The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O'Connor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (09:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to propose a package of integrity measures that seek to enhance the government's ability to deter sponsor behaviour which is inconsistent with the policy intent of the s ubclass 457 visa program and other temporary employer sponsored visa programs. Together with proposed amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994, this bill presents a comprehensive package of reforms which would balance the interests of Australian workers with the need to strengthen protection for overseas workers.
Importantly, the bill gives powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman (and Fair Work i nspectors) to monitor and investigate compliance with sponsorship obligations, to ensure workers are working in their nominated occupation and being paid market salary rates.
It will require sub class 457 sponsors to undertake labour market testing in relation to a nominated occupation, in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations, to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are given the first opportunity to apply for skilled vacancies in the domestic labour market.
The government has always said that the s ubclass 457 visa plays an important role in allowing employers to address skill shortages when skilled local labour is unavailable. It is intended as a vehicle to allow employers to quickly supplement the Australian labour market, including the use of enterprise migration agreements and regional migration agreements, where a genuine skill shortage exists.
It is an important component of our overall non-discriminatory migration program, wh ich is roughly comprised of one-third families and two- thirds skilled migration. Just over half of the current holders of sub class 457 visas go on to apply for permanent residence , and we think that i s appropriate.
The use of the s ubclass 457 visa program has been growing strongly in recent years. The number of primary sub class 457 visa holders in Australia has risen from 68 , 400 in June 2010 to 106 , 680 as at 31 May 2013, an increase of 56 per cent.
Many growing industries , including those connected with the resources boom, such as mining, as well as non-resource - sector users of the program, such as health care and information and communications technology, accounted for a large portion , over half , of all sub class 457 visa grants in 2011-12.
However, strong growth has also been recorded in industries in which employment has fallen recently, such as accommodation and food service, and retail trade.
It concerns the government that, at a time when the labour market has been flattening and some sectors and regions have experienced lay-offs and increased unemployment, the sub class 457 program has continued to grow.
Coupled with this strong growth is a tendency for some employers to source foreign labour through the sub class 457 program without regard to the Australian domestic labour force.
These trends highlight that current requirements do not commit sponsors to using the sub class 457 program as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, the domestic labour force.
In the recently released report of the Migration Council Australia, survey data of sub class 457 employer sponsors revealed that 15 per cent of employers say that they have no difficulty finding suitable labour locally and yet they sponsor employees from overseas under this scheme.
Further, seven per cent of primary visa holders surveyed said that they were remunerated differently to their Australian counterparts doing the same work , and a further two per cent stated they were paid well under the minimum salary for a 457 employee which is currently $51,400.
Indeed, the reforms at the heart of this bill are not un ique to the Australian context. As recently as 7 May this year, the Canadian Prim e Minister, Mr Stephen Harper— a conservative —s tated in relation to his country's equivalent of t he s ubclass 457 scheme:
Not only has the government indicated for some time that it would be reforming the temporary foreign workers program, but in the budget last year specifically we brought in measures to better match job vacancies with people who are seeking work or in the employment insurance system. We have been very clear. We need to do a better job of matching the demand for employment insurance and the demand for temporary foreign workers. That is precisely what the government has been doing for a year and a half … The minister brought in changes last year to make sure people who are on employment insurance get first crack at jobs rather than temporary foreign workers.
And on 23 April 2013, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and Governor-Elect of the Bank of England, Mr Mark Carney, said:
The challenge of a skills shortage is not unique to Canada but the solution is training not bringing in temporary foreign workers.
The Canadian government is taking steps to tighten the provisions of their program to ensure that only genuine skill shortages are being filled by temporary overseas labour.
Likewise, academics from the law school of the University of Adelaide recently submitted to a Senate inquiry that the 457 scheme had shifted in focus since its introduction in 1996 from a focus on filling high-skill jobs in areas of skill shortage to satisfying broader employer demand for labour. It is worth noting that back in 1996 labour market testing was a requirement of the scheme.
The Australian Hotels Association underlines this shift in recently arguing for a lowering of the minimum salary threshold of $51,400, such that employers in their industry could use the scheme more extensively. I remind the House that in the past 12 months the use of 457s in the hospitality industry has doubled—yes, it has doubled in the past year.
This bill , together with the package of reforms announced in February 2013, seeks to realign the program to ensure a balance between job opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents, enabling employers to fill skills shortages, while protecting overseas workers. The measures will be implemented in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant i nternational trade obligations.
The purpose of the s ubclass 457 visa program is to address genuine shortages without displacing employment and training opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents and without serving as the mainstay of the skilled migration program.
The government has concerns that some employers are turning to overseas workers first, rather than investing in local training and recruitment. There has also been evidence of some sponsors paying overseas workers below the market rate, failing to commit to the training requirements of the program, and using the visa fraudulently to help family and friends migrate.
In February, the g overnment announc ed a package of reforms to the s ubclass 457 visa program to strengthen its capacity to identify and prevent employer practices that are not in keeping with the intent of the program.
T hese reforms will build on the w orker p rotection reforms of 2009 that introduced a sponsorship framework designed to ensure that the working conditions of sponsored visa holders meet Australian standards and provided certain cost incentives to encourage employers to seek to recruit Australians before looking to sponsor overseas skilled workers. The 2009 reforms also introduced a civil penalty regime, including infringement notice s to enhance the powers of the d epartment to take action against sponsors who fail to meet their sponsorship obligations.
The proposed changes to the M igration R egulations will seek to reduce the risk of nominations for non-genuine positions; strengthen the market salary rate requirement; align the English language requirement with that of the permanent Employer Nomination Scheme; introduce an obligation that sponsors meet the training requirement for the term of sponsorship approval; remove potential for the exploitation of temporary overseas skilled workers; and restore public co nfidence in the program.
To complement the reforms to the M igration R egulations announced in February 2013, the bill will enshrine in the Migration Act the kinds of sponsorship obligations which are to be prescribed in the M igration R egulations.
This will ensure that the M igration R egulations include existing sponsorship obligations requiring sponsors to among other things:
ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment (including payment of a 'market salary rate'),
keep information and provide information to the department, and
cooperate with inspectors,
as well as new and strengthened sponsorship obligations proposed to come into effect on 1 July 2013 to:
meet training requirements for the term of sponsorship approval, not transfer, charge or recover certain costs from sponsored visa holders and restrict on-hiring arrangements.
The details of these new obligations will be spelt out in the Migration Regulations proposed to commence on 1 July 2013.
The bill will further strengthen the integrity of the s ubclass 457 visa program by expanding the government's capacity to detect and take action against sponsors who do the wrong thing and ensure that overseas workers are not used as a substitute for Australian workers .
The government believes that Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents deserve the opportunity to get local jobs on local projects.
The government also announced in February an expansion of the Fair Work Ombudsman and inspector powers.
This bill expands the government's capacity to monitor and investigate compliance with the temporary sponsored work visa program by enabling Fair Work inspectors to exercise powers for the purposes of the Migration Act.
The bill will make it clear that a Fair Work inspector is also an inspector for the purposes of the Migration Act and is able to exercise all the powers conferred on inspectors by the Migration Act.
The department currently has 32 active inspectors appointed under the Migration Act to monitor compliance with sponsorship obligations. An expansion of inspector powers to over 300 Fair Work inspectors will significantly increase the government's capacity to monitor compliance with the subclass 457 visa program and other sponsored visas.
Fair Work inspectors will focus in particular on monitoring a sponsor's compliance with the following obligations:
to ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment which requires sponsors to ensure the subclass 457 visa holders are receiving at least the same salary as that which was approved at nomination; and
to ensure the sponsored person works or participates in the nominated occupation and is performing the duties of the occupation, approved at nomination.
The bill will also expand an inspector's powers to investigate a sponsor's use of temporary work visas that have associated work rights but do not have the sponsorship requirement (for example, student or work and holiday visas). This will build in flexibility to allow inspectors to investigate work related offences and question sponsors and visa holders to ensure visa holders are not working in breach of their visa condition.
The Migration Act contains an enforcement framework relating to the sponsor-monitoring regime which includes administrative sanctions (to bar or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor), an infringement notice and civil penalty scheme.
The bill provides for enforceable undertakings as an additional enforcement option under the Migration Act where a sponsor has failed to satisfy a sponsorship obligation.
Enforceable undertakings are promises enforceable in court which would be agreed between the minister and a sponsor.
Enforceable undertakings would be used as an alternative to, or work in combination with, barring a sponsor or cancelling a sponsor's approval.
Enforceable undertakings might also avoid the substantial legal costs associated with litigation in the courts. They are designed to be flexible and to secure compensation for any loss resulting from contraventions (for example, payments to compensate for underpayment of workers).
The amendment will also allow the minister to publish enforceable undertakings on the department's website. This is an important tool to encourage compliance by all sponsors and a means of providing transparency to the Australian public on the monitoring of sponsors.
A key objective of this bill is to strengthen the government's capacity to manage the T emporary S ponsored W ork V isa program (in particular, the s ubclass 457 visa program). It will seek assurance from employers that they are only utilising the 457 visa program in circumstances where there is a genuine skills shortage in Australia. To enable this outcome, the bill introduces a requirement that sponsors must undertake l abour m arket t esting in relation to nominated occupations, in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations.
In recognition that the subclass 457 visa is the primary visa that delivers our World Trade Organization and free trade agreement obligations for the movement of natural persons, the bill ensures that Australia continues to meet our obligations not to labour market test certain categories of persons.
The bill allows the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to determine by legislative instrument how to give effect to relevant categories of persons for whom international obligations are owed. The legislative instrument will reflect the relevant commitments with respect to labour market testing under Australia's international trade agreements.
It is proposed that the labour market testing requirement will initially require a sponsor to demonstrate that they have sought to find a suitably qualified Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident within six months prior to submission of an application for nomination approval. This will provide a balance between giving Australians the opportunity to apply for jobs, and ensuring that Australian businesses do not experience undue delays in filling skilled labour shortages which would negatively impact on their businesses.
The labour market testing requirement will be satisfied if the employer provides evidence of attempts to recruit locally, such as details of advertising or participation at relevant job fairs, and details of the results of such attempts which demonstrates that a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is not readily available to fill the nominated position.
The bill proposes a delayed commencement for the labour market testing requirement to allow sufficient time for the implementation of labour market testing and ensure that sponsors are given a period of time to undertake labour market testing.
Further, the bill includes an exemption to the labour market testing requirement in the event of a major disaster, natural or otherwise, in order to assist disaster relief or recovery.
This exemption will give the government flexibility to respond to situations of national or state emergency and would facilitate the speedy entry of overseas skilled workers without the delay caused by requiring a sponsor to undertake labour market testing.
In addition, an exemption to the labour market testing condition will apply to specific occupations, by legislative instrument, within skill levels 1 or 2 as currently described in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. I intend to make a legislative instrument to exempt most, but not all, skill level 1 occupations.
The legislative instrument of exemption for occupations in skill levels 1 and 2 will be disallowable by either house of the parliament.
At present all primary subclass 457 visa holders are subject to visa condition 8107, which provides the visa holder must not cease employment for 28 consecutive days. If a visa holder does not comply with this condition there are grounds to cancel their visa.
This bill amends the Migration Regulations 1994 to extend the period from 28 days to 90 consecutive days, enabling a more socially just outcome for visa holders as they will have more time find an alternative job with an employer sponsor or to arrange their personal affairs at the conclusion of sponsored employment.
This amendment is in line with recommendations of the 2008 Deegan review of the subclass 457 visa program and the Migration Council Australia in its report of 11 May 2013.
The government intends to review the efficacy of these reforms within three years of their implementation to ascertain whether further refinements are required. We have some major changes in our labour market over recent years and it is appropriate that we re-examine these policy settings.
The totality of the g overnment's reforms will close loopholes in the current legislative and policy settings to ensure that the program can only be used by appropriately skilled persons and to fill genuine skills shortages , as was intended. Put another way, they aim to ensure the program better meets its overarching intent of acting as a supplement to rather than a substitute for the Australian labour market, in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations.
The government is confident that the revised legislative and policy settings for the s ubclass 457 program will achieve this balance, and will further enhance an already successful program.
I commend the bill to the c hamber.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Publications Committee
Report
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (09:20): I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that this report be agreed to.
Leave granted.
Mrs ELLIOT: I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (09:21): The coalition is deeply unhappy with the government's chaotic handling of this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. The bill was introduced last Wednesday, and the coalition sought to have the bill referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. That request was denied. Instead, the government sent it to the House Economics Committee. Then the House Economics Committee last Friday refused to hold an inquiry into the bill.
The government is now asking the parliament to consider an incredibly complex taxation bill with significant changes, with no committee consideration, and the bill was only introduced last week. There has been no community consultation. There has been no committee consultation. The bill has been drafted. We hear the government itself is amending the bill which it only introduced last week. The government thinks it is giving this parliament the chance to have an appropriate process for the deliberation of something so significant. Fair dinkum!
They wonder why their government is chaotic, and here is their taxation bill, and it is the largest taxation law amendment bill on record. It has 11 schedules dealing with a range of different taxation issues. The government introduced it a week ago and have prevented any consultation by any committee. Then the government cannot understand why they keep screwing up policies. This is exhibit A. We are trying to deal with this bill in good faith. We are trying to deal with all these taxation issues in good faith, because they go to revenue collection, and they go to stability in the economy. But this is not the way to run taxation policy. This is not the way to run the parliament: introducing a complicated taxation bill last week, refusing to hold any committee inquiry at all and now trying to rush it through on the eve of an election without consulting those people who are most affected. I thought the mining tax was a warning and then I thought the carbon tax was a warning. What is it with these guys? This is not the way to run a country, it is certainly not the way to run a parliament, and it is most definitely not the way to run a taxation system.
