Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:39): It is a great pleasure to respond to some of the comments by the member for Hunter. I would say this to the member for Hunter, who, I have to say, I get on well with. In opening the MPI, he asked the question: when was the last time anyone mentioned the agricultural white paper? I can say to the member for Hunter that it is very clear: it was in last week’s edition of Queensland Country Life. In fact, you provided a quote and your quote was this:

“Insurance risk mitigation seems the obvious model,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“This is an initiative in the government’s Agriculture White Paper which I welcome.

There it is: a glowing endorsement in Queensland Country Life that you support the agricultural white paper. You also mention the Deputy Prime Minister’s op-ed, which was out this week. The line from the op-ed piece that stuck with me was quite simply this: it said you were about to be hit in the face by the stick called reality.

This is the reality. If you are talking about renewables, you should be talking to the people who have technical knowledge. Those people with technical knowledge know how to operate a system: power network, generators, coal fired power stations, hydro, solar—all of those things. The reality is very straightforward. I actually have a degree in electrical engineering; I majored in power systems and have trained as an electrician. I will say to the member for Hunter that we need to get away from the policy wonks, we need to get away from the arguments and we need to provide a reliable supply which can be afforded by the people who have to pay the costs. That is a stick called reality—someone has to pay the bill and at this stage it is the poorest people in our communities. We cannot continue to do that.

You talk about the age of a power station. Would you believe, they actually get maintained. Every year there is a program of maintenance, and they get upgraded. In fact the Kareeya hydro station up in Tully, I understand, was opened in 1955 and it works perfectly well. It is upgraded constantly. Here is perfectly good renewable energy that works as a peaker. It is something which I support, and there should be more of it.

When we talk about hydro, we need dams. The question I put to the member for Hunter is this: you have stated there will be no dams. Do you have knowledge of the Queensland Labor Party’s position? Are they not intending to build any dams in Queensland? We have put forward over $100 million to build dam infrastructure. Dams mean jobs. They also mean increasing the value of agricultural land; they mean further production.

We spent an awful lot of time signing up free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China to provide opportunities and market access for our producers and our services. We have increased our tourism. In fact, tourism is an enormous contributor to the Australian economy. There is one comment I would make to the member for Richmond: simply saying something does not mean that it is true. It does not matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. When you talk about the Nationals, you should look at the reality, and the reality is that the Nationals held every seat and every senator, and they gained one. So the people of Australia support the Nationals. They did not lose one seat; in fact they maintained the seat of Capricornia. The member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, was targeted by every union under the sun, but she held onto the seat with no problems at all.

We are doing things for regional Australia and we will continue to do so. If we talk about the backpacker tax, the reality is straightforward. Every single person who is out there and operates a farm needs labour short term—they need large pools of labour to get their crop off. They need a flexible workforce. That has been provided by backpackers. They are not workers; they are tourists. They come to see this country and they work while they are here. They should contribute to the taxation system. If we accept that, the only debate is about the value. We have put forward a proposition of 19 per cent in consultation with stakeholders. The stakeholders agree—they support 19 per cent wholeheartedly. Right now, the agricultural community needs certainty. Right now they are ringing your offices and they are saying, ‘Get on with it.’ I can tell you that the reality is: these people—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Hunter has had his turn.

Mr PITT: are building our economy. They provide jobs; they pay their bills—unlike many on the other side of the House. They get on with it. The people on this side of the House understand it, because we have done it. We have been out there, we have had dirt under our fingernails. We have taken risks as well. We understand what it is like to be short on cash flow, to have filled the overdraft. To have someone turn around now, after all the months of negotiation, and say they will not support this bill is absolutely outrageous. You should be supporting our agricultural producers. For the first time in a very long time, they can be out making money. I would say to the cross bench and the opposition, and particularly to Senator Lambie: go and talk to your cherry producers, because they are going fantastically well. If they leave that crop in the field, they will not make a cent.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:52): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. This legislation, announced in the budget earlier this year, will make real inroads in ensuring that young Australians get the right assistance and the encouragement they need to learn new skills, to become job ready, to get a job and to stay in a job. That is why the coalition is investing $751.7 million over four years to establish the youth jobs PaTH Program for young jobseekers aged under 25 years, to improve youth employment outcomes. The coalition is committed to making sure those who are able to work have the necessary work-life skills required to enter into and remain in the workforce. The employers I speak to say that young people need the basics before they start work. It is a common theme that I hear over and over again. They need the fundamentals. They need people who will turn up on time, who are dressed appropriately for the role and who are willing to give things a go not be glued to their smartphone for a number of hours a day. But they also need people who have a good understanding of the values and behaviours that are expected in the workplace and in the recruitment process.

The prepare part of the PaTH Program will give young jobseekers who need to boost their job readiness intensive pre-employment skills training within five months of registering with the jobactive. The first three weeks of that training will help to build practical industry skills, with a focus on concepts like working in a team, presentation and communication. A further three weeks of training will centre on advanced job-hunting skills, job applications, career development and interview skills. The employability skills training will ensure that young jobseekers can present the right attitude and the right approach to work. I have spoken with many employers—I used to be one myself. Certainly, most of the ones that I speak to are willing to take on young people and give them a go, but they need them to show up, be ready and have the right attitude to work.

Applications are open now for training organisations to apply for the Employability Skills Training Panel. Panel members will develop and deliver training aimed at ensuring all young jobseekers have the basic employability skills that Australian businesses need. They will have strong employer and industry links, and demonstrated expertise in working with young people to improve their employability. The training they deliver will be developed with industry to make young jobseekers more competitive in the labour market. Applications close on Tuesday, 29 November 2016. For those who are interested, you can find more information at www.employment.gov.au.

The next part of the program, trial, will give jobseekers a chance to gain valuable work experience in a real workplace. That is a key component: real work experience in a real workplace, with an internship of between four and 12 weeks. There will be up to 30,000 internships per year available in both profit and not-for-profit businesses for up to 25 hours per week. For jobseekers, this means $200 a fortnight on top of their income support payment. For the businesses, it means $1,000 up-front in recognition of the costs of hosting the placement and an internship outcome payment to the provider who brokered each completed placement. The data shows that of jobseekers who undertook unpaid work experience, 48.6 per cent were in employment three months later compared to 26 per cent across all activities—almost half. So from 1 April 2017, jobseekers, employers and employment service providers can work together to design work experience placements and businesses who are interested in hosting an intern can register now through the employment website.

The final part of the program, which of course is hire, provides businesses with stronger incentives and greater flexibility in hiring jobseekers under the age of 25 years. The coalition is spending $298.3 million on the Youth Bonus wage subsidy. From 1 January 2017, employers will be eligible for a Youth Bonus wage subsidy if they hire a young jobseeker under the age of 25 who is in jobactive or Transition to Work and who has been in employment services for six months or more. Employers will receive $6,500 if they hire an eligible job ready jobseeker and $10,000 if they hire other eligible jobseekers. These wage subsidies create a strong incentive for employers to consider hiring unemployed youth.

Enhancements have also been made to wage subsides, which have been further strengthened and streamlined to make them more attractive and simpler for employers to access. Existing wage subsidies such as Restart will be retained but will now be paid over a six-month period, which is the same as the Youth Bonus, rather than 12 months, and give employers more flexibility to negotiate how often instalments are paid and over what period. The Youth Bonus will increase the young jobseeker’s competitiveness in the labour market, allowing them to get their foot in the door of an employer.

The bill I am speaking on today will amend the social security law, to protect young jobseekers whose employers are eligible to receive a Youth Bonus wage subsidy in relation to them. It will allow these young people to have their income support payments suspended for a period rather than cancelled. This is an important change. These young people will be able to have their social security payments restored without having to make a new claim if they lose their job through no fault of their own with an eligible employer within 26 weeks of ceasing to receive income support because of that employment.

Youth Jobs PaTH, prepare, trial, hire program is part of the wider youth employment strategy which the coalition government has invested $840 million in. The coalition government has taken a multipronged approach to tackling youth unemployment, which is a serious issue, with programs such as Transition to Work and Engaging Early School Leavers. Transition to Work provides young jobseekers with intensive one-on-one support from community based organisations experienced in working with young people who face greater barriers to enter the workforce. The government has committed $322 million over four years to the Transition to Work service to help young people aged between 15 and 21 become work ready or find their way back to education.

Engaging Early School Leavers is an initiative which strengthens requirements for young job seekers aged between 15 and 21 who have not completed year 12 to continue their education or look for work to receive the youth allowance. Evidence shows that the longer a young person remains unemployed after leaving school the more likely it is that they risk becoming long-term unemployed. That is a very, very important fact. But early intervention can mean the difference between a young person taking their first steps into a productive and happy working life or entering a life of welfare dependency. We all know the effects of long-term unemployment on individuals, on families and on communities. It can be extremely damaging. Being unemployed for an extended period can erode people’s skills and erode their confidence, sense of purpose and pride, which can lead to a cycle that makes it even harder to find work.

In my electorate we have a historically high unemployment rate. It is due to a complex mix of economic and social reasons. This is of course impossible to address overnight or in one fell swoop. Reducing unemployment takes time but we are making real progress. Two out of the 18 trial sites for Work for the Dole were located in the Hinkler electorate. An independent evaluation released in November last year showed that the program was effective in helping participants gain the confidence that they need and learn skills. An independent evaluation by the Social Research Centre and the Australian National University found that, of the participants surveyed, 83 per cent agreed that Work for the Dole is an opportunity to give back to the community, 79 per cent agreed that the routine was good for them, 81 per cent said that they were treated like a valuable member of staff, 81 per cent said that they were satisfied with the amount of responsibility that they were given, 76 per cent said that they were satisfied with the amount of work, 74 per cent said that they were satisfied with the variety of tasks and 68 per cent agreed that their placement was a valuable experience.

Work for the Dole programs create opportunities by giving people soft skills—routines, structure and presentation skills—and, most importantly, they provide access to potential employers. Unfortunately, in many cases those skills are not taught to the children of intergenerational welfare parents. Punctuality, teamwork and commitment are things that a person typically learns at a young age. This government is committed to ensuring that those young jobseekers are on a positive pathway into the workforce, not a life of dependency. The people of this great nation should be able to depend on their elected representatives for assistance when they need it, but that does not mean that we should be building a nation of dependants.

