to meet with and<br />
gain insights from some <strong>of</strong> our leading scientists, educators and business people. I take this opportunity to thank<br />
the many people around the country who have given me the benefit <strong>of</strong> their views and experience over the past<br />
three years.<br />
I am extremely excited and optimistic to now be working to improve and strengthen the VET sector, which is<br />
so crucial to addressing skills shortages and providing alternative pathways to further education. The coalition has<br />
always fundamentally believed in apprenticeships and vocational education. We have announced a new,<br />
affordable, sustainable and student-focused VET Student Loans program that will restore integrity to the system<br />
and ensure it is preparing students for employment. I look forward to continuing to work with the sector, with<br />
industry and with students to ensure we achieve the very best VET outcome in the future.<br />
Whatever my additional or ministerial roles, I have always made certain that the people <strong>of</strong> McPherson remain<br />
my first priority. Regular listening posts have always been part <strong>of</strong> my schedule, and they will remain so.<br />
Attending local community functions and supporting local community events is something I will always make<br />
time for. And assisting local constituents and small businesses is the mainstay <strong>of</strong> my job.<br />
I take this opportunity to thank the people <strong>of</strong> McPherson for re-electing me. It is a great honour that I intend to<br />
repay through continued hard work and commitment. I thank the many local residents I have worked with over the<br />
years and those who have stopped to share their views with me. Your feedback helps me to better represent you<br />
and our community.<br />
There is <strong>of</strong> course a special group <strong>of</strong> locals that I have relied on: those who formed my campaign team and<br />
gave their time through the long eight weeks <strong>of</strong> campaigning in manning roadsides and working at pre-poll and, <strong>of</strong><br />
course, on election day. Anyone who has ever run for <strong>of</strong>fice knows it truly is a group effort. It is a testament to our<br />
campaign team that in 2013 we achieved a swing to us that was significantly better than the state average and, at<br />
the last election, our performance in McPherson was again a standout. Thanks team—we have some impressive<br />
runs on the board.<br />
It would be difficult to name everyone, but there are some special people that I would like to thank. Let me<br />
thank Peter Barrett, Maggie Bevins, Roger Campbell, Peter Cannon, Wendy Coe, Chris Crawford, Dorothy Davis,<br />
Lyn Dyne, Roger Emmerson, Wendy Flett, Mary Flynn, Peter Flynn, John Forrester, Roger Green, Hilary Green,<br />
Boyd Hain, Peter Hyde, Elaine Hyde, Greg Ingram, John Kearney, Jeszaen Lee, Anthony Lind, Dick Lucas, Eva<br />
Lucas, Nola Mattei, Peter McKean, Ben Naday, Cheryl Pearson, Linda Perkins, Ron Pia, Cherry Pia, Kevin<br />
Powell, Andy Rajapaske, Paul Rimmington, Jeffrey Robinson, Barry Skinner, Fran Ward-Emerson, Keith Wright<br />
and Ada Wright. Can I also give some special mentions to Bruce and Muriel Duncan, Margo Gates, Jack<br />
McLintock, Callum Whitehead and Selma Schuller.<br />
There are some really special people, and let me acknowledge and thank Hamish Douglas and Natalie Douglas<br />
and the woman who self-describes as my 'wingman', Janelle Manders. To my mother, Moya, and my sister,<br />
Ann—thank you so much once again for everything you have done over the years, and particularly during the<br />
election campaigns where you have stood on countless polling booths handing out for me. I really do appreciate it.<br />
To my husband, Chris, who, when I was first elected was described as my 'long-suffering husband', and I rejected<br />
that at the time: I think that now, seven years past the election, I would say that yes, you are my long-suffering<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
136 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
husband. We have recently celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary—so, Chris, thank you for that. I have three<br />
amazing children—Emma, Jane and Kate. When I first spoke in this place I spoke directly to them as they were<br />
seated up in the gallery. The words that I said to them are as true today as they were then, and what they will be in<br />
the future. My words to them were: always believe in yourself, girls, because I believe in you.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Buchholz): I thank the honourable member for that contribution, and can I<br />
add that your husband is a long-suffering husband; I know that. And your kids are so perfect, you must be very<br />
happy with them.<br />
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:17): I am not placed to comment on the member for McPherson's husband, but I will<br />
say that it was a pleasure to be in this chamber for her speech. While I do not share all <strong>of</strong> the sentiments expressed<br />
in it, I think the challenge the member for McPherson outlined in terms <strong>of</strong> the expectations all <strong>of</strong> our constituents<br />
have on us is a challenge we should all seek to rise to, and I will do my best to begin that process in the course <strong>of</strong><br />
making these remarks in reply to the Governor-General's speech.<br />
I start, though, by expressing my deep appreciation and gratitude to the people <strong>of</strong> Scullin for re-electing me in<br />
July last year. It is an extraordinary privilege, an honour and a great responsibility for any <strong>of</strong> us to serve in this<br />
place. I know that none <strong>of</strong> us takes on the responsibility lightly. So I extend my deep thanks to the constituents <strong>of</strong><br />
the Scullin electorate—obviously, to those who supported my re-election, but also to those who did not vote for<br />
me. I am committed to listening to you and working for you through this parliament.<br />
I was particularly pleased that there was a significant swing to Labor in the Scullin electorate, and the credit for<br />
that goes to two groups <strong>of</strong> people. Firstly, to Bill Shorten, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, and his campaign team. I<br />
acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> George Wright, our then national secretary, and Paul Erickson, the assistant national<br />
secretary. And I am very pleased to see the member for Cunningham here, who made such a great contribution in<br />
important policy areas. I acknowledge the work <strong>of</strong> everyone involved in delivering a platform <strong>of</strong> policies that we<br />
took to the Australian people and which resonated clearly with my constituents in Scullin, as it did across the<br />
northern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Melbourne and more generally. So that is one chunk <strong>of</strong> the credit for my having the<br />
opportunity to continue to serve.<br />
The other goes to all the amazing people who I have had the opportunity to work with, and for, in the short time<br />
that I have been in this place. I extend my deep appreciation to my staff, to Lori Faraone—and it shows what a<br />
long time it has been since the election that, on election day, Lori had one child; she and Jason now have a second<br />
and she will be returning to work soon, which I am greatly looking forward to, and I hope that she is too! To Jim<br />
Tilkeridis, to Sally-Ann Delaney, to Kali Watson, to Matt Dawson, to Justin Mammarella, and to Eleanor Scott-D'<br />
Ambrosio: it is an extraordinary privilege for me to work with you. The quality <strong>of</strong> the work that you do for people<br />
in the Scullin electorate is something that I am in awe <strong>of</strong>. As I have said more than once, almost all the good work<br />
done in the <strong>of</strong>fice is done by you; any errors and omissions are down to me. I express my gratitude to all <strong>of</strong> you<br />
for your work through what was a very long—and, in Melbourne, cold—election campaign. I look forward to<br />
working with you to meet the challenges <strong>of</strong> this parliament. I also acknowledge the state members that I am very<br />
fortunate to work with: my dear friend Lily D'Ambrosio, Danielle Green, Vicki Ward, Bronwyn Halfpenny and<br />
Colin Brooks. I was very grateful for your support and for the opportunity to continue to work with all <strong>of</strong> you on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> the communities <strong>of</strong> Melbourne's north. I was very fortunate to have a terrific campaign team who ran an<br />
excellent campaign and gave me plenty to do. I thank my campaign chair, Samil Demir, a young man with a great<br />
future ahead <strong>of</strong> him pr<strong>of</strong>essionally and—I hope—in Labor politics.<br />
There are many, many people who deserve to be acknowledged in this place. I will concentrate on a few: Koste<br />
Kolevski, Liam McColl, Helen Said, John Pathinathan, Nik Cagorski, Joe Petrucci, Katherine Tilkeridis, Vince<br />
Morton, Kurt Cauchi, Alex Collum, Rex Ramanathan, Brian and Ellen Smiddy, Gwen Hamilton, Barbara Breaks,<br />
Sucettin and Perihan Unal and all their family, Kim Travers, and Jenny and Neil Delaney. Sadly, since the<br />
election, Neil Delaney has passed away. He was a gentleman in every sense <strong>of</strong> the word, someone who made an<br />
extraordinary contribution to community, who never asked for anything for himself. So I take this opportunity to<br />
think <strong>of</strong> Neil and his family: I am indebted for the time that I had to spend with you, and I know many others are<br />
grateful for everything you did for them. To Anthony Mancuso, Shorsh Ahmad, Rachael Davies, Elvira<br />
Tsecouteris, Sasha Nackovski, Trish Mackin, Harry Williams and Jim Bannon—to all <strong>of</strong> you and to many others<br />
who flew the Labor flag in Scullin last year, I give you my thanks. I have enjoyed the opportunity to continue to<br />
work for you, and to be inspired by your energy and passion for a fairer society every day that I am in the job.<br />
Out <strong>of</strong> this campaign, something special happened in the communities I represent. A group <strong>of</strong> people—Trish,<br />
Nik and Alex, who I just acknowledged—came together to form a group called the Scullin Volunteer Action<br />
Network, recognising their sense that politics and Labor politics should not just be about elections. It is about<br />
building stronger, more resilient and fairer communities. I have been really excited by their activism in seeking to<br />
engage others in the political process, and to break down some <strong>of</strong> the sense <strong>of</strong> malaise in politics and in our<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 137<br />
political institutions—something that the member for McPherson touched on very effectively and something I will<br />
return to briefly. But I wanted to particularly acknowledge their work in taking action locally to correct a problem<br />
that is bedevilling all <strong>of</strong> the developed world—that is, the rise <strong>of</strong> a reactionary form <strong>of</strong> populism and a decline in<br />
our sense <strong>of</strong> faith in politics and our political institutions. While it is critical that those <strong>of</strong> us in this place rise to<br />
the challenge <strong>of</strong> overcoming this sense <strong>of</strong> cynicism and alienation, it is so wonderful to see people outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />
formal political process—people who do not enjoy the privilege that all <strong>of</strong> us have, to speak in this place—take<br />
action to show their faith in their fellow citizens; their faith that working together we can make a change for the<br />
better.<br />
I have reflected on the last term in this parliament, my first term, and there are a couple <strong>of</strong> things I would like to<br />
particularly share with the <strong>House</strong>. There were two campaigns that I was associated with in the Scullin electorate<br />
that made me feel very proud to be a local member <strong>of</strong> parliament in Melbourne's northern suburbs and proud to be<br />
a member <strong>of</strong> the Labor team. I am so proud <strong>of</strong> the way that the communities I represent came together to reject the<br />
proposals for a GP tax and how people stood up for Medicare—standing up for everyone's entitlement to health<br />
care. But also, more than that, in standing up for Medicare, the communities that I represent made clear to me that<br />
they have a very strong sense and they expect from me a strong articulation <strong>of</strong> our sense <strong>of</strong> what it is to be an<br />
Australian—a sense <strong>of</strong> a social compact; a sense <strong>of</strong> a society in which no-one should be left behind; and a<br />
rejection <strong>of</strong> a dog-eat-dog, Americanised society whereby but for the fortune <strong>of</strong> your birth, you may not be given<br />
the security <strong>of</strong> having the health care that you deserve.<br />
I was also really pleased by the way that the diverse communities that I represent came together when it was<br />
proposed in 2014, as it has been proposed since, that laws be changed to license racist hate speech. I was so proud<br />
<strong>of</strong> the way that people came together to speak up for communities that felt under pressure. I was pleased that the<br />
shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, spent much time working with concerned and affected<br />
communities in Scullin. I particularly think <strong>of</strong> those who congregate around the Thomastown mosque to say that<br />
we do not believe in our part <strong>of</strong> the world that there can be such a thing as a second-class citizen in Australia and<br />
that we do not believe it can ever be right to license racist hate speech.<br />
The other matter that was important to me in my last term was this process <strong>of</strong> better connecting people to<br />
politics. I took up the invitation <strong>of</strong> the member for McPherson to consider my own first speech, where I spoke <strong>of</strong><br />
an aspiration to be a listener and a problem-solver as a member <strong>of</strong> parliament. I have tried to live up to this,<br />
particularly so when it comes to recognising that too many <strong>of</strong> my constituents—and most <strong>of</strong> our constituents, I<br />
suspect—feel that there is not much point to politics. They feel that whatever happens in terms <strong>of</strong> their electoral<br />
decisions, that cannot change the circumstances <strong>of</strong> their lives. I passionately believe that they are wrong in this<br />
and I equally passionately believe that we must all work harder to correct this misapprehension in the community,<br />
particularly when it comes to younger people. We know they are not enrolling to vote in worrying numbers and<br />
are not voting or voting informally in very worrying numbers. They are also falling prey to some voices <strong>of</strong><br />
division within our communities, which must be squarely rejected in this place and in the community. I made it a<br />
big priority to try and engage with communities who I felt were marginalised from the political process. I think<br />
some progress has been made in Scullin in this regard, but there is much, much more to be done.<br />
I was also pleased over the course <strong>of</strong> the last term to support the election <strong>of</strong> an Andrews Labor government.<br />
When I think about positive change that has happened in Melbourne's north, I think about the impact <strong>of</strong> the<br />
election <strong>of</strong> this government. I think about that when I see the physical environment <strong>of</strong> our schools and the<br />
investment in healthcare services in the north, but most importantly I see it in the infrastructure rollout,<br />
particularly the extension <strong>of</strong> the train line to Mernda, which will open in 2019, as well as very significant road<br />
projects. These infrastructure projects are a huge investment in dealing with a major concern I also spoke <strong>of</strong> in my<br />
first speech. It is my concern that Melbourne, the world's most liveable city, as I am sure all <strong>of</strong> us in this place<br />
know, is at risk <strong>of</strong> becoming a city in two halves: a very prosperous core and an outer rim, where access to jobs<br />
and access to amenity becomes much, much harder. This is a course that can be corrected, that must be corrected<br />
soon. We need to recognise all <strong>of</strong> the costs <strong>of</strong> congestion—economic, social and environmental—and recognise<br />
that they are disproportionately borne by those who live further from the CBD <strong>of</strong> our major capital cities like<br />
Melbourne.<br />
So, I am proud to have made a contribution, over the life <strong>of</strong> the last parliament, to a change in our national<br />
conversation around urban policy whereby we now have a government that is committed, at least on paper, to an<br />
agenda for our cities and to investments in infrastructure that are not solely about road construction. I am hopeful,<br />
despite the continued imbroglios over the much needed Melbourne Metro project, that we will again see the sort<br />
<strong>of</strong> city-shaping public transport projects that our major cities need, with significant federal involvement based on<br />
evidence, not ideology.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
138 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
There is <strong>of</strong> course much more to be done if we are to ensure that all <strong>of</strong> my constituents, particularly those in the<br />
newer, more northerly areas <strong>of</strong> the Scullin electorate, have every access to good jobs—including good local jobs<br />
in precincts such as the Epping central activity district and the precinct in Bundoora around University Hill and<br />
the RMIT campus, but also jobs located in the city—and access to all the fantastic cultural, sporting and social<br />
amenities that we enjoy in Melbourne. All <strong>of</strong> us should be able to enjoy them.<br />
Again I will refer to the question <strong>of</strong> trust in politics. The member for McPherson said, 'We all need to do better.'<br />
That is an injunction I hope I can respond to over the balance <strong>of</strong> this term, and I recognise that it is an onus that<br />
rests on all <strong>of</strong> us who are elected to this place. I feel much more deeply now the concerns about alienation that I<br />
expressed in my first speech. Again, I think we must be concerned about the rise <strong>of</strong> reactionary forms <strong>of</strong><br />
populism, which threaten our collective sense <strong>of</strong> government's responsibility, and capability, for doing good in<br />
people's lives. The buck stops with us and how we behave—our capacity to have the sorts <strong>of</strong> robust debates that<br />
the member for McPherson referred to, where we do test ideas, ideological propositions and different visions for<br />
maintaining Australian living standards into the future. We need to find better ways to do that, with less rancour.<br />
This is particularly pressing when you look at the world as it is today and the drift towards inequality that is<br />
happening across all developed economies. In Australia, <strong>of</strong> course, inequality is at a 75-year high. We are the least<br />
equal we have been since the Great Depression. This raises pr<strong>of</strong>ound challenges for us, as to the sort <strong>of</strong> society we<br />
wish to live in, as well as for our economy. It is clear that the Australian economy today is working for the few<br />
and not for the many. This no doubt is driving some <strong>of</strong> the sense <strong>of</strong> alienation, some <strong>of</strong> the appeal <strong>of</strong> populism,<br />
that I spoke about earlier. When we have company pr<strong>of</strong>its at a record high and these pr<strong>of</strong>its are not being<br />
reinvested productively, that is a problem, and it is a problem that does not call for company tax cuts as a solution.<br />
We have changes in the world <strong>of</strong> work that are exacerbating the trends driving income inequality and wealth<br />
inequality. Wage growth is at a record low, and growth <strong>of</strong> insecure work is outstripping good, secure growth in<br />
good, secure jobs. Increasingly, we are seeing new forms <strong>of</strong> work outside what generally has been understood to<br />
be the formal economy—the sorts <strong>of</strong> jobs regulated under the Fair Work Act and its predecessors. These are<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ound challenges that government must respond to, and I am pleased to be part <strong>of</strong> the Shorten opposition,<br />