In particular, schedules 3, 4 and 5 of this bill deserve considerable additional scrutiny. We will be moving amendments to excise these schedules from the bill so that can happen. I will explain the impact of those schedules further down the track. Schedule 1 of this bill deals with the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure that sought to bring forward $8 billion of company tax revenue by requiring companies to pay income tax instalments monthly rather than quarterly. This is all about trying to get the surplus. Companies currently pay tax on a quarterly basis. The government said: 'Don't worry about the paperwork; don't worry about any of that. And we're going to make you all pay it monthly.' That brings forward money.
The government did not consult with the business community about this; this came out of left field. They did not ask anyone about the paperwork implications; they did not do any of that. They are doing this because they need to bring forward money to try and create a paper surplus. The first step, starting on 1 January 2014, is for companies with a turnover of a billion dollars or more to lodge monthly returns. A year later, 1 January 2015, it is companies with a turnover of $100 million or more. A year later, companies with a turnover of $20 million or more will have to lodge monthly rather than quarterly payments with the tax office. Have the government thought about the paperwork implications of this? A billion dollars is a significant turnover, and there is probably more of an issue of cash flow for a company with this turnover. Companies with an annual turnover of $100 million or more could be companies with 200 or 300 employees. It is not hard to get to $100 million in turnover for a company that operates in every state. But then companies with a turnover of $20 million or more have to lodge monthly returns.
I thought, 'Twenty million bucks, that's not necessarily a big company.' If you think about the local news agency, it has a big turnover but probably small margins. I am not saying they would have a $20 million turnover, but they have a big turnover because they have a lot of cash go through the tills. Pubs have a lot of turnover. There would be plenty of individual pubs with a turnover of $20 million.
Mr Buchholz: Service stations.
Mr HOCKEY: Service stations, as my learned colleague knows, having run a business. There would be plenty of service stations with a turnover of $20 million, even though the margins are very thin. Tourism companies would have big turnovers, even though their margins are small. If you pay $5,000 to have a tour of Australia, out of that maybe 200 bucks goes to the travel agent. All these businesses would now have to lodge monthly returns, because the government needs the money.
I have deep, deep reservations about this in particular. It is one thing for large companies, and I have reservations about monthly returns for them, but for businesses with a turnover of $20 million—fair dinkum, seriously, where do they pluck these numbers from? We are not allowed to ask, and even if we did we would not get any answers. Where did $20 million turnover come from? On what basis? Who is the genius that thought it up? Was it the Treasurer? Was it the tax office? Was it someone in the Treasury?
Who was the genius who picked $20 million for monthly returns?
Where was consultation? Did they speak to anyone in the business community? Did they speak to any chambers of commerce? Did they speak to any industry associations about the implications? The Service Station Association, or newsagents or the Pharmacy Guild—did they speak to them? Plenty of pharmacists might have a turnover of $20 million, with the PBS and prescription services. They could be two shops or three shops. But now they have to lodge monthly returns. Fair dinkum! What a chaotic government!
What we do know is that they claim this move is going to net $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. I see the member for—is it Werriwa—there?
Mr Laurie Ferguson: Yes.
Mr HOCKEY: Prophetically, he declared, 'The Labor Party is dead over boats,' and it is dead over tax too. I know that does not come to mind first.
Mr Laurie Ferguson: Who wrote this? Laundy?
Mr HOCKEY: But I would say to you, sir, that it is not just boats that Labor is dead on; it is dead on tax policy and it is dead in this parliament. Exhibit A is this bill, mate. You introduce a complicated taxation bill last week, no community consultation, no committee consultation, and ram it through the parliament, all because you are trying to get to a surplus that was never going to happen under Labor. And now you are introducing provisions that are going to have a huge impact in the community, but you do not want to speak to anyone about them!
I would say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the total measures in this bill bring forward more than $10 billion worth of tax receipts—$10 billion. And it has been all about a surplus that Labor will never deliver. What a surprise! Even with all these measures in this chaotic taxation policy, the debt keeps growing. As we found out yesterday, the debt limit is going to have to be increased again. The Treasurer does not have any courage; he is a weak man. He does not have the courage to come into this place and ask for an increase in the credit card limit of the Commonwealth. And why? Because he has done it on four previous occasions and he does not want to have to do it on the fifth. He will leave it to whoever is there on 15 September. As he said to Neil Mitchell, 'It will be someone else's problem'. He does not even think that he will be there; it will be someone else's problem.
Do you know whose problem it is going to be? It will be that lady's, up there in the gallery. It is going to be your problem. And the gentleman next to you, and the gentleman to him. All of you—it will be your problem. Because there will be a mess left by this government again that someone has to clean up.
Schedule 2 of the bill makes various amendments to tax laws and the Infrastructure Australia Act to introduce a tax loss incentive for infrastructure projects identified by the Infrastructure Coordinator. Now, the government claims that this measure will encourage private sector investment in nationally significant infrastructure such as roads, rail and ports. I want to see that too. We want to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure. This is hugely important. Governments—state, federal, Liberal or Labor, whatever the case—do not have the money available for massive up-front investment in infrastructure, so we have to find ways to encourage that vast pool of money, particularly of superannuation, to go into infrastructure.
The changes within this schedule allow entities such as corporates and trusts that are carried on exclusively for the purposes of what is called a DIP—a designated infrastructure project—to uplift tax losses by the long-term government bond rate and carry forward tax losses, as well as plain bad debt deductions, even though that does not satisfy the continuity of ownership and same business test for companies and equivalent tests for trusts.
It is an enormous amount of power in the hands of the Infrastructure Coordinator. We would have liked to get more information about this in the committee process, but, again, we can only deal with what we have before us. I would like to know what the possible unintended consequences of this provision are, but we are not going to get any answers.
Schedule 3 and schedule 4 of this bill deal with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. I stated from the outset that the coalition has a number of concerns in relation to schedules 3 and 4. We are going to move amendments to excise these two schedules from the bill. The Tax Agent Services Act was introduced in order to provide a national regulatory regime for tax agents and BAS agents:
… to ensure that providers of tax agent services to the public meet appropriate professional and ethical standards.
Now, the Tax Agent Services Act seeks to address the fine line between whether an entity is merely providing general information about the tax implications of particular products or giving tax advice that can be reasonably expected to be relied on, and therefore a taxation service.
The government took the decision to carve out the tax agent services provided by financial services licensees, and this carve-out is due to expire on 30 June 2013. So, with less than four weeks to go before its proposed implementation, schedule 3 of this bill seeks to create a completely new regulatory regime for financial services industry entities that give tax advice. So with less than four weeks to go—just think about this—anyone in the financial services industry who gives tax advice under the act is going to have a completely new regulatory regime start, and here is the legislation.
Mr Buchholz: The busiest time of the year!
Mr HOCKEY: The busiest time of the year in the lead-up to the end of the financial year, and some genius somewhere who is probably the same person who gave advice on the rest of the bill has said, 'Let's get on with it and give them four weeks notice.'
We have said this is a joke. The government proposes that a tax or financial advice service consists of two elements: the provision of tax agent service and the provision of a service in the course of giving advice that is of a kind usually given by a financial services licensee or representative. Seriously—these are new definitions. These are new rules with less than four weeks to go. People out there are trying to earn a buck, and you are changing the regulatory regime. The government has sat on its hands for three years on this and now it is doing it with less than four weeks to go—and, by the way, it is meant to go through the Senate in two weeks. It is not just going through this place; it actually has to go through the Senate in three weeks. The Senate only sits for two weeks, and Lord knows how many bills the Senate has itself.
The government are recklessly exposing all the financial advisers to the risk of being noncompliant with the relevant laws from 1 July 2013. There is no practical way for them to achieve compliance within the short time frame left before these schedules become applicable law. It is just impossible. It could change in the Senate in three weeks time. Then it has to be gazetted. So they are saying to the financial services industry, which as a percentage of GDP is the second largest in Australia after health and around 10 per cent of the economy, 'Guys, we're giving you less than a week for a new regulatory regime.' The Labor Party wonder why there is chaos. Here—look at this bill. They are wondering why consumer sentiment is poor. They are wondering why business confidence is poor. They are creating a new regulatory regime for a large part of the Australian economy, and they are giving them a week's notice at the busiest time of the year.
The Financial Planning Association, the Financial Services Council and the Association of Financial Advisers have all pleaded that they get time to assess this bill. This relates not only to the consultation process but to definitions in the act. It is unclear, for example, if stockbrokers, insurance brokers and mortgage brokers are covered. They are pleading for time to look at potential negative interactions and inconsistencies with the government's own bungled FOFA changes, which also come into effect on 1 July 2013. They are trying to work out any increases in compliance costs resulting from the changes and what the consumer benefit of these changes is. These poor buggers have a new pricing regime for their business that they build into for their accounts. They are trying to work out what the costs are for consumers and what the cost of this massive new compliance regime is to their business. I do not think that is unreasonable. Surely the Treasury gave advice that this is a mess. I just cannot believe it. I do not think any department could be so removed from the community that it is there to serve that it would suggest that this is going to work in a week's process. This is ridiculous. We are going to try to excise it. This is ridiculous. It has to be put off.
Schedule 5 we are, again, going to seek to excise. We have deep concerns about this. The first of these measures requires the commissioner to publish particular information obtained from tax returns of those corporate tax entities which have a total income of $100 million or more for an income year. What the Commissioner of Taxation is going to do—and this is the first time this has happened—is publish individual companies' tax. He will also have a duty to publish the final annual amount of an entity's minerals resource rent tax—we know that is not that much—or the petroleum resource rent tax payable as reported by the entity regardless of the total income.
I introduced a private member's bill on 18 March this year to amend the Taxation Administration Act to remove any doubt that taxation officers may disclose to the minister information about instalments in the MRRT. We had high farce. We had the government saying it was not able to give the Australian people an update on how much the mining tax was collecting because that might disclose individual companies. How that works I do not know, because it is a tax on an industry and even we assume that there might be more than one taxpayer. But, even if there were one taxpayer, so what? It would not be disclosed. No-one would know who it was. We just asked that there be information made available, as there is for capital gains tax, income tax and every other tax. We just asked that there be updates available on the amount of revenue being collected under a particular tax headline.
The government said they could not do it, so I introduced my private member's bill to say, 'Well, sure you can.' The government were so opposed to what we were trying to do that they do not want to just list the amount of revenue raised from the mining tax; they want to disclose who is paying it. They want to tell you the names of the companies. Again, this is exactly the same old story. What consistent principles do the government hold? What do the government actually believe in that can be considered the same today as it was yesterday? Is there any consistent bone in the aggregate of bones over there?
We support the publication of aggregate tax information, unless that information can be reasonably attributed to a single person. But the government has gone one step further and said, 'No, we think individual companies should have their tax disclosed. Okay—a number of companies already disclose the amount of tax they pay in their annual returns. But what does this mean for Australia? I think that is a question this government does not ask itself often enough.
Ernst and Young, one of the largest global accounting firms, said:
… it is premature for Australia as a small open economy to engage in this public disclosure proposal unless and until public disclosure of corporate tax is identified by a majority of the G20, G8, OECD stakeholders or countries in the Asia Pacific region … it represents a distraction from the much bigger task of adjusting the system for taxation of international business.
The only country in the OECD that requires disclosure of tax from large companies, including foreign companies, is Denmark. Denmark is not really in competition with us. When I think of the competition Australia faces in taxation, trade, resources and investment, I do not automatically think of Denmark.
So what is the implication of this? Australia should not make the mistake identified by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who was recently quoted as saying:
There is mounting concern about where tax is actually paid … The danger at the moment is that this just spills over into a generalised anti-business, anti-multinational sentiment which is unhelpful because we do want successful businesses, we do want inward investment. We don't want people to be stigmatised on the basis of ad hoc little bits of research.
I understand where he is coming from. I have no problems with disclosure, and I certainly want companies that earn money in Australia to pay tax in Australia. But I am not sure that these things are being redressed. Again, I think the risk of this schedule is that the government is like a bull at the gate. It is just going down the process of taking on business—a war with business. For all of its years it has been at war with business. After the first 12 months of the Rudd government, Labor has been at war with business. But the worst part is that it then introduces legislation that has unintended consequences and then cries crocodile tears when we have business sitting on its hands for new investment—or, worse, pulling out.
Schedule 6 of the bill amends the petroleum resource rent tax, and this builds on the calamity of the recent decision of the full Federal Court in the case of Esso Australia Resources. I would just say to you that we have tried to deal with a number of these issues previously. We are not going to stand in the way of these amendments. We do support the clarification contained in schedule 6 relating to the deduction of legitimate project expenditures. Schedule 7 is about removing the CGT discount for foreign individuals. We will allow the passage of the measure, particularly given the budget emergency which clearly exists under Labor. We support the amendments in schedule 8. Schedule 9 is on the GST-free treatment of National Disability Insurance Scheme funded supports; we support that. We are prepared to support updating the list of deductible gift recipients. In schedule 11 there are a number of miscellaneous amendments to the tax and super laws as the government claims, removing some anomalies.
Finally, I just say again that this bill is an absolute calamity in terms of its aggregate impact. It just represents in so many ways the chaos of the government. So, whilst we recognise that revenue needs to be raised, we also will move amendments to make sure that it is properly dealt with by this parliament in a respectful way.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (09:51): It is always a pleasure to follow the shadow Treasurer. I know firsthand that he has enormous small business experience and understanding and so comes to this House with a different set of skills that assist our nation in making tax law amendment decisions. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, this is a poorly thought-out bill which defies most of the standing orders and procedures of this House. But, unsurprisingly, as I stand to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013, it is consistent with a lot of other bills that come into this House.
There are three commonalities to bills that come before this House from Labor. The first is that they normally give more power to a union mate. Second, somehow in there there is an increase in the Public Service. Third, there is an increased tax. That is what this one is. It comprises the largest number of taxation amendments in this term and contains 11 schedules. The coalition will move an amendment to this bill to excise schedules 3, 4 and 5, given the government denied the opportunity for this bill to be properly scrutinised before coming to the House.