The coalition government’s youth employment package also includes measures to encourage young Australians to start a business and create their own job. The New Enterprise Incentive Scheme will be expanded by the coalition government. Over the next four years we are investing $77.6 million to provide an additional 2,300 places for NEIS each year, bringing the total number of places to 8,600. Eligibility for NEIS will enable those jobseekers not in receipt of income support, including youth and redundant workers, to access the scheme for the first time. NEIS is delivered by a network of providers who give individualised help for jobseekers to become self-employed business owners. Business mentoring support is an essential component of NEIS. Participants will receive business mentoring during the first year of operation of their business. As I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the first year is the most dangerous time for any new business. NEIS business mentors are people with proven business acumen and experience. They will provide assistance and advice about organisational, financial and marketing initiatives to help participants to develop their business.

Also part of the youth employment package is the establishment of the two-week ‘Exploring being my own boss’ workshop. It will give up to 1,000 young people per year a taste of what is involved in self-employment and entrepreneurship. This will include internship opportunities of up to 12 weeks for those participants to gain firsthand experience of what it takes to run a small business. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that can be incredibly difficult, but there is certainly nothing more fulfilling than running your own show. The ‘Exploring being my own boss’ workshop will run over a two-week period and give young jobseekers aged between 18 and 24 a better understanding of what self-employment entails.

The coalition is on track to deliver a range of programs to support young jobseekers. Since the government’s jobactive service began on 1 July 2015 it has improved the quality of services for jobseekers and employers. From 1 July 2015 till March 2016 jobactive has placed more than 64,000 young jobseekers into jobs. Through the job commitment bonus the government is already rewarding long-term unemployed young people who find and keep a job, with eligible jobseekers able to receive a payment of up to $6,500 if employed for two years. Between 1 July 2015 and 1 March 2016, 2,632 claims were lodged for that bonus. Of these, 1,867 have been granted, totalling some $4.67 million.

As well as these programs targeted at young jobseekers, the coalition is creating opportunities in my own electorate with the Wide Bay-Burnett Jobs Package. This is a $20 million commitment and it will create a community-driven government investment. It will be a genuine partnership between the coalition and the local community. The jobs package will provide business innovation grants on a competitive basis to help businesses invest in new technology, diversify operations, create new export opportunities and deliver new, sustainable jobs. It will also allow upgrading of existing local infrastructure or investing in new infrastructure to boost productivity and generate more local investment. It will deliver targeted skills and training programs to address regional skills shortages, and support workers impacted by structural change to retrain and upskill.

This job package will give local business the confidence to invest and grow. As I have said all along, it is not government that creates jobs; it is businesses that create jobs, and we need to provide the structures for them to be successful. It will attract matching funding from participating businesses, resulting in a total package of at least $40 million for the region. This is a much and desperately needed economic boost for the electorates of Hinkler and Wide Bay. These grants will assist existing local businesses to grow, and also offer incentives for metropolitan based companies to expand their businesses into the Wide Bay-Burnett region, creating new, sustainable jobs.

If you are looking for cheap housing, you need only look into regional Australia. It is far more affordable than it is in the major cities. What we need to ensure that we can drive that population shift is work, because work will draw them to the regions. I want my community of Hinkler to be one in which my children want to stay or come back to; I do not want the talents of our young people to leave for the city. To avoid that, they need good job prospects in their home town. The coalition has a plan to improve regional economies, to attract more investment and more jobs, and improve employment outcomes for jobseekers. We are delivering for the people of regional Australia, and this bill demonstrates that commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (18:33): It is always good to follow the member for Whitlam. I thank him for his brief contribution. I have a suitably brief contribution to make myself on the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and a related bill.

Can I say at the outset that there has been a very unusual champion of this legislation in the former member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, who has some personal circumstances in which one of his grandchildren suffers from severe epileptic seizures. As a staunch conservative, the former member for Hinkler has been very supportive and very outspoken on the need for this legislation, and I certainly commend him for his actions.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to put in place protections for information provided by law enforcement agencies used in decision-making under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. Without these protections, law enforcement agencies will not provide to the Commonwealth the information necessary to prevent criminal elements from infiltrating the scheme for the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, administered by the Office of Drug Control within the Department of Health, will enable the cultivation of medicinal cannabis. The ODC is accepting licence applications from individuals or businesses right now. There are three types of licences relating to the supply of medicinal cannabis products. They are: the medicinal cannabis licence authorising cultivation or production or both; the cannabis research licence authorising a similar process for research purposes; or a manufacturing licence authorising the manufacture of a drug or product. Before any activity under a licence can commence, the licensee will need to obtain a permit. This will set out the types and amount of cannabis that can be grown and/or produced, and the types and quantities of medicinal cannabis products that can be manufactured under the said licence.

All applicants for licences under the medicinal cannabis framework will be subject to regulation. Licensing decisions on the cultivation of cannabis plants, production of cannabis or cannabis resins, and the manufacture of drugs are underpinned by a ‘fit and proper person’ test and other tests that are designed to exclude those that may represent a risk of diversion of the cannabis crop because of their criminal history or criminal activities. These regulations also include an applicant’s criminal history, financial viability, business history and capacity to comply with the licensing requirements. Sensitive law enforcement information will be used for the purposes of making licensing decisions under the Narcotic Drugs Act.

We should not forget that cannabis is an illicit drug. It does have a high street value. The legal cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes may be attractive to those criminal elements looking to profit by diverting some or all of the crop to illegal uses. In addition, prohibited substances that are narcotic drugs authorised to be manufactured under the Narcotic Drugs Act may also be subject to this diversion risk. It is essential to take all possible actions to prevent the infiltration of organised crime into the medicinal cannabis framework or into the manufacture of narcotic drugs. In order to achieve this, extensive background checks of the individuals involved in cannabis cultivation and the manufacturing enterprises will be required.

Information such as conviction history and noncompliance with requirements under the Narcotic Drugs Act is accessible. It is either publicly available or held by the Commonwealth. However, other information may be intelligence gathered by, and known only to, law enforcement agencies. Therefore the protection of this information would give law enforcement agencies confidence that they can share pertinent information that will not be released to the applicant or to third parties, thus protecting ongoing criminal investigations, investigation techniques and, very importantly, the lives of those involved in those investigations. This bill also includes provisions to allow the secretary to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant has provided false or misleading information, and also allows for the revocation of licences and permits where applicable standards are not met. Allowing for the creation and existence of a legitimate industry to ensure that Australia patients can get access to medicinal cannabis products provides a benefit to that industry by opening a new market for commercial cultivation, manufacture and sale of medicinal cannabis products.

The global supplies of cannabis for medicinal purposes are relatively scarce and expensive. This legislation will allow Australia to develop a safe, legal and sustainable local supply of cannabis for medicinal or scientific purposes. In turn, this will support greater local opportunities to research, develop, manufacture and supply medicinal cannabis based products for suitable products. Other benefits of a local supply include a potential new agricultural industry within Australia, similar to that already established for the use of Australian-grown poppies for medicinal and scientific purposes.

In my electorate of Hinkler there is already a company that has been breeding ultra-low-THC industrial hemp plants since 1998. Agri Fibre Industries has developed of a range of plants for food, fibre and other uses, including medicinal cannabis. With these changes to the legislation and the introduction of the licensing system, innovative firms like Agri Fibre realise there is potential for new industry in the region. This Bundaberg based company has explored making building products from hemp, which could make inroads into environmentally sustainable buildings. They have also considered the potential of low-THC hemp for food production. Some of its breeds, including large seed varieties, can be grown all year round. I hope that innovative companies such as Agri Fibre Industries are well-placed now to grab this opportunity with both hands and see what develops. If it results in a new agricultural industry, which would mean more jobs, I hope it happens in my part of the world.

The amendments already made to the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967, as well as the legislation I am speaking to today, show that Australia is on track to have a nationally-consistent licensing scheme regulating the controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal or scientific processes. It is another example of this government taking on challenging reforms, and it has been challenging. We will deliver sensible changes that will benefit Australians in need. It shows that this government is doing exactly what we promised: we are delivering. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (18:54): I rise to speak on the VET Student Loans Bill 2016, which will overhaul the VET-FEE HELP system so that it is affordable, sustainable and more student focused. It will also undo the damage caused by Labor’s failed VET-FEE HELP scheme in the first place. After Labor made these changes to the VET HELP loan scheme in 2012, unscrupulous training providers were allowed to flourish. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, as someone who used to own and operate a registered training organisation, that was most certainly the case. I am sure many of my colleagues heard similar stories in their offices as I did in mine. There were examples where providers preyed on vulnerable people and offered sweeteners, like a free laptop or a free iPad, if you signed up for a course—a course of dubious quality, a course that you did not actually want, a course that you did not need, a course you would never complete and a course that you would never ever pay for.

A constituent contacted my office after his son applied online for what was advertised as, and for what he thought was, a vacant job in warehousing with a contract labour hire firm. But instead he has contacted by a registered training organisation. Their email confirmed that he was registered to attend an induction session to enrol in a certificate III in logistics and warehousing. There was, of course, no job vacancy. I share his concern that these online job advertisements were completely misleading. What was also concerning was that the email from the RTO contained all of the documentation that the job seeker would need to provide for enrolment, but did not disclose any information about the course, the course content, the course outcomes, the course costs or the course cancellation fees.

Another constituent raised concerns that there were some RTOs who were flaunting the laws that we were supposed to be upholding for their own profit and gain. Can you imagine that: someone who flaunted the law for their own profit and gain! This gentleman in particular was incredulous that students could pass a course for high-risk work after a five-day course when he runs three days of formal training in his operation and his students then need to obtain 120 logbook hours before even being assessed. He said that people had contacted him to say how ‘hopelessly inadequate’ the training was and also that they themselves were not, in any shape or form, confident in their ability. These are not the outcomes we need in the industries of Australia. These are everyday people, and they are being left massively in debt—a debt the majority will not pay—and they have no qualifications to show for it.