which is starting work on that response as well as facing up to the other critical challenges that Australia needs<br />
addressed.<br />
No critical challenge is more pressing than climate change. It is beyond disappointing that we have a<br />
government that is not facing up to that challenge, to that moral imperative to do good for future generations.<br />
Today I had the privilege <strong>of</strong> receiving a presentation from the Australian Marine Conservation Society about the<br />
state <strong>of</strong> the Great Barrier Reef. To say that the prognosis was shocking is a great understatement, and that is only<br />
one illustration <strong>of</strong> the scale <strong>of</strong> the challenge we must rise to to begin our journey to a sustainable, low-carbon<br />
economy.<br />
Over the life <strong>of</strong> this parliament, I have been given the great honour <strong>of</strong> working in the schools portfolio by the<br />
Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition. I am very excited by this opportunity to work with the Deputy Leader <strong>of</strong> the Labor<br />
Party, the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, as part <strong>of</strong> Labor's education team, with some terrific colleagues—<br />
the member for Adelaide, the member for Griffith, Senator Cameron and Senator Collins—and to build on the<br />
work <strong>of</strong> people like the member for Cunningham. I am excited about the challenge <strong>of</strong> getting Commonwealth<br />
involvement in schools right, and I am determined to fight every day for needs-based schools funding. I think the<br />
two enduring achievements <strong>of</strong> the Labor governments that held <strong>of</strong>fice from 2007 to 2013 will be the NDIS and<br />
getting schools funding right, after more than 40 years <strong>of</strong> inertia and division.<br />
The fight for schools funding is not over. We on the Labor side are looking to the evidence. We are looking to<br />
the experiences that we are seeing in every school around Australia. We are committed to holding the Minister for<br />
Education and Training in this government, Senator Birmingham, to account for the promises that the government<br />
made back in 2013 and for the government's moral obligation to give every kid every chance <strong>of</strong> a decent start in<br />
life, knowing what we do about the value <strong>of</strong> education—not only as the best guarantor <strong>of</strong> productive work but also<br />
<strong>of</strong> so many other benefits, particularly in terms <strong>of</strong> health. A good education is fundamental to a good life<br />
nowadays, and for me it is simply unconscionable that we have a government that is rejecting the evidence before<br />
it and that has failed to put any alternative proposition on the table. We are nearly in April, and schools, school<br />
communities and school sectors have no certainty about what will apply to them next year. This is not good<br />
enough.<br />
What is also not good enough in the area <strong>of</strong> schools is our failure to deal with the pressing issue <strong>of</strong> making sure<br />
that every Australian counts when it comes to school education. There is so much more to be done to ensure that<br />
children with disability can effectively participate in inclusive education. This has been left in the too-hard basket<br />
for too long, and, <strong>of</strong> all the challenges I am looking forward to embarking upon over the balance <strong>of</strong> this term, this<br />
is the one that I am most keen on making progress on.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 139<br />
There is not much time left, so I will end where I began: in thanking the people <strong>of</strong> Scullin for their confidence<br />
in me. I will do my best to discharge their faith to the best <strong>of</strong> my ability, and I am very proud to do so as part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
strong and united Labor team.<br />
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:37): It is a privilege to be able to stand in this place for a third term <strong>of</strong> serving<br />
the good people <strong>of</strong> my electorate <strong>of</strong> Wright in the Gold Coast hinterland. It is a beautiful part <strong>of</strong> Queensland, an<br />
absolutely picturesque electorate, taking in Lamington National Park, the Gold Coast hinterland, and the glorious<br />
Tamborine Mountain and the surrounding communities that reside close to it.<br />
Can I suggest that my electorate is extremely diverse in its outlook, ranging from some <strong>of</strong> the richest fertile<br />
valleys in the world—the seventh most fertile valley in the world by way <strong>of</strong> the Lockyer Valley—where we<br />
produce food, including vegetables, for the eastern seaboard and for the Australian table. We produce mostly<br />
vegetables in the brassica families: cauliflower, broccoli, corn—which is not a brassica—broccolini, onions, and<br />
carrots. We have country that can yield up to 20 tonnes an acre: potatoes, 20 tonnes an acre; onions, 15 tonnes an<br />
acre. It is such a beautiful and rich agricultural precinct.<br />
Then you have the surrounding communities in the middle <strong>of</strong> it by way <strong>of</strong> the Fassifern Valley, with<br />
communities like Aratula. If you are ever driving on the Cunningham Highway from Brisbane to Warwick, never<br />
miss the opportunity to drive past the Aratula bakery and pull in and get yourself a beautiful Aratula pie, or to stop<br />
<strong>of</strong>f at the Aratula butcher, which is always open on a Sunday, and pick up that Sunday family roast.<br />
I am so proud and so privileged to be able to serve the people <strong>of</strong> Wright. This is my seventh year in this place.<br />
This is not just the result <strong>of</strong> efforts that I have made; it is a team effort that allows me to return to this place. In the<br />
seven years that I have had the absolute privilege <strong>of</strong> being able to serve the electors <strong>of</strong> Wright, I have learned that<br />
this place, the Australian parliament, is filled with some incredible talent on both sides <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong>. It is<br />
unfortunate that too many Australians see the Australian political landscape only through the very short window<br />
<strong>of</strong> opportunity afforded when they witness the Australian parliament. Unfortunately, they make their decision on<br />
how we perform here by watching a snippet <strong>of</strong> what we refer to as question time. I can assure the Australian<br />
public and the electors <strong>of</strong> Wright that that is not the norm. That is happy hour. That is the theatre. It is the<br />
gladiatorial bluster that happens for the cameras.<br />
The real work is done in the committees. The real work is done when the cameras are turned <strong>of</strong>f. If only the<br />
Australian public could see the bipartisanship in this place and how much work actually gets done. I sit with the<br />
member for Scullin on the Joined Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is never going to be newsworthy<br />
when people sit and watch the work that we do, but we influence the direction <strong>of</strong> the country. If only people could<br />
see the work that gets done behind those closed doors and in some <strong>of</strong> the other committees, such as the Public<br />
Works Committee. Recently I tabled some documents in the <strong>House</strong> outlining no less than $1.3 billion worth <strong>of</strong><br />
funding that we have invested in this country into refits for Public Service <strong>of</strong>fices, whether it be for Defence,<br />
Immigration or other areas. It was all done in a bipartisan manner with the support <strong>of</strong> the government and the<br />
opposition and in conjunction with the Senate. That is how our parliament works. That is the truth.<br />
But people are not going to back up to buy tickets to that. It is not sexy when they see the place working well.<br />
People back up to buy tickets because they want to see the gladiatorial blood on the ground in question time, and<br />
then they complain about the way that we perform. They complain and say that we are childlike and that if it were<br />
a school environment we would be punished for our behaviour—and rightly so. On the rare occasions that I have<br />
the opportunity to spend time with my constituents in a pub, it is a great leveller. They will <strong>of</strong>ten say, 'You lot are<br />
childlike.' They will say to me quite openly, 'You're a good bloke. We like the way that you work for us. You<br />
work hard. You get out <strong>of</strong> bed early. You go to bed late.' But, when they speak about politicians in the collective,<br />
the same people who hold you in high regard will group us all up and suggest that we have our noses in the trough<br />
and that we are less than trustworthy.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the challenges that I have, with the return on the investment for my time here, is to turn around the<br />
minds <strong>of</strong> a few people in my electorate so that they see that there are some incredibly talented people in this place.<br />
When you talk about politicians collectively, the first things that should come to your mind is 'incredibly<br />
hardworking and disciplined'. I will tell you that if you are not a hardworking politician you are not going to get<br />
re-elected. There is only one way to success if you are going to stick around this place, and that is: you need to get<br />
out <strong>of</strong> bed early, you need to go to bed late, you need to work weekends and you need to connect with your<br />
electorate. And if you do not do that, you will be treated harshly for it.<br />
It is an absolute privilege for me to serve in this place. I walked up to the <strong>House</strong> this morning. It has a different<br />
ambience from driving up in your car. I was on the phone to my brother and I said to him, 'This is my seventh year<br />
in this place and when I walk to this place I am not filled with a sense <strong>of</strong> pride when I look up on a beautifully<br />
clear day and see our flag in full flight.' I feel an immense sense <strong>of</strong> pride not because the building I am going to<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
140 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
work in is one <strong>of</strong> the most stunning pieces <strong>of</strong> architecture in Canberra. I am filled with a sense <strong>of</strong> pride because I<br />
know that, when I get to the dispatch box, whether it be in this chamber or in the other chamber, I can enter into a<br />
debate rationally, in a safe environment, without fear for my own safety, as every member in this place can do,<br />
and knowing that, hopefully, we are influencing the direction <strong>of</strong> this country to be in a better place tomorrow than<br />
it was today. That is the intention <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> us.<br />
It is my hope that, as Australians, we get to break down the barrier <strong>of</strong> negativity around politicians. I would<br />
love a survey to be done or some statistics to be gathered on what we would actually get paid if we were to<br />
calculate an hourly rate and then to apply penalty rates and overtime to it; I would love to see what that hourly rate<br />
would look like! I would like to be on any hourly rate that anyone would nominate for me! But you know what? I<br />
am fortunate. I would probably do this job—no, I would; I would do this job for nothing. It is a privilege.<br />
I do not know if I would want to do this job forever for nothing, because it takes an incredible toll on your<br />
family. The time that you, as a politician in this place, spend with your community is at the sacrifice <strong>of</strong> the time<br />
that you would spend with your loved ones: your daughter; your family; your brothers; your sisters. And I want to<br />
acknowledge the contribution that my family and my extended family make—including my mum.<br />
I grew up in a very humble household, as one <strong>of</strong> four brothers and sisters. My mum ran a single-income<br />
household on a widow's pension. The other day I had the opportunity to take my mum into one <strong>of</strong> the air lounges<br />
in a capital city, and she thought she was a queen! I felt so privileged to be able to expose her to that, because,<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> a political life, we would never have had that opportunity. Yes, we used to fly a lot in our own transport<br />
operations, but never at the front end <strong>of</strong> the plane. So I suppose, coming from a humble background, you do<br />
appreciate the trimmings that this <strong>of</strong>fice holds.<br />
Closer to my electorate, I am proud <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the things that we are doing in the electorate. The largest piece<br />
<strong>of</strong> inland road infrastructure in Australian history is happening in my electorate as we speak: the Toowoomba<br />
Second Range Crossing, a project worth well in excess <strong>of</strong> $1 billion. For many years, my electorate was saying:<br />
'When is the range crossing happening? We are sick <strong>of</strong> hearing about it.' Now we are delivering it. Construction is<br />
underway. Dozers are working. We will have traffic on that road hopefully within two years.<br />
The NBN is rolling out, and, again, the NBN was the child <strong>of</strong> the now opposition, then in government—<br />
An honourable member interjecting—<br />
Mr BUCHHOLZ: We tweaked it! And there is a debate as to whether or not it is better or cheaper and as to<br />
the rollout. But you know what? I think Australians would appreciate a little bit more honesty, and I do not think<br />
we would be judged poorly for occasionally <strong>of</strong>fering a compliment to good policy when it is needed, rather than<br />
opposing it for the sake <strong>of</strong> opposing.<br />
People in my electorate can smell—and excuse me—bullshit coming a mile away. And they will resonate to<br />
sincerity. I think that, as politicians, if we could have, and be seen to have, a s<strong>of</strong>ter heart and to have less <strong>of</strong> an<br />
agitated, always-confrontational spirit then I think we would just get more done in this place. I think there is a<br />
desire for us to achieve more. But, unfortunately, if it bleeds it leads in the press. People want to see that<br />
gladiatorial conflict, even if it be two opposing members <strong>of</strong> this place at seven o'clock in the morning on news<br />
feeds. And there are virtually whole networks allocated to political commentary. Often the stuff that flashes up<br />
down the bottom <strong>of</strong> the screen is the bad news. But there is a lot <strong>of</strong> good news that happens in the place—a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
good news.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the other work that is happening here, which I am proud <strong>of</strong>, is the work that I do as a government<br />
backbencher, in my capacity as secretary to the economics committee and as secretary to the agricultural<br />
committee, where we scrutinise bills that go before cabinet. That committee will be meeting tonight and will again<br />
be influencing the direction <strong>of</strong> the country through some <strong>of</strong> the work that we do there.<br />
I also want to give the Deputy Speaker a quick update on some <strong>of</strong> the work I do with an organisation that I call<br />
A50, the Australian Economic Forum. That 50 is representative <strong>of</strong> 50 people from around the world who<br />
influence the Australian market. I do this in conjunction with Tom Murphy—who started <strong>of</strong>f on the Merrill Lynch<br />
desk in New York. He is an Australian who used to play rugby for the Brumbies. How's that? He can play rugby,<br />
and is smart and rich! Tommy and I got together and we thought we would pull together this A50. The 50 is<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> 50 people; 20 are the largest buyers in the Australian market. We bring in buyers from around<br />
the world in equities, debt, trade, short money, long money, superannuation and hedge funds. We bring them in<br />
from the UK, the Middle East, Europe, America, Canada and Asia, and we stick them next to 20 <strong>of</strong> the top CEOs<br />
<strong>of</strong> Australian listed companies: the banks, the Caltexes, the BHPs, the Rios and the AMPs. We book a room at the<br />
Opera <strong>House</strong> and we put these guys in it. The remaining 10 people in the room are the top 10 regulators <strong>of</strong> the<br />
country so that they all hear the one story. Those regulators look like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the trade<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 141<br />
minister, the Reserve Bank governor, the Foreign Investment Review Board chairman, the ASIC chairman, the<br />
ACCC and a number <strong>of</strong> other regulators.<br />
We sell a simple message: Australia is open for business. I make an effort to pull that group together—and we<br />
have done it for the second year in a row; it is extremely successful—because the people in my electorate need<br />
security in their future through Australia being a net importer <strong>of</strong> funds. When I am in the pub, people say to me:<br />
'Why would you invest so much time in that? How does that affect me?' When the value <strong>of</strong> a superannuation fund<br />
held by anyone in my electorate is going south, it is mostly because those 20 guys are pulling their money out <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia, and it has taken the value <strong>of</strong>f. So I add value to their superannuation funds when I can convince those<br />
that invest in our markets that Australia is a good bet—it is a good short-term bet; it is a good long-term bet—and<br />
convince them to continue to stay here. There was money looking to leave the Australian market in the downturn<br />
<strong>of</strong> the resources sector. We did a back-<strong>of</strong>-the-envelope calculation <strong>of</strong> the 20 that were in the room. The net funds<br />
under management from that 20 were in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> $17 trillion. That is what these guys bring to our economy.<br />
That is why it is important for me and Tom Murphy to spend time talking to those companies, letting them know<br />
that Australia is a place to invest in in the future and that we are a good bet.<br />
I can talk about projects in my electorate—and during their address-in-reply speeches, members will do that—<br />
but electorates expect members to deliver projects. You are not going to get re-elected because <strong>of</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
projects you do. You are going to get re-elected if you can connect with your electorate. You are going to get reelected<br />
if you can empathise with your electors, if you can truly believe in your elector's concerns and if you do<br />
your best to address them. In this place we so <strong>of</strong>ten become consumed with issues that we believe are important to<br />
our electorates, but when I go back and sit in the pub they are not talking about gay marriage and they were not<br />
talking about section 18C. It is so easy to become distracted because a journalist sticks a microphone in front <strong>of</strong><br />
your face as you are walking into this place—which we refer to as 'the doors'—and asks you about something<br />
obscure that happened in the last 12 hours, as if it is the most important thing to them. It is not important to our<br />
people at home—to the people we love, to the people we represent. What is important to them is security. It is<br />
making sure that they have enough money in their pockets so that they can live a comfortable and safe existence.<br />
What is important to them is making sure that there is an economic environment where they can get a better price<br />
for their product at the farm gate today than they were getting yesterday. Unfortunately, that is not <strong>of</strong>ten the<br />
case—in particular, for a number <strong>of</strong> dairy farmers who are in my electorate; it is beautifully rich country. At the<br />
other end <strong>of</strong> the scale, my cattle market is extremely buoyant and my cattle boys are performing well. I have two<br />
or three major selling yards—Silverdale Saleyards, the Beaudesert Saleyards and Boonah. Cattle are going <strong>of</strong>f<br />
extremely strongly at the moment. Our grain prices are strong. And in my electorate we have some <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
beautiful country.<br />
In closing, I would not be here if it were not for the incredible generosity <strong>of</strong> so many people in my electorate<br />