I will explain for the benefit of Hansard and for the nation how the normal line of scrutiny would be applied. Deputy Speaker Georganas, let me start with a bit of history that I am sure you will find informative but not surprising. The coalition is deeply unhappy with the handling of this bill. When the bill was introduced the coalition sought to have the bill referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The House Economics Committee used its numbers to have the debate shut down. What happens is that such a bill, by definition, is referred to the Economics Committee, which then becomes the front door. It is the Economics Committee's role to look for public scrutiny. The Economics Committee would then go to the market, to the stakeholders and those that the bill would have implications for, and they would call a public inquiry. They would call stockbrokers, mortgage brokers—any interested party that would have a linkage and where this bill would affect their business. They would call them to a room. They would allow those stakeholders to give evidence, to ask questions of Treasury and to put their side of the story so that the bill could be properly scrutinised. It did not happen.
They shut that part of the procedure down by using their numbers in the Economics Committee so that this bill could not be debated and scrutinised. It is a single taxation bill with 11 amendments, which is unprecedented, but with no consultation with industry. If I am an Australian I am starting to get suspicious. Why would a government do that, especially a government that advocated earlier in its turn that we needed to open the window and let the sunlight in—that we needed to have transparency in this parliament?
But this is not an isolated case. When it comes to trying to hide the facts, we saw it only a couple of days go with the Education Bill. It was Labor's cornerstone policy, one of the jewels in the crown, but a measly 1,400-word document on nine pages was brought into the House. There were 71 amendments and then the debate was shut down. There is a pattern emerging between this bill, where they are trying to shut down scrutiny, and what we are seeing happening on a regular basis. It is happening on a regular basis because we are seeing the wake of a desperate government. These are the side effects and we are a poorer nation for it.
On Friday, 31 May 2013, the Labor majority of the House Economics Committee refused to hold an inquiry. That was a sad day. So we are now in the position of having the government asking the parliament to pass a bill with significant changes to the law within a week of its introduction to the parliament with no committee oversight. I said before that the bill currently before the House contains 11 complex schedules. Schedules 3, 4 and 5 in the bill particularly deserve scrutiny.
Schedule 1 speaks to monthly PAYG instalments. It deals with the 2012 MYEFO budget measure that sought to bring forward more than $8 billion worth of company tax revenue by requiring companies to pay income tax by instalments monthly rather than quarterly. The main driver and sole purpose of this measure seemed to be shoring up the future promise of a budget surplus. I need not take you too far back to when on over 300 occasions—some advocate 300, some advocate that in aggregate it was 500—claims were made that this government would return our nation to a surplus. When you hear that a government is going to return our nation to surplus you would think that they would be going to do it by stimulating economic activity in the market. You would think they would do it by increasing the pie. You know how these guys were looking to get to a surplus, Deputy Speaker? They were looking to do it by accounting trickery—by not actually increasing the pie but by simply taking the revenue that would have been generated in a quarter, breaking it down into months, and using it through an accounting procedure in the quarter before the budget to make the revenue numbers in Q2 look stronger.
And do you know who pays? It is the business sector that pays as a result of cash-flow limitations. They would normally have had their overdrafts and their cash flow through their business scheduled for quarterly payments of the PAYG. But, no, some genius decided that if they applied this accounting trickery they would be able to move towards their surplus. It used to be that the only businesses that would have to pay the quarterly instalment were businesses that generated over $1 billion worth of turnover. That did not seem to be generating too much coin and they thought that there was an opportunity for more tax to be raised if they dropped the amount to $100 million. Not happy with $100 million, it was then dropped down to $20 million. The reason I draw your attention to those numbers is that I want to show you how it is trending. It was from $1 billion to $100 million to $20 million. I will tell you where it stops: it stops next at mum and dad, or anyone—they will not stop until they have got it all.
The aim of the original MYEFO measure was to deliver a surplus, but that then ended up as a deficit. This move netted the government $1.4 billion over the estimates. If you remember, $1.4 billion was roughly what the surplus was going to be. That is what they were forecasting—about a $1.3 billion surplus. It came in at—what?—a $19.4 billion deficit. So it was nearly $20 billion out. But that was consistent, because they are normally about $20 billion out with their forecasts. In total, the measures within this bill bring forward more than $10 billion worth of taxation receipts and bolster the government's budget bottom line over the forward estimates. It is accounting trickery. As I say, nothing in this measure increases the pie. It does nothing to give business confidence.
The Treasurer comes into this House on a regular basis to say what strength our economy is in. The other day we had the Reserve Bank hand down its findings on the cash rate, which is staying where it was. An analysts' perception from Macquarie, which is on the public record, states:
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Board decided to leave rates unchanged in June. While this was in line with market expectations, we thought there was a clear case for cutting rates further.
They made a case for cutting rates further—and this is in an environment where this bill attacks the cash flow of businesses. They stated:
This view was premised on the sharp falls in consumer confidence, falling house prices, declining commodity prices, insipid retail spending, declining business investment, falling job advertisements, a raft of downgrades from mining services companies, slowing wages growth and weak business confidence.
And the best thing this government can come up with is to say: 'Let's tax you more. Let's take your quarterly commitment away and go after you monthly.' That is the government's answer to recent comments from Macquarie Bank.
The alarm bells are ringing about the state of the competitiveness of our economy and the alarm bells are ringing in every business in my electorate of Wright as the debt and the deficit are reaching unprecedented levels. We have a budget emergency. The emergency started back in 2008. We had money in the bank when we were in government. In 2008 this government said we needed to increase our master card debt ceiling to $75 billion because that was what we needed to get us through the GFC. Yes, there is some economic rationalism on that stimulus government spend. Nothing is wrong with that $75 billion. That was their first forecast. A couple of years later they were back wanting to increase that master card limit to $200 billion. There is a vast difference between $75 billion and $200 billion. But that was not enough. Back in 2012 they were looking to increase the debt cap to $250 billion and not too long after they got to $300 billion. When you look at the expenditure in the forward estimates, from there on it will not be long before we are looking down the barrel at $400 billion.
The member for North Sydney, the previous speaker, raised the point that this government knows quite well that it is going to be somebody else's job to pay down that debt. Because guess what? We cannot pay this debt off in one generation. They say it is not a lot of money, but in the Howard era we would have had to have 18 of the biggest surpluses in a row to clear out the debt. So we are looking at a minimum of a couple of generations of working lives, when people are able to contribute taxes, and that is if we do not put on more debt.
Schedule 2 of the bill relates to incentives for designated infrastructure projects. This bill makes various amendments to taxation laws and the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to introduce a tax loss incentive for infrastructure projects designated by the infrastructure coordinator. The government claims that this measure will encourage private sector investment in nationally significant infrastructure such as roads, rail and ports.
The coalition have reservations about this schedule due to the discretion given to the infrastructure coordinator in approving tax concessions for individual projects. However, we will not oppose this measure, because we are going to have our own internal hurdles as a nation on how infrastructure projects are going to be funded in the future. The coalition have a plan on how we will fund those in partnership with the market combined with tax incentives. We will be keeping the implementation of this policy under watch, however.
Schedule 3 creates a regulatory framework for financial advice services and schedule 4 contains other amendments to the Tax Agent Services Act. These parts of the bill are unduly cruel. Schedules 3 and 4 of this bill deal with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. It is another attack on small business. My office has received many emails from tax agents in my electorate sharing concern over this proposal. This is a bad tax. This one is the shocker. If we are going to get an amendment up, this has to come out.
It is unduly unjust. At two minutes before midnight, with no public scrutiny we will be implementing at the busiest time of the year for our tax agents another layer of regulatory burden. One can only assume from a cynical perspective that the intention of the tax office and this government is to trap small business so it can be seen as another source of revenue from implementing fines or to run people out of business. There is no sense. I do not believe for one minute that that is their intention. I believe this was an oversight, so I call on the government to let the sun shine in on this part of the bill, to let the sun shine in on these amendments. These are cruel. The rollout of this needs to be delayed from 2013 through to 2014 so more consideration can be given. There are too many unknowns around schedules 3 and 4. You have 100 days of government left. In that last 100 days do one thing right: fix this.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (10:06): I rise to speak to the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. I have had the opportunity to raise this matter on the handling of this bill in the chamber previously. I did so as the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. The shadow Treasurer and the member for Wright have touched on the journey we have gone on to arrive at this destination. It has been a convoluted journey, but it has been a relatively short journey because this tax laws amendment bill No. 2, which contains over $10 billion of additional receipts for the federal Labor government, has been rammed through this parliament without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
For a measure like this, which I am informed by the shadow Treasurer is the single biggest revenue item in a tax laws amendment bill that we have seen in the parliament's history, it is extraordinary to think that this Labor government is so bereft of any ability to conform to appropriate levels of scrutiny, with absolutely no desire to provide any adequate justification, no attempt to explain to the Australian people why it is doing what it is doing and, most concerningly, no regard for the consequent impact as a result of these changes on thousands, if not tens of thousands, of stakeholders across the Australian economy—indeed, hundreds of thousands, when you consider schedule 1 alone.
So what has been the journey for the Australian Labor Party? How have we reached this new low when it comes to their inability to make any of the big calls correctly? We know that the Australian Labor Party has world's greatest Treasurer over there, the member for Lilley—you would have to question the methodology about how they arrived at that conclusion but, that notwithstanding, he has got the gong and he is going to hold it with all his might. I suspect he will hold that gong with more resilience than any State of Origin player did last night with the ball, but he is going to hold on to that precious little gong that he has because, frankly, that is all he has. His track record does not attest to the fact that he is the world's greatest Treasurer. The tax record of the member for Lilley is to be up to his eyeballs in debt and deficit and to make one false promise after another, but that is entirely consistent with the Prime Minister, so we should not be surprised.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I remind the member to be relevant to the bill.
Mr CIOBO: The Australian Labor Party, as part of their attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian public last year, saw the Treasurer stand up and say, 'This will be the first year of surplus, followed by four years or three years of surplus thereafter.' That is what he said; those were his words on last year's budget. And we now know the truth: instead of it being a billion-dollar surplus—we knew Labor were never going to get there; we flagged it at the time—it has actually turned into, low and behold, a $19 billion deficit.
But as part of the grubby attempt by Labor to deliver a surplus on paper, even though there was absolutely no way they would deliver a surplus in reality, they introduced the initiative that is contained within schedule 1 of this bill. That initiative is to bring forward company tax payments from the quarterly approach to now being required to be paid monthly. That window of the first 12 months, the change from quarterly reporting to monthly reporting, with payments being made to the tax office as a direct result, saw an injection of cash into the federal government to make up for the fact that there would be a change from four times per year to 12 times per year, which saw a short-term injection of cash. And that, on paper, meant the Australian Labor Party were able to bolster their books and there would be just that little bit of extra cash sitting in there, which helped the Treasurer to fall across the line when it came to delivering his so-called billion-dollar budget surplus.
They made this announcement with no consultation, no forewarning, no attempt to determine what the compliance impact was going to be. Instead, the only thing that the Treasurer was concerned about was if that was going to help to prop up his pathetic billion-dollar paper surplus. And now, 12 months later, we know there was no billion-dollar surplus. Instead we have another $19 billion deficit—just the latest in a series of deficits as part of the $190 billion of deficits this government has run up since they were elected—as part of their inexorable march towards reaching gross public debt, a peak approaching $400 billion.
Here we are, 12 months later, and the government are ramming this bill through the parliament. And they are doing so, as I said, with no regard to the compliance cost on those businesses that now have to change to report monthly instead of quarterly. Part of the problem is that in making this change, given that we did not even have a surplus and we had another $19 billion deficit, there will not be a surplus next year, there will be an $18 billion deficit; there will not be a surplus the year after that, there will be another deficit. For as long as Labor are in power there will be deficits. But despite that, the entire policy rationale for making this change has evaporated because we are not in surplus anyway. And instead companies, trusts, a whole range of different individuals now have to put up with all the extra paperwork and the compliance to satisfy schedule 1 of this bill. We attempted to apply some parliamentary scrutiny and attempted to discern what the impact would be on business. The Labor Party shut it down; the executive arm of government shut down parliamentary scrutiny.
The coalition sought to say: 'What are the impacts of these TLA No. 2 bill? What will it actually mean in terms of compliance? In respect of schedules 3, 4 and 5, what will their impact be on tax agents? What will the impact be on financial planners, on tax advisers?' Those schedules, again, have not seen the light of day. It is not as if the government or the Department of the Treasury or others have been out there massaging the stakeholders, saying: 'Look, can you explain this to us? We want to make sure that public policy represents best practice. Can you tell us: how can we change the laws to help you do your job? Explain to us: what can we do in terms of public policy to make sure the Australian people are better off as a consequence of our changes?' No, that is not Labor's approach. That is not the approach of this government. Instead they shove these changes into this TLA bill.
We the coalition attempted to refer the bill off for parliamentary inquiry before the committee system, as should be the case. What does Labor do? They shut it down. They use their numbers to make sure there is no inquiry and instead they just push the bill through the parliament with the support, once again I expect, of the so-called puppet Independents—the member for Lyne and the member for Windsor and others who will just allow this to go through, again just washing their hands, as Pontius Pilate did, of any of the consequent impacts in terms of red tape, compliance and livelihoods on tax agents and in terms of the impact of the changes on those tax agents and the Australian people who rely on the financial advice they receive. They will just wash their hands of it and say, 'We want stability in government.'
There are absolutely no points for understanding that this is just another nail in the coffin of this government, another reason the Australian people do not trust a government that undertakes decisions like this, that runs scared from parliamentary scrutiny, that does not have the decency to talk to stakeholders whose livelihoods rely on this. It is a government that does not care about what the public policy ramifications will mean for the mums and dads who will go and see financial planners and make decisions about their financial security and their futures off the back of changes that are contained within these laws.