There are some interesting stats. The changes made by Labor’s schemes resulted in student numbers jumping by almost 400 per cent. Fees more than doubled. Loans increased by 792 per cent and jumped from a cost of $325 million in 2012 to $1.8 billion in 2014, followed by $2.9 billion in 2015. The VET Student Loans Bill 2016 will hit the reset button. It will hit the reset button so that Australians can start to rebuild their trust in vocational education and so that taxpayers can be assure that their money is no longer being rorted.

I previously spoke in this place in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015, which was part of the measures that the government introduced a try and fix this problem. The coalition government banned inducements being offered to students to enrol in courses for which they needed a loan and tightened recruitment and marketing practice to make it clear to the students themselves what they were signing up to. While these measures were necessary—and they have made an impact—a reset is needed; a new scheme is needed.

The new VET Student Loans program will limit courses eligible for VET student loans to those that align with industry needs. What a novel approach, Mr Deputy Speaker! We will train and provide for people in the areas that we need—the areas where there is a shortage. These will be selected based on analysis of employer, state and territory, and Commonwealth data to ensure that they lead to good employment opportunities. What another novelty! We will train people for employment for jobs that are available.

The Minister for Education and Training, Senator the honourable Simon Birmingham, will have the power to approve a course list by legislative instrument for courses and loan caps determination. The list of 347 courses proposed to be eligible for a VET student loan from 1 January 2017 is currently open for consultation, and the coalition government wants to hear your views on the eligible course list. You can have your say by providing feedback by email to VETStudentLoans@education.gov.au. That feedback must be provided by this Sunday—October 23. The determination will give the minister the power to change the list and ensure that it remains flexible to meet changing workplace skills needs. By limiting the courses eligible, the new loan program will be closely aligned with industry needs.

We need to end the free-for-all subsidies that Labor started that have seen providers burden students with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt for courses that offer poor employment prospects. Examples are the Graduate Diploma of Veterinary Chinese Herbal Medicine and the Advanced Diploma of Therapeutic Arts in Counselling, to name just a couple.

The new scheme also include three bands of loan caps for courses, set at $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, depending on their delivery cost. These caps were chosen based on an analysis of the course prices set under the New South Wales Smart and Skilled program and validated against the average VET FEE-HELP fees prior to the exorbitant rises in course fees in recent years. I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I experienced much of this before I came into this place, and the capacity for someone to actually quadruple or increase by a factor of 20 the cost of one of the courses they atypically deliver was outrageous.

The minister can review the cap rates at any time in the first 12 months of the scheme, and there will be a compulsory review after the first 12 months of VET Student Loans to ensure it is working as intended. Students will be required to log into, and of course engage with, the VET Student Loans online portal to ensure their enrolments are active and legitimate.

From 1 July 2017, a student engagement and progression requirement for continued access to the loan is expected to apply. Students will be required to log in periodically to confirm active and legitimate enrolment in the course. This provides greater protection for students by shifting the ability to access the loan away from the approved provider, to the student. It does this by removing the provider’s ability to re-enrol failing and absent students without their knowledge. The Commonwealth will have the discretion not to pay the loan amounts if the student is not genuine.

A new application process for providers wanting to access VET Student Loans will include a much higher bar to entry by assessing their relationships with industry, their student completion rates, the employment outcomes of their courses and their track records as education institutions. All existing VET FEE-HELP providers will have to apply for approval under the new program. The VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 will provide for certain bodies, such as TAFEs, to be exempt from the re-application process.

Providers will need to meet the new course-provider requirements to be eligible for approval as an approved course provider. Critically, providers must continue to meet these requirements for the duration of their approval. The requirements include having to be a fit and proper person and having to satisfy the provider suitability requirements. The details of these new requirements will include student outcomes, such as completion rates; industry links; experience in providing vocational education; financial performance; strong management and governance; as well as having regard to the provider’s course scope, tuition fees and modes of course delivery.

It will continue to be a requirement for approval that a provider be a party to a tuition assurance arrangement. This will provide greater protection to students, because they are the ones that need the protection, in the event of a provider ceasing to provide a course, by imposing obligations on the organisation that has agreed to provide the tuition assurance. It is anticipated that applications for provider approvals will be considered only on an annual basis, and an application fee will apply.

The bill also introduces a limit on the duration of a provider’s approval—a maximum of seven years. Thereafter, the provider will have to apply again. Seven years aligns with the maximum length of registration as a registered training organisation under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and as a higher education provider under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. Having been through two of those, I can tell you they are incredibly thorough and difficult.

The bill will prohibit approved providers from using brokers or directly soliciting prospective students, including cold-calling and so-called lead generation, and limiting the subcontracting of training.

This new legislation will mirror and retain many of the important student protection reforms to the VET FEE-HELP scheme introduced through the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Act 2015, including the measures such as the ban on prohibited inducements, the requirement to have a parent or guardian’s signature for students under the age of 18, and enforcement provisions.

The bill introduces a new ban on providers using brokers or agents to interact or engage with students in relation to VET student loans. This includes prohibiting brokers and agents from enrolling students in courses for which the tuition fees will be covered by student loans; assisting students to complete applications for student loans; or providing information or advice to students in relation to the VET student loans. Providers will be required to meet the ongoing information requirements; retain any documents or information, such as student records; and provide students with certain prescribed information.

The bill will also require providers to determine tuition fees in accordance with the rules. This measure will continue to enable the Commonwealth to ensure fees are spread across the duration of a course. The fees must be published. Importantly, a provider cannot require a student to pay for tuition fees that are to be covered by a VET student loan. We will also strengthen legislative, compliance and payment conditions, including the ability to cap provider loan amounts and student numbers, and to limit course scope; and powers to suspend poor-performing providers from the program, cancel their payments and revoke their approval.

So what will the impact of the VET Student Loans Bill be on the students themselves? There will be greater protections provided for students by shifting the ability to access a loan away from the provider to the student. Student loans will be approved by the Commonwealth, but only if the student is eligible and it is for a course that is an approved course. The bill provides the Commonwealth with the discretion not to pay a loan where it is satisfied a student is non-genuine or where it suspects the approved provider is not complying with the conditions on its approval or the provisions in the bill. In circumstances such as unacceptable conduct by a provider, or if the provider’s noncompliance has adversely affected the student, or if it is shown that the student is not eligible or not genuine, the secretary has the discretion to recredit the student’s FEE-HELP balance without the student having to apply.

Existing VET FEE-HELP students will have the option of staying with their current provider under the old VET FEE-HELP scheme until 31 December 2017, or transitioning to the new VET Student Loans program. Students starting study in 2017 will have access to the new program only. Throughout 2017, students will be assisted to move to an approved course at an approved provider. Over the coming weeks and months, the Department of Education and Training will be communicating with students to ensure they understand the changes and what they need to do.

Most importantly, these reforms place a much stronger focus on students successfully completing courses, because quality providers delivering quality courses aligned to industry needs will be a strong driver of completion rates. Ensuring that only high-quality providers with strong track records and industry links are approved to offer the program will have a positive effect on student support and performance.

The bill will also have a number of other impacts on providers. While TAFEs and public providers will automatically transition to the new program, they will still face identical new conditions on scope of enrolment, enrolment numbers, loan caps and student participation. These providers are low risk, they have not abused the VET FEE-HELP scheme, and they have significant numbers of state funded students. Granting them entry to the new program minimises transition and administration costs and provides greater certainty to students. Private providers, however, will be required to meet a range of quality measures to be granted an initial six-month trial period under the new program. Current private VET FEE-HELP providers will need to apply later in 2016 to access the new program on a transitional basis from 1 January 2017. They will then need to apply in 2017 to seek formal approval for entry from 1 July 2017.

New approval arrangements will: assess applicants’ relationships with industry, assess student completion rates and employment outcomes, evaluate any articulation with higher education providers, and appraise a provider’s track record of delivering education and training. Suitability against the application criteria will need to be maintained across the entire period of a provider’s approval. There will also be a stronger focus on compliance, with the education department working with the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, who I have worked with many times, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to closely scrutinise providers.

The coalition government’s decision to implement the new VET student loans program follows comprehensive consultation with the sector and takes into account the views of a broad range of stakeholders, including: providers, peak bodies, students, individuals and government bodies. The submissions—which included contributions from providers, peak bodies and students—showed that stakeholders strongly agree that change is needed, and they have been an important part of helping the coalition government redesign the scheme. There is strong support for ensuring we have a high-quality program with a strong reputation for delivering results. Stakeholders agree that completion rates need to improve. These rates have been too low for too long, and we cannot let this continue. They also agree that course costs do need to be addressed. The new program will stop providers from charging students exorbitant fees which are then underwritten by the taxpayer.

The VET Student Loans Bill will be a big win for local students, particularly in my electorate, as well as taxpayers. It will ensure public funding is used only to support high-quality vocational and skills courses. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:56): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I welcome you to the chair and, of course, to the parliament. I rise today to speak on the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 and its supplementary bills in the original form.

What is being presented today with this reform package is a workable solution that provides certainty for both agriculture and tourism stakeholders. Concerns around the tax payable by working holiday-makers were comprehensively reviewed by the coalition with consultation and input from multiple stakeholders from both the tourism and agricultural sectors. How do I know that? I was there. I was part of the consultation process. It was certainly extensive. Stakeholders have had ample opportunity to put things forward. The coalition government have listened, we have acted on the concerns and we have come up with a workable solution. So we are delivering on exactly what we said we would.

The Labor Party want to delay the passing of the legislation in the Senate by referring it to the Senate Economics Committee. They failed to commit to any options that were put on the table originally. They failed to come up with a proposal of their own. They failed to effectively engage with industries. In fact, on 23 February 2016 my good friend, the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon said:

Labor calls on the Government to take evidence based approach to the redesign of its working holiday maker taxation policy, in close consultation with the tourism and agriculture industries.

We did that. In fact, we have done it a few times. On 16 March Mr Fitzgibbon said:

The Government needs to ensure that the agriculture sector has the supply of labour it needs and the visa system is not open to exploitation.