and in the LNP secretariat. I also want to acknowledge my staff. It would humour the <strong>House</strong> to know that I was<br />
fortunate to celebrate my birthday this week on the 27th, and that my chief <strong>of</strong> staff also celebrates his birthday on<br />
the 27th. My constituent <strong>of</strong>ficer, Alice Warby, is turning 70—Alice, I should not have told the world that, but<br />
happy birthday to you—also on the 27th. It is as if you cannot get a job in my <strong>of</strong>fice unless your birthday is on 27<br />
March! Greg Birkbeck, thank you for the work you do for me. You have been with me since day one, and I think<br />
that is a sign <strong>of</strong> the respect that I have for you. Alice Warby has been with me since day one—it is now our third<br />
term; again, that is because <strong>of</strong> the trust that I show in her and the solid nature <strong>of</strong> the way that she has my back.<br />
Coming onto staff more recently is Rochelle Richards, formerly Rochelle Maloney. Rochelle was my first PA,<br />
when I first started my transport business back in 1992 and, after having three children, she has come back to<br />
work with me. That humbles me. Her father used to work for me in the transport business for nearly 20 years. My<br />
PA, Jo Dempsey, an incredibly strong woman, has gone through some hardship, but Jo is just shining every day,<br />
as she learns more and more and grows in the position. To all <strong>of</strong> those within the LNP branches who drag<br />
themselves out to attend branch meetings and to assist on election days, whether it is handing out how-to-vote<br />
cards, manning booths or sticking up posters—there are too many <strong>of</strong> you to mention, but I stand here as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
your efforts and, in return, I will give everything I have to make sure that I earn your confidence to elect me again<br />
as your candidate at the next election. God bless.<br />
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:58): It does feel like some time ago that the 2016 election happened, but I<br />
have not until now been able to give my address-in-reply speech. While speaking about the 2016 election now<br />
may seem odd, it is very important for the completion <strong>of</strong> history that we document this incredibly important<br />
election. I am very pleased to be speaking today about the role that I want to play in this parliament going<br />
forward.<br />
I would like to begin by thanking the people <strong>of</strong> Kingston for re-electing me for my fourth term in this place. I<br />
am continually humbled by the support that was, and continues to be, given to me by so many <strong>of</strong> my constituents.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
142 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
As I have already done on many occasions, I pledge again that I will work hard for you, I will fight for you, and I<br />
will not let you down. Importantly, I will represent and work for all the residents <strong>of</strong> Kingston, irrespective <strong>of</strong><br />
whether you voted for me. This has been the approach I have taken since first being elected in 2007, and it is the<br />
approach I will continue to take. Unfortunately, Labor was not elected to government; however, I will be fighting<br />
to ensure that the southern suburbs have a strong voice inside this parliament, and also outside this parliament.<br />
The 2016 election was one where there was a stark contrast between what the different parties had to <strong>of</strong>fer, and<br />
a stark contrast between their visions for the future. In my electorate, locals are uncertain about the future. They<br />
expressed to me that they wanted a government that would prioritise their children's wellbeing and their<br />
grandchildren's wellbeing, now and into the future. They want to see a priority on access to good health care and<br />
other government services—access to education, to job opportunities, to affordable housing, to affordable child<br />
care and to better infrastructure. They want the government to support connected, healthy and inclusive<br />
communities and to provide services that are responsive to the needs <strong>of</strong> those communities. I will advocate to try<br />
and make sure that our community priorities are the government's priorities. I must note that, at this time, that has<br />
been difficult. But I will continue to argue for what my locals want.<br />
People in my electorate do not want a government which focuses on just the few at the big end <strong>of</strong> town. It is for<br />
this reason that the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition's plan—and Labor's plan—for the future resonated in my local<br />
community, and it is also for this reason that I was re-elected to the seat <strong>of</strong> Kingston with a 7.3 per cent swing to<br />
Labor, making this the best ever result for Labor in Kingston. In South Australia, Labor focused on the<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> local initiatives to support the creation and maintenance <strong>of</strong> jobs in South Australia, and access to<br />
employment continues to be a source <strong>of</strong> concern for residents in my local area. Unfortunately, the South<br />
Australian community is constantly in a state <strong>of</strong> shock about the missteps taken by the Abbott government and<br />
then by the Turnbull government in awarding the submarine contract, as well as other large procurement projects.<br />
Despite the belated announcement by the government, there are workers losing their jobs at ASC now. These are<br />
skilled jobs, and ones that we need for the future. We need action from the federal government, as manufacturing<br />
at Holden ceases this year. We need to support the many manufacturers <strong>of</strong> components to adapt and support<br />
workers that transition into other jobs. We need the government to support the continuation <strong>of</strong> steel production at<br />
Whyalla. We are entering a precarious situation in South Australia. It is time for the federal government to act.<br />
We cannot afford to have the federal government continue to be alo<strong>of</strong> and disengaged, with the attitude that<br />
they have no role in the future <strong>of</strong> advanced manufacturing in this country, especially in South Australia. That is<br />
why I have been calling for all three levels <strong>of</strong> government to work together to develop a plan for the south,<br />
including the establishment <strong>of</strong> a southern task force to secure our future. I look forward to continuing to work with<br />
all three levels <strong>of</strong> government, with business, and with other institutions. Not only must we secure our advanced<br />
manufacturing future; we must also promote new job opportunities. This must be a priority. So far, we have seen<br />
the lack <strong>of</strong> a plan and a lack <strong>of</strong> action from this government. We have so many comparative advantages in<br />
Adelaide, and we need a government that appreciates these advantages, but also does more than that and promotes<br />
them—and not just when they are trying to save a few seats at election time. This needs to be an ongoing attitude<br />
and not just a way to save their bacon, so to speak. The approach I am advocating is quite a different approach to<br />
the one that the government are taking. The government seem to be saying: 'Give the top end <strong>of</strong> town a tax break,<br />
and cross your fingers and hope that jobs get created.' This is a lazy approach, and not a real plan.<br />
At the 2016 election, health was also a central theme in the campaign. I wish to place on the record my<br />
opposition to the claims that Labor ran a scare campaign on the future <strong>of</strong> Medicare. It has been clear since the<br />
election <strong>of</strong> the Abbott government—since the 2013 election—that the coalition have had an agenda to destroy our<br />
universal healthcare system. Need I remind this <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> the coalition's first idea, which was a seven-dollar copayment?<br />
A $7 GP tax. And then there was the abolition <strong>of</strong> the bulk-billing incentives for Pap smears, blood tests,<br />
and diagnostic imaging. We have seen the freezing <strong>of</strong> the Medicare rebate for six years—effectively a GP tax by<br />
stealth. There is an investigation into privatising the payment system <strong>of</strong> Medicare, not to mention the attack on<br />
Medicare, the attacks on our health system, the cuts to our hospital system—forcing higher out-<strong>of</strong>-pocket<br />
expenses for medicines—and the privatisation agenda for Australian Hearing. These are all additional moves that<br />
this government have taken to cut down our healthcare system. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister and the<br />
Liberal Party have been so sensitive about Labor's campaign for a strong Medicare system. Their agenda has<br />
always been about eroding Medicare. In my first speech to this place, I said that it was a fundamental belief that<br />
your level <strong>of</strong> health care should not be based on the amount <strong>of</strong> money you have in your pocket. On my re-election,<br />
I have continued to defend this important principle, and I will continue to do that every single day.<br />
A quality education is the best gift we can give our young people, alongside providing opportunities for those<br />
who seek a career and reskilling. That is why I will continue to fight to ensure that education is a priority <strong>of</strong> this<br />
government. It is disappointing to see the Liberal Party continue with their excuses about why we must cut early<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 143<br />
education, why we must cut school education, why we must cut funding to skills and funding to our universities.<br />
The government have had three years to make changes to vocational education, but they have just sat on their<br />
hands. Education is an investment in the future. It ensures that as a country we can adapt and become more<br />
productive and continue to enjoy a high quality <strong>of</strong> life. The government have continued to engage in distraction in<br />
the hope that they can keep cutting funding to our schools without anyone noticing.<br />
Labor and I will continue to hold the government to account on their $30 billion <strong>of</strong> cuts to our schools. The<br />
government will keep making excuses with their mantra that it is not about the amount <strong>of</strong> money spent but how it<br />
is spent. Well, that statement is obvious: it is, <strong>of</strong> course, how it is spent. But schools need the resources in the first<br />
place to get what they need. I have had the privilege to visit schools right across this country to see what a<br />
difference the extra investment Labor made when in government—whether it be improvements to consistency and<br />
pedagogy, to literacy or to numeracy interventions, or extra support teachers. This money that Labor committed is<br />
making a difference. Most importantly, schools know what they need. This is something you <strong>of</strong>ten hear from the<br />
Liberal Party. Of course, schools know what they need. It is just that the government will not provide them with<br />
the resources to get what they need. This is the problem with their funding cuts.<br />
This term I have continued to fight for a decent education for children and young people in my electorate. I will<br />
continue to fight to ensure that children in the southern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Adelaide get just as much opportunity to fulfil<br />
their potential as children on the North Shore <strong>of</strong> Sydney. During the election, Labor made a number <strong>of</strong> local<br />
commitments for my electorate and I will continue to argue that these should be funded by the government.<br />
Unfortunately, that commitment has not been forthcoming. I made a commitment during the election campaign<br />
that a Labor government would bring forward the investment to build the South Australian Coastal Park trail,<br />
linking Hallett Cove, O'Sullivan Beach and Aldinga to the existing Coastal Park along Adelaide's southern<br />
beaches. This $3.3 million commitment to link southern Adelaide's pristine beaches would have created<br />
approximately 36 construction jobs and boosted recreational use <strong>of</strong> the beaches as well as tourism opportunities.<br />
Creating this local connection is incredibly important for Adelaide's southern suburbs. It would mean that our<br />
pristine beachfront is connected and accessible by both foot and bike.<br />
I hope that the Liberal federal government will see the benefit <strong>of</strong> this project and commit money in its<br />
upcoming budget. I have written to the minister to make this request. I hope he pays attention. Equally, I have<br />
written to the government to request them to match the $100,000 commitment Labor made to the Hallett Cove<br />
Netball Club for the resurfacing <strong>of</strong> their netball courts. Women's sports <strong>of</strong>ten do not attract the same investment as<br />
men's sport. After years <strong>of</strong> temporary repairs, the netball courts are dangerously slippery, and the clubs may be<br />
prevented from playing netball matches at home. Resurfacing the courts is vital for the future <strong>of</strong> these netball<br />
clubs as well as the ongoing support and promotion <strong>of</strong> women's sport in the south.<br />
Government and community services play a very important role in supporting members <strong>of</strong> the community who<br />
find themselves in situations they may not have expected, and that is why I will continue to fight for our local<br />
community services to get the funding they deserve. headspace Noarlunga and the Southern Community Justice<br />
Centre are just two examples <strong>of</strong> these types <strong>of</strong> services that the south needs. These services need support and<br />
certainty <strong>of</strong> funding into the future, and I have recently spoken about there being no commitment—rather, indeed,<br />
cuts—from this government.<br />
It is important that these centres are adequately funded so they are able to properly assist those who require<br />
help. In the election, Labor made a commitment to the Southern Community Justice Centre for an increase in<br />
$300,000, particularly around supporting victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence. I hope the government also supports this<br />
centre and stops the cruel cuts that are actually going ahead from 1 July this year. It is time the government<br />
stopped these cuts and worked to support those who are most vulnerable.<br />
There are many other local projects that I will continue to advocate for, including the rail extension from<br />
Seaford to Aldinga, the duplication <strong>of</strong> Commercial and Beach roads and, <strong>of</strong> course, the ongoing fight for decent<br />
broadband services.<br />
Since the election I have been honoured to be appointed by the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition to serve as the shadow<br />
minister for veterans' affairs and Defence personnel, an incredibly important portfolio. Since being appointed to<br />
that role, I have had the privilege <strong>of</strong> meeting many current-serving Defence personnel, as well as veterans, who<br />
serve this country with pride and distinction. I look forward to continuing to work with them.<br />
I would like to extend congratulations—though they are a little outdated, but I have already said this in<br />
person—to the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, our great leader; our deputy leader; and our whole parliamentary team<br />
and all their staff. Big congratulations to our national campaign team, led by George Wright, at the last election.<br />
This was a big effort and, while we came close, we did not quite get to government. However, it was a sterling<br />
effort by everyone. I would also like to acknowledge all those who ran as Labor candidates. I extend big<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
144 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
congratulations to both returning colleagues and new Labor members, while for others: congratulations for a<br />
valiant effort. It is the collective work that makes our party so great.<br />
In my patch <strong>of</strong> the world, the election result in the seat <strong>of</strong> Kingston on 2 July took a lot <strong>of</strong> hard work by so<br />
many people. Our campaign was a grassroots collective effort where everyone who handed out a how-to-vote<br />
card, every door we knocked on and every phone call we made helped us to communicate Labor's message to<br />
those residents <strong>of</strong> Kingston.<br />
I would particularly like to thank my staff who worked through the election campaign—Amelia Peacock,<br />
Michael Picton, Adele Lausberg, Tristan Rust, Jemma Slevec and Jason Byrne. You were central to our success.<br />
In addition, I give a thank you to the wider campaign team that included Dale Colebeck, Gemma Paech, Sarah<br />
Huy and Tom Cicchianni-Jones, who supported me and our <strong>of</strong>fice through the campaign.<br />
Special thanks go to our local state MPs in the southern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Adelaide, who helped on the campaign. To<br />
my long-term and good friend, Chris Picton, the member for Kaurna: thank you for your help and support. Thanks<br />
to our other state MPs—Nat Cook and Katrine Hildyard—for your friendship and support. We have a great Labor<br />
team in the southern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Adelaide, and we work hard together.<br />
As is mentioned regularly, I cannot name everyone who worked on our campaign, but I wish to mention a few:<br />
John and Fran Drew; Phil and Jo Giles; Marisa and John Eitel; Lucy Fordham; John Gauci; Dave Retallick; Thad<br />
Taylor; Donna Blieschke; John Secriean—who was the king <strong>of</strong> corfluting; my dad—who also did a bit <strong>of</strong> work—<br />
and my mum, so I would like to thank them; Anna Syta; Jim and Deb Phillips; Megan Rohan; Cathie King and<br />
Adrian Tisato. Thank you for your enormous contribution during the campaign.<br />
I would like to thank Reggie Martin, our South Australian ALP secretary, for his support, as well as<br />
acknowledging the support I received from Sonia Romeo and the SDA; John Adley and the CEPU; John Camillo<br />
from the AMWU; Nick Townsend from the CWU and Ray Wyatt from the TWU. I especially need to thank Ethne<br />
Lange, my <strong>of</strong>fice manager, and Honest Lange, her husband and No. 1 sidekick, for their huge support before and<br />
during the campaign. I especially thank you, Ethne, for keeping the show on the road during a very long<br />
campaign. I am lucky to have you by my side.<br />
To Emmanuel Cusack, campaign manager extraordinaire: thank you for spending every spare waking minute<br />
working on delivering my campaign when you could have been out enjoying yourself. You produced a campaign<br />
that worked with our community, one that put local issues at the centre. Emmanuel, you have an extremely bright<br />
future in the Labor movement. My advice to anyone listening is: if you want to win a campaign, Emmanuel is the<br />
person to call.<br />
Finally, I would like to thank the people <strong>of</strong> Kingston who have put their trust in me. Without you turning up at<br />
the ballot box and having your say, I would not be able to do the work I am doing here. During the campaign I<br />
was overwhelmed by your good wishes, overwhelmed by your kind words, overwhelmed by the things that you<br />
trusted me with. You trusted me with your hopes and dreams. Every time I speak with people, whether they are<br />
distressed or whether they have hope, it is moving to know that I can come to this place to represent them and be<br />
part <strong>of</strong> trying to make those dreams and hopes a reality. I promise you, the people <strong>of</strong> Kingston: I will continue to<br />
work hard for you, just as I always have, and be your voice here in Canberra. I will continue to fight for you. I will<br />
continue to make sure that the southern suburbs <strong>of</strong> Adelaide are not forgotten in our nation's capital. I will<br />
continue to make sure that those hopes and dreams are realised.<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (17:17): Here we are just over eight months since the longest election<br />
campaign in Australia's modern history. Our opponents thought it would be smart to put our community through a<br />
dragged-out, waffle-filled, cliche-ridden campaign that went on week after week, month after month. Some <strong>of</strong><br />
us—I think on both sides—were wondering if it was ever going to end. It was like political purgatory, except that<br />