That is the reason the Australian people are fed up with the Australian Labor Party. They have good reason to be because Labor are just so arrogant when it comes to their approach to governing. Labor are completely obsessed with ramming through whatever they can in these final two weeks and one day of parliament without any regard for what the impact on the community will be.
We in the coalition will use the brief periods that we have to highlight all the shortfalls that we see contained within laws like this. When the Australian people hear that all the extra red tape and all the extra compliance contained within this bill are here for one reason only—because the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, needed to try to deliver a couple of hundred million of extra revenue, on paper, one financial year to try to prop up his pathetic attempt to reach a budget surplus—only to know that we have a $19 billion deficit and therefore there was no point to the change whatsoever, no wonder they will just say, 'They are a joke.'
The Labor Party is a joke and should be branded a joke because this represents the lowest form and the lowest approach to public policy that could possibly exist. There are no benchmarks here, no gold standard, no world best practice with the approach contained within this bill. That is not even with respect to tax matters. That is with respect to parliamentary scrutiny. Remember the days of 'let the sunshine in'. They have closed the curtains and drawn the blinds. That is what is going on. It is entirely consistent—I notice the minister at the table—with the approach that Labor also adopted with respect to Gonski, another multibillion dollar approach.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I ask the member to be relevant to the tax bill.
Mr CIOBO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just talking about a pattern of behaviour by this Labor government. I do not intend to go through all 11 schedules in the bill, but I will also touch upon those schedules that the coalition is attempting to have segregated from the balance of the bill so that effectively the bill is split.
Schedules 3 and 4 deal with creating a regulatory framework for tax and financial advice services as well as other amendments to the Tax Agent Services Act. The carve-out was put in place sometime ago and it expires on 30 June this year. As I indicated already in my comments, the coalition sought to provide opportunity for the stakeholders—the people who inform the mums and dads of this nation about what they should be doing in their financial affairs—to have their feedback upon the approach that Labor was adopting. Labor said, 'We do not want the feedback, frankly, we are not prepared to listen, we will just what we want to do.'
The Financial Planning Association, the Financial Services Council and the Association of Financial Advisers have all raised concerns with respect to the changes contained within this bill. They are concerned about the fact that there has been a complete lack of consultation on the bill. They are concerned about the definitions used in the act. It is unclear, for example, if stockbrokers, insurance brokers and mortgage brokers are covered. There are concerns about possible negative interactions in relation to FOFA, the future of financial advice, reforms in this bill. They are also concerned about increased compliance costs resulting from the bill. That inevitably means one thing: extra compliance costs that are faced by tax agents, financial advisers and others will simply be passed through to consumers. We do not know what the impact of this is going to be. We know that all the peak bodies are concerned. We know that very good people like John Brogden are concerned, but we do not have the opportunity to discern what the impact will be because Labor will not enjoy the scrutiny.
This bill, in my view, represents one of the lowest points for the Australian Labor Party. The bill does need to be split so that the less controversial aspects can go through, although they should have gone through after parliamentary inquiry. In the absence of that, at least they can go through, but the more controversial aspects—schedules 3, 4 and 5—ought to be separated and the coalition attempts to do that with the amendments we have put forward.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:21): I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. This 118-page bill contains a range of tax changes in 11 schedules. They are very complex changes that require careful consideration and proper parliamentary scrutiny, as outlined by my colleague the member for Moncrieff. However, at this stage this will not occur because the Labor government are ramming this bill through parliament before the election, irrespective of its incredibly complex consequences for industry and the Australian economy. We saw a similar process occur when this government rammed through the Future of Financial Advice legislation.
The bill was introduced just last Wednesday, on 29 May, after which the bill was appropriately referred to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and then passed off to the House Standing Committee on Economics. That Labor dominated committee since decided that such complex changes do not warrant any scrutiny, declaring:
... due to the urgency of the bill and the need to resume the second reading debate there is insufficient time to undertake an inquiry.
It is the view of the coalition that this is simply not acceptable. As the coalition members of the House Economics Committee indicated in their dissenting report:
Coalition members of the committee recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive government. The decision of the committee to reject an inquiry into the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 due to "insufficient time" represents arrogance from Labor members.
This bill significantly increases government revenue (in other words—higher tax receipts) by nearly one billion dollars in schedule 1 alone.
The fact relevant government agencies, as well as the public and key stakeholders were denied an opportunity to inform the committee of the consequences of this decision by the Gillard Labor government underscores the shambolic and reckless approach to policy development by Labor.
Allowing the debate on the second reading today does not give important stakeholders any opportunity to consider and comment on the proposed changes, which could have huge ramifications in their industries.
First, I will address schedules 3 and 4 of this bill which respectively extend the regulatory framework for tax and financial advice services and make other amendments to the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. Schedule 3 amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009, TASA, so that tax advice given by practitioners in the course of giving advice that is usually provided by financial services licensees falls within the regulatory regime administered by the Tax Practitioners Board, TPB. TASA introduced a national regulatory regime for tax agents and business activity statement agents to ensure that providers of tax agent services to the public meet appropriate so-called professional and ethical standards. TASA introduced this regulatory regime based on three elements: the definition of what constitutes a tax agent service, the registration requirements for the code of professional conduct that applies to registered tax agents, as well as civil penalties that could apply to unregistered tax agents. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, TASA generally requires entities that provide tax agent services to register with the TPB.
At the time of that legislation, there was a recognition of the fine line between whether an entity is merely providing general information about the tax implications of particular financial products or whether it is giving tax advice that could reasonably be expected to be relied on and therefore a tax agent service. Therefore, it was decided to exempt tax agent services provided by financial services licensees and their authorised representatives from TASA. This is set to expire on 30 June 2013.
This means that there will be a new regulatory regime within TASA for entities in the financial services industry which give tax advice. It does this by creating a new type of regulated service—that of a 'tax (financial) advice service'. The definition of a 'tax (financial) advice service' would comprise two elements: that of providing a tax agent service and providing that service in the course of giving advice that is of a kind usually given by a financial services licensee or an authorised representative. Therefore, providers of tax (financial) advice services from July 1, 2013 would need to register with the Tax Practitioners Board and meet the requirements of the legislation.
There has already been strong feedback from the industry about these changes. The Association of Financial Advisers has called this legislation 'rushed and flawed', which has been brought forward 'without due process or adequate consultation'. As they have highlighted, 'there is a serious risk that the legislation will result in significant unintended consequences' because of the 'lack of detail and regulation or guidance'. The latter characteristics are symptomatic of most of the legislation put up by this Labor government
There are several other outstanding issues raised by these changes, including, but not limited to, the lack of clarity of which types of financial advisers will be captured under the act such as stockbrokers, insurance brokers or mortgage brokers. Questions remain about whether all financial advisers will have to be registered and, furthermore, what will this legislation mean in terms of further training for financial advisers and how will the interactions evolve between the registration of financial advisers with changes already passed in the rushed and highly complicated FOFA legislation? Lastly, what are the implications of this bill in terms of the interaction between the TPB and the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation, who are both regulators in this area, and who will take precedence where there are inconsistencies?
Those FOFA changes were debated in this House in March 2012 following an inquiry process which actually did occur. At that time, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services was advised time and time again that FOFA would result in huge additional costs, reduce employment levels in the financial industry and reduce the availability and access to quality advice. The Gillard government did not listen and passed that complicated legislation, which the coalition strongly opposed and voted against. Although they will not allow this legislation to be referred to a committee, I remind the Gillard government that the financial services industry is already trying its hardest to implement FOFA by 1 July this year, and these changes to TASA have the potential to further hurt the financial services industry.
Other constituents in my electorate who are financial advisers have also contacted my office to highlight the important work of financial advisers, who help 'workers, retirees and their families in Queensland achieve their financial objectives and be independent in retirement'. They have outlined their concerns about this 'costly duplicative regulation'. They are concerned that the TASA changes 'will make the cost of doing business prohibitive, meaning job losses and financial advice becoming more expensive and less accessible around the country'. These constituents and stakeholders deserve to have their voices heard and their questions answered during a parliamentary inquiry. Ultimately, all these unanswered questions mean the potential for uncertain increases in compliance costs for financial advisers.
The coalition therefore seeks to excise these schedules from the bill. We do not believe that the government should be proceeding with changes to TASA; instead, we should extend the transitional arrangements already in place—which exempt tax agent services provided by financial services licensees—to ensure consultation can be brought to a judicious conclusion.
If this means deferring these changes through the committee process and beginning anew after the next election, then so be it. The time line of an election of this parliament does not negate the need for proper parliamentary processes, nor should it impact on the passage of poorly designed legislation.
Further, schedule 5 involves amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1993 to change the rules regarding Australia's business tax system. There are three primary changes. Firstly, there is the imposition on the tax commissioner to make public certain information obtained from the tax returns of corporate tax entities with a total income of $100 million or more in a financial year. This imposition will also involve the publication of an entity's final annual amount payable under the minerals resource rent tax or petroleum resource rent tax, regardless of its total income.
Secondly, the new law will allow the publication of aggregate tax information, irrespective of whether such disclosure is reasonably capable of being attributed to a particular entity, unless that entity is an individual. The third measure increases information sharing between government agencies, as the explanatory memorandum states, 'involving information to the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purposes of briefing the Treasurer in relation to a decision that may be made under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 or Australia's foreign investment policy'.
As I previously mentioned, the coalition did attempt to refer this bill to the House economics committee, but Labor rejected that. Therefore, the coalition will seek to excise this schedule from the bill. We do so because of concerns particularly with the imposition on the tax commissioner to make public the tax affairs of corporate tax entities with reported total income over $100 million and the relation to payments through the mining tax and PRRT.
The intention for these amendments was announced in February 2013 by the Labor government—after the government attempted to hide the failure of its mining tax by refusing to release those revenue figures in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. At the time, the government claimed it could not release the figures because it could potentially identify the tax information of specific corporate entities. The coalition did not believe this assessment at the time, which is why in the end the government indeed released the mining tax revenue receipts; because the Treasurer's confidentiality arguments could not be sustained.
So what is the government's legislative response? It is now actually imposing on the tax commissioner to release information about the liability of companies under the mining tax and PRRT and allow the publication of tax information, even if it does attribute that information to a particular entity. The coalition believes that is a massive overreach by this government; just as it would be if the government were to make public tax information relating to an individual.
Furthermore, schedule 1 of this bill amends the tax laws to require certain large companies to pay their PAYG, pay as you go, tax instalments monthly rather than quarterly or annually. Under current law, all entities are liable for PAYG instalments quarterly unless they are eligible to become an annual or biannual payer. Under the new law, entities will be liable for monthly PAYG instalments if they exceed certain thresholds, which are 'base assessment instalment income in a particular financial year'.
The threshold will begin at $1 billion for corporate tax entities from 1 January 2014 and subsequently lower to $100 million from 1 January 2015 and to $20 million from 1 January 2016. From that date, all other entities with a base assessment income threshold of $1 billion, including superannuation funds, trusts and individuals, will be required to pay monthly PAYG instalments, reducing to $20 million the year after.
The government claims that this change will not increase the overall tax burden on a corporation or other entity. However, for those entities affected, this change does amount to a very significant one-off bringing forward in their tax and could potentially result in perpetually tighter cash flows and slimmer operating cash buffers. I do note that the reduction in payments to monthly is intended to bring in $10.15 billion to the government over the forward estimates.
I do not have the time now to go through every single measure in today's bill. This bill involves extremely complicated changes which would be best left to be further considered by the oversight of a parliamentary committee, as the coalition has recommended. This would allow parliament to fully scrutinise the intended consequences and, more importantly, the unintended consequences of the measures and allow the relevant stakeholders to have their say about what these changes mean for them.
In relation to schedules 3 and 4, as I have highlighted, this opportunity is particularly important for the financial services industry, who are already struggling with the implementation costs of this Labor government's FOFA legislation. Complex changes require careful consideration. The failure of this government to put forward this legislation with full scrutiny is yet another reason why Australians simply cannot trust this Labor government.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (10:35): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. This bill contains 11 complex and highly technical schedules. As the coalition have made clear, we believe that schedules 3, 4 and 5 in particular deserve further scrutiny, and we will be moving amendments to excise these schedules from the bill.
In the brief time I have available to me this morning I wish to focus on schedules 3 and 4, which are intended to establish a new regulatory framework governing tax advice given by financial advisers, financial planners and others who are giving such advice on tax incidental to the course of giving advice on broader financial issues. The key issue which is addressed by these schedules is whether that advice should be subject to the regime in the existing Tax Agent Services Act 2009.
In the time available to me I want to make three points. The first is that there are complex issues here which affect a wide range of stakeholders. The second is that the government has rushed through these detailed and complex changes with very little consultation. Thirdly, therefore, the coalition does not support these changes to the regulatory arrangements governing the provision of tax advice without further scrutiny and consultation.
Let me turn to the first proposition, which is that these measures raise complex issues which affect many stakeholders. Indeed, these measures would affect many professionals who provide tax advice incidentally to the provision of advice on financial products. It is a fairly obvious proposition that it is difficult to untangle tax advice from financial advice. If we think about a financial adviser or a financial planner who is advising a client to increase his or her superannuation contributions, obviously, part of the rationale for such an increase is going to be that superannuation is a tax advantaged investment. Money which goes into a superannuation fund, subject to it being below the annual contribution limit, is taxed at 15 per cent as compared to the marginal rate if the money is taken in ordinary income. In those circumstances, for most taxpayers the marginal rate is well above 15 per cent. If someone is providing advice about extra superannuation contributions, inevitably they, as a financial planner or a financial adviser, will raise tax considerations in the advice that they give to their client.