We are doing that and we are making substantial changes. On 11 October 2016, Mr Fitzgibbon said:

Labor will finalise its position once we’ve heard from effected stakeholders and explore how the Government’s proposed new regime compares globally.

I think there has been adequate time—more than sufficient time. This is a matter of some urgency. Certainly, the people in the industry who I speak to tell me that we need to get on with it. We have a position put forward and the Labor Party are holding it up in the Senate.

Stakeholders in agriculture have made it abundantly clear that the reform package must be passed. Many growers are coming to the peak harvest season, labour force demand is very high and they need certainty. In fact, they need that certainty right now, because people who are in the tourism industry, who are working holiday-makers who are applying visas and who are planning what they will do in the next 12 months, are making decisions on where it is they intend to go, and they are making those decisions now.

The key points of this bill include that employers of 417 and 462 visa holders will need to register with the Australian Taxation Office. This is a change and it is something new. Only if they are registered will they be able to withhold the 19 per cent flat rate. I think this is a good change. As someone who pushed for the establishment of Taskforce Cadena and who has spoken in the press over a long period about the exploitation of foreign workers in this nation, I think this is a substantial change which will allow our enforcement agencies to identify just who is employing 417 and 462 visa holders. If they are not registered, the tax rate will remain as it is at 32½ per cent, which, of course, is the flat rate for non-permanent residents of Australia. A list of registered employers will be available on the ATO website, and people will be able to look them up with ABN Lookup. Most of the people working in this industry who come from overseas and are 417 and 462 visa holders are highly skilled and highly educated. They are here fundamentally for a holiday. They do some work while they are here, they make a few dollars and they tend to spend all of that money in regional Australia in particular. In my view this is an important step to making it easier to identify employers and ensure the integrity of the working holiday visa program. This is an important program; there are over 200,000 people in this country on those visas at any one time.

Tourism Australia will promote Australia to potential working holiday-makers through a $10 million global youth targeted advertising campaign. But, may I say, the best form of advertising, in particular in this market, is social media and word of mouth. These people talk to one another and they certainly advise one another about their experience and how great it has been. We want them to leave Australia with a view of what a fantastic country it is that we live in. We are making other changes to working holiday-maker visas to boost the supply of working holiday-makers and make it more attractive to visit Australia. Separately, we are extending the age of eligibility for working holiday-makers from 30 to 35. This will increase the pool of potential working holiday-makers. We are dropping the price of a visa application by $50 to $390. And we are increasing the rate of the departing Australia superannuation payments tax to 95 per cent for working holiday-makers.

During the election campaign the coalition government announced the migrant workers task force, and we are delivering on that commitment. The task force will be led by Professor Allan Fels, who is very well known to the people in this place, and will provide expert advice on measures that will deliver better protections for overseas workers. We are also increasing funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman to assist with its capabilities and its workforce—an increase of some $20 million—and there will be increased penalties for employers who underpay workers and fail to keep proper employment records. A new higher penalty category of serious contraventions will be introduced. These will apply to any employer that has intentionally ripped off workers, regardless of the employer’s size. As someone who has been involved in this for a long time and who comes from an agricultural background and electorate, I can tell you that the biggest difficulty with this matter is enforcement. We are talking about large groups of people who are transient, who leave the region after perhaps two days, two weeks or two months and who work in a number of different locations with different work hours and start times. It is incredibly difficult to identify just where they are, because the crop shifts. If you are picking zucchinis you might pick twice a day; if you are picking onions you might need 300 people for the morning—it just depends on the crop, its location and what it is that needs to be done.

We will also introduce new offence provisions that will capture franchisors and parent companies who fail to deal with exploitation by their franchisees. We will strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman so that it can deal more effectively with employers who intentionally exploit workers by compelling them to produce information and answer questions. There are some very bad habits out there in this area and we need to ensure we address them.

Taskforce Cadena is something that I think is kicking some goals. I was very pleased to see it formed. It was something I had called for. In fact, at the Federal Council in August 2014 the Nationals voted unanimously to seek a multijurisdictional task force to address this issue. The exploitation of foreign workers is something which predominantly impacts regional farming electorates, and atypically they are held by Nationals MPs. We are very well aware of this issue. It is something that needs to be cracked down on and stopped. The allegations and complaints—and we have all received them, on both sides of the House; I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the table will agree—range across underpayment, sexual exploitation of workers, tax evasion, visa breaches, racial discrimination, the intimidation of farmers and overcrowding in private residential dwellings. In fact, I clearly recall a farmer who was bundled into a car and forced onto the road to Brisbane. He managed to escape on the highway when the car pulled up at roadworks. These are the types of issues we are dealing with regularly.

Taskforce Cadena takes real action. This government is getting on with the job of targeting unscrupulous labour hire contracting firms, who should be under no illusion: if you are breaking the law, you will be caught and prosecuted; you will lose everything you have because you are doing the wrong thing and exploiting people who are at their most vulnerable. Taskforce Cadena will make these firms accountable and provide a level playing field for all Australian businesses, targeting those exploiting workers who really have no other option. Cadena was launched in May 2015. It is led by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Fair Work Ombudsman. It works with the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Taxation Office and various state and territory agencies to ensure incidents involving exploitation and visa fraud are appropriately investigated. The reason for Taskforce Cadena is that we need better coordination and intelligence sharing between agencies at the various levels of government to ensure seasonal workers are protected from unscrupulous employers. I should be clear: the overwhelming majority of Australia’s farmers are doing the right thing—they absolutely are—but we have these bad seeds in the industry who are giving Australia and the industry a bad name.

I am very pleased that Cadena will continue to operate nationwide and across a range of industries. Organised criminal networks and people who are seeking to profit by exploiting both illegal and legitimate workers should be under no illusion: Taskforce Cadena is targeting you. Not only do these people, through their actions, disadvantage employers who are doing the right thing; they are thumbing their noses at the hardworking Australian taxpayer. I see from the Fair Work Ombudsman’s report of its review, released over the weekend, that of some 4,000 working holiday-makers who were interviewed, 27 per cent of respondents had been paid in cash.

Taskforce Cadena, within a month of operating, was successful on a number of raids, catching 38 illegal workers. Following investigations by Cadena, the Fair Work Ombudsman was able to pursue one Emmanuel Bani—whom I am very well aware of—who was accused of underpaying 22 workers from Vanuatu to the tune of $77,649 for fruit and vegetable picking jobs in Queensland. I met with a number of these workers and heard firsthand about the appalling way they had been treated. I referred the matter to the Department of Employment and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, who intervened to recover the men’s passports and secure them work with a reliable employer. This gentleman had absconded with their passports and basically left them on the side of the road. It was an outrageous thing to do.

The unskilled Seasonal Worker Program is closely monitored and there are safeguards in place to ensure agents know their obligations and workers know their rights. Agents must be registered. Where the real exploitation occurs is in cases where people have overstayed their visas or are working here illegally and the agents are not properly registered.

Working holiday-makers are not just a travelling workforce; they are a vital component of our tourism industry. In fact, I would say they are an essential part of our tourism industry in regional Australia. In my electorate of Hinkler, growers require a large labour force of unskilled workers for short periods of time and they need them at short notice. Otherwise the crops would sit there and would not be picked. As a former farmer, I know there is nothing worse than seeing a perfectly good crop which you have expended a lot of time, effort and money on that you cannot get off the ground. Until it is sold and the money is in the bank, it is never finished. The whole season’s income could be lost and possible future agreements with buyers could be put in jeopardy if they cannot pick those crops.

This issue has been around for a long time. This is not new. In fact, it was raised some 15 years ago by Philip Ruddock, a former member of this place, in 1999. It has been the subject of numerous inquiries, numerous Senate reports and various other activities within government. I wrote to the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, after the change to 32½ per cent for the backpacker tax was announced in the 2015 budget. I outlined that it would have a significant impact on stakeholders in my electorate.

We need to ensure that Australia continues to be competitive, because there are other countries that are looking at the same market. The changes that we have put forward will ensure that we continue to be competitive. We also need to remember that backpackers or working holiday visa holders who work in this country are still utilising our infrastructure and services. They use our health systems, they use our roads and they use a number of other things which are provided by the taxpayer. So they do need to contribute to the taxation system.

Many of the issues that were identified in the Fair Work Ombudsman’s report into 417 visa holders are already being worked on. As I said, we have committed $20 million to Fair Work. We have established the Migrant Workers Taskforce. We have established Taskforce Cadena. We are putting forward proposals to ensure that the legislation is sufficient and the penalties are sufficient to crack down on those who are doing the wrong thing. So we will ensure that we provide those additional resources and we will ensure that we continue to provide the enforcement that is necessary.

In closing, I would like to go to a quote by good friend the shadow minister for agriculture, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, today. He said:

This debacle has now been going on for 16 months …

I would put to the shadow minister right now that Labor needs to get on with it, not push it out to a Senate inquiry, not extend it any further. Clearly the industry has been consulted over a long period of time. It is not that difficult. We are coming into another harvest season. It is important that people have certainty. It is important that they can be sure that they can get their crops off the ground. In my region, where they produce some $1½ billion of produce every single year, they need to have certainty because it is absolutely invaluable to our local economy. Jobs in my electorate rely on our farmers doing well. We rely on agriculture to be a major producer and we need to ensure that that continues. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:24): Acting Deputy Speaker Hogan, it is good to see the member for Page from The Nationals in the chair.

Before I get to the fundamental issues that we speak on today in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016, I would like to address some of the comments by the member for Kingsford Smith. Just like the ‘Mediscare’ campaign, it is—as I am sure you are aware, Deputy Speaker Hogan—just wrong. They are just making it up. In fact, this bill will, from 1 July 2016, provide a tax cut to 3.1 million taxpayers—that is the reality. There will be a tax cut from 1 July 2016. So Labor are wrong once again. They are wrong to state that taxpayers will not receive a benefit from this tax cut until the end of the financial year. Page three of the explanatory memorandum says just this.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will issue new income tax withholding schedules once the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) is confident that Parliament will pass these amendments.