at least purgatory <strong>of</strong>fers the promise <strong>of</strong> heaven at the end. We did not get heaven. What we got was the<br />
opportunity to stand here eight months later still debating the address-in-reply. Why are we doing this eight<br />
months later? Because this government do not have anything else do in this parliament. They are not passing<br />
legislation. They are hoping no-one will make a fuss, but I would like to reiterate the gravity <strong>of</strong> this matter and<br />
anticipate, on the public's behalf, a serious response to these inexcusable actions.<br />
The Prime Minister is so utterly obsessed with the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition that he has mentioned him in<br />
question time 570 times since the election. If I were Bill, I would be worried. That infatuation is just a little bit<br />
concerning. If only the Prime Minister were concerned about Australians' jobs and not his own. That is something<br />
that would be important to us. But that is the whole problem: this Prime Minister does not have a direction and<br />
does not have priorities. Four years <strong>of</strong> Liberal government and the thing we keep hearing about is the plan. It is<br />
like 'the Baldrick government'—everything is a plan. It is straight out <strong>of</strong> Blackadder. 'A plan so cunning you could<br />
put a tail on it and call it a weasel,' will be the next iteration <strong>of</strong> it. Instead <strong>of</strong> making positive reforms and passing<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 145<br />
legislation that would benefit hardworking Australians, the Prime Minister has decided his priority is to water<br />
down race hate laws and make bigotry more accessible. Instead <strong>of</strong> making sure that funding goes to our schools,<br />
hospitals and small businesses, he is desperate to give away $50 billion to big business and big banks—the same<br />
banks, with record pr<strong>of</strong>its, that are now closing much needed branches in country areas such as Broadford.<br />
Labor, on the other hand, have stood firm with our priorities. We continue to fight for what matters to<br />
Australians: local jobs, local apprentices, protecting Medicare and building a strong economy that delivers for all.<br />
One cannot help but wonder just how much better the last eight months would have been had it been Prime<br />
Minister Shorten at the reins—a PM who puts the people before himself. We on this side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>House</strong> have a<br />
pretty simple concept—a concept that those opposite just cannot seem to grasp: we keep our promises.<br />
The Liberal government promised that every single Australian home would be connected to the NBN by the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> last year. But here we are in 2017 and seven million homes are still waiting. This sits firmly at the Prime<br />
Minister's feet. The MTM, as it is now called, is the Malcolm Turnbull mess. What are they going to say to the<br />
elderly in my community who are left without phones because <strong>of</strong> the dodgy NBN deals? What are they saying<br />
about the countless mobile phone black spots in McEwen that mean that we do not have access to the most basic<br />
needs, such as emergency services? I am sick <strong>of</strong> the promises that have time and time again been delayed and<br />
changed—jeopardising small businesses and impacting the daily lives <strong>of</strong> the towns in our communities because <strong>of</strong><br />
this government's failure.<br />
Under our plan, the NBN would have delivered a world-class fibre-optic network to more than 90 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
homes and businesses. But, under the misguided leadership <strong>of</strong> then communications minister Turnbull, the Liberal<br />
government decided to put in a second-class copper NBN and Australia's internet speeds dropped from 30th to<br />
60th in the world. Since moving back to Whittlesea from Broadford, I have experienced firsthand the failure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government's disastrous NBN rollout. With no internet connection at home I was forced to pay for an expensive<br />
wireless internet dongle. Parts <strong>of</strong> my town were only just being connected to the National Broadband Network late<br />
last year. It means that we are playing catch-up with global internet standards.<br />
It does not matter if you live close to the city or in one <strong>of</strong> the many towns across our region, you have been<br />
impacted by this rollout. South Morang was supposed to be one <strong>of</strong> the first places to have NBN installed.<br />
Communities such as Sunbury, Doreen and Mernda were promised NBN connection by 2015. It is now 2017—<br />
and guess what? They are still waiting because <strong>of</strong> this government's failure. I have constituents contacting me to<br />
tell me that they have to drive to their <strong>of</strong>fices in the Melbourne CBD at all hours for conference meetings with<br />
European and American stakeholders and business partners. The internet in their homes is so unreliable due to the<br />
dodgy NBN that they cannot even be sure that it is going to work.<br />
We have whole communities unable to access the existing internet service, because <strong>of</strong> an NBN they have not<br />
seen and certainly cannot use. What kind <strong>of</strong> innovative and agile plan is for that a quality, reliable internet in a<br />
modern country? It is absolutely unacceptable that less than 30 kilometres from the centre <strong>of</strong> Melbourne there are<br />
families and businesses who cannot get access to broadband. I have lost count <strong>of</strong> the frustrated parents throughout<br />
our communities who have spoken to me about having to bunk down at McDonalds because that is the only<br />
reliable source <strong>of</strong> internet for their children to do their homework. It is disappointing. Because <strong>of</strong> this<br />
government's delays, many <strong>of</strong> our small businesses have had no choice but to move. That is jobs lost in regional<br />
communities because <strong>of</strong> this government's failure. The severely limited wireless towers in my community just do<br />
not cut it. We need results and we need leadership, but they are certainly not going to come from this government.<br />
As the fastest-growing region in Australia, Victoria makes up 27 per cent <strong>of</strong> our nation's population, with more<br />
than a thousand moving to the towns in our community each month. In spite <strong>of</strong> this, the government is only<br />
investing a miniscule 77c for every $10 <strong>of</strong> investment in infrastructure. This government is starting a growing gulf<br />
in critical infrastructure. We need investment. During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party and the<br />
National Party—because they both decided to run candidates this time—did not give McEwen one cent <strong>of</strong><br />
infrastructure promises—not one. The member for Corangamite can snigger all she wants, but these people—<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: Sit down. You can't take a point <strong>of</strong> order on that, because you were sniggering. Don't<br />
waste my time.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hastie): Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?<br />
Ms Henderson: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member accept the intervention?<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: No, I will just keep going, thank you very much.<br />
Ms Henderson: I am wanting to make it clear that I was not sniggering—<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
146 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: Point 1: there are countless roads that urgently need—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!<br />
Ms Henderson: Could I still raise a point <strong>of</strong> order please, Mr Deputy Speaker?<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can raise a point <strong>of</strong> order.<br />
Ms Henderson: Mr Deputy Speaker, as we know, in this chamber it is inappropriate to reflect on a member. I<br />
would ask that the member opposite not reflect on me. That is an inappropriate representation. I was not<br />
sniggering in relation to anything that you said.<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: This is time wasting!<br />
Ms Henderson: You made a false allegation. The point <strong>of</strong> order is that you have reflected on me. I was not<br />
sniggering in relation to anything that you said—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, member for Corangamite.<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everyone, resume your seats. I have heard the point <strong>of</strong> order. I note it, but<br />
I do not think he impugned your character, which is what you are suggesting. The member for McEwen has the<br />
call.<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: As I said: not one cent on infrastructure. After four years we have not seen any<br />
infrastructure by this government in the seat <strong>of</strong> McEwen. We had a Liberal-National government which again did<br />
not spend one cent on infrastructure in this electorate. It is an absolute failure <strong>of</strong> those opposite in the way they<br />
treat people in the outer suburbs. There is no denying that; it is a fact.<br />
Ms Henderson: I reject that contention.<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: You can reject it, but you have done nothing.<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Corangamite!<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: Just as Labor promised McEwen residents during the election—<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everyone cease! I appreciate you are feisty on this issue, but the member<br />
for McEwen has the call.<br />
Ms Henderson: I am very passionate about it!<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: 'Passionate', I should have said.<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: The story that <strong>of</strong>ten gets put out is that Labor never invested in mobile phone towers.<br />
Well, let's clear the lie. Every single one <strong>of</strong> the NBN towers that we put in place was built for infrastructure for<br />
telephone towers. What this lot have done is to stop building those—<br />
Ms Henderson: That is absolutely untrue!<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: and we still have not got the towers that were promised in 2014. We have got every<br />
right to ask why the government has not told the truth. Why are bushfire-affected communities still waiting for the<br />
towers that were promised in 2014? They are still waiting because this government does not care.<br />
During the election, we announced funding for the upgrade <strong>of</strong> Bridge Inn Road in Mernda—it needs to be<br />
duplicated because <strong>of</strong> the growth—as well as announcing upgrades to Craigieburn Road and to the four-way<br />
traffic lights at the intersection at Whittlesea. These are just some <strong>of</strong> the projects that we know would be vital to<br />
our community if only the people <strong>of</strong> McEwen and Victoria were to receive a fair share <strong>of</strong> infrastructure allocation<br />
from this government. But, like the rest <strong>of</strong> the government's broken promises, investing in safer roads for McEwen<br />
was a promise that never was.<br />
As we know, when it comes to education this government does not do things by half. The cuts and the delays<br />
certainly do not stop. Not just do the cuts target working people, the elderly or the sick; they also target our<br />
younger generations. Under a Labor government, through the promises we made at the last election, every student<br />
in McEwen would have had the same educational opportunities as the rest <strong>of</strong> Australia. Labor's plan pushed for<br />
more one-on-one support for students, challenged those students who excelled through extension classes, and<br />
focused on evidence-based learning to make sure our students would get the most from their schools. Whether it is<br />
axing $21 million from the Gonski funding or cutting the schoolkids bonus, the Liberal government have only<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 147<br />
delivered cuts. Kids in our communities just cannot catch a break with this lot. At the end <strong>of</strong> the day, every single<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the kids in the 78 schools across McEwen will be our economic, social and political future. They will drive<br />
the 'innovation nation' that this government so strongly support. But eight months on from the election we ask:<br />
why aren't they a priority?<br />
Throughout the towns and the communities across McEwen I have heard from parents who have been unable to<br />
afford schoolbooks, uniforms, shoes or excursions. I have heard parents tell me that they have had no choice but<br />
to send their kids to school with uniforms that are two sizes too small. In one <strong>of</strong> our schools, 18 students out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
20 in the class did not have books because their parents could not afford them—thanks to this Liberal<br />
government's cuts. It is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is just unfair. Our families are feeling the pressure caused by<br />
this government's twisted priorities. We must ensure that school is accessible to all families and ensure all students<br />
across the country have the opportunity to thrive in our education system.<br />
What about the government's Productivity Commission review <strong>of</strong> the NDIS? My constituents know how little<br />
this government cares about the NDIS. They have experienced firsthand the attempts to stall the rollout and<br />
diminish the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> services in Victoria. To this government, 'productivity' means making services work<br />
harder for less; 'productivity' means making the worse <strong>of</strong>f prove more to get less.<br />
I think <strong>of</strong> Stuart Locke who came to see me about the future <strong>of</strong> the special school bus that he operates in<br />
Seymour. Stuart was worried that the review would include recommendations to cut the bus service and replace it<br />
with other travel arrangements—which, as we have seen, has happened in the capital cities. If this were to happen,<br />
the close relationship that his service has built over the years with the school and the students would be<br />
destroyed—all in the name <strong>of</strong> the government's 'productivity'. He is worried that these kids will have to travel in<br />
vehicles that are not designed for their needs, without the supervision and stability that helps them get to school<br />
safely. In rural communities, where the NDIS does not pay for public transport, this means paying for taxis. Not<br />
only are taxis too expensive for those who need them, but also the government does not think and does not realise<br />
that there are not that many available for people with disabilities.<br />
What kind <strong>of</strong> a rort are you running? We cannot stand for this. The government must ensure that the review<br />
will focus on making the best possible NDIS for people with disability and not use it as just another cost-cutting<br />
service.<br />
Now the government has come out with their latest cracker: they want to cut penalty rates. Again, they have<br />
shown that their priorities are all wrong. They are the Irish Robin Hoods—the opposite <strong>of</strong> Robin Hood: they take<br />
from the poor to give to the rich, and serve it on a silver platter with maybe some truffles and a little bit <strong>of</strong><br />
champagne!<br />
An honourable member interjecting—<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: That is why I couldn't think <strong>of</strong> it—I have never tried it; I would not know. The<br />
Liberal government wants to make the lives <strong>of</strong> 700,000 Australians worse <strong>of</strong>f by cutting $77 a week out <strong>of</strong> their<br />
pay. If the Prime Minister's support for and inaction on these cuts does not show you how arrogant and out <strong>of</strong><br />
touch he is, I do not know what would. He is giving a platform for employers to now come out and make new<br />
submissions to cut weekend penalty rates in other sectors <strong>of</strong> the economy. Thirty-seven thousand people who<br />
work in industries affected by unsociable hours live in our community, including 8,500 people who work in retail,<br />
8,000 who work in health care and social assistance—<br />
A division having been called in the <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>—<br />
Sitting suspended from 17:33 to 18:12<br />
Mr ROB MITCHELL: I represent over 37,000 people who work in industries affected by unsociable hours—<br />
that includes the 8,500 who work in retail, 8,000 who work in health care and social assistance and 3,700 workers<br />
in the accommodation and food services industry. Removing penalty rates, overtime, shiftwork allowance and<br />
public holiday pay means the introduction <strong>of</strong> around-the-clock work and the lengthening <strong>of</strong> the working day. I<br />
know this because my father worked night shift for 35 years in the printing room <strong>of</strong> the Herald Sun, and I have<br />
seen firsthand the many issues that shift workers face, such as those <strong>of</strong> health and wellbeing and <strong>of</strong> family and<br />
social disconnection. He was not able to participate in normal family life, because when we were getting up in the<br />
morning to go to school he had just gone to bed after a full night's work, so it meant <strong>of</strong>ten he would miss out on<br />
family functions and school sports events and being there for other activities that a parent wants to spend with<br />
their kids. When I worked for the RACV, I had to work Christmas Day and both day and night shifts on<br />
weekends. I know this had a big impact on my own family life. I am not going to stand for the Liberal<br />
government's refusal to acknowledge the breadth <strong>of</strong> the impact on our community <strong>of</strong> these ridiculous decisions<br />
they are making.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
148 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
My <strong>of</strong>fice has been inundated with constituents seeking advice about incorrectly calculated Centrelink debt. I<br />
know I am not on my Pat Malone there. The state in which these robo-debts leave vulnerable people is just<br />
appalling. Take, for example, an elderly woman in Seymour who is currently caring for her 17-year-old grandson,<br />
who is disabled. She had been benefiting from family tax benefit A and B to help her support his needs. In<br />
October last year, her grandson was approved for the disability support pension and backdated, which somehow<br />
leaves her ineligible for family tax benefit. Now she is being asked to pay back the family tax benefit she has<br />
received since her grandson's payment began. On top <strong>of</strong> that, Centrelink will not allow her to apply for an interest<br />
free loan, which has left her in the lurch about where to go. She has to pay back money that she did not know was<br />
coming from her grandson, because <strong>of</strong> this government's inability to be able to run even a chook raffle, let alone a<br />
social welfare system. Without these benefits, she is going to be unable to register her car or pay everyday<br />
expenses, which severely impacts the quality <strong>of</strong> life that she and her grandson experience.<br />
Centrelink has already started deducting payments from her latest payments, without even having the decency<br />
to consult her. It is a clear example <strong>of</strong> how this government does not care about the little people. Why is this<br />
government not committed to providing families with the right information for their situation? Why isn't the<br />
government investing in IT, phones and better staffing for Centrelink? Those are questions that people ask every<br />
day. It is disappointing that the government is turning its back on families throughout McEwen and throughout<br />
Australia.<br />
I am very proud to keep fighting for the people <strong>of</strong> McEwen because I know that these services are so important<br />
to them. It is Labor that puts people first. That was our election promise and it is the bedrock <strong>of</strong> our values, and it<br />
is something that I and my colleagues firmly stand behind. The Liberal government look for ways to cut and save,<br />
but what they do not see are the true impacts. They refuse to see that the numbers translate into people, into<br />
families and into every single Australian.<br />