Similarly, if someone were to advise a client, as a financial planner or a financial adviser, that that client should consider taking out a margin loan to buy a parcel of blue-chip shares, again, the tax considerations would necessarily form part of their discussion with their client. They would need to explain to the client the tax treatment of the interest on the margin loan. While the advice is given primarily as part of assisting the client to develop an effective financial strategy to maximise his or her wealth over time, in the provision of that advice there will necessarily be a discussion of the tax aspects of this particular structuring of the client's affairs.
A third example might be advice regarding the tax benefits of investing in shares which have franking credits. Again, the primary purpose of the provision of the advice is to recommend the desirability of investing in shares as a means of building up wealth over time. I hasten to add that I am not personally expressing a view as to whether shares constitute a good investment for that purpose or not. I am simply making the point that an adviser or planner might very well find themselves in the position of giving such advice to a client. Again, what would necessarily form part of that discussion would be advice about the way the dividend imputation system works. The fact is that shares, in companies which are themselves paying tax, carry with them franking credits, and when that is added into the overall mix that increases the after tax value of the returns from the shares.
The point I am making is that it is very difficult to disentangle advice on the financial affairs of a client from advice on the tax implications of particular financial options and choices that the client may choose to follow based upon advice from, for example, a financial planner or a financial adviser. It follows, therefore, that it is quite problematic if financial planners and financial advisers are not permitted to advise on tax issues. On the other hand, tax is clearly a very complex area. The consequences of getting tax matters wrong can be severe for taxpayers. It is therefore appropriate that the provision of tax advice should be carefully regulated.
These issues were weighed up when the existing Tax Agent Services Act 2009 was passed. That legislation established a national regulatory regime for tax agents and agents providing advice on business activity statements as part of the GST arrangements, so as to ensure that providers of tax agent services to the public meet appropriate professional and ethical standards. The legislation establishes the definition of a 'tax agent service', and the legislation seeks to establish that dividing line. Is the advice merely general information about the tax implications of particular financial products, or is it the provision of tax advice which could reasonably be expected to be relied upon and therefore a tax agent service?
As part of drawing that dividing line, in developing the regime that was legislated under the Tax Agent Services Act the government took the decision to carve out tax agent services provided by financial services licensees and their authorised representatives. In other words, the policy decision that was taken when the 2009 act was passed was to use that particular carve-out mechanism to establish the dividing line. Therefore, somebody who is providing advice to a client and who is a financial services licensee or the authorised representative of a financial services licensee is excluded from the regime in the Tax Agent Services Act, even though in the provision of financial advice—as I have pointed out—that person is inevitably, necessarily and naturally likely to provide advice about the tax implications of that particular financial instrument or structure that they are recommending that the client should invest in.
What we have before the House now is a bill which proposes a complex new regime, taking a different approach to establishing where that dividing line is. It will do so by creating a new type of regulated service: a 'tax (financial) advice service'. Let me briefly note the enthusiasm with which the Treasury and other relevant officials treat the bracket as a device in the naming of bills and other concepts. Under the regime that is proposed in the bill, the tax (financial) advice service will consist of two elements: the provision of a tax agent service and the provision of a service in the course of giving advice of a kind usually given by a financial services licensee or its representative. If you are to provide such services you will need to register with the Tax Practitioners Board.
These issues are complex and they affect many stakeholders. The Financial Planners Association, the Financial Services Council and the Association of Financial Advisers have all raised concerns in relation to the changes proposed in schedule 3 of this bill. Those concerns include the lack of consultation in relation to the bill and the lack of clarity in the definition which is proposed to be used in the bill. It is unclear, for example, if stockbrokers, insurance brokers and mortgage brokers are covered by the definition. Stakeholders have also raised concerns about the potential negative interactions with the very complex and extensive Future of Financial Advice reforms and of the increased compliance costs resulting from the bill that will inevitably be passed onto consumers.
I would like to quote from a letter from the Financial Planning Association of Australia dated 3 June. That association said:
In our view the Bill is far from finalised and does not satisfactorily relate to the taxation advice provided in the context of financial planning advice.
The most significant key outstanding issues include:
a clear and appropriate definition of tax advice (financial product) service;
whether the responsibilities and liabilities for the TASA obligations apply to the individual planner, a supervisor, or the licensee;
alignment with the Best Interest Duty and other Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms; and
ASIC's role in the implementation of TASA.
We are four weeks away from the existing deferral arrangements ending and we are still not clear on the exact requirements and obligations for financial planners in respect to complying with the Tax Agent Services Act, should this be required. … Considering that the Tax Agent Services Act will impact every one of our 9000 practitioner members, and likely more than 40,000 in total, the lack of consultation and the tight time frame is a real concern.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the government has sought to rush through these complex changes with very limited consultation.
When this bill was introduced, the coalition sought to have it referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. That request was denied and the bill was instead sent to the House Standing Committee on Economics by the selection of bills committee. On Friday, 31 May 2013, the Labor majority of the House economics committee refused to hold an inquiry into this complex bill. So we now have the situation where this government is asking parliament to pass a bill with significant changes to the law and with significant impact on key stakeholders—with those stakeholders very uncertain as to its impact—within a week of the bill being introduced to the parliament, with no committee oversight. There is no word to describe this process other than atrocious.
It is quite difficult to understand why the government has got itself into this situation, given that the 30 June 2013 deadline has been there for a long time. Yet this government has left this important matter to the last minute. Also, the current arrangements have worked satisfactorily. So, even if there is a policy case to improve them—as to which I express no view—there is no particular reason to do it with effect from 1 July this year. It would be perfectly practicable to roll over the current regime for another year to go through a proper and considered process. It is further hard to understand given that these changes affect an industry—the industry of financial planning and advice—which has faced a relentless torrent of regulatory change in the last three years, including Future of Financial Advice reforms, the MySuper reforms, Superstream and a range of others, all of which involve complex changes to business processes, IT systems and client engagement models. And now this government is proposing to dump another burdensome set of regulatory changes on this industry at very short notice.
This brings me to my third and final point, which is that the coalition does not support these changes without extensive further scrutiny. The coalition have a simple choice this morning: do we support these changes as presented to us or do we reject them? We do not dismiss out of hand the question as to whether the dividing line is appropriately struck between the provision of tax advice on the one hand and the provision of financial advice, including tax issues, on the other. We simply say that there has not been adequate time to consider this important question. There are serious stakeholder interests at stake. Until a proper process has been carried out, we will not support these provisions.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:50): I note that several of the speeches made on this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013, seem to be trying to build an element of division around the entire bill, when the truth is that most schedules in this bill have bipartisan support—and that is welcomed. Of the 11 schedules that are in this omnibus tax amendment bill, I understand that there are three that are in disputes—schedules 3, 4 and 5.
Dealing with those issues first, I think we are fundamentally talking about bringing financial planners under the Tax Agents Services Act, which are the schedule 3 provisions, backed up by some technical amendments in schedule 4, and then schedule 5, making the tax paid by large corporations more transparent. I am very surprised with that being at all controversial.
In fact, I will deal with schedule 5 first. This is a key part of the business integrity package as announced in the federal budget. I have a lot of time for the new tax commissioner, Chris Jordan, in particular, who I understand has done a lot of work with the business tax working group following on from the tax summit in 2011. Now in his new role he is implementing with government and with the Assistant Treasurer a business integrity package that I think deserves the support of this chamber.
There are reports from jurisdictions all round the world on this issue that Australia needs to start getting its head around and we need to participate in, in a cross-jurisdictional way, looking at how multinational companies are gaming sovereign tax laws to their own benefit and to the detriment of the communities they are doing business in. That is a noble starting point, that we start to address these issues in a substantive and coordinated way both within Australia and across jurisdictions. The key opposition to this, as far as I can work out, is that there is some belief that government is overreaching. On the contrary, I hope this is just the start of trying to address these issues, which are real and which have the potential to significantly erode the integrity of the tax base in Australia.
These laws do not impact the privacy of one single individual in Australia, even the wealthiest individuals. As far as I understand—and the minister may like to correct me—not one single individual, poor or rich, is impacted in regard to their own privacy. The legislation is starting to try and address, as far as I understand, the issues of large companies with significant turnovers and, I think quite rightly, people wanting to know what tax is paid by the very large corporations in Australia, most of them already reporting this information in their annual returns to their shareholders. In my judgement as a representative in this chamber, I do not view this as a layer of red tape or a further impost. This is allowing Chris Jordan and the ATO to do their job on behalf of all Australians and protect the integrity of our tax base and make sure we are not being gamed. This means that individuals may have to pay more tax, if we are being gamed by the top end of town who are happily doing business and selling products in our market yet not paying a fair and equivalent share of their contribution to the tax base.
I have no problem whatsoever with schedule 5. In fact—and this is a message to both sides of this chamber—I sincerely hope this is just the start of the journey of Australia dealing with issues around the integrity of our tax base and cross-jurisdictional tax issues. There are plenty of examples both within Australia and around the world of well-known multinationals, in particular, gaming those sovereign tax laws at the expense of countries, including ours. I welcome schedule 5.
In relation to schedules 3 and 4, I am really disappointed that they are being omitted. I accept the arguments, and I hope it is only for a short time. It is now four months until an election, so this is a message to both sides: I hope this is not some sort of win for my old mate John Brogden and financial planners or for Mark Rendall. I hope this is not just a cave-in to some pressure from the financial-planning industry and that it is being omitted with the noble intent of buying some time to do some further consultation. But the principles behind schedules 3 and 4 and the importance of consumer protection very much stay on the agenda.
I have heard all the arguments for and against from financial planners, accountants, tax agents, experts in the law and many, many others. Where real concerns have been raised, I have done what I could to get answers. Initially there was a legitimate argument about lack of consultation. The exemption for financial planners under the Tax Agent Services Act was a time limited extension that had expired in 2012. It was extended and it had always been the expectation that financial planners would be governed by this regime. There is still time for consultation on the regulations that will come beneath the act relating specifically to education and experience to achieve registration for financial planners. After having done a bit of homework, I think the lack of consultation question is relatively shallow. I hope once again that this is not a cave-in to some political pressure. Initially I thought there was a fair argument around unreasonably stopping financial planners undertaking their role, but the response has been that there is a three-year transitional period during which planners will only be required to register with the board. I am told the regulations are well underway and there will be plenty of time for educational requirements to be satisfied before the transitional period ends.
The other issue that I thought was legitimate, one I pursued with ministers involved, was that there was an inconsistency between these tax reforms and the very good FOFA reforms that have gone through this parliament as part of a broad reform agenda of this 43rd Parliament. I thought there was some legitimacy in the argument that these laws need to be talking to the FOFA laws and vice versa. That was of concern to the point where I was not going to support schedules 3 and 4 until there was some clear direction on that. I got that clear direction. I got a letter from Minister Bill Shorten, which I am happy to release after this. In the letter he said that the reform of the tax agent services regime does very clearly talk to the FOFA reforms and they work in parallel. Likewise, I received a similar letter from the minister at the table to the effect that creating a co-regulatory framework for tax advice services is actually the point of the exercise—getting the FOFA reforms to talk to tax reform is the narrative; it is the point. That we are now dropping that because of some political pressure is a step backwards. So I received both of those letters.
Importantly, though, I received a letter from ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, that has said that ASIC is confident that the Corporations Act and TASA are consistent and that a financial adviser can comply with both. That is a relatively long letter that also provides comfort. And my good friends at the Tax Institute I think put it best of all—and the Tax Institute are hardly a friend of government. Arguably, they are the country's leading professional association in tax, with 13,000 members, including tax agents, accountants and lawyers. Fundamentally, they support the tax profession to work to continually improve tax law and administration. They are very passionate about schedule 3 and say that it is an important consumer protection measure in tax law. I think they will be bitterly disappointed that because of the lack of numbers in this chamber the government has had to omit schedule 3 at the expense of consumer protection in Australia today. I will also release that letter.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia have also passionately argued that the accounting profession supports schedule 3. They said, 'This has been in gestation for some 20 years, with concerted discussion and drafting of this particular element of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 arrangements over the last three years.' But from the shadow Treasurer through, on one side of this House, we have heard that this has all been a mad rush by a disorganised government and that the sky is falling. Twenty years in gestation, in writing from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia—a good friend, I would have thought, of the Liberal-National Party.
So what has gone on? The Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Institute, ASIC and both ministers have providers letters of comfort to say that schedule 3 talks to the financial services reforms of the last couple of years. They say it is a really important reform for consumer protection in Australia, so who has folded? And why? I hope that the vote actually records who has folded and why.
I am a good friend of John Brogden; I will put that on the record. But I would hope that a lobbying campaign from John Brogden and Mark Rendall is not at the heart of vested interests getting in front of consumer protection and important law reform that has been in gestation for 20 years according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Why would our chamber get in the way of improving consumer protection, particularly in the last five years, when every community—mine as well as everyone else's in this chamber—has had superannuants and retirees have their money diddled by people who are working in this field, where there is $1 trillion of superannuation money. The Cooper review has stated that there are immature rules around that trillion dollars. We need to improve the regulatory framework with some urgency, yet some people in this chamber have folded their tent behind a bit of political pressure, a bit of lobbying and a bit of positioning for the next four months.
I think that consumers, who are voters, have a right to be angry. Their money remains exposed, with immature rules around some really critical reforms for our country that get the FOFA reforms talking to our tax laws, as clearly identified in letters of comfort from ASIC, from the Tax Institute, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and from both ministers. I think it is really disappointing that the numbers are not in, and that we have had to omit schedules 3 and 4. I know there are financial planners who will run around and pop the champagne, but consumers should not. Retirees should not; retirees have had a loss today. Their money is still exposed by a regulatory regime that still needs further work.
As a chamber, I would hope that we are not bailing out for good. I hope that, as a compromise, this is just buying a window of time. I would encourage the minister to answer that. I would hope this gets revisited with some urgency, because the point of the exercise is in schedule 3 and 4, and that is to get FOFA talking to our tax laws and vice versa. We have bailed out today. It is disappointing. Consumers have had a loss, and I hope we can revisit it sometime soon.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (11:05): I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members who contributed to this debate, in particular the member for Lyne for his contribution, which I think was a very worthy one.
Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 requires large entities in the pay-as-you-go instalment system to make their instalments monthly instead of quarterly. Unlike the coalition's monster paid parental leave tax, no entity will pay more tax as a result of this change. In fact, not one extra dollar in tax will be paid. This merely changes the frequency with which instalment amounts must be remitted to the Australian Taxation Office.
In order to help reduce compliance costs, the commissioner will be granted a new power to develop alternative methods of developing instalment income. Earlier this year, I also announced a longer term review of the pay-as-you-go instalment system. As part of this review the government will consult with industry to identify longer term reforms to improve the pay-as-you-go instalment system for all businesses, large and small.
The member for North Sydney bleated that the $20 million threshold had been plucked out of thin air. Once again, the member for North Sydney is showing his ignorance of these matters and also, I think, is showing why he is unfit to be sticking his hand up to be the Treasurer. The $20 million threshold was chosen to align with the GST threshold for being a monthly GST reporter, so there is a very clear reason. The figure was not plucked out of the air; there is a very strong rationale for that. The whole purpose of the reform is to better align PAYG instalment payments with the GST payments for most large companies and to allow PAYG instalments to be more responsive to the economic conditions faced by their businesses.
Schedule 2 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new tax loss incentive for designated infrastructure projects. The tax incentive will promote private sector investment in infrastructure projects determined to be of national significance. Examples of these projects that could benefit include the Brisbane Cross River Rail, Sydney motorways and Melbourne Metro projects. I know firsthand how important the Sydney motorways project is to the people of Western Sydney. It is desperately needed, but we would of course like to see the extension to the M4 go all the way to the city and would like to ensure that, whatever the financing arrangements, a new toll is not imposed on an old road where motorists are forced to pay a toll for driving along a road that they currently drive on for free.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite says it will never happen. Perhaps he should tell the people of Western Sydney that he is intending to make a false promise.
This is an important part of a broader package of reforms to build the—
Mr Hockey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not going to have that misrepresentation. I said it will never happen without a toll. He verballed me and sought to misrepresent me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The minister will stick with the matter.
Mr BRADBURY: And that was very much a part of the package of measures that we have before us. But this is an important part of a broader package of reforms to build the infrastructure Australia needs to compete in the 21st century. The tax incentive will promote private investment by preserving the value of accumulated losses over time. Further support is provided by removing the restrictions imposed on the use of carry-forward losses, which can prevent losses being claimed if there is a change of ownership of a project. The tax incentive will encourage private investment in nationally significant infrastructure such as roads, rail and ports. It is a clear demonstration that this side of the House is committed to improving the nation's infrastructure, which is so important for the long-term growth of this country.
Schedules 3 and 4 ensure the appropriate regulation of all forms of tax advice whether they are provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or an entity in the financial services industry. Contrary to the misleading claims of those opposite, the bill contains a three-year transitional period to allow financial advisers to comply with the regime. All of this rubbish about people being required to come into compliance with the regime in a matter of weeks is precisely that. This is similar to the transition period that this parliament provided to accountants who provide financial advice. These amendments are designed to ensure that all entities that give tax advice meet appropriate professional and ethical standards.
That is what they would do, of course, if the coalition were not determined to block them as they are. The member for Lyne made the point very clearly that somebody has to come into this place and stand up for the protection of consumers. It is one thing, as one of the members opposite said, to talk about the financial planners in her electorate, and I am sure they are wonderful people doing a good job, but it is our responsibility to protect the consumers—the broader population—from the professional activities of those within the financial-planning sector who are engaged in providing advice that is of a taxation nature. These amendments would give consumers the confidence they need and they deserve. The government thinks that Australians who use financial advisers should feel secure knowing that the adviser meets appropriate professional and ethical standards. I think it seems hard to object to that.
The shadow Treasurer claimed that there has been no consultation. The truth is that there has been extensive consultation. If we have a look at what has been occurring, we can see that on 29 November 2010—that is right; back in 2010—the government consulted with the public on a discussion paper titled Regulation of tax agent services provided by financial planners. Then, throughout 2011 and 2012, the former Assistant Treasurer, my predecessor, held roundtable consultation with Treasury and with stakeholders. Furthermore, there was public and targeted consultation on the draft legislation. If the opposition are hiding behind claims of process to avoid the truth—that they are not willing to stand up for consumers—let me, in detailing that consultation, remove that fig leaf.
The government are committed to these reforms, and we will continue to advocate for the rights of consumers. If three rounds of consultation are not enough for the shadow Treasurer then we will allow parliament more time to scrutinise these amendments and ask that the coalition join with us in supporting these important consumer protection measures.
Schedule 5 provides important opportunities for the public to scrutinise the performance of Australia's business tax system and the contributions made by large and multinational businesses. Like the member for Lyne, I am surprised to see that the opposition is proposing to oppose this. There is growing concern not just here in Australia but right around the world that many of the key rules of international taxation have not kept pace with the evolution of the global economy. The apparent ease with which some large corporate entities can shift taxable profits and erode a country's tax base is a shared concern for this government, for the G20 and for, in fact, most OECD countries. I am surprised that it is not a concern of those opposite. Policymakers and the Australian public should have more transparency around the levels of tax being paid by large and multinational businesses in Australia to allow for an informed debate about the efficiency and equity of our tax system. By increasing the transparency of our business tax system the government will ensure that the public is well informed about the contributions made by large corporations. The amendments will also ensure that the government can be advised on and publish period aggregate tax collection information even where there may be few corporate entities paying a particular tax. In addition, schedule 5 facilitates increased information sharing between government agencies.
I pick up on the point that the member for Lyne made. We believe that the privacy of individuals in relation to their tax affairs should remain sacrosanct, and nothing in this schedule will alter that. But I make this central point: as we engage in a debate around base erosion and profit shifting, I hear plenty of stakeholders—in fact, some opposite—come forward and say, 'Show us the evidence that the corporate tax base is being eroded; show us the evidence that there is profit shifting.' In fact, these are the arguments that I have heard from those opposite when they have come into this place consistently to oppose measures that we have introduced to crack down on corporate tax loopholes—over $10 billion worth of measures in revenue protection that have been voted against by those opposite. Every single time, they come into this place and they say, 'Show us the evidence that big multinationals are not paying their fair share of tax.' We say, 'Okay, we need to amend the law so that you can see all of that evidence,' and they come in here and say they are opposed to it. What are you hiding? Why is it that you are so determined to hide the tax position of so many of these companies? It is outrageous. The net effect is that, if we do not crack down on these loopholes, individuals and small businesses—average, hardworking Australians out there—have to end up paying a higher burden of tax to pick up the slack when some of the most profitable companies in the world are not paying their fair share. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Schedule 6 addresses issues arising from the full Federal Court decision in Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation in 2012. Without amendment, there would be significant financial implications for industry, with many taxpayers being unable to deduct legitimate project expenditures in determining the PRRT liability for their petroleum projects. The government recognises that such an outcome would be inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the PRRT regime and the way it has been administered since its commencement in 1987. The amendments maintain the policy intent of the PRRT as a profits based tax and are broadly consistent with the ATO's longstanding application of the PRRT law in relation to the treatment of deductible expenditure. At the same time, they preserve the substance of the court's decision that a taxpayer cannot derive a tax advantage via contract arrangements with related parties.
Schedule 7 exempts from income tax payments made to individuals under the Defence Abuse Reparations Scheme. The establishment of the scheme forms part of the government's response to the DLA Piper report of the review into allegations of sexual or other forms of abuse in Defence. The payments made under the scheme are in recognition of the fact that abuse in Defence is unacceptable and wrong. Exempting these payments from tax will ensure that recipients receive the full benefit of the payment. Exempting the reparation payment from the income tax will also prevent it having an impact on people's social security payments, such as parental leave, family assistance and child support payments.
Schedule 8 implements the government's announcement of 8 May 2012 to remove the 50 per cent discount on capital gains accrued after that date for foreign individuals. Foreign and temporary resident individuals will still be entitled to the 50 per cent discount on eligible capital gains accrued prior to 8 May 2012 after offsetting any capital losses, provided they choose to value the asset as at that day.
Schedule 9 amends the GST law to establish the framework for providing that certain services and support provided to National Disability Insurance Scheme participants will be GST free when they are provided for in a National Disability Insurance Scheme plan. This will ensure greater certainty for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants and providers that supply services to those participants. These amendments will apply in relation to supplies made on or after the commencement of section 37 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. However, this is subject to state and territory agreement to the making of the necessary determination.
Schedule 10 amends the deductible gift recipient provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim an income tax deduction for gifts to organisations that are DGRs. Schedule 10 adds five new organisations to the act: namely, the Aurora Education Foundation Ltd, United Way Australia, the Australian Neighbourhood Houses and Centres Association Inc., the Australia Foundation in support of Human Rights Watch Ltd, and the Layne Beachley Aim for the Stars Foundation Ltd. The government will also move an amendment to add an additional organisation to the act: namely, Social Traders Ltd. Making these organisations deductible gift recipients will assist them to attract public support for their activities. Schedule 10 also extends the listings of two organisations in the act: the DGR listings for the Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation and the Charlie Perkins Scholarship Trust have been extended indefinitely. Extending the DGR listings for these organisations will assist them in continuing to attract public support for their activities.
Finally, schedule 11 makes several miscellaneous amendments to the taxation and superannuation laws. These amendments are part of the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the taxation and superannuation systems. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (11:20): I present supplementary explanatory memoranda to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ME100 and (1) to (4) on sheet BF253.
Leave granted.
Mr BRADBURY: I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ME100 and (1) to (4) on sheet BF253:
(1) Schedule 10, item 6, page 100 (after table item 13.2.4), insert:
13.2.5 |
Social Traders Ltd |
the gift must be made after 30 June 2013 |
(2) Schedule 10, page 101 (after line 6), after item 10, insert:
10A Section 30 ‑315 (after table item 111A)
Insert:
111AAA |
Social Traders Ltd |
item 13.2.5 |
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6 to 8), omit the table items.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit the table item.
(3) Schedule 3, page 56 (line 1) to page 69 (line 7), omit the Schedule.
(4) Schedule 4, page 70 (line 1) to page 76 (line 5), omit the Schedule.
In moving these amendments, I reinforce the points made in the summing-up speech in relation to the importance of listing for Social Traders Ltd. I also recognise the fact that, given the opposition to schedules in relation to the Tax Agent Services Act, we will ensure that some additional consultation can occur in relation to those matters. But I reiterate the fact that the government remains committed to proceeding with what are essentially amendments that will ensure that financial planners engaged in the provision of taxation advice are subject to the same requirements of those elsewhere that are providing taxation advice.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (11:22): I want to take the opportunity to speak briefly on these amendments and on the legislation, because they do provide important reform to infrastructure, including the new tax-loss incentive to major infrastructure projects introduced by schedule 2 of this bill. By removing tax disincentives this reform will support up to $25 billion in new private sector infrastructure spending. This important reform is yet another milestone in federal Labor's ambitious infrastructure agenda. We are delivering record funding for infrastructure investment, but we recognise that we need to mobilise private capital as well as direct government expenditure.
I congratulate the minister on this initiative, which arises from an announcement that we made in the 2012 budget and arises from the sort of work that the Infrastructure Australia Finance Working Group, chaired by Jim Murphy from Treasury, has done. We, of course, have funded all of the 15 projects deemed ready to proceed on the Infrastructure Australia National Priority List. Building on this, the Infrastructure Coordinator will designate projects eligible for the tax concession. To be eligible, projects need to be assessed as ready to proceed on the priority project list.
The tax loss incentive also complements our recent budget announcement for the transformational public transport projects—the Melbourne Metro and Brisbane Cross River Rail. Both of these projects have been identified as priority projects of national significance. They are critical in addressing capacity constraints and congestion in our major cities and will enhance productivity growth. They also are projects on a scale that requires private sector contributions. Therefore, we are taking a new, innovative approach which is structured around an availability payment model to attract private sector investment. The tax loss incentive will also encourage private sector investment for such projects by preserving the value of infrastructure project losses over time and exempting these losses from utilisation tests that normally apply.
This reform will support major transport projects that transform our cities and make our international gateways more competitive. This is an important piece of legislation. I commend the legislation as well as the amendments to the House. It is important that we continue to invest in both road and rail infrastructure in addressing congestion issues in our cities. Our approach is about delivering reforms that complement our nation-building investment program, such as this tax loss incentive.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:25): I welcome the backdown from the government in relation to these amendments. Occasionally they do listen to the wise counsel of the coalition. On this occasion they have, appropriately, shelved schedules 3 and 4 and allowed for proper consultation.
I do not want to rub it in, but I do note the speech from the member for Lyne. I just cannot help but be reminded of his absolute, total hypocrisy in this place. The member for Lyne was a guy that said: 'Let the sunshine into the parliament. Let everyone have a good look. Let's have proper scrutiny and treat the chamber with the respect it deserves.' Yet he stood in this place not long ago and said: 'Don't worry, I have letters from ministers that assure me that this bill is not going to have what could be the impacts. We don't need to have a parliamentary inquiry. I've got—I, the member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott—letters from ministers and I've got letters from these people. I'm satisfied. Therefore, no-one else needs to have the opportunity to consult. Because if you consult with me, Rob Oakeshott, that is all the consultation you need. Don't worry about the parliament. Don't worry about any committees of the parliament.' What a complete hypocrite this guy is. Seriously, every time we have tried to have additional scrutiny, the member for Lyne is in the way. Yet he goes out there and parades like some sanctimonious god of accountability. Frankly, he is a complete, damn hypocrite.