I am very pleased that the member for Kingsford Smith has said that Labor will support this bill.

The commissioner has already amended the pay-as-you-go withholding schedules, and all affected taxpayers will be able to obtain the benefit cut not at the end of the year but from 1 October. This is already published online. It means that the tax cut will be reflected immediately at this point in the take-home pay of all Australian taxpayers.

As I am sure you know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, as someone who comes from the real world and as someone who has been employed, who has employed people and who has been in business—in fact, I believe you are an economist; one of two we have in the Nationals party room—things change over a financial year. They change constantly. They change depending on how much work you do. They change depending on how much overtime you work. They depend on whether you get ill, whether you do less work or more work, whether you take holidays, whether you get leave loading, whether you get a lump sum payout, whether you retire. Consequently, this is exactly what happens in normal working life for normal working people who are employed. So there will be a tax cut. It will be effective from 1 July 2016, and people will see the benefits. They will see the benefits. So there are no real differences there at all. Labor, in their statements, are fundamentally wrong on this issue.

This was announced in the budget by the Treasurer. It will be a course of tax reduction for hardworking Australians and it does deliver on the coalition government’s commitment to bring down personal income taxes, because we are about less taxes for hardworking Australians. This is an important step in modernising the tax system. It means that individuals of taxable incomes from $80,001 up to $87,000 will be subjected to the lower tax rate of 32.5 per cent rather than the rate of 37 per cent.

I know, as someone in this place who has actually paid taxes for most of his working life, that is an important change, because that trigger point is critical to many families and many earners in this mid-range level. If you earn an extra $1 because you do decide to work extra time and to work harder, to be driven into a higher tax bracket is usually very difficult. Around 500,000 taxpayers—many of them, as I said, are working families—will be kept out of the 37 per cent tax bracket in this financial year. About 3.1 million taxpayers will receive an annual tax cut of up to $315 in 2016-17 and beyond. This tax measure will reward hardworking Australians for doing more overtime, taking a promotion or a better, new job without being penalised by paying more tax through the higher rate. We do not want a tax system in this country that limits opportunity or that punishes those who work hard or take risks in their business, particularly those who take risks in small business.

Small business is the economic life blood of regional communities like mine and like yours, Deputy Speaker Hogan. On this side of the house, we want to see them prosper. There are some 8,600 small businesses in the Hinkler electorate operating across a range of sectors, including construction, manufacturing and agriculture. Most of those are family-run businesses run by mums and dads, aunts and uncles and their siblings. They work long hours, they take few holidays and they, sometimes, take enormous risks to provide important services and products to our community.

Across the country, small businesses employ more than four million people. Four million Australians are employed in small business. In Queensland, small business is responsible for over 90 per cent of all employment. We want those small businesses to have confidence because businesses with confidence are businesses which expand and they are businesses which employ more Australians. Small businesses, as I am sure you know, are the backbone of the nation, and they will drag us forward. The more support we can provide to them, the better off as a country we will be.

The coalition government is focusing on building a strong economy which will help working families and small businesses with tax cuts right now. As a government, we have already delivered free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea, and they have provided unprecedented trade and export opportunities for producers and businesses in our regions. Those opportunities are helping their bottom line, and stronger bottom lines means more confidence. Those free trade agreements result in giving local producers the better return that we want them to have, and the more that we can give to their bottom line, the better the opportunities for them to employ more of our people, particularly in regional areas. That is what as a government we are about—providing more employment.

Just recently I had the pleasure of visiting the member for Capricornia in her electorate, in my capacity as the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, after an invitation from my colleague Michelle Landry. Well, it is not really an invitation; it is usually a phone call that says, ‘You’ll need to come to my electorate as soon as possible,’ which, of course, we always try to do. So we visited tropical fruit grower Ian Groves, one of these small business owners, and discussed new market opportunities in Asia for Central Queensland producers of things like mangoes. Mangoes are an important fruit export for Queensland, and the China-Australia FTA has already cut the tariff for Australian mangoes from 15 per cent to nine per cent. That means that the forward-looking price to those people who are purchasing this product has the capacity to be lower, which means more products, which means more products sold, which is great for our producers. Trade data shows that in the early part is this year Chinese imports of fresh Australian mangoes more than doubled compared to the previous growing season. This meant that Australia overtook Thailand as China’s principal supplier of mangoes in the first half of 2016, and that is a fabulous result. We are increasing our exports, which is great for this nation.

Under the KAFTA—the Korea-Australia FTA—the 30 per cent tariff which Korea charged on shelled macadamias is down to 12 per cent already. You might not have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, but my area is now the largest producer of macadamias in the country. This was only just recently announced. I see you are looking sceptical, but it is in the press, so you have to believe it! We have enormous growth in this country in macadamia exports. These tariff cuts contributed to a tripling of macadamia exports to Korea in the first half of 2015 compared to 2014, and they maintained that higher export level into the first half of this year. To give you an example, some years ago the high-quality kernel for macadamias was only worth about $3 to $3.50; now I have heard of prices as high as $8.60 a kilo for high-quality kernel. That is an enormous turnaround in price, which means that these businesses are being very, very successful. As I have said, the Bundaberg region is now the largest macadamia-producing region in Australia, and of course it is still the home of the world’s best rum—officially.

The beef outcomes in these FTAs have been a boon for Queensland. Australia is now the only major global beef exporter that has preferential access into all three of these large North Asian markets, meaning we have the jump on our competitors, and that is where we need to be. Australia needs to be positioned so we are first and foremost in these trade agreements.

Another success story under ChAFTA is the Geraldton Fishermen’s Co-operative in Perth, which I toured last week as part of my role. They are the biggest rock lobster processor and exporter in the world, selling around $450 million worth of rock lobsters each year—almost half a billion dollars worth. ChAFTA opened doors almost overnight to allow the co-op to export directly to any port in China, which was previously not commercially viable due to the high tariffs. Not only do they produce $450 million worth of rock lobsters; they employ 350 hardworking people. So GFC have invested heavily in response to the FTA to recently become the first Australian seafood exporter to own a live holding facility in China. They have gone and built a facility within the grounds of Guangzhou airport which will be paired with another under construction alongside the Perth airport. When complete, the latter will be the largest facility of its kind anywhere in the world, aiming to have the shortest tank-to-tank flight time of just 14 hours. This literally means that in 14 hours they can take fresh, live Australian produce from tank to tank into China—one of the biggest markets in the world.

We will continue to work on free trade agreements that provide advantages for our producers, because the stronger they are the more Australians they employ. These types of investments will continue to happen when there is a strong economy, and right now business confidence is up, and that is a result of strong coalition policies which have helped to build this economy. There has been over three per cent growth, according to the most recent figures, because we have a plan for the economy. We have a plan to make a stronger economy for Australia. The stronger the economy is, of course, the more people are employed, the higher confidence is and the more services we can deliver as a government.

But what has the opposition got? Bill Shorten and Labor have a debt wish. That is all they have. They have a debt wish. They wish to ensure that future generations of Australians cannot pay off the debts of this nation. We need to control the budget, and I would certainly thank the Labor Party for seeing sense in terms of the omnibus bill, because we do need to work together. The Australian people expect it of us, and we need to deliver for them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my contribution and thank you very much. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT  (11:47): It is a great pleasure to once again to be back in the House and speaking on something which is an important issue. I of course acknowledge the other side in the process. I will look at some of the comments from the member for Bendigo before we get to the substantive issue.

Firstly, this is a serious issue, certainly for me and a number of other people in this room who are likely to have been exposed to asbestos. I will assume my good friend the new member for Fisher, as a former carpenter, would understand just what that means. It is certainly something which plays on your mind. It is certainly something that you are aware of. For people who have worked not only in the construction industry but also in heavy industry over many years, asbestos unfortunately is a fact of life. Asbestos contaminates our worksites. On some things we do agree: we need to ensure that we do not continue to import such a devastating product.

However, this is not just a political blame game. We need to understand the practicalities of exactly how difficult it is to identify asbestos. It is not something which can be seen, smelled or heard. You certainly cannot tell that a product is an asbestos product simply by looking at it. The only way that you can identify an asbestos product is to have it sampled. They have to use a particular type of microscope to identify it, and that is typically done in a NATA registered laboratory by someone with extremely good qualifications, such as an occupational hygienist or somebody similar.

The reason it is so difficult is that asbestos fibres are less than five micron, typically. There is a whole range of asbestos products The three types of asbestos you can usually see are chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite. They are known as ‘white’, ‘brown’ and ‘blue’. For those of us who come from heavy industry, we are very well aware of just how deadly blue asbestos can be. In fact, in my former workplace where I did my trade, there used to be people employed as laggers, if you can believe that. Their job was to bundle up blue asbestos in a bucket, mix it into slurry and then pack it onto steampipes. Unfortunately, many of those people lost their lives. A lot of them I knew very well; they were personal friends. To have lung cancer or mesothelioma is a terrible way to lose your life. However, I will move to the substantive matters.

The idea or concept that we can sample every single piece of product that comes into Australia that may or may not contain asbestos is, unfortunately, ludicrous. The typical products that you may or may not find asbestos in that are here in this country right now are things which are legacy items. It is not just roofing and wall sheets; it is things like brake pads and piping—anything to do with underground pipes from the fifties, sixties and seventies. Anything which is made of fibre is typically asbestos. Those products already exist. The concept that we could test every single product that comes into this country is just a ridiculous position to put forward. For example, mastic is something which is used to seal. Black mastic has a very, very high asbestos content and very, very dangerous levels of asbestos. People who are not aware of that tend to go out and do very silly things such as heat them up, which releases the fibres, because, quite simply, asbestos cannot affect you unless you inhale it.

It is a difficult problem, but we are taking a sampling approach. Since 1 July 2015, the Australian Border Force have targeted 1,936 high-risk shipments, which has resulted in 144 examinations and 13 detections of asbestos contaminated goods. Unfortunately, there is no other way to do this. You simply have to take a sample and test it. So the only debate that we can have is about the number of samples and how quickly that might be done. This is a significant increase from 2014-15, when there were 273 shipments targeted, resulting in 20 examinations and 10 detections.