This government has backed down on so many <strong>of</strong> its promises and it has failed to deliver properly for the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> McEwen or the nation as a whole. That is why, eight months on, I am not going to back down until it<br />
starts delivering for our communities. One thing I have been very proud <strong>of</strong> in my time as an MP is being able to<br />
deliver every promise I have ever made. I said to the people <strong>of</strong> McEwen, 'I'm here for you,' and I still will be. I<br />
will fight this government tooth and nail until it starts to realise that it cannot keep cutting and hurting people who<br />
can least afford it.<br />
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (18:15): On reflection, after the 2016 election in Gilmore, it has been a journey.<br />
Since I was first elected in 2013, it has been a bit <strong>of</strong> a roller-coaster ride on so many levels, but I would like to say<br />
thank you to the Governor-General for his generous and enthusiastic welcome and opening <strong>of</strong> the 45th Parliament.<br />
We have seen changes in many directions, and I take this opportunity to talk about them and commend the local<br />
government staff members, mayors and general managers who have assisted in getting projects shovel ready,<br />
planned and processed. In addition, I would like to thank the hundreds <strong>of</strong> residents and community members who<br />
have written, emailed or present a discussion on worthy projects that reflect the needs and our region.<br />
When working through the electorate, I initially had part <strong>of</strong> the Shellharbour municipality within Gilmore and<br />
we worked hard on many projects with those residents, from commemorative stones at Shell Cove Public School<br />
for Anzac Day 2015 to extra funds for rescue boats at the Shellharbour Surf Club to opening the youth residence<br />
in Barrack Heights after the amazing work <strong>of</strong> Narelle Clay and Southern Youth and Family Services, which was<br />
worth in excess <strong>of</strong> $5.2 million, to the almost $1 million funding for the KidzWish facility to be built in Flinders.<br />
In the next month we will be turning the sod at that facility, and Shellharbour council has already donated the land<br />
for this very special project.<br />
Then I worked hard for funds for the $2 million for the Triple Care Farm. This detox centre is a unique facility<br />
in Australia. It will be run and managed by Mission Australia and is also part funded by the Sir David Martin<br />
Foundation. It is special. It is for young people between 16 and 24 when they decide to make the journey <strong>of</strong><br />
recovery. I simply could not be more proud.<br />
There were many projects where grants were given to improve pedestrian safety, and this included $150,000<br />
for CCTV in Kiama, as part <strong>of</strong> the 31-camera network in that CBD, and also in the streets <strong>of</strong> Gerringong; and<br />
$300,000 for three different locations in the Shoalhaven—East Nowra, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point. I am<br />
working on getting more CCTV for the shops in Sanctuary Point. We gained additional safety lighting for Kiama<br />
harbour and the dark corner in Batemans Bay near the tourist centre. I cannot wait to switch those on and neither<br />
can the residents. There is a theme here, and it is about safety and looking after the wellbeing <strong>of</strong> our Gilmore<br />
residents.<br />
We have had a phenomenal success with Green Army projects, with participants gaining a whopping 30 per<br />
cent employment or further study results. But the bulk was for employment. Unfortunately this program was not<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 149<br />
run as effectively in other parts <strong>of</strong> Australia, and when we tried to get testimonials from our Green Army<br />
graduates we had some difficulty, mostly because they are now working, which was the aim <strong>of</strong> the game.<br />
I look forward to the rollout <strong>of</strong> the Launch into Work program and the PaTH program. The PaTH program has<br />
a unique approach to inspiring young people who have not previously worked and whose family, for one reason or<br />
another, have been unable to find work. They learn how to prepare for work through a mentorship arrangement.<br />
Then there is an opportunity <strong>of</strong> a period <strong>of</strong> subsidised work, and if it works out for both the employer and the<br />
PaTH participant then the employer will get a brand-new and prepared employee. If, however, the potential<br />
employee feels that this is not going to be right for them then it is not a major chore to get them back onto income<br />
support, as it was never removed. In a day and age when employability is difficult to teach, this is a great option.<br />
Our apprenticeship challenge, which we set in January this year, has met with terrific success. Many singleoperator<br />
businesses have been helped by the Apprenticeship Support Network. We gained 97 <strong>of</strong>ficial sign-ups by<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> February when our initial target was just 52. We are expecting even more by the end <strong>of</strong> March.<br />
One example is a plumber, who has been reluctant to take on apprentices for years because the red tape and<br />
everything involved was such a hassle. The network has made a real difference. The new apprentice is Dane. He is<br />
16 years old and lives in Kiama. He commenced his apprenticeship on 30 January and will do a Certificate III in<br />
Wall and Floor Tiling at Randwick TAFE. The apprenticeship is four years, with three years <strong>of</strong> block release at<br />
the TAFE. The only minus in this apprenticeship is that the local TAFEs do not do wall and floor tiling courses<br />
and he has so far to travel.<br />
This aspect <strong>of</strong> training opportunities at TAFE is quite a universal problem. I wonder if that is because the<br />
government <strong>of</strong> the day back in the eighties decided that if you did not go to university you were getting a secondrate<br />
education? I know that qualified tradespeople are earning very good money right now, and we are going to be<br />
critically short <strong>of</strong> qualified tradesmen and tradeswomen. Congratulations to all those tradies in our region who<br />
have taken up the challenge to share their skills for our collective future.<br />
There has been a bucketload <strong>of</strong> funding for road infrastructure in Gilmore. It is a wonderful coastal electorate,<br />
with many hundreds <strong>of</strong> roads. But they are <strong>of</strong>ten damaged in the pouring rain after the blistering heat, as only a<br />
coastal region experiences. Road funding has come from a number <strong>of</strong> sources, but my most favourite to fix is the<br />
blackspot funding. Blackspot locations are the sites <strong>of</strong> accidents, some with many frequent minor accidents and<br />
others with a sad history <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> life. It is great to see when work is done on those projects, because I know that<br />
it is going to make them safer for my community.<br />
The municipality <strong>of</strong> Kiama has to date gained more than $1.25 million for such projects. Currently I am<br />
working on the grant <strong>of</strong> $1.4 million for the museum-library upgrade in Gerringong, and the promised half a<br />
million dollars in funding is now confirmed for the amenities improvement at Jamberoo. Half a billion dollars has<br />
been invested in HMAS Albatross, including $157 million for the Helicopter Aircrew Training System. In the<br />
next decade there will be another half-a-billion-dollar investment in this base, which will further enhance its<br />
existing infrastructure and defence capability and increase employment in our region.<br />
I have delivered $1.23 million for the Mind the GaP facility, which is a mental health facility at the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Wollongong's Shoalhaven campus. It is going to be there to improve mental health outcomes across the region<br />
and is also a co-location for the new Lifeline call centre. It will have consulting capacity and research capacity.<br />
This is a brilliant outcome for our region, as mental health problems are a really significant issue.<br />
It was a great day when we cut the ribbon to open Turpentine Road, a very important link in our region. There<br />
had been a $2 million election commitment, an additional allocation <strong>of</strong> road blackspot funding <strong>of</strong> around $1.8<br />
million and then almost $3 million <strong>of</strong> Roads to Recovery funding, so Turpentine Road was a gift to the people <strong>of</strong><br />
Gilmore from this coalition government. I am now advocating for funding for a number <strong>of</strong> other roads that are in<br />
need all over the electorate.<br />
But first let me say that the Shoalhaven has in the last three years received a mammoth amount <strong>of</strong> road funding:<br />
more than $22 million from Roads to Recovery; more than $17 million <strong>of</strong> blackspot funding—the highest in the<br />
last three years; and in excess <strong>of</strong> $5 million for bridge replacement and heavy vehicle road construction. Most<br />
important <strong>of</strong> all, though, was the $10 million for the planning, engineering and environmental studies needed as a<br />
prerequisite for the new Nowra Bridge. I continue to have this as my highest priority for business growth, resident<br />
convenience and tourism encouragement.<br />
Some $450,000 secured the construction <strong>of</strong> the section <strong>of</strong> the Round the Bay pathway at Orion Beach. What a<br />
gem that has proved to be. The Dunn and Lewis centre gained $2 million from an election commitment. The lockup<br />
stage is now complete, and I am advocating fiercely for the last stage <strong>of</strong> funding to see that wonderful project<br />
completed.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
150 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The 21-ship berthing facility at the Ulladulla Harbour was an election promise, and the plans are on display.<br />
That will be a tourism drawcard. It will provide a safe harbour for vessels, a great place for tourists to visit and—<br />
you guessed it!—work opportunities. The bridge over the Candlagan Creek at Broulee was the result <strong>of</strong> more than<br />
$1 million from the coalition government, and there have been thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars delivered to small community<br />
groups to help with purchases like tools for Men's Sheds, boxing gear for the PCYC and playground equipment<br />
for community child-care centres.<br />
Yet to be delivered are the funding projects for many <strong>of</strong> our sporting clubs and facilities. Netball in Ulladulla is<br />
in progress; the fencing at the Mariners baseball field is confirmed; the Cougars have an enormous project to work<br />
on, including change rooms and meeting rooms as well as improved drainage. I have worked closely with many<br />
young people in our region to build skate parks in Manyana, to extend one in Sanctuary Point and to help the<br />
organisers <strong>of</strong> Culburra skate park to follow their dreams. That one will be amazing!<br />
We only gave catalyst funding, but they used that for leverage to get an enormous amount <strong>of</strong> investment. Well<br />
done to Alex McNeilly and the wonderful group <strong>of</strong> local young people, many <strong>of</strong> whom are likely able to drive<br />
now but who I bet still love to skate: Luke Bennett, Daniel Wood, Charley Hayes, Ryan and Matt Byrnes, Tanaya<br />
Rogers, Max Feast and Leon Vukelic, who started this project and had the tenacity to see it through.<br />
Jindelara respite facility for young people with a disability was a dream held by many in the southern<br />
Shoalhaven. With a delivery <strong>of</strong> an election commitment <strong>of</strong> $358,000 this will now become a reality. Indeed, many<br />
youngsters with a disability will also have an opportunity in the Moruya region as Yumaro has been funded for<br />
their disability residential facility. The Bay Push is an inclusive playground, also the recipient <strong>of</strong> funds, and I am<br />
working on more for the next stage <strong>of</strong> the build. Congratulations to Charles Stuart and his committee for their<br />
tenacity.<br />
On the larger scale <strong>of</strong> delivery by the coalition government, many in our region have been frustrated by the<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> mobile phone blackspots. The good news is that there are two towers expected in Gilmore under<br />
round 1 <strong>of</strong> the blackspot program: Kioloa, which is scheduled for construction next year, and Nelligen, which was<br />
expected to start earlier this year but is now going to be a co-located facility with an NBN fixed wireless tower.<br />
Under round 2 there will be an additional tower at Woodhill, but that rollout has not yet been established. Under<br />
round 3 there will be four towers built at Kangaroo Valley, Sussex Inlet/Wandandian/Bewong, East Lynne and<br />
Clyde Mountain, better known as 'Pooh Corner' to all those who drive along the Kings Highway and see the teddy<br />
bears <strong>of</strong> the same name clustered in the rock cavern. Our tender process to select the operators which will build<br />
the towers in these areas is scheduled to commence around mid-2017. I have to say I worked hard to get these<br />
towers allocated to Gilmore, because the beneficiaries are the travelling public, my residents and visitors. The<br />
result is that the providers are not able to send a bill to anyone, but everyone in Gilmore knows just how essential<br />
these towers truly are. By the end <strong>of</strong> next year we are expected to have a 90 per cent NBN coverage rate across<br />
Gilmore. Of course, this rollout has not been without a few hiccups, but with such a massive infrastructure build<br />
no-one could expect that it would be a completely smooth process.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the best proposals for my region is the $20 million South Coast jobs package. Everybody knows we<br />
have a very high unemployment level both amongst adults and, significantly, amongst our youth. A government at<br />
any level is not in a position to actually create jobs. However, with a great tax regime as we are planning to<br />
deliver, it can inspire businesses to grow and invest, and this ultimately leads to jobs. The jobs package is a dollarfor-dollar<br />
grants system that will help give a kick-start to businesses in our region to either grow, export or even<br />
move from Sydney or other areas to our region. They have already got their strategic plan. It is mostly agrarianbased,<br />
but there are unusual industries like equestrian in the initiative—such as Terry Snow has built down at<br />
Bawley Point with his Willinga complex. There are businesses that are waiting in the wings that just need a little<br />
encouragement to relocate, and how exciting will that be!<br />
A great deal has been achieved, but there is still a lot to be done. There are two major roundabouts in the<br />
Eurobodalla that need to be funded and upgraded: one in central Batemans Bay near the visitor centre and one at<br />
Tomakin, which will upgrade Sunpatch Parade to join George Bass Drive. I am working with the minister for<br />
regional infrastructure to deliver an improved and better intersection at Hector McWilliam Drive in Tuross Head.<br />
As I travel around the electorate, local residents talk to me <strong>of</strong> their perceptions and their problems. Some <strong>of</strong><br />
these include big-picture issues like making sure multinationals pay their fair share <strong>of</strong> tax—well, we did that this<br />
week—and fixing up child care, which we have done, so it does not stop my people from getting extra work.<br />
Other issues relate to the need for a better transport system, which is an issue that affects employment, getting to<br />
hospitals and getting health care. We have a strategic plan that we began in 2015 and which has since been added<br />
to by another group. We are hoping that it is also seen as part <strong>of</strong> the project delivery for the $20 million package.<br />
We are hoping that this will make a big change to our area, because it impedes on all sorts <strong>of</strong> employment and<br />
health initiatives and is a bit <strong>of</strong> an anchor for everyone, so we are hoping it improves.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 151<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being 6:30pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed<br />
to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for the next<br />
sitting.<br />
GRIEVANCE DEBATE<br />
Consideration resumed <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />
That grievances be noted.<br />
Member for Cowan<br />
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:29): On indulgence, in handing over to the member for Cowan, I draw the attention <strong>of</strong><br />
the chamber to the fact that this is the member's 50th birthday. You would not know it from looking at her, but it<br />
is important to record this in Hansard.<br />
National Security<br />
Dr ALY (Cowan) (18:30): I must thank the member for Bruce for spruiking my 50th birthday. I believe that<br />
today I have found a cheerleader in the member for Bruce.<br />
I have come in today to talk about countering violent extremism, an area that I have some 10 years experience<br />
in. Since being elected to parliament I have had several families contact me—and they are still contacting me,<br />
even though I have kind <strong>of</strong> left that life behind. Many <strong>of</strong> them are desperate to find some form <strong>of</strong> services or<br />
support as they grapple with the very real issue and real prospect <strong>of</strong> the radicalisation <strong>of</strong> their young people,<br />
whether it be their children, their nephews or their nieces, or their daughters. Oftentimes it is not a case <strong>of</strong><br />
radicalisation, but that does not stop the parents from contacting me. Nevertheless, they still need help.<br />
So I rise today to talk a little bit about what the government is doing in this space. The government stated that<br />
they have tripled investment in countering-violent-extremism programs from around $3 million per annum to<br />
more than $40 million over four years. As someone who has worked in the field, who has studied in the field, who<br />
has worked internationally in the field and who actually set up a not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it community-based organisation to<br />
counter violent extremism, I think I have a pretty good handle on this—and here is what I understand.<br />
In 2015 the government announced the Living Safe Together grants program, which awarded $1.9 million to 40<br />
community-based organisations. Those grants did not provide for service delivery. They provided only for<br />
capacity building, explicitly for the design and development <strong>of</strong> new services, to build more sustainable capacity in<br />
existing services and to strengthen existing services to address radicalisation. That program funding was approved<br />
in two tranches. In late April 2015 the Attorney-General's Department recommended, and the Attorney-General<br />
approved, funding <strong>of</strong> $1.6 million for 34 applications. In late May 2015 the Attorney-General's Department<br />
recommended, and in early June 2015 the Minister for Justice approved, an additional $365,122 in grant funding<br />
for a further eight projects.<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> this Living Safe Together program by the National Audit Office found that, at the time he was<br />
asked to approve funding, the Attorney-General was advised that, upon completion <strong>of</strong> their projects, it was<br />
expected that funding recipients would register on the directory <strong>of</strong> CVE intervention services, known as the CVE<br />
Directory. The CVE Directory was to be used to connect at-risk individuals with appropriate services. The ANAO<br />
report continued:<br />
However, a key shortcoming in the programme guidelines was that AGD had not made clear enough to applicants that a key<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> awarding grants was to have funding recipients register for the CVE Directory. Thirteen funding recipients have<br />
indicated to AGD that they will participate in the directory, but two have advised they will not and the intentions <strong>of</strong> a further<br />
26 recipients are not yet known.<br />
In short—and, in fact, to date, almost two years later—there is no directory <strong>of</strong> CVE intervention services, despite<br />