I cannot wait for the day that he is not in this place so that we can have someone who actually is consistent representing Lyne. The previous member for Lyne was a man of great integrity. This current member for Lyne—I do not know what he is possibly thinking when he gets up here in this rather droll way and says: 'Don't worry, I've consulted and therefore we should all be satisfied. Everything is okay as long as I'm satisfied.' Whereas, actually, nearly half the House, on this side, are not satisfied—and now the government themselves are saying they are not satisficed—with the proper level of scrutiny of those schedules to the bill. So the overwhelming majority now in the chamber want further consultation in relation to the schedules. But for the member for Lyne, because he is satisfied everyone else should be satisfied. Anyway, common sense has prevailed and we welcome just a little sliver, a glimpse, of common sense from the government.
Question agreed to.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:28): by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) and (5):
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 10), omit "5", substitute "6".
(5) Schedule 5, page 77 (line 1) to page 83 (line 11), omit the Schedule.
Confidentiality of taxpayer information is fundamental to the administration of taxation law, and confidentiality is protected because ensuring the privacy of sensitive information, including commercial information, goes to public confidence in the system of tax. The minister for superannuation, the member for Maribyrnong, has said as much himself. He said:
Taxpayers provide personal information to the Tax Office expecting it to be kept confidential.
The public release of taxpayer information, therefore, needs compelling justification. What have the government said? They have said they are going to reveal taxpayer information for two reasons. The first is, as the Assistant Treasurer says:
… more transparency around the levels of tax being paid by large and multinational businesses in Australia to allow an informed debate about the efficiency and equity of our tax system.
Schedule 5 requires the commissioner of tax to release information to the public that is disclosed in the taxpayer's tax return—namely, the entity's total gross income, its net taxable income and its income tax payable. It only applies to companies if their total income is $100 million or more. So multinational groups, such as Google, Amazon or Starbucks, which may have minimal income sourced in Australia, will not be affected, I understand.
Mr Bradbury: No, that's not true. That's why we have the accounting figure. It's not true.
Mr HOCKEY: I welcome clarification, but that is my understanding. Instead, this measure, as I understand it, will potentially provide reputational risk to privately owned entities and shareholders, so private companies. In their submission to the Treasury discussion paper of April 2013, Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd, Australia's largest carpet manufacturer that has a base in Geelong and has a turnover exceeding $300 million, noted that the disclosure relates only to companies and stated:
… for those which are privately and closely held it will be an easy task for commentators to apply the tax paid (or not paid) to the owners. Publication of the data would give information that could be detrimental to shareholders, including to their safety.
How will that allow for better informed debate?
Reconciling total income to taxable income is set out in the tax return and provided to the ATO. The reconciliation contains numerous adjustments, each of which is allowed under the tax law and reflects established tax policy, and can include: dividends from tax sources overseas that are exempt when they get to Australia, so it is all additional income; dividends from taxed Australian sources that have franking credits attached; prior year losses which are offset against taxable income; as well as tax incentives such as the R&D offset, which the government ripped $1.1 billion out of this year apparently. An Australian group with major operations in overseas subsidiaries would have a large total income but a comparatively small taxable income because of exempt dividends. So that information may well be used by other countries to punish Australian entities operating in their countries. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to make it harder for Australian exporters operating in other jurisdictions to deal with those jurisdictions by publishing this information in Australia about how well they are doing in other jurisdictions when they do not do that with us? This government feels the need to lead in every regard, no matter what the cost is to Australian employers.
Without additional guidance the information that the bill compels the commissioner to make available to the public may well be grossly misleading. Far from improving transparency, public release of the information referred to in proposed section 3C of the Tax Administration Act is likely to reduce transparency. It misleads unless there is additional context. So, no doubt, companies will be required by the activism of advocacy groups to explain the apparent disconnect between the tax they have paid and their income. Let it be done if that is the government's view, but it is an additional significant cost and it is additional significant regulation and it makes us less competitive. The government always feels the need to make us less competitive, because of its unintended— (Extension of time granted)
Secondly, the Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech contends that the increased transparency is intended to discourage aggressive tax minimisation practices by large and multinational businesses. I have no issue with making life extremely difficult for those who break the law and I want the tax office to go after them with the full force of all the available resources, but I make this point: do not make it too hard to do business in Australia by imposing regulation on businesses that are complying with the law because they may then find that this additional regulatory burden in Australia just makes it too hard to stay here.
The basis of our legal system is summed up by the Tax Institute in its submission to a Treasury discussion paper released in April. They said:
… a taxpayer's obligation to pay their “fair share” of tax in Australia cannot be imposed via any means other than clearly defined laws, as made by the Australian Government. Taxpayer obligations should begin and end with compliance with the tax law.
I agree. In recent years the ATO's risk assessment practices have expanded to include a number of tools that help the ATO determine how compliant particular corporate groups may be. New methods of risk determination include prelodgement, review of the tax return, the reportable tax position schedule and the international dealings schedule. The question is: have the ATO got sufficient powers? I would contend that yes, they have. Of course they have. If they have not then let them prove their case.
What I am saying is that you do not just give the ATO more powers, and you do not just give everyone unfettered access to everyone else's information without having proper accountability. I would say to the government: think carefully before you do this stuff. Do not go down the path, time and time again, of knee-jerk reactions to populism like the member for Lyne. Think carefully about what needs to be done. But, most importantly, think carefully about what our competition is doing, because there are other places to invest in other than Australia.
If foreign corporations operating in Australia feel as though Australia is simply picking them out when no other jurisdiction, other than Denmark, is going down this path, then it is easy for them to move out, and that just costs jobs. And it could be the difference between a major operation continuing to manufacture in Australia or moving their operations overseas. It could be that little bit extra that makes it just a little bit harder to do business in Australia and tips the board to decide that it will go to New Zealand or South Africa or China or the United States or any other jurisdiction. This added burden of regulations, added burden of red tape—it just keeps adding, adding, adding to the difficulties of doing business in Australia. That is why we are sticking with our commitment to move amendments (2) and (5) as circulated in my name.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (11:38): Just a couple of quick points. The member opposite began by saying that he had concerns for Australian businesses and how these transparency measures would impact on them. But then in the course of his discussion he quickly moved on to saying that if larger multinational businesses felt that they were somehow being discriminated against then they would not invest in the country. I think he should work out his line: whether he is here protecting small Australian companies that might inadvertently get caught in this measure, as he was suggesting, or whether he is talking about larger multinational companies.
One reason why this is important—the member for North Sydney talks about regulatory impact and the disincentives for businesses to come and set up here in Australia. One way you can discourage businesses to set up is to slug them with a big tax, a $20 billion paid parental leave tax.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: It is relevant because one of the threshold tests for that tax is that you have to have a $5 million taxable income. As the member for North Sydney scurries out of the chamber, what he will not do is tell the Australian people who are the 3,000-plus companies that will be stuck paying that levy. In fact, he cannot tell the Australian people who they are because we do not actually know who they are. We do not know who the companies are that are going to be slugged with that tax. He came in here and said he is concerned about reputational damage to companies, yet he went through and named a handful of companies. If he is fair dinkum, his paid parental leave tax will slug businesses. We do not even know who is on that hit list. Who are those 3,000-plus companies? I tell you what: the Australian people deserve to know. They deserve to know when it comes to transparency.
Mr Robert: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. Looking at amendments (2) and (5), I see no indication or relevance at all to paid parental leave schemes in relation to where the amendments to this bill are going.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The Assistant Treasurer will be relevant to the amendments before the chair.
Mr BRADBURY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being absolutely relevant. This is about tax transparency. They have a new tax they want to slug people with, and it goes to the question of eligibility. You pay that paid parental leave tax if you have a taxable income of $5 million or more. Now we do not know who those companies are, and maybe that is why the opposition are opposed this measure because they do not want the hit list of companies that they are going to slug with their paid parental leave tax to be known.
I can tell you that on the question of $5 million taxable income there will be multinational companies that do not qualify to pay paid parental leave tax, and there will be lots of small- and medium-sized Australian companies that will get slugged with this $20 billion tax. It is no wonder they are going to great lengths to try to conceal the identity of the 3,000-plus companies that will be on their hit list for their paid parental leave scheme. I reiterate the point I made earlier: do not come into this place and say, 'We want evidence that we need new powers for the tax commissioner to crack down on corporate tax loopholes,' and when we try to come up with a means of demonstrating that there is base erosion and profit shifting going on then say, 'Oh no, we don't think we can support this amendment.' They are not fair dinkum when it comes to tackling these corporate loopholes. We have brought measures into the parliament, they have opposed them every time. I am not surprised that they come in here again to oppose these measures once more.
The SPEAKER: The question is the amendments moved by the member for North Sydney be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:46]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (11:52): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013
Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (11:53): by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:54): I continue my remarks on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. There is an element of commonality that links this bill to most bills that are brought before this House by this government. The commonality is that it is a bill that introduces a new tax, or it is a bill that looks to increase the size of the bureaucracy, or it is a bill that gives more power to the government's union mates. This bill seeks to give more power to the union mates to whom this government is beholden. It is a shame.
The coalition was disappointed to discover that this bill had been granted an exemption from the requirement for a regulatory impact statement. When questioned, departmental officials at a Senate committee hearing could not provide a substantive reason for the exemption. So we have one rule for Australians and another rule for union bosses. Given that this bill will affect every employer and every employee in Australia, the coalition believes that these changes would have benefitted from a regulatory impact statement so that both the community and the parliament could have detailed understandings of what the bill entails and the expected real-world impacts it contains.
As an aside, the coalition notes that, courtesy of this exemption, a further postimplementation review of the Fair Work Act will need to be conducted within the next couple of years. But this bill has been rushed and lacks clarity. The rushed nature of the bill could explain the concerns about the distinct lack of clarity that were identified in a number of submissions to the Senate committee. For instance, the vast majority of submissions from employee and employer groups, as well as interested parties, contained a number of suggested amendments largely related to the wording of the provisions. These groups were seeking greater clarity and in the amount of time they had to deal with it they could not get their head around some of the definitions that this bill sets out. It was disappointing that the government did not take time to consult widely and to ensure that the language contained in the bill was of a sufficient quality to ensure clarity. That is what business groups were asking for.
We have seen the Prime Minister—no other than the Prime Minister—on a number of occasions come to this House and, when it comes to issues of industrial relations, say, 'We have got the balance right.' Well, we are very apprehensive about the dramatic expansion of power for union bosses right across this bill. We note that the Prime Minister is taking great pride in the Fair Work Act—it is her baby—enacted in 2008. She claimed openly that she had got the balance right. Indeed, at her first press conference as Prime Minister she said, 'I have consulted hour after hour with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders, to get the balance right.' The claim is that 'this is right'. I will now give evidence in this House to the contrary.
This is something that has been repeated and repeated, including as recently as 2012 when the Prime Minister said, 'We have built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.' It was just the other day. The coalition notes that this bill will take the count for amendments to the Fair Work Act since 2009 to more than 400 pages. So if it was balanced then and there have been another 400 pages of amendments, that is no longer balanced. 'Hours and hours and hours of consultation with business—we had it right then'. Stick on another 400 pages of amendments and it is no longer balanced.
The coalition notes with some concern the figure circulated by the Australian Industry Group that there have been 157 new or extended union rights under the Fair Work Act. Why would anyone suggest after 400 pages of amendments and 157 new or extended union rights under the Fair Work Act that it is balanced? This government is doing nothing but returning the dues to the paymaster. This is a government that is totally beholden to the labour union movement. You need to look no further than the quality of the front bench when looking for someone who does not have linkages to the union movement. It is embarrassing—the gene pool that leads this nation. There are 100 days to go until the democracy of this nation will hopefully speak as to whether or not they believe that balance is in order, because I can assure you that 400 pages of amendments—157 new extended rights to union movement—is far from balanced.
The coalition again expresses deep concern that the vast bulk of this bill does not deal with the recommendations arising from the Fair Work review. We firmly believe that two recommendations of the Fair Work review should have been enacted as a part of this bill. For example, the High Court's unanimous judgement in the Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay case found that union bosses should not be an untouchable class in the workplace—something also recommended by the review panel.
The coalition welcomed the High Court decision and the Fair Work review panel's recommendations to this end. However, the coalition found that it was disappointing and emblematic of Labor through the then minister and current minister for industrial relations that he intervened in the High Court on the side of the union bosses, as a minister, as a member of the Crown. Mr Barclay argued that it was actually the intention of the Fair Work Act to make union bosses untouchable even if they did the wrong thing. How can that be? How can it be that anyone can advocate that they have the balance right when you have High Court judges advocating that it is unsettled?
Did you know that in Labor's intervention into the Barclay case they used more than $160,000 worth of taxpayers' funds? I would not say that was getting the balance right—using our money to argue for the union bosses against a taxpayer funded education institution. I would not say that that was about getting the balance right. Indeed, in a damning judgement, it has now been confirmed that the minister for workplace relations acted as an ex-union boss first and then a minister of the Crown second, after foolishly intervening on the side of the Australian Education Union in the Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay. This was the comment of the judge, Justice Heydon:
… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing was not that of an intervener, but that of a partisan. For example, some of the Minister's oral submissions were directed to factual material. This is hardly the province of an intervener.
This is the quality of the frontbench of this government that now through this bill has to pay its dues back to the union movement. That is why this bill is before the House; no other reason. That is why this bill is here, because they owe their political lifeblood to the union movement.
The coalition is disappointed that the government did not use the first or second tranches to enshrine this recommendation into legislation, which would ensure that union bosses are treated the same as all other employees in the workplace.
Within this bill there is also antibullying legislation. We have not got the balance right in this, because what parts of this schedule speak to is that the rules only apply to the workers. The rules apply to the bosses, but they do not apply to the union bosses. They are the weapons of choice for a union: bullying and intimidation.