Clearly, the good thing about construction is that it is underway, so someone must be funding it, and that is incredibly important. But it is also important to note that health and safety in the workplace is typically the responsibility of the state government. They have the resources, they have the inspectors and they have the people who are trained to do the investigations. The Border Force, of course, are continuing to do their work, but we should look at Labor’s record. Labor’s record on this is appalling. Federal Labor actually cut $734 million from the Border Force budget and 700 staff from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service during their time in government. That is not a good reflection on someone who is intending to do more samples and more inspections of asbestos products.

Briefly, in wrapping up, I must say that I actually went into a place in another country—I will not say which one—where they had samples of asbestos bags being wrapped up. You could walk in and have a look as they made these things on the demonstration floor. That was very surprising. That is not something we should see in this country, and we must continue to fight to ensure that we do not have asbestos products here.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (20:06): As one of the people who just sat through the ramblings of the member for Wakefield for the past 15 minutes I am pleased it has come to an end! Certainly, I think the people of Australia would be out there building bronze statues to anyone who has kept to Bill Shorten and the Labor Party away from the Australian Treasury. That is the reality.

But the people of my electorate want to hear what we are doing, and the most important thing for them is creating jobs, so we will continue to do things as a government to ensure there are more jobs in my electorate of Hinkler and across the nation. I know I sound like a broken record, but I want to talk about ex-HMAS Tobruk. I know the Minister for Defence is sick of hearing from me and I know the staff of the Minister for Defence are sick of hearing from me. Certainly, a number of people are sick of hearing from me about ex-HMAS Tobruk. For three years we have been fighting to bring a military dive wreck into the electorate of Hinkler, to be parked in some 30 metres of water between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, directly off Burrum Heads.

I am pleased to report we are finally seeing some progress. I have to say—and this is not something I would do often—that I congratulate the Queensland Labor government. They have finally got on board. The state government has listed an expression of interest, which was submitted to the Department of Defence. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Queensland tourism minister, state Labor minister Kate Jones, for her support for the project and for the work she has done to progress the proposal, because where I come from we fight for what is best for our people and we try to deliver for them, regardless of who is in opposition or what position they might hold.

The state government has called for expressions of interest from local councils across Queensland to use ex-HMAS Tobruk as a military dive wreck. Since this announcement they have come out of the woodwork. Like rats off a sinking ship, they have come from everywhere. Every coastal council in Queensland seems to think that it needs a military dive wreck and has the capacity and infrastructure to actually use it. And why wouldn’t they? A project like this demonstrates how much potential it has to build local regional economies.

Unlike some of those areas, I have two councils, the Fraser Coast Regional Council and the Bundaberg Regional Council, which have committed $1 million each towards this project. They are willing to work together. I know, Deputy Speaker Kelly, that you have a lot of experience in this place and I am sure that it would be very rare for you to see councils working together on a project like this. They tend to box into their corners. But, as I have said many times, this is a unique opportunity to bring a tourism venture to the Hinkler region to add to additional tourism infrastructure. It will bring a much needed boost to the local economy and it will create jobs, as it has done in other places. The increased tourism numbers to the region have a flow-on effect, of course—increased spending in local restaurants, in local shops and with local businesses. There are small-scale dive operators already in my electorate, at each end. They customarily service locals and backpackers. And thanks of course to the whale and turtle markets Hervey Bay and Bundaberg already have the capability, the capacity and the infrastructure needed to support a substantial dive tourism industry.

Ecotourism, retail and hospitality and accommodation businesses do need another attraction to boost visitor numbers, particularly in the months when the whales and turtles are not in season. That infrastructure is already there—some 26 whale boats in Hervey Bay. Ex-HMAS Tobruk has the potential to contribute somewhere between $1 million and $4 million to our local economy, on estimates, for the next 50 years, with growth.

A report by the Centre for Conservation Geography into the economic impact of the scuba dive industry in Australia estimates that dive related spending in Australia is $2.2 billion a year. We want our fair share of that I must say. In Queensland, dive related spending is potentially as much is $950 million a year. This demonstrates that there are real economic benefits from the project, if we are successful in the local bid. This could bring literally thousands of divers to the regions.

Here are some examples. HMAS Adelaide, in New South Wales, already attracts 5,000 divers a year, with at least 90 per cent of those coming from outside the region and at least 20 per cent from overseas. Just recently, a dive operator on the Sunshine Coast said that his business increased by 1,500 per cent since HMAS Brisbane was sunk 10 years ago. How would you like that on your bottom line? They are the sort of numbers we are talking about. And, of course, people would flock to the region to see the actual scuttling take place. When ex-HMAS Adelaide was scuttled it attracted 30,000 visitors to see the ship sunk. HMAS Tobruk is a unique ship and we in the electorate of Hinkler will take great care of it and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Work to prepare the Tobruk for scuttling could also be carried out locally at the Bundaberg port, in the northern end of my electorate, which will provide more jobs—another $5 million to $7 million project. So, I will continue to fight for this project, because it has multiple benefits.

On the topic of big ships, earlier this year Fraser Island was host to the P&O cruise ship Pacific Aria, which is the first time a ship of this size has navigated the Great Sandy Strait. Fraser Island is in my neighbouring electorate of Wide Bay. Can I just take this moment to congratulate Llew O’Brien, the new member for Wide Bay, replacing long-term member and former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss. There is no doubt that the flow-on effects into Hinkler are plentiful. There are many individuals in many local organisations who have made this historic event a reality. I congratulate Fraser Coast Opportunities, Tourism and Events Queensland, as well as the Fraser Coast Regional Council, P&O Cruises and Kingfisher Bay Resort. I think this will be the first of many cruise ships. The next cruise is scheduled to be there in December. I thank the passengers of Pacific Aria for showing an interest in the Fraser Coast, but why wouldn’t you? It is a fabulous place to visit and has some wonderful attractions. I say to any of the passengers on future voyages, don’t just go to Fraser Island. Have a look at Hervey Bay and Maryborough, in the neighbouring electorate of Wide Bay. You can get a hold of the local seafood—the Hervey Bay sea scallops; the Ocean King prawns; and all of the good fish—or you can explore the wonderful rich history that Maryborough has to offer, such as Portside, which has a collection of heritage-listed buildings that are now museums, restaurants and galleries. It is the electorate of Wide Bay, so I recognise my colleague Llew O’Brien. There is also the statue of the author of Mary Poppins, Pamela Travers.

We are talking about 1,500 passengers. Can you imagine the injection into the local economy from 1,500 passengers being offloaded for the day. They can visit the Fraser Coast and it is a wonderful opportunity to us to showcase what we have. So, when these opportunities come up, we should grab them with both hands and absolutely use them to the fullest advantage.

Whilst on the subject of tourism, I would also like to say what a great honour it was to be appointed the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. My electorate, like many others in regional Australia, has enormous potential for trade, tourism and investment. I look forward to promoting not only my own patch but other areas across this wonderful country. I have had the opportunity already to visit Port Moresby to discuss with ministers and business leaders in PNG ways that we can enhance our significant trade and investment links. In 2015 Australian investment in PNG was some $18.4 billion, with two-way trade totalling $4.7 billion, and there are more opportunities.

Australia’s economic relationship with PNG has tremendous growth potential and can drive job creation in both countries. There are significant opportunities for Australian companies in PNG, including in the mining and energy, agriculture, construction and tourism sectors. I have had the great advantage of attending a number of events recently, including Corroboree Asia 2016, where over 300 qualified travel agents from across Asia, including from China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Korea, India and Indonesia, came to get some more training. Would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, they call these tourism operators the Aussie specialists. They are trained specifically for Australia. I called them the ‘James Bonds’, the 007s that Australia has placed in these countries. The joke fell a bit flat. Perhaps I should have gone with someone more local, like Jackie Chan.

This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this place since the election and I want to thank the voters of Hinkler. They put their trust in me to be their advocate in Canberra for another three years. It has been a very humbling experience to be re-elected as their representative, particularly as it is the electorate I call home, the electorate where I was born and where I have lived most of my life. I also want to thank all the volunteers and supporters who gave their time so willingly, because it is not a one-person effort; it is a team effort that gets you elected. I would like to thank the local members: Ted Sorensen in Hervey Bay, Stephen Bennett in Burnett, Ken and Christine Tyson, Peter Carey and everyone else—the hundreds of people who turn out for an election. And they do it the right way: with integrity. As many of my colleagues would no doubt agree, the campaign was a bit long, but it is great to have the support of the people that I represent. I will do my utmost to represent them and to spend the next three years kicking goals for them. They are the ones who sent me here and I will always act in their interest, as I did in the previous term.

Throughout the election campaign I spoke about what the coalition government can deliver, because this is about delivery. It is not about rhetoric, not about social licence; it is about what you can deliver for your people. We have made a number of commitments, and we will ensure that each of those commitments is delivered, just as I delivered those from the 2013 campaign.

The $20 million Wide Bay Burnett jobs package is an enormous announcement for our region. For somewhere that has had high unemployment for a long time, anything that can help build the local economy will be of great value. This package will give local businesses the confidence to invest and grow further. It will attract matching funding from participating businesses, resulting in a minimum package of $40 million. If I know one thing about the people I represent, I know they are frugal. They know how to get the best out of every single dollar. We will do our utmost to make those dollars extend as far as possible. These grants will assist existing local businesses to grow and also offer incentives for metropolitan based companies to expand their businesses into the Wide Bay Burnett region. They are about creating new, sustainable, long-term jobs. We have businesses located in Bundaberg, Childers, Hervey Bay—right across the electorate—that will be eligible to apply for this funding. Local communities will be involved by assessing their region’s economic opportunities and developing tailored, forward-looking local investment plans. This is a key difference: they are local investment plans using local knowledge, local experience and local people who know their region best. It will create a community-driven investment partnership between the coalition government, business and local communities. Local knowledge will be a vital component.