an evidence-based need for such services in the community. In addition, the report found that only 21 <strong>of</strong> the 42<br />
recommended and approved applications should have been successful and that there were continuing deficiencies<br />
in the Attorney-General's Department's approach to assessing the eligibility and merit <strong>of</strong> applications.<br />
The audit found 21 applicants did not provide letters <strong>of</strong> support, including four that were awarded funding. It<br />
also found that the Attorney-General's Department did not follow up with referees who could not be contacted<br />
during the initial phone call. The report found that the department also decided not to contact some referees. But<br />
there is more. A further $1 million in funding was also given for the establishment <strong>of</strong> an Australian Intervention<br />
Support Hub in August 2015. There were no terms <strong>of</strong> reference, no clear outcomes and no definite outputs. To<br />
date, I have received no clear answer as to where $1 million went and what that support hub has achieved.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> this underscores the dire situation we have in Australia, where this government continues to shirk its<br />
responsibility to keep Australians safe by taking a comprehensive approach to prevention <strong>of</strong> violent extremism<br />
and enabling adequate interventions when people are found to be moving towards dangerous thoughts and<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
152 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
behaviours that put Australians at risk. There is no family program, for instance—and families are at the forefront<br />
<strong>of</strong> combating radicalisation. A rapid evidence assessment <strong>of</strong> vulnerability and resilience to al-Qaeda violent<br />
extremism as well as other types <strong>of</strong> violent activity that was prepared for the Office for Security and Counter-<br />
Terrorism identifies physical risk factors, including support and reinforcement from family and peers,<br />
interpersonal bonds, and social settings and spaces that provide opportunities for involvement and recruitment.<br />
These studies, amongst others, demonstrate that family, peers and interpersonal bonds play a critical role in the<br />
prevention <strong>of</strong> radicalisation and evidence the need for strategies to support the capacity <strong>of</strong> persons attached to an<br />
individual at any stage <strong>of</strong> the radicalisation process to intervene in that process. Past cases demonstrate that family<br />
members and friends can be highly effective in planting the seeds <strong>of</strong> doubt that cause individuals to leave<br />
terrorism behind.<br />
The German based HAYAT program provides counselling to family members and friends who are <strong>of</strong> high<br />
social and emotional significance to a radicalised individual on how to engage them in discussions and develop<br />
alternative reference groups in opposition to radical structures. There is no similar program in Australia and this<br />
government has not indicated any willingness to undertake a program that puts families at the forefront <strong>of</strong> helping<br />
young people who are becoming radicalised to move away from radicalised thoughts and behaviours. In fact,<br />
Australian research actually provides a strong case for the need for an appropriate CVE program that focuses on<br />
families and other socialising agents. Anecdotal evidence—and much <strong>of</strong> it comes from me personally having dealt<br />
with families—shows that concerned persons, particularly parents, seeking advice regarding radicalised<br />
individuals simply do not have access to appropriate support mechanisms or avenues or even just advice.<br />
Despite all this evidence and despite the input from pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and experts from Australia and<br />
internationally, this government has failed time and time again to heed the call for a comprehensive prevention<br />
and intervention framework. We cannot arrest our way out <strong>of</strong> radicalisation. Arresting young people who are on<br />
the pathway to radicalisation and incarcerating them does not stop them from becoming further radicalised. If<br />
anything, it increases their propensity to radicalisation and violent extremism. We need a more comprehensive<br />
program that puts families at the forefront, recognises influence, recognises socialising agents and recognises the<br />
role <strong>of</strong> religious institutions and education in preventing radicalisation and preventing terrorism in the first place.<br />
We cannot arrest our way out <strong>of</strong> this; we cannot fight our way out <strong>of</strong> this. We cannot make the mistake <strong>of</strong><br />
assuming that, by decimating the capability <strong>of</strong> terrorists on the ground in foreign lands, we can prevent terrorism<br />
and violent extremism from taking hold in our suburbs and our homes. We learnt that mistake. We learnt that the<br />
traditional approach to terrorism as a hot war where we could eradicate the terrorists' capability did not stop the<br />
spread <strong>of</strong> al-Qaeda inspired and ISIS inspired terrorism. We know it does not work.<br />
Every single country that I have worked with in this space—and I have worked with many—acknowledges this.<br />
Every country, from the US to the UK to Kenya and Jordan, knows this. Yet this government does nothing, or it<br />
wastes taxpayers' money on ineffective and badly managed programs. Where is the accountability? Why won't<br />
this government answer simple questions about where the money went—answers that Australians deserve to<br />
have?<br />
How can this government continue to claim that they have at heart the security and safety interests <strong>of</strong> all<br />
Australians? The evidence shows that the programs that are needed simply do not exist and that parents and<br />
families are still struggling to find the services they need when they have a concern about a young person in their<br />
midst becoming radicalised.<br />
Canning Electorate: Youth Services<br />
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (18:40): I have risen many times in this place to discuss matters <strong>of</strong> importance to the<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Canning. While today is no different, what I wish to speak about cannot be summarised in a word or<br />
a sentence. It is very complex and affects different people in different ways. For some it is drug and alcohol<br />
addiction, for others it is domestic violence and, sadly, for too many it is mental health issues and suicide.<br />
When I was first elected to this parliament in 2015, Canning was crying out for assistance in stemming the flow<br />
<strong>of</strong> ice into the community. I spoke to school principals who are trying to manage drug addicted children, parents<br />
who were scared <strong>of</strong> their violent kids, service providers who had more patients than resources to help them, and<br />
small-business owners who were fighting an uphill battle against crime. The overwhelming message was:<br />
'Something needs to be done.' Within 30 days <strong>of</strong> being elected, I established the Canning Ice Action Group, made<br />
up <strong>of</strong> educators and service providers I had spoken to, in addition to local government representatives, community<br />
leaders and police. A number <strong>of</strong> meetings and a public forum identified that, while ice is indeed a big problem in<br />
Western Australia and in Canning, it is symptomatic <strong>of</strong> broader social dysfunction.<br />
On Monday, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission released the first report <strong>of</strong> the National<br />
Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, and the results are alarming. In Perth, the average daily consumption <strong>of</strong><br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 153<br />
ice is one dose per 17 people. Nationally it is one dose per 28 people. As the Minister for Justice stated this week,<br />
'We cannot simply arrest our way out <strong>of</strong> this problem.' The only way we can tackle this problem is with long-term<br />
behavioural change and preventive measures. In order for the ice action group to effect that change, it was agreed<br />
that we needed to shift our focus from rehabilitation to prevention and to early intervention targeted at, but not<br />
limited to, drug and alcohol addiction, mental health and youth suicide. We recognised that there was no point<br />
reinventing the wheel by duplicating services that already exist. GP Down South, a wonderful local organisation<br />
which runs the Peel Youth Medical Service, known as PYMS, was already operating at capacity in providing<br />
outreach and in-house services to 400 young people a month in the Peel region. Eleanor Britton, from GP Down<br />
South, has a plan to cater for this growing demand with the PYMS Health Hub, which targets 12- to 24-year-olds<br />
in the Peel region. It is a plan supported by the Canning Ice Action Group. The project will co-locate PYMS with<br />
other providers in the health hub to ensure that clients and their families have access to a full suite <strong>of</strong> services,<br />
including GPs, psychologists, a mental health social worker and an eating disorder clinic.<br />
Tragically, the need for better models <strong>of</strong> preventive care has been evidenced by a number <strong>of</strong> youth suicides<br />
over the last two years in the Peel region. This is a heartbreaking development in our community. Acknowledging<br />
the gravity <strong>of</strong> this situation very early in April <strong>of</strong> last year, the Prime Minister and the former health minister met<br />
with a delegation from Peel comprised <strong>of</strong> local and state government leaders from both sides <strong>of</strong> politics, police,<br />
students and youth leaders. We impressed upon them our community's need to get the PYMS Health Hub <strong>of</strong>f the<br />
ground. I am very grateful that we managed to secure $2 million for capital works for the PYMS Health Hub at<br />
the federal election. The Prime Minister has followed this project very closely and is invested in it. At the recent<br />
state election, this project received bipartisan support, with both Labor and the Liberals committing to fund the<br />
remaining $5 million. I commend local MLAs David Templeman <strong>of</strong> Mandurah, from the Labor Party, and Zak<br />
Kirkup, the newly elected Liberal member for Dawesville, for their advocacy for PYMS.<br />
As devastating as the deaths in our community have been, they have drawn people together to look for a lasting<br />
solution. Part <strong>of</strong> that solution is headspace, a national youth mental health foundation that focuses on early<br />
intervention for youth needing help with mental and physical health. It provides work and study support, and<br />
alcohol and other drug services. At present, there is no headspace centre in Canning, and the closest one is over an<br />
hour away by public transport. Acknowledging a gap in the services, and in response to this government's<br />
commitment to fund 10 additional headspace centres, PYMS has started a petition to get a headspace centre in the<br />
PYMS Health Hub. We will get the funding for a new facility. We will have a range <strong>of</strong> service providers that<br />
complement the PYMS vision, and we are very much hoping that the federal Minister for Health will commit to<br />
putting a headspace centre in the PYMS facility. PYMS has been working very hard and, to date, their petition has<br />
just over 2,300 signatures from the local community.<br />
Two weeks ago, I stood at Halls Head shopping centre with the PYMS team to promote their petition. In one<br />
hour, I heard many stories <strong>of</strong> loved ones lost to suicide, youth struggling with depression, and parents who did not<br />
know how to help. I really noticed the interest and concern that many people expressed about the problem that we<br />
have in the Peel region. People who were just there to shop took the time to step aside for five minutes and talk<br />
with the PYMS team. It was heartening for all. It just reinforced how many people in our community need better<br />
services. Since then, I have had a very positive conversation with the Minister for Health about the petition, and I<br />
am hopeful that Mandurah will soon be announced as one <strong>of</strong> the new headspace sites. This would be a<br />
considerable encouragement for the Peel region.<br />
However, no number <strong>of</strong> health hubs or headspace centres can come close to achieving what the Canning<br />
community has already achieved on its own. We have service providers united by a focus on preventative care.<br />
We have bipartisan support at all levels <strong>of</strong> government—local, state and federal. We have a football club and a<br />
netball club encouraging their young members to talk openly about mental health, and we have community<br />
support to address youth suicide. As I have said, we have very strong grassroots support. Last year I went to a<br />
fundraiser put on by local community leaders for PYMS, and in one night I think they raised something like<br />
$50,000. PYMS is an institution that is fully functional. It has a lot <strong>of</strong> support, even before the state or federal<br />
governments come to the party. The vision is to supercharge PYMS and to make sure that they optimise their<br />
service for the community.<br />
All the changes that I have spoken about may be incremental, but they are not insignificant. These things take<br />
time. Institutions take time to build. Healing also takes a long time. But I am proud <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Canning for<br />
the support that they have given me. I am proud <strong>of</strong> the things that they have done as individuals and the way that<br />
they have come together as a community to get our young people back on track. I am hopeful that we can find<br />
solutions to the problems <strong>of</strong> suicide and drugs and alcohol, and that we will have a strong community into the<br />
future.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
154 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Paterson Electorate: Telecommunications<br />
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:48): This month the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband<br />
Network heard evidence from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and that evidence was damning.<br />
The testimony revealed that the NBN is simply not delivering outcomes for consumers. This is hardly surprising,<br />
given the fiasco that is Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate NBN, but it is still galling—and more than a trifle<br />
inconvenient for the many thousands <strong>of</strong> people who are trying to get decent NBN coverage, who have to connect<br />
to the NBN, and who have to suffer through it. NBN consumers are 20 times more likely to put in a complaint to<br />
the telecommunications ombudsman than consumers <strong>of</strong> any other telecommunications service. They complain<br />
that they are simply not getting the service they paid for and that, too <strong>of</strong>ten, they—frustratingly—get passed<br />
between NBN and their retail service provider when there is a problem. That buck-passing is absolutely<br />
infuriating, and we hear about all the time. Madam Deputy Speaker, when your phone will not work and your<br />
internet speed is much worse than it was before you even tried to connect to the NBN—and NBN blame Telstra,<br />
and Telstra blame NBN. But that is exactly what is happening all around this country. I will give you one example<br />
where it has been happening in the last week—that is Bayway Village, an over-55 village on Nelson Bay Road at<br />
Fern Bay in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson. On Monday morning last week, my <strong>of</strong>fice contacted our NBN<br />
representative—to be fair, she is as helpful as she can be, and I must credit her for that—and Telstra to report that<br />
some residents <strong>of</strong> Bayway Village had called us on mobiles to tell us their land lines and their internet were not<br />
working. They said that NBN contractors were working in the area and had, apparently, crossed nearby lines,<br />
which had resulted in phones being out for nearly the entire weekend.<br />
Now, we are not talking about a few households—although I have not personally verified it, residents have told<br />
my <strong>of</strong>fice that they believe up to 500 properties and 800 residents have been affected. I did say this is an over-55's<br />
village, so some <strong>of</strong> the more elderly residents rely on medical alarms, which rely on phone lines.<br />
On Tuesday, with no reply from Telstra or NBN, my <strong>of</strong>fice followed it up. On Wednesday, NBN replied—still<br />
no reply from Telstra. NBN said that the matter was being investigated but that NBN contractors did not believe<br />
they had caused the issue. So, NBN points the finger at Telstra.<br />
On Thursday, NBN advised that its contractors had continued investigations and discovered that there was a<br />
fault in the existing Telstra cable coming out <strong>of</strong> the exchange and that there were 30 residents they knew <strong>of</strong><br />
without a phone connection. They were hoping the issue would be resolved by the close <strong>of</strong> business Thursday.<br />
Fast forward to Tuesday this week—yes, that means another weekend without phones or internet at Bayway<br />
Village. My <strong>of</strong>fice was contacted again by a resident <strong>of</strong> the village to say that Telstra had been on site but would<br />
now not be able to send technicians out until Friday. Does that mean Telstra calls the fault? We are still not sure—<br />
still, no phones.<br />
My <strong>of</strong>fice advised NBN that Telstra had been there, and our NBN rep said, 'What's happened here is that the<br />
information we were provided by Telstra was incorrect. Based on that information, the contractor cut <strong>of</strong>f some <strong>of</strong><br />
the lines'—seriously. Regardless <strong>of</strong> who is to blame, it is still not clear who is going to fix it. The residents wait<br />
and, still, they have no phones. It is just unbelievable.<br />
Another incident was reported to my <strong>of</strong>fice this week—and this has nothing to do with NBN, only Telstra.<br />
However, I feel it is important to raise it, because it goes to the broader issue <strong>of</strong> the parlous state <strong>of</strong><br />
telecommunications in this country in 2017. It involves a business at Heatherbrae in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson,<br />
New River Environmental, which distributes its Ecoworkz range <strong>of</strong> organic chemical products from premises in<br />
Heatherbrae near Raymond Terrace. These products are organic, eco-friendly and are used in industry, hospitality,<br />
agriculture and animal care. I am told what they are doing is actually quite cutting-edge, which is terrific.<br />
Ecoworkz owner, Neil Tumbers, called my <strong>of</strong>fice out <strong>of</strong> frustration this week because the company's premises<br />
at Heatherbrae has been without phones or internet for two weeks. This is a business—can you imagine running a<br />
business with no phones or internet? Under normal conditions, that would be bad enough, but Ecoworkz has just<br />
launched its online sales business. So, it is an internet sales business with no internet—brilliant!<br />
It spent $30,000 to set up a website and an online sales system and had just sent its first lot <strong>of</strong> products to South<br />
Korea, the beginning <strong>of</strong> an export deal that could net this Heatherbrae company in my electorate up to $10 million<br />
over the next five years—and that is nothing to be sneezed at. But now they cannot talk to their South Korean<br />
buyers about their order or about future orders. They have tried to talk on mobiles, but the language barrier means<br />
that email is the only successful way to correspond with the South Koreans. But they do not have any email at the<br />
moment. So after complaining to Telstra every day for two weeks, they are still without phones or internet. Lucky<br />
they are cutting-edge—maybe some <strong>of</strong> their cutting-edge would come to this government!<br />
According to Mr Tumbers, they have been told by Telstra at various times, 'It'll be fixed today.' 'It'll be fixed<br />
tomorrow.' 'A technician will be there today at four'—we all know those lines when they come through. 'A<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 155<br />
technician will be there between four and five.' 'It won't be fixed until April 4.' 'It will be fixed on March 23' but,<br />