We need to continue to develop skills, upgrade local infrastructure and provide business innovation grants, because we do not want to see our talented people continue to leave the electorate. I went to the former Deputy Prime Minister’s valedictory dinner in Queensland a few weeks ago. One of the things from Warren Truss’s speech that really stuck with me was that his great regret, in all the infrastructure that he provided over 26 years in parliament—the billions of dollars of improvements to roads and telecommunications, including the NBN—was that unfortunately those roads became roads out of town. We need to ensure, in whatever we do, that we continue to support our regional communities.

Another project which will underpin local jobs is the multiplex project, put up by Bundaberg Regional Council, to which the federal government has committed $5 million for stage 2. This will provide a civic hall, community function rooms, and a commercial kitchen and cafe—more job-creating projects with the capacity to bring in more investment. It is the missing element that will attract community events, business conferences and major sporting events to Bundaberg.

An extension of a busy road into an industrial area of Bundaberg will not only direct traffic away from one of the largest high schools in the district but allow easier access for 25-metre B-doubles. This government has committed $1.4 million to extending Kay McDuff Drive to the Bundaberg ring road, which is something I have advocated very strongly for here in Canberra. More than 6,200 vehicles, including 320 heavy vehicles, use the current route every day. This extension will make the roads safer for the 1,500 students of the nearby school and provide direct access to the freight network.

Many of the election commitments will not only provide jobs but enhance our communities. In Burrum Heads we have committed to a new bike path, for use by pedestrians, cyclists and parents with children, which will be accessible all year round. It is known locally as ‘the missing link’. As a community infrastructure project, it will have positive flow-on effects, providing Burrum Heads families and individuals with more facilities to get active.

Childers residents will benefit from a new hydrotherapy pool, which has been high on the wish list for many years in the community. My electorate has an older than average population, and this investment will have obvious benefits for the aging and senior residents in Childers.

Pacific Haven and Redridge will receive a much needed boost to mobile phone coverage under the Mobile Black Spot Program. The coalition government has committed an additional $60 million on top of the $160 million already invested in mobile black spots, bringing the total investment to $220 million. I met with Redridge residents John Hunter and Jennifer Symons last year to discuss their concerns that areas surrounding Childers did not even have SOS phone coverage. They organised a petition, which I tabled in this place in November, with 606 signatures from residents in Doolbi, Horton, Abington, Goodwood, North Isis and Redridge. I congratulate them on fighting for improvements to mobile coverage and, of course, being successful. We will deliver that coverage.

I will briefly mention Hervey Bay’s AFL team, Bay Power, who have been training in the dark. We have provided some funding for lighting, which will make things much easier for them. Not only will they be able to play night games; they will be able to train after the sun goes down—can you believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—in regional Australia. That is a substantial investment for us.

There will also be money for Bundaberg Netball, which will provide additional courts and shaded grandstands. The building could attract a state carnival of 500 teams, bringing some 10,000 people to the region.

Everything we do is about creating jobs and building stronger regional economies, ensuring we get the budget under control whilst continuing to have strong economic growth. That has been demonstrated by the last quarter’s figures of just over three per cent. I look forward to providing for the people of Hinkler for the next three years.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:35): I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes it possible for rural research and development corporations or RDCs to identify and connect directly with the primary producers who fund their work.

My region is one of the largest and most diverse agricultural regions in the nation. It produces a wide range of fruits, vegetables and nuts, and beef, sugar, pork and dairy, just to name a few. Data from the 2015 ABARES report for the Wide Bay region—which takes in the five local government areas of Bundaberg, Fraser Coast, Gympie, North Burnett and South Burnett—states that, in 2012-13, the gross value of agricultural production in Wide Bay was $1 billion, or 10 per cent of the total agricultural production in Queensland. Of that $1 billion, vegetables contributed 23 per cent or $239 million, with the major crops being tomatoes at $90 million, potatoes at $25 million, and beans at $20 million. In 2012-13, the Wide Bay region accounted for almost 98 per cent of the total value of Queensland mandarin production, and 85 per cent of the total value of macadamia nut production. The region is home to about 4,356 farms, or 16 per cent of all farm businesses in Queensland. About 24 per cent of all people employed in the Queensland agriculture, forestry and fishing sector are based in Wide Bay. The sector employs about 12,700 people locally, representing about 12 per cent of the region’s total workforce. All the producers of these products, the hardworking farmers of Hinkler, pay levies on their production that are invested in research and development—invested in the future of agriculture; invested in securing the livelihoods of our farming families and the jobs in our communities.

This bill allows a levy payer’s contact details and the amounts of levy paid to be provided to RDCs. This information is currently only available to the wool and dairy RDCs. Access to levy information would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on the strategic direction of research activities. It will place levy payers—our farmers—in a more central role on how levies are spent for their benefit. It will allow RDCs to better rely on research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agriculture sector.

Australia’s primary industries have a strong tradition of being innovative and of being able to adapt to new challenges. They are highly efficient and competitive international markets. The outlook for the sector is strong, with the demand for good-quality food on the rise. Investment in research, development and innovation is vital for the ongoing growth and improvement in the productivity, profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of the nation’s agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry industries.

The coalition government currently provides around $250 million every year in matching funding for RDCs. This is on top of the approximately $500 million provided directly by producer levies. This is a significant commitment from both farmers and government and we need to make sure it is used as effectively as possible and delivers the best outcomes for our farmers, rural communities and the nation. This funding is used by the RDCs to commission and manage targeted investment in research, innovation, knowledge creation and extension. There are also Rural Research And Development Priorities to balance new and ongoing R&D investment needs for the primary production section and to ensure R&D objectives of the Australian government are met.

These priorities, which were developed in consultation with state and territory governments, industry, research funders and providers,    are: productivity and adding value, improving the productivity and profitability of existing industries and support the development of viable new industries; supply chain and markets, to better understand and respond to domestic and international market and consumer requirements and improve the flow of such information through the whole supply chain, including to consumers; natural resource management, to support effective management of Australia’s natural resources to ensure primary industries are both economically and environmentally sustainable; climate variability and climate change, to build resilience to climate variability and adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change; biosecurity, to protect Australia’s community, primary industries and environment from biosecurity threats.

The June 2015 report from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee stated just some of the gains in the agricultural sector brought about by research and development investments. In the cotton sector there was an increase in domestic cotton yields at almost three times the world average, a 95 per cent reduction in the use of pesticides, a 40 per cent improvement in the use of water, and the generation of over $2 billion in annual export earnings.

In the vegetable sector there was greater access to vital crop protection products; export development and capacity development activities have contributed to increased export of Australian vegetables, improved soil health and productivity solutions as well as innovative soil DNA testing for potato disease. In the dairy sector the total factor productivity for Australian dairy farms increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 per cent from 1978-79 to 2010-11. While there were other factors involved, research and development provided the basis for much of this productivity improvement. Independent experts estimate the overall benefit of R&D expenditure to the levy as being in the range of 3.3 to six to one.

In the horticultural sector, the cross-benefit analysis of R&D investments undertaken within the apple and pear industry suggest the benefits of $1 invested range from $2.10 to $5.20. An assessment of Cotton Research and Development Corporation research projects has shown CRDC R&D research returns around $13 for every dollar invested to levy payers, but $30 for the wider community.

In the same Senate committee report, the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association made the observation:

In the pioneering days of Australia’s history, technology and innovation were used to overcome the obstacles faced by farmers trying to make a living off impoverished soil and very dry land.

Since then, we see farmers making use of technology and innovation to remain viable players in a keenly competitive international market, while ensuring the sustainability of their social, economic and biophysical environments. Into the future, rural R&D will continue to help the agricultural sector meet the challenges associated with the rising cost of agricultural inputs, declining commodity prices, climate change and meeting the increasingly discerning needs of consumers.

Bundaberg—in my electorate of Hinkler—is home to the world’s largest macadamia processing plant and is the second largest macadamia-growing area in Australia after the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. With an estimated yield of just short of 20,000 tonne of macadamias grown in the Bundaberg region, this industry is worth well over $100 million.

According to the Australian Macadamia Society, macadamias have one of the highest investments in research and development relative to its size of any Australian horticultural industry—more than $4 million every single year. Macadamia research and development projects have focused on improving soil and orchard floor management, disease management in macadamia, progressing integrated pest management in macadamias, regional macadamia variety trials, and optimising kernel processing for shelf life.

Other programs being undertaken by the Australian Macadamia Society are: a breeding program, which has identified new selections that are expected to outperform existing commercial varieties and one of the potential benefits from these selections include 30 per cent higher yield; a precision agriculture project that aims to improve farm operational efficiency and reduce impacts on natural resources; and research is underway to develop a functional-structural model that helps identify and prioritise the physiological processes affecting macadamia growth, yield and quality.

Another example of the benefits of research and development was a 13-year $20 million joint investment led by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, now Sugar Research Australia, to halt sugarcane yield decline, which returned independently evaluated benefits to industry of $237 million. According to the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations, the investment returned a benefit cost ratio of 7:1 and an internal rate of return of 19 per cent. The then SRDC led the investment and was supported by BSES Limited, CSIRO, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. The program hinged on successfully integrating legume rotations into sugarcane production systems that involve minimum tillage and controlled traffic.

Former chairman of SRDC Mr Ian Knop said growers who implemented the farming practices reported savings of up to $500 per hectare. This represents money straight onto the bottom line of a farm business. The Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture—a three-phase research, development and extension investment—was established in 1993 after yield decline and yield plateaus had been a concern for the sugar industry for a number of years.

Economic, environmental and social benefits from the venture included: cane yield increase after the legume crop in the cane plant crop and subsequent ratoon crops, due to improved soil health; savings of nitrogen fertiliser and its application in the cane plant crop and, in part, the first ratoon crop; reduced cultivation costs for the plant cane crop; labour savings and improved timeliness and flexibility of operations; capital savings due to lowered requirements for high-powered tractors and tillage equipment; and an overall likely reduction in any impact the cane industry could have been having on the water quality and biodiversity of proximate coastal waters and possibly on the Great Barrier Reef.

The 2011 Productivity Commission report into rural research and development corporations also highlighted how research and development could benefit consumers and the wider community. There were benefits such as: better standards of living, through cheaper and higher quality food; improved environmental amenity; and greater capacity within rural communities to adjust to changing circumstances, which may in turn reduce calls on the welfare system.

The report stated that any given R&D investment can lead to a mix of benefits for different parties:

For example, pests that cause damage to crops might also blight backyard gardens, and hence efforts by producers to prevent or limit pest outbreaks may be beneficial to others in the community. In the other direction, the provision of high quality food can generate health benefits for consumers — and insofar as this encourages them to buy more fresh produce, benefits may flow back to producers. Indeed, in many ways, benefits to producers and benefits to the community are heavily intertwined.

In summing up, it is important to note that the bill does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC will only happen where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests that it occur and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Whether an industry sees benefit in implementing a register is a matter for each RDC and industry to consider.

The coalition government considers that the ability to hear directly from the levy payers who fund the system will result in a positive outcome for RDCs and Australian agriculture. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:12): I rise to speak on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016, which is an important piece of legislation to both the agricultural industry and, of course, the environment. The bill is intended to clarify the definition of an ‘organism’ to specifically include viruses and sub-viral agents due to ongoing scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. Because viruses are incapable of reproducing without a host, the majority scientific viewpoint at this time is that they are not organisms. Some scientists, however, consider a virus to be an organism, and biological science, by its very nature, is constantly evolving in light of new knowledge and evidence. The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community.

It is important to reflect on the important role that biological control plays in managing pests in Australia. Right now, pests are doing enormous damage to our flora and fauna. Feral cats are wiping out entire species, feral dogs are destroying livestock and feral pigs may well be eating to extinction our sea turtle eggs and hatchlings and, of course, the loggerhead turtle in my region. Mon Repos Beach, one of only two loggerhead nesting locations in the world, is right in the middle of my electorate. The turtle eggs and hatchlings are under threat not only from feral pigs but also from foxes. Between 2014 and 2015, foxes were responsible for the loss of around 66 per cent of turtle clutches on some beaches along the Woongarra coastline. The joint state and federal program, called the Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program, is providing $7 million over four years to help with fox detection work. In November last year 65 new fox dens were identified, with the use of fox-detection dogs, the Dob in a Fox campaign and searching targeted areas.

In Australia feral animals typically have few natural predators or fatal diseases and some have high reproductive rates. As a result their populations are not naturally diminished, and they can multiply rapidly if conditions are favourable. Feral animals impact on native species through predation, competition for food and shelter, destruction of habitat and the spreading of disease. They can also cause soil erosion. While domestic livestock can be removed from degraded areas until these areas are revegetated, it is much more difficult to keep feral animals out of these same areas. Feral animals can carry the same common diseases as domestic animals and are a source of reinfection of wildlife and livestock, which works against efforts to control costly diseases such as tuberculosis. Feral animals are also potential carriers of other animal diseases and parasites. It could be disastrous for our environment if there was, for example, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or rabies in Australia.

It is not only feral animals that are a risk. There are strict biosecurity requirements in place to protect Australia from exotic pests and diseases that could seriously harm humans, animals and our economy—and for good reason. Let’s look at the case of Johnny Depp’s dogs Boo and Pistol, for example. They arrived in Australia on a private jet and did not meet the import requirements. Dogs imported into Australia must be accompanied by a valid import permit. They have to undergo relevant testing and health checks and be signed off by a government veterinarian from the exporting country to ensure pests and diseases from overseas are not brought here. Dogs can potentially carry a range of diseases, including rabies. Rabies is not present in Australia, but it can seriously affect some people.

It appears that there are no hard feelings. When Mr Depp was asked at the recent Grammy Awards if he ‘still loves us in Australia’, his answer was: ‘Of course, I love Australia. I think that guy, Barnaby, invited me to stay at his house for some reason.’ If Mr Depp does decide to visit the Deputy Prime Minister in New England, I would also urge him to consider popping in to Woodgate, Bargara or Buxton. I would certainly love to show him around. If our good friend Mr Depp needs a formal invitation, I am very happy to write to him on the Deputy Prime Minister’s behalf and to invite him back to Australia to visit some of our cultural areas.

While it would be great if we could rid the whole country of these invasive pests, this is just not achievable in many cases. But there are a number of methods available to control feral animals. These methods include conventional control techniques such as trapping, baiting, fencing and shooting—and, of course, there is biological control. Biological control has been successfully used in the past and is an important tool for controlling pests and weeds and mitigating their impact on the economy, the environment and the community. Biocontrol agents can be bacteria, fungi, viruses or predatory organisms such as insects. They are highly specific and usually found in the native home range of the invasive species. Biocontrol is a cost-effective solution for managing invasive species and generally does not require reapplication once established, unlike chemicals or poisons.

Probably one of the most well-known, successful uses of biological control in Australia was the release of the myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis. In the 1920s rabbit populations had got completely out of hand and rose to more than 10 billion across the country. Rabbits are absolutely detrimental to our environment, and their introduction to Australia was an absolute disaster. The release in 1950 of the myxoma virus—the world’s first vertebrate pest biocontrol—killed 99.8 per cent of infected rabbits. Since its introduction resistance to myxomatosis has grown, and in 1996 the calicivirus was released. The combined viruses have contained wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers.

Without these biological agents controlling the rabbit population it would be a very different story. The annual cost to agriculture alone would be in excess of $2 billion, and, even with the biological control, rabbits are causing more than $200 million in production losses every single year. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural production losses attributed to pest animals was more than $620 million in 2009. A 2004 study estimated that the agricultural cost of weeds to be nearly $4 billion per annum.

Let’s not forget that it is critical that the biological control agents introduced into Australia do not become pests themselves. The classic case of this is the cane toad. Cane toads were introduced into Australia in 1935 as a means of controlling pest beetles in the sugarcane industry. Since then the cane toads’ range has expanded through Australia’s northern landscape, and they are moving west at an estimated 40 to 60 kilometres per year. Cane toads reached Brisbane in 1945, the Iron Range on the Cape York Peninsula by 1983 and the tip of the cape by 1994. By 1995 their westward expansion had reached the Roper River in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory. By March 2001 they had reached Kakadu National Park, and in February 2009 cane toads crossed the Western Australian border with the Northern Territory—over 2,000 kilometres from the site they were released 74 years earlier. To the south, cane toads were introduced to Byron Bay in 1965 and then spread to Yamba and Port Macquarie on the north coast of New South Wales in 2003.

Cane toads have an array of highly toxic chemical defences available to them at almost all stages of their lives. The toxins occur in their skin and organs and can be secreted by large glands at the back of the animal’s head when it is threatened. As a result, toads will poison many predators that attempt to eat them. Although some may recover, many individual predators die when they are first exposed to cane toads, and populations soon start to decline. Unfortunately, there is no broadscale way to control cane toads, but scientists are developing a better understanding of the impacts they are having on the environment and the ways in which assets, such as rare and vulnerable wildlife, can be protected.

This bill does not change the existing basic scientific, technical or safety standards that are applied to biological control. Considerable testing is done prior to the release of biological control agents to ensure that they will not pose a threat to non-target species such as native and agricultural plants.

There are some great examples of biological control used to fight other pests such as prickly pear and Paterson’s curse. In the 1920s the cactoblastis moth was used to control prickly pear which was, at the time, smothering large tracts of north-east Australia and spreading rapidly each year. Prickly pear is thought to have been introduced as early as 1788 and had spread to Chinchilla by 1843. The larvae of the cactoblastis moth eat the leaves and seed pods of the prickly pear. The release and spread of cactoblastis moth in Australia virtually destroyed the prickly pear population. A massive 24 million hectares of densely infested land was brought back into production after the moth was introduced. Remaining prickly pear infestations are now manageable using traditional chemical and physical techniques.

In my electorate of Hinkler a tiny wasp has been utilised to help save the iconic pandanus trees on Fraser Island. According to the Burnett Mary Regional Group, the island’s pandanus trees have been devastated in recent years by Jamella, a small leaf-hopper insect. The leaf-hoppers were accidentally introduced to southern Queensland in the early 1990s via an infected plant from north Queensland. The predatory wasp did not survive the same journey, giving the leaf-hoppers an unchecked head start on the southern pandanus populations. The pandanus leaf-hopper sucks the pandanus sap from the leaf sheaths and exudes honeydew. This sugary substance encourages the growth of mould, and the terminal growth points of the leaves then rot, especially if the trees are already stressed by other environmental factors.

But the release of a sandfly sized native wasp in October last year at several locations on the island, as well as in Bundaberg, was the first stage of rescuing these iconic plants. The wasp lays its eggs in the leafhoppers’ egg rafts, where immature wasps eat the developing Jamella, and it has been successfully used in the northern part of the state. Treatment of pandanus affected by the leafhopper has historically been through stem injection pesticide treatment. This is reasonably successful but extremely onerous, and it is difficult to access all plants in coastal areas.

It is important to touch on what could happen if this bill is not passed. There are a number of future opportunities to use viruses to control damaging pests such as the common carp. The bill supports the pending national release of a new strain of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus or RHDV—known as K5—for the biological control of wild rabbits. The K5 release is proposed for spring 2016 and is part of a $4.4 million national program funded by governments and industry, including $1.2 million of Australian government funding. A considerable amount of planning, research, development and community consultation is required prior to the release of K5. If the bill is not passed, it may impact state and territory governments, landholders and community groups who have prepared for a spring 2016 release, and it may also lead to additional costs for program partners. The benefit-cost ratio of the calicivirus program is estimated to be 563 to one.

The bill, if passed, may also be used to authorise the proposed national release of Cyprinid herpesvirus for the control of the common carp. Through the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Australian scientists have determined that the naturally occurring carp herpes offers a genuine option for the biological control of carp. Following seven years of testing, scientists are confident that the virus is specific to carp and does not cause diseases in other species, including Australian native fish, birds and amphibians. Planning for a potential release of carp herpes is underway and the environmental, economic and social benefits of successful biological control of carp are likely to be considerable.

This bill is an important step in being able to continue to fight pests and weeds in Australia with biological control. I commend the bill to the House.