by that stage, it was already March 25. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you can hear that this is a complete<br />
joke! But you know what? It is not a joke; it is serious. These conversations happened. This is a business. It is just<br />
not on! How could any business operate this way? And this is even before they have signed up to the NBN.<br />
Not a week goes by in which my <strong>of</strong>fice does not receive complaints about the parlous state <strong>of</strong><br />
telecommunications in this country, NBN, Telstra and the buck-passing between them. We have a community at<br />
Rutherford and Aberglasslyn where about 150 homes dotted around the place still cannot connect to the NBN,<br />
despite their neighbours and the rest <strong>of</strong> the suburb being able to connect to it. So one person is connected and their<br />
neighbour has got no connection at all. We have got a similar story in Gillieston Heights and in Weston. And that<br />
is before we start on the many other complaints from people like me and my neighbours at Buchanan: we cannot<br />
even get ADSL where I live, and we have to rely on expensive dongles.<br />
Then <strong>of</strong> course we move on to delivery speeds. I noted a story in The Australian this week about how some<br />
NBN users are receiving:<br />
… peak-time connection speeds as low as 1/500th <strong>of</strong> the service they are paying for …<br />
The story went on:<br />
Government entity NBN Co, which provides wholesale internet services, and retailers such as Telstra and Optus, who sell<br />
those services to the public, each blame the other for the problems.<br />
Well, don't we know that to be true! The story continued:<br />
NBN Co says many retailers—there are more than 140 selling NBN hook-ups to the public—fail to buy enough bandwidth to<br />
provide the speeds they advertise.<br />
And therein lies the problem. Retailers say they are being held back by NBN's infrastructure—the Turnbull<br />
government's cheap and shoddy fibre-to-the-node, which uses existing copper wire systems for the last leg <strong>of</strong> the<br />
connection to the home, rather than Labor's fibre-to-the-home, which would take high-speed optical cable all the<br />
way. Well, now we have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission examining the issue—and not<br />
before time.<br />
Too many people are being unfairly inconvenienced by the state <strong>of</strong> telecommunications under this government.<br />
It is not good enough. We all know it is not good enough. We have got homes without phones and businesses<br />
without internet, in this day and age, and it is not good enough that our internet speeds are slower than a wet<br />
weekend. In Australia in 2017, we deserve better.<br />
In closing, I would just like to say that we do have a <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong> and Senate joint standing<br />
committee which was established to inquire into and report on the rollout <strong>of</strong> the National Broadband Network. I<br />
know it is fairly late notice, but those submissions close this Friday, 31 March. Please, if you want to do<br />
something about this, put in a submission to the inquiry <strong>of</strong> the Joint Standing Committee on the National<br />
Broadband Network. It is vital that we get as much evidence as we can to tell the story <strong>of</strong> what is going on out<br />
there, not only in my electorate <strong>of</strong> Paterson but right across the country. Seriously, the cheap and cheerful option<br />
is just a misery for everyone involved. The government knows that. They need to get on board and get it sorted<br />
out.<br />
Field, Brigadier Chris, AM, CSC<br />
Yamba Golf & Country Club<br />
Mr HOGAN (Page) (18:58): All Queenslanders who are suffering from the devastation caused by Cyclone<br />
Debbie are all very much in our thoughts. They can take slight heart, though, that they have a very good man who<br />
is coordinating the recovery efforts. Brigadier Chris Field AM grew up in the outskirts <strong>of</strong> Lismore at Richmond<br />
Hill. His mother, Pat, was a nursing unit manager at the orthopaedic ward at Lismore Base Hospital, while his<br />
dad, Neville, was a local builder.<br />
Chris was a leader from an early age, and he was captain <strong>of</strong> the local high school, Kadina high, in year 12 in<br />
1983—indeed, in fact, in the same year at the same school as my wife. After completing school, he left the area to<br />
join the Army. All Chris ever wanted to do was to join the Army, and I am sure that the people <strong>of</strong> Queensland will<br />
be thankful that he has. With the important work that he is doing, Chris is also a great role model for young people<br />
around the country, particularly students from his old high school. I would like to thank Chris for taking on this<br />
important role. And I wish all those affected by the cyclone well.<br />
I would like to make everyone aware that the Yamba Golf & Country Club, which has hosted a pro-am event<br />
every year for the last 15 years, has won the regional pro-am tournament <strong>of</strong> the year award at the 2017<br />
Queensland Golf Industry Awards. It saw <strong>of</strong>f much larger regional contenders like Rockhampton and Townsville<br />
to take out the award in front <strong>of</strong> a crowd <strong>of</strong> about 450 people at Jupiters casino last week. The determining factor<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
156 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
in this prestigious award is the vote from the pros themselves, proving that Yamba Gulf and Country Club can<br />
compete with the best <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
Yamba Golf and Country Club's Annual Pro AM takes place in September, and it draws over 50 pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
golfers to the region, not to mention many amateurs as well. The event runs over two days, which is unique—most<br />
others are single-day events—and this is what makes Yamba so popular. The prize purse is $25,000 and the event<br />
is certainly growing in stature. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the organising committee <strong>of</strong> pro<br />
golfer John Wright, Operations Manager Chris Durrington, life member, David Miles, Function Coordinator Jo<br />
Court, the manager, Luke Stephenson, and President Tony Moran. They arrange not only the Men's Pro-Am but<br />
also the Ladies Pro-Am.. The lady's event was also recently held, with a fantastic result. It is great to see local<br />
businesses getting behind these events as well. Crowe Horwath, BWAC Regional Employment Services do a<br />
fantastic job in helping these competitions succeed. It shows that places like Yamba can attract accolades <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia's golfing elite, and it is a great thing for our community. Again, congratulations to everyone involved.<br />
Today I would like to highlight a fantastic spirit that takes place in the Woolgoolga community, who have<br />
come together to assist the Woolgoolga Scouts. Over the last 12 months the Woolgoolga Scout Hall, originally<br />
built in 1953, has undergone a huge restoration under the guidance <strong>of</strong> Group Leader Pat Johnson. The project was<br />
initially made possible after Vicky Hooper from Nortec approached Pat with the idea <strong>of</strong> utilising the federal<br />
government's Work for the Dole program to restore the 63-year-old building currently used by the 30 children<br />
who are members <strong>of</strong> Woolgoolga's Joey Mob, Cubs and Scout groups. Pat was also able to organise a number <strong>of</strong><br />
volunteers and tradespeople from the local community, and, between all who were involved, the hall is now<br />
looking fantastic. Special mention also has to be made to Barry Kelly, Allan Crouch, Michael Hope, Ken Boyle,<br />
John Moon and Mike Sharman from the Woolgoolga Lions Club, who work tirelessly raising funds for<br />
community groups in the area and were able to donate funding for the new ro<strong>of</strong>, guttering, plumbing and external<br />
cladding. Again, congratulations to all involved in the project and to Group Leader Pat Johnson, who I know is<br />
very passionate about the Scouts and instilling their motto <strong>of</strong> 'Prepare for adventure, prepare for life' into her<br />
Woolgoolga Scout members.<br />
Without a doubt, dairy farmers on the North Coast produce the best-quality milk in Australia. You need look no<br />
further for pro<strong>of</strong> than my local dairy cooperative, Norco, which has just won the 2017 Canstar Blue Award for the<br />
most satisfied customers. Australia's milk drinkers scored Norco an outstanding 5-star rating for overall<br />
satisfaction and also scored Norco exceptionally high for taste, freshness, value for money and packaging design.<br />
Established in 1895, Norco is now one <strong>of</strong> the few remaining true Australian farmer-owned dairy cooperatives in<br />
this country, with more than 330 members across northern New South Wales and South-East Queensland. Norco<br />
is a great cooperative comprised <strong>of</strong> small family farmers that produce a large range <strong>of</strong> high-quality dairy products<br />
and competes against the big brands and the supermarkets. My congratulations go to all the members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cooperative, and the board chair, Leigh Shearman, and the chief executive, Greg McNamara, along with directors<br />
Michael Jeffery, Heath H<strong>of</strong>fman, Elke Watson and Greg Billings. Of course, no producer could win this award<br />
without the very best dairy farmers in Australia supplying it, and this award is for them as well. Farming <strong>of</strong> all<br />
sizes is still very much the backbone <strong>of</strong> Australia, and the clean and green approach taken by Norco is a testament<br />
to its ability to adapt to changing consumer tastes and the future <strong>of</strong> dairying in Australia.<br />
Social, Community and Disability Services Sector<br />
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:03): Earlier this week I had the pleasure <strong>of</strong> meeting with representatives from the<br />
Australian Services Union, including the assistant secretary in Queensland, Jennifer Thomas, Delisiah Brooks,<br />
Sian Tooker, James Farrell and Kerriann Dear. The ASU represents 135,000 members across a diverse range <strong>of</strong><br />
industries in the social, community and disability services sector. These members work hard every day supporting<br />
people experiencing or at risk <strong>of</strong> experiencing crisis, disadvantage, social dislocation or marginalisation. In short,<br />
these people work on the front line <strong>of</strong> supporting some <strong>of</strong> the most vulnerable members <strong>of</strong> our society. However, I<br />
was very concerned and very distressed at the end <strong>of</strong> our meeting after learning that local residents in the<br />
electorate <strong>of</strong> Oxley will be affected by this government's devastating cuts to supporting organisations that the<br />
ASU and their members work with. In particular, I learned about how funding for the community sector is<br />
provided in a chaotic way that disrupts community support, secure work and quality services.<br />
The recent Turnbull government reforms have focused on short-term funding and opening the sector to greater<br />
market forces. Of particular concern, the Productivity Commission's current inquiry into Human Services is<br />
exploring how to increase 'the competition, contestability and user choice' in family and community services. Just<br />
like most things this government does: always looking at how it can punish those at the bottom end <strong>of</strong> the scale<br />
rather than looking at helping them for the long term. What we are dealing with here are the lives <strong>of</strong> every day<br />
Australians and the critical support that they need. I find it disturbing that this government is wanting to play with<br />
'market forces' in determining who and how this support is rolled out. These people deserve to be treated with<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 157<br />
dignity and respect and not this government's trickle-down economics policy it seems to be applying across the<br />
board.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>it motives and cost reductions will inevitably lead to the erosion <strong>of</strong> the quality services that are provided to<br />
people in need. In a bid to win tenders, organisations may underestimate the true cost <strong>of</strong> service provision. This<br />
will mean either lower quality services or cuts to the conditions <strong>of</strong> wages <strong>of</strong> workers in the sector. For-pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
providers should be explicitly exempt from providing such services. Every dollar <strong>of</strong> government funding for<br />
community services should go to supporting people in need, not pr<strong>of</strong>its for shareholders.<br />
We also spoke about the important role that advocacy place in the community services sector—an incredibly<br />
important part that members <strong>of</strong> the ASU and their colleagues play to support vulnerable Australians by speaking<br />
out in support <strong>of</strong> their challenges. Advocacy is why the community sector has traditionally been funded to do the<br />
vital work it does, so that services independent <strong>of</strong> government can speak out about broader social problems facing<br />
their clients and put solutions on the table to support vulnerable Australians. I was disappointed and angry to learn<br />
that this government is now dictating, through the use <strong>of</strong> gag orders, in contracts with the community service<br />
organisations to minimise the type <strong>of</strong> advocacy that is so important the sector. I witnessed this firsthand under the<br />
former Newman LNP government, which put gag orders in place so that community organisations could not speak<br />
out for some <strong>of</strong> the most frail and vulnerable in our community. This fits hand in glove with the rapidly expanding<br />
community services sector and how it is important to meet the growing demand with an effective workforce plan.<br />
Instances <strong>of</strong> homelessness and DV are on the rise whilst awareness about mental health and the rollout <strong>of</strong> the<br />
NDIS are contributing to this rapid expansion.<br />
In today's <strong>House</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Representatives</strong>, in this parliament, the government used its numbers to make sure that over<br />
1½ million families would be worse <strong>of</strong>f—not better <strong>of</strong>f, worse <strong>of</strong>f—at the same time the Turnbull Abbott<br />
government has ripped out $1 billion from the community sector; $1 billion <strong>of</strong> essential need and support. We<br />
know that funding for pr<strong>of</strong>essional training and development opportunities for workers to increase their skill set<br />
are being reduced. The ASU is working closely with its members to develop minimum standards for the<br />
workplace, including qualifications. However, to work effectively minimum standards would need to be supported<br />
and funded by government, such as training subsidies for relevant TAFE courses. I have spoken in this place<br />
before about the critical need to invest in skills and training through our TAFEs. However, the government<br />
continues to rip out <strong>of</strong> money from the TAFE system, which disadvantages not only thousands and thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
students gaining accreditation but also the community sector, with increasing limitations on opportunities to<br />
further gain skills and training. This is critically important in the disability sector, where the workforce is expected<br />
to double by 2020 in order to meet the demand for services.<br />
It is estimated that an additional 100,000 workers, at least, will be need to be found to support people with<br />
disabilities in the NDIS. In order to attract sufficient workers to meet this demand, disability support jobs must be<br />
secure and well paid, with career paths to retain workers in this sector. The ASU have informed me that the<br />
current NDIS pricing regime is not adequate and that it is based on assumptions made about the nature <strong>of</strong><br />
disability support without any consultation with frontline workers, people with disabilities or their representatives.<br />
Indeed, in response to the current pricing scheme many providers are seeking to reduce NDIS workers' pay and<br />
conditions. This will only exacerbate the workforce shortages in the sector and mean less quality and less<br />
continuity in support for people with disability.<br />
The appalling way that the government has treated some <strong>of</strong> the most vulnerable Australians does not stop here.<br />
It continues through the latest round <strong>of</strong> community legal aid cuts that this government is relentlessly pursuing.<br />
Community legal aid centres, including the South West Brisbane Community Legal Centre in Inala, are facing a<br />
30 per cent cut to federal government funding from July this year. These centres provide free legal advice and<br />
information to community members who cannot afford a lawyer and who are not eligible for government legal<br />
aid. The acting director <strong>of</strong> the Inala centre, Jonathan Ward, said that there is a high demand for the service to<br />
provide advice about family law, domestic violence and child protection issues. Currently, there is a five-week<br />
waiting list for assistance. To put that into context, a 30 per cent cut in funding from 1 July will mean less people<br />
able to access the justice system.<br />
I know that the critical work that this centre does for local residents in and around the south-west <strong>of</strong> Brisbane<br />
cannot be underestimated. They have had to fight for every dollar that they have had. It was thanks to the<br />
Palaszczuk Labor government that funding was restored, because it was under a conservative, extreme, right-wing<br />
government, led by Campbell Newman, that the doors <strong>of</strong> the centre were closed. They did not just reduce funding,<br />
they shut the doors. They slammed them shut tight. For all <strong>of</strong> the talk we hear about empowering residents and<br />
about ensuring that residents under this LNP government have a voice, by delivering a 30 per cent cut to funding<br />
they do not practice what they preach. This is an important issue not only for the South West Brisbane<br />
Community Legal Centre in my home state <strong>of</strong> Queensland, but for legal centres right across the country.<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
158 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
When I have met with representatives from legal aid, when I have sat with women who have benefited from the<br />
advice, support, direction and assistance, words cannot put into action how important these services are. My plea<br />
to the government and to the Attorney-General is very simple: do not make these funding cuts. For every<br />
electorate in Australia there is a need beyond words for access to justice. For young people and for women's<br />
access in crisis situations, we need to ensure that this funding is kept in place. In the budget that is being brought<br />
down in about a month's time, I call on this government to do the right thing and show some compassion. Make<br />
sure every Australian has the access to justice they deserve.<br />
Victoria: Rail Infrastructure<br />
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:14): Almost 12 months ago I was very proud to deliver $1 million in<br />
planning money for a duplicated rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds. This project is vital for<br />
Corangamite. The current single track through the southern part <strong>of</strong> Geelong limits the frequency and reliability <strong>of</strong><br />
train services through Marshall, Waurn Ponds, Winchelsea, Birregurra, Colac and beyond through to<br />
Warrnambool.<br />
After months <strong>of</strong> campaigning, I was pleased that the Victorian government finally put this project on its priority<br />
list and provided $3 million in funding. Yet, nine months after we made that very important commitment to the<br />
people <strong>of</strong> Geelong and Corangamite, we have heard nothing from the state about the feasibility planning for this<br />
project. We have provided the money, and yet we have heard nothing. Where is the plan? Where are the costings?<br />
Once again, I call on the state to get its act together and release the feasibility study so that we can get on with<br />
building this duplicated track. This has been an issue in my community for 30 and more years. It was an issue<br />
when my mother was the member for Geelong—and a great local member she was—in the 1990s. It has inhibited<br />
our growth. It is inhibiting our ability to attract new industries to Geelong. If we can have state-<strong>of</strong>-the-art rail<br />
infrastructure in our region, the world is our oyster and there are no limits.<br />
I am very pleased to confirm that I and some <strong>of</strong> my colleagues are lobbying for greater Commonwealth<br />
investment in Victorian infrastructure so we can invest in better passenger rail, duplicate this rail track and fix the<br />
Regional Rail Link. We need a Commonwealth regional rail fund to invest in regional rail across Victoria. Like so<br />
many other infrastructure projects where the Commonwealth has led the way, we can then do everything possible<br />
to leverage the state funding we need. We must have First World passenger train services. We must have the very,<br />
very best when it comes to regional rail.<br />
A critical issue for our region is that Labor's much-hyped $3.65 billion Regional Rail Link is soon going to<br />
reach capacity, leading to slower and more crowded train services. The link was built to cater for 18 trains per<br />
hour and during peak it is already handling 17 trains per hour. A Rail Futures report has found that, instead <strong>of</strong><br />
speeding Geelong trains up, the Regional Rail Link has in fact slowed them down, with the fastest journey now no<br />
better than in 1958—almost 60 years ago.<br />
To make matters worse, trains are expected to become even slower in the future, with long-term plans to build<br />
three suburban stations along the Regional Rail Link—and that is on top <strong>of</strong> the stations which are already there<br />
and which, frankly, were never meant to have been there. This was meant to have been a true regional rail link and<br />
now there are already stations at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, which the people <strong>of</strong> those communities are using<br />
more like a suburban service. The regions <strong>of</strong> Geelong, Colac and all the way through to Warrnambool are being<br />
deeply affected. The travelling time for Warrnambool commuters has also increased. The Rail Futures report<br />
reveals that the average trip from Melbourne to Warrnambool was 195 minutes in 1985, compared to today's<br />
average <strong>of</strong> 220 minutes. This is simply not good enough.<br />
We have been campaigning for a very long time for Premier Daniel Andrews to start taking Victorian regional<br />
infrastructure projects seriously. We have seen Premier Andrews trash our Victorian economy with his reckless<br />
decision—perhaps the worst economic decision in Victoria's history—to cancel the East West Link project.<br />
Mr Hill: The worst project in history.<br />
Ms HENDERSON: 'The worst economic decision in Victoria's history' is what I said. In fact—and I will take<br />
the member opposite's interjection—this was a project that was previously supported by the likes <strong>of</strong> the Leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the Opposition and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard.<br />
Mr Hill interjecting—<br />
Ms HENDERSON: I ask that the member not interject.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Bruce that the previous speaker was heard in<br />
silence.<br />
Ms HENDERSON: That is part <strong>of</strong> the problem with the Labor Party. The Labor Party does not care about<br />
infrastructure. It is now building the Western Distributor, which is a poor cousin <strong>of</strong> the East West Link. The<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 159<br />
member opposite shows he has no care whatsoever for regional communities, and it is an absolute joke. In fact,<br />
the western road into Geelong—the western section <strong>of</strong> the East West Link—had a very high BCR, frankly, and is<br />
greatly needed for our community. This is simply not good enough.<br />
We need a state government led by Matthew Guy, who has the vision and the foresight to invest in regional<br />
infrastructure. We need a fast train between Melbourne and Geelong. We need to know that, when the people <strong>of</strong><br />
Geelong and the people <strong>of</strong> Corangamite decide to live in our wonderful part <strong>of</strong> the world, they can get on a train<br />
and, if they work in Melbourne, commute successfully.<br />
We recognise that Victoria and Melbourne in particular are growing very quickly. We need to do more and we<br />
want to do more. We simply do not have the pipeline <strong>of</strong> infrastructure projects at the moment under this state<br />
government, and that really is a shocking situation that we find ourselves in. It is incredible that in so many<br />
respects it is the Commonwealth leading the way in driving these infrastructure projects. In 2013 we announced<br />
$50 million to upgrade the Great Ocean Road—a project that was not supported by federal Labor. In concert with<br />
the state we have just announced another $50 million, but it took Daniel Andrews some six months to agree to<br />
match the funding <strong>of</strong> $345 million for Victorian rural and regional roads as part <strong>of</strong> a $1.5 billion package that we<br />
delivered—money that was allocated to the East West Link which we have now had to reallocate because we<br />
cannot get agreement from this Victorian government. But we have $3 billion on the table because we are<br />
determined to see the East West Link built.<br />
Just last weekend I was talking to people who live in the western suburbs <strong>of</strong> Melbourne, and there is a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
anger in those communities because they are absolutely caught in this horrific traffic bind, not able to commute in<br />
and out <strong>of</strong> Melbourne and under the leadership <strong>of</strong> a premier who does not seem to care about regional<br />
infrastructure. I am working very closely with the likes <strong>of</strong> the member for Wannon, who also cares deeply about<br />
regional rail—and I know many other members do—and, <strong>of</strong> course, the member for Gippsland, the federal<br />
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, who is very empathetic to these issues.<br />
We must see this money flow into our communities. We must see the vision. We must see the planning. That is<br />
why I am pushing so hard for a city deal to bring the Commonwealth, the state and local government together to<br />
drive one vision, one plan—to get this commitment to bring people around the table. Geelong is an amazing place<br />
to live, and we are so proud <strong>of</strong> the commitments that we have made. Look at the difference the investment in the<br />
Princes Highway has made. The duplicated Princes Highway, which is costing in excess <strong>of</strong> half a billion dollars,<br />
is an absolute game changer for our region. There is now a housing shortage in Colac. Industries want to head into<br />
south-west Victoria because <strong>of</strong> that road. We know how critical transport infrastructure is to our region.<br />
So I say: Victoria, get your act together. Produce the plan, and help and work with us to drive the infrastructure<br />
investment that we need. I am going to continue to lobby my government very hard to deliver more funding for<br />
better passenger rail so vital for Geelong and so vital for Corangamite.<br />
Infrastructure<br />
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse<br />
Mr HILL (Bruce) (19:24): Having listened to the previous speaker, I will record three brief thoughts in<br />
response—it was an interesting mix <strong>of</strong> fact and fiction. Firstly, I am a big fan <strong>of</strong> Geelong. In fact, I used to be the<br />
senior executive running all <strong>of</strong> the regional development staff in Geelong and spent a long time there traversing—<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
Mr HILL: No, public servants did not deal with federal politicians. That would have been improper. I served<br />
under the previous Liberal government and had a lot to do with the planning <strong>of</strong> Armstrong Creek and fully<br />
support what you said about the need to get that duplication happening. It is a critical growth area, both for<br />
housing affordability and to spread the urban pattern <strong>of</strong> Geelong. But, if the member was serious about<br />
infrastructure, she would join with Labor in asking this Commonwealth government to give Victoria more than<br />
eight per cent <strong>of</strong> the national infrastructure budget.<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
Mr HILL: We have 25 per cent <strong>of</strong> the population and probably a little more <strong>of</strong> the economy and we get about<br />
eight per cent <strong>of</strong> the national infrastructure budget. Have a look in the forward estimates. I am confident in those<br />
numbers. The final point is about the East West Link. As you said, the western section had the biggest BCR. So<br />
why did you fund the eastern section first? The project was abandoned for good reason. But that is a matter for<br />
another day.<br />
Ms Henderson interjecting—<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
160 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons): Order! I will have order in here. I remind the member for<br />
Corangamite that I asked the member for Bruce to let her speak in silence and I remind the member for Bruce to<br />
speak through the chair when he is referring to people.<br />
Mr HILL: Indeed. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On another matter, I call on the government to have the<br />
decency to admit it got it wrong on the national redress scheme for the survivors <strong>of</strong> institutional child sex abuse. It<br />
is over a year since the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme and the government responded,<br />
eventually, with a half-baked model that fails to compel responsible institutions to account for the extraordinary<br />
harm they inflicted. The government itself acknowledges that only a national redress scheme can provide just<br />
outcomes, but it says it will 'invite other governments and institutions to opt in'. It is weak and it is pathetic. 'Opt<br />
in' is a phrase we might expect in relation to a mailing list, not for reparations for the sexual abuse <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
children. It is one year on, and how many states have joined? None—not one state. The Prime Minister's waffle<br />
says:<br />
A truly national scheme requires the support <strong>of</strong> the states and territories.<br />
Yet the government has spent over a year failing to win any support.<br />
The conversations I have had in my local community with affected local residents, most recently Alan <strong>of</strong> Glen<br />
Waverley, are truly heartbreaking. The courage demonstrated by survivors, over years and years—in some cases<br />
by children who were abused in multiple state institutions and religious institutions—should be recognised. These<br />
institutions responsible have failed utterly to account for these most grievous wrongs and the federal government,<br />
in its shame, is failing survivors too. Institutions will not be forced to recognise the harm inflicted, individually or<br />
systemically, in their names and within their walls. They will not be compelled to provide appropriate financial<br />
compensation to those lives which have been irreparably damaged as a result. The recommendations <strong>of</strong> the royal<br />
commission were clear. They continue to call for a national redress scheme, not a year ago but on 7 March, and<br />
this week, as it enters its final session <strong>of</strong> hearings, the royal commissioner again said the government needs to<br />
look at this. This is important.<br />
Survivors have waited decades for redress and, sadly, some will not live to see it realised. The government<br />
must acknowledge the flaws inherent in the scheme as proposed and commit to an effective national redress<br />
scheme as recommended by the royal commission. The opportunity to do so, to put this right and to do the right<br />
thing by survivors <strong>of</strong> child sexual abuse is in this budget. For some survivors, it is about acknowledgement; it is<br />
about recognition; it is about the apology. For some, it is about the money and the possibilities provided by<br />
compensation. But, for every single survivor, it is about justice. Labor calls on the government to do the right<br />
thing.<br />
It is indicative, in my view, <strong>of</strong> the wrong priorities we see from the government—and we saw it again in<br />
question time today. The pattern is clear. In Liberal government land, the effort is put into protecting the wealthy<br />
and prosecuting a tax cut for the top end. For every million dollar earner, they get $16,000 in tax, yet they defend<br />
wage cuts to the lowest income workers. We will not stand for it. We say they are the wrong priorities. A good<br />
way to show that they really care, they have listened and they have heard the message is to do the right thing by<br />
properly funding a national redress scheme in the budget.<br />
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Bruce for his grievance debate speech on the national<br />
redress scheme. As he would probably aware, I have been working on it since 2009 and had a heavy involvement<br />
in getting the Prime Minister to announce it in the first place in October last year.<br />
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution<br />
agreed to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption <strong>of</strong> the debate will be made an order <strong>of</strong> the day for<br />
the next sitting.<br />
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30<br />
FEDERATION CHAMBER
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 161<br />
QUESTIONS IN WRITING<br />
Taxation<br />
(Question No. 644)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 07 February 2017:<br />
(1) Has his department undertaken an analysis <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> cutting the proposed backpacker tax rate from:<br />
(a) 32.5 to 19 per cent,<br />
(b) 19 to 10.5 per cent,<br />
(c) 19 to 15 per cent, and<br />
(d) 19 to 13 per cent, on the supply <strong>of</strong> labour available to the agriculture sector;<br />
(2) If so, what was the outcome for each;<br />
(3) if not, has his department requested that an analysis be undertaken for each, or sought such advice, or been provided with<br />
modelling on the impact, and if so,<br />
(i) who provided that advice, and<br />
(ii) what was the outcome.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the<br />
honourable member's question:<br />
This question was already provided on notice by Senator Carol Brown on 14 December 2016 (Senate Question on Notice<br />
253). The response was submitted and tabled on<br />
8 February 2017.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media Interviews<br />
(Question No. 652)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—How<br />
many media interviews has the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister given since 1 January 2016, and<br />
how many <strong>of</strong> these interviews were transcribed by (a) <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>, and (b) contractors engaged by, the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister and Cabinet.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
No records are kept <strong>of</strong> media interviews undertaken by the Assistant Minister.<br />
(a) Nil.<br />
(b) Nil.<br />
Contractors<br />
(Question No. 653)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—Since 1<br />
January 2016, what sum has been spent on the engagement <strong>of</strong> contractors to record and transcribe radio and<br />
television interviews <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
In 2016, $439 was spent on these services.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
(Question No. 654)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:<br />
Since 1 January 2016, how many transcripts <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister for the Deputy Prime Minister's public statements on<br />
radio and television have been provided to the Assistant Minister's ministerial <strong>of</strong>fice, and were the transcripts recorded in<br />
response to a request or direction from the Assistant Minister or his <strong>of</strong>fice; if not, who initiated the transcription services.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
In 2016, two transcripts were provided at the request <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister's <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
162 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 29 March 2017<br />
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister<br />
(Question No. 655)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—<br />
(1) Who is responsible for (a) managing, and (b) posting media releases, speeches and transcripts to, the Assistant Minister to<br />
Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial website.<br />
(2) Have all <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister to Deputy Prime Minister's speeches and interviews transcribed by and for the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> the Prime Minister and Cabinet, been posted on the Assistant Minister's ministerial website; if not, (a) how<br />
many speeches and transcripts have been withheld from the Assistant Minister's ministerial website, (b) who made that<br />
decision and, in each case, (c) what was the basis for that decision.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
(1) The Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Water Resources.<br />
(2) The Department <strong>of</strong> Prime Minister and Cabinet does not provide transcription services for the Assistant Minister.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews<br />
(Question No. 656)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:<br />
How many media interviews has the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources given since 1 January 2016,<br />
and how many <strong>of</strong> these interviews were transcribed by (a) <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>, and (b) contractors engaged by, the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture and Water Resources.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
No record is kept <strong>of</strong> media interviews undertaken by the Assistant Minister.<br />
(a) None.<br />
(b) None.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews<br />
(Question No. 657)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:<br />
Since 1 January 2016, what sum has been spent on the engagement <strong>of</strong> contractors to record and transcribe radio and<br />
television interviews <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
In 2016, no money was spent on these services.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
(Question No. 658)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
Since 1 January 2016, how many transcripts <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' public<br />
statements on radio and television have been provided to her ministerial <strong>of</strong>fice, and were the transcripts recorded in response<br />
to a request or direction from her, or her <strong>of</strong>fice; if not, who initiated the transcription services.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
In 2016, no transcripts were provided.<br />
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources<br />
(Question No. 659)<br />
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:<br />
(1) Who is responsible for (a) managing, and (b) posting media releases, speeches and transcripts to, the Assistant Minister for<br />
Agriculture and Water Resources' ministerial website.<br />
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Wednesday, 29 March 2017 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 163<br />
(2) Have all <strong>of</strong> the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' speeches and interviews transcribed by and for his<br />
department been posted on her ministerial website; if not, (a) how many speeches and transcripts have been withheld from her<br />
ministerial website, (b) who made that decision and, in each case, (c) what was the basis for that decision.<br />
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the<br />
following answer to the honourable member's question:<br />
(1) The Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Water Resources.<br />
(2) The Department <strong>of</strong> Prime Minister and Cabinet does not provide transcription services for the Assistant Minister.<br />
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Change language