Mr Champion: What rubbish! What a slur!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: You will get your turn. Weapons of choice, I say. There are 100 days left to go. Here is another damning point: the provision in this bill relating to right of entry must be amended. This is a provision that must be excluded from this bill, because it is fundamentally flawed. This was a promise made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made a commitment at the National Press Club debate in 2007, straight after she—
Mr Frydenberg: Read it to us.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Ms Gillard said they would not be amending the right of entry. She said:
If you'd like me to pledge to resign, sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph, bet my house on it, give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you'd like.
And here it is in black and white in the bill before the House. This is a government that you cannot trust. This is a Prime Minister you cannot trust, because at every turn this is a government that is beholden to the union. This bill is all about paying the paymaster:
We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay. We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way. We will keep the right of entry provisions.
They walked away from that commitment. The only way that they can honour their word is to have these parts of the bill excised. Those parts of the bill must come out if Labor are to be kept to their word. Based on these promises, it was right to accept that the existing rights-of-entry provisions would be maintained. However, as we know, this is just simply not the case.
There are parts and provisions in this bill which we will adamantly oppose. There are provisions in this act that are not good for our country. There are provisions in this act that at face value are deceitful. There are 100 days left, but the Prime Minister does not need another headline about going back on her word. We have had, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' We have had, 'We will deliver a surplus and continued surpluses after that.'
Mr Frydenberg: Pink batts.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Pink batts. The list of failures goes on. Amend this bill. If there are only 100 days left, amend this bill so that the right-of-entry provisions for employees are not impeded and so that we as a nation can get back to greater productivity.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:06): The Greens welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 provides us with an opportunity to protect people's rights at work and to Abbott-proof the Fair Work Act in the event that there is a change in government in September—which, looking at the polls, looks very likely.
The Greens for many years have been staunch supporters of legislation that protects people's rights at work, gives them the opportunity to strike a better work-life balance and gives them some comfort that they are going to have a secure job. Part of the problem with the this bill is that it represents a missed opportunity. Instead of legislating early on in the life of this parliament to remove some of the last vestiges of Work Choices, we have a bill that, sadly, is being left until five minutes to midnight and that, unfortunately, looks like it is going to be amended by agreement between the government and the opposition to remove some important elements.
As many of us have been saying for some time, the Fair Work Act carries over a large number of the provisions of the provisions from Work Choices that people campaigned so strongly against. The provisions that allow workers and their unions to bargain and to organise, as respected in international law, find themselves, with the Fair Work Act, under almost identical form to that under Work Choices. Many people have been campaigning for a long time to have those provisions finally removed. One would have thought that after five years of the Labor government we would have seen some of those elements of the John Howard laws removed, but no, they remain, and it looks like they are going to remain after today.
But the Greens will try to improve this legislation. One respect in which it can be improved is by giving people better access to work-life balance. We have a situation in this country where one in four employees has no sick leave. That is an extraordinary situation. Of the OECD countries, Australia is second only to Spain when it comes to the use of a temporary workforce. Spain has a large rural workforce, so you can understand why they have so many seasonal labourers, but there is absolutely no reason for Australia to do that. As a result, we have increasing job insecurity and people working large numbers of jobs just to earn enough income. We also have people working extraordinarily long hours. Not only is it insecure work but also many people are working long hours. Half of the people in this country would rather work a different set of hours to those they are currently working, even taking into account the fact that it might mean that they will lose pay.
What can we do about that? We can do a number of things. We can amend this legislation to ensure that people have an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements. Flexibility should work both ways. Over the last two or three decades we have seen a lot of flexibility from the employers' side, but it should be a two-way street. We are not arguing to go back to days when everything was regulated and there was a uniform standard, but we are saying that if we are serious about flexibility then it should work both ways. We will be seeking to amend the bill to ensure that if people, especially carers, ask for a better work-life balance, and if the employer unreasonably says no, then people are able to have the right of appeal and have it tested.
There will be many instances in which it is not appropriate to allow an employee to work a certain set of hours. You should not necessarily be able to, for example, clock off halfway through fighting a fire because you have external events. There will be some businesses which simply would not be able to afford to accommodate a particular employee's needs. There will be some businesses, especially small businesses, which would find it extremely difficult. However, there are many others for which it would be very easy with a bit of creativity to do that. At the moment, under the government's bill, you can ask and the employer just has to say no for that to be it. That is it; that is the end of the line. It could be the most unreasonable of all requests or it could have an enormous impact on you and the people that you are looking after, but the employer is able to say no. We will be proposing that the bill has some teeth in that respect and that the Fair Work Commission is able to balance the legitimate needs of employees with the legitimate needs of the businesses that employ them.
What we have also seen during the last few years of this government are some holes in the Fair Work Act. We have seen with the Qantas dispute, for example, the use of tactical industrial action by employers. We have seen Qantas realise that it was not going to be able to negotiate a satisfactory outcome and that some of the things the employees wanted—for example, clauses around job security—were not going to be able to be reached as an outcome. So what did it do? It fast-tracked arbitration by holding a gun to the nation's head. It grounded its airline fleet, and as a result we ended up in Fair Work Australia within a very short period and it got the arbitrated outcome it wanted, with nothing in it as far as job security was concerned.
We have also seen, in my home state of Victoria, an opposite tactic being employed with nurses, for example. The government says, 'We know that if we get to arbitration there will be some things where we will get a good deal and there will be some things that nurses are seeking that aren't even going to be delivered at the arbitral outcome—for example, nurse/patient ratios.' There are constitutional issues at the moment as to whether the Fair Work Commission has the power to arbitrate such things. The government knows this, so what does it do? It strings out the dispute, hoping that at some stage that nurses or the teachers will get so frustrated that they take industrial action—then you end up at Fair Work with only half the claim being arbitrated, and all the important issues, like minimum ratios, do not find their way into the decision.
It is possible to fix that. We have seen that these are flaws in the act, and it is possible to fix that by saying, 'No, you can't come here seeking orders to terminate industrial action unless you're going to settle the whole dispute.' It is possible to fix it by saying: 'You can't come here unless you have clean hands. If you have just grounded your whole fleet in an attempt to get an arbitrated outcome that you like then we're going to send you back to keep bargaining—you must come to the Fair Work Commission with clean hands.' We will be moving amendments to fix that.
One of the other missed opportunities in this bill is the ability to address the growing problem of job insecurity. As I said at the start, when one in four workers in this country does not have sick leave because they are on some form of casual arrangement, we have a problem. When in the higher education sector, for example, only about a third of the people are in ongoing employment—and we are not talking here about the lifetime tenure professor that people might think of; we are talking about simple ongoing employment—and the other two-thirds are on some form of rolling contracts or casual work, we have a problem.
In some businesses, of course, it is going to be appropriate to use casual labour or fixed-term labour—of course; no problem with that. But why is it that in our schools and in our universities, where we know there is going to be work from year to year, some people find themselves at the end of the year not knowing if they are going to have a job the next year for a 10-year cycle? Why should a university researcher or lecturer be waiting until October to find out whether they are going to have a job next year, when they know the university has secure funding for a number of years to come? Why is it that teachers are not able to apply for mortgages because they are on rolling contracts from year to year to year? Why is that workers around the country are unable to make decisions about starting a family or buying a house because their work is insecure? That should not be the case, and it should especially not be the case in those sectors that are reliant on government funding, like education. We will be moving amendments in an attempt to address some of those issues.
I would hope that, by the time that this legislation leaves this place, we have taken up the opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have been in our industrial laws for some time. I would very much hope that we do not have the situation where the government and the opposition work together to remove what are some good provisions of this bill. I fear that that may be the case—and a lot of people would have a quite legitimate right to be disappointed by that.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (12:17): It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, but it is not my pleasure to follow the member for Melbourne—the Greens member for Melbourne—because he does not disclose his interests in this place; namely, that before the last election the Greens received $325,000 from the Victorian branch of the Electrical Trade Union, and $125,000 went to the member for Melbourne for his campaign there and $200,000 went to Senator Richard Di Natale.
Mr Champion: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a bill about industrial relations, about Fair Work Australia; it is not a bill about electoral disclosure or electoral funding.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): The honourable member will address the bill before the chair.
Mr FRYDENBERG: It is a relevant point, though, to mention the money that has been received by the Greens from the union movement. But I rise to speak on this bill, which is the latest example of the Labor Party pandering to the union movement. The Labor Party is not interested in productivity gains. The Labor Party is not interested in increasing employment. It is interested only in paying back its union master. But that should not be of any surprise to us, because, if you go to the Labor caucus, you find that 100 per cent of them are members of the union and, if you go to a Labor federal or state national conference, the unions automatically have 50 per cent of the votes. Why is that important here? It is important because the union movement is only 13 per cent of the private sector workforce of Australia and just under 20 per cent if you take into account the public sector.
So what we have seen under this government—and this Fair Work Amendment Bill is just another example of this—is increased union power right across the board. We have seen increased union power in right of entry. We have seen increased union power in greenfield sites. We have seen increased union power in the ability to strike first and talk later. We have seen increased union representation on the Fair Work Commission. This is no surprise, when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in this country is the former National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union. But do not take my word for it; take the word of Kathy Jackson. Kathy Jackson, the former head of the HSU, said that the member for Maribyrnong is 'Dracula in charge of the blood bank'. That is what she said about the minister for workplace relations.
We have seen many scandals involving unions. We saw the situation with the member for Dobell. We have seen the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—a very positive institution set up by the previous Howard government that came out of the Cole royal commission. It was designed to stop lawlessness in the building sector. Across this country, particularly in Victoria and Western Australia, it was doing a very important job of providing a cop on the beat. But the Labor Party, together with the unions and the Greens, came into this place and abolished the ABCC. That was a very bad thing for Australian workplaces and for the Australian people.
This Fair Work Amendment Bill breaks another solemn promise of the Prime Minister to the Australian people. We have seen her broken promises on private health insurance. We have seen her broken promises on the family tax benefit. We have seen her broken promises on the carbon tax. And now we are seeing her broken promises on the Fair Work Act. The Prime Minister claimed that she 'consulted for hour after hour with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders to get the balance right' and, 'We have built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.' But they have not got the balance right. Again, you do not need to take the coalition's word for it; you need only look at what Innes Willox, the head of the Australian Industry Group, said in an interview on the ABC. He said that there are:
… about 160 different measures under the Fair Work Act mark one and two which are very clearly pro-union and we can't find one, not one, that is pro-employer under the Act.
That is a pretty amazing statement from the head of the Australian Industry Group. That is not a coalition MP speaking; that is the head of a major organisation in this country.
My concern about the bill before this House is that it has not followed proper process. There has not been a regulatory impact statement. In fact, when members of the department responsible came before the Senate committee they could not explain why there had been an exemption of this bill from getting a proper regulatory impact statement. Another thing that concerns me about this bill is that it does not include the recommendations that came forward from the government's own Fair Work review panel. The government hand-picked a number of people to provide a review which was supposed to lead to some significant changes to the Fair Work Act to make it more balanced and more productivity focused. What did they do? They have not taken up the recommendations.
One such recommendation was saying union bosses in the workplace should be treated as any other employee. That came out of the Bendigo TAFE case. Something very interesting also came out of the Bendigo TAFE case, and that is what a Justice of the High Court, Justice Heydon, said in the decision of the High Court about the Labor government's intervention by the minister responsible:
… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing has not been that of an intervener, but that of a partisan.
That is what we have from this government. We do not have from this government an independent, even hand in industrial relations. We have from this government interventions based on what is in the unions' interest. In this bill, again, we see many examples of that. For example, in this bill, the right-of-entry provisions are much more punitive and will not enhance productivity and jobs growth in our country and in our workplaces.
One of the amendments that the government would like to promote is that, where the employer and employees cannot agree on a meeting place, the default meeting place is in the lunch room. There are going to be many people sitting in their lunch rooms wanting to have their burger and fries and Coke in peace and quiet, but they are going to have union representatives come into their place, interrupt their lunch and try to sign them up. It is what you have done in terms of childcare workforces and the aged-care workforces where you have tried to boost the flagging membership of the union movement by making some payments to those sectors contingent upon increasing your membership. You are doing it again and it is outrageous. It is an abuse of power and it is an abuse of process. What about the fact that 87 per cent of the private sector workforce in this country have decided not to join a union, but they cannot eat their burger and chips in quiet? What do you say about that? In fact, this was not even a recommendation of the government's hand-picked Fair Work review panel. This is all about union membership.
What about the other recommendation that this government is seeking to implement through this legislation to make employers liable for the transport costs when unions want to use their right of entry in a remote location? You are asking the employer to pay for the union rep to try and recruit employees to join a union. How outrageous is that! Do not take my word for it; take the employers' word for it. For example, the Australian Mines and Metals Association has said that this could lead to an increase of some $30,000 in costs on some occasions, just because you want to recruit more members. Those costs will come straight off the bottom line of a company, and who will they be passed on to? They will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. By deciding to go and recruit members for your flagging unions, you have decided to pass on higher costs to the Australian consumers. I think this is absolutely outrageous, particularly when you consider that the Prime Minister had promised that she would not change the right-of-entry provisions. How about this quote from the National Press Club debate in November 2007. The Prime Minister of today said:
I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign, to sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph, bet my house on it, give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you like.
That is what she said when she promised not to change the right-of-entry provisions. Now we have seen those right-of-entry provisions, and they have opened the floodgates to the unions to interrupt the workplaces of hardworking Australians and their employers. The AWU made 156 site visits to BHP's Worsley aluminium site just in 2012. The Pluto site saw more than 200 visits from the union in just the first 90 days of the Fair Work Act. That is the evidence that there has been a graphic abuse of process by those opposite and their mates in the unions.
What about, in this legislation, your decision to legislate to create more flexible working arrangements? That is already occurring. We heard from the Fair Work Ombudsman and from the department that that is already happening, but you want to legislate for it. If you really want to legislate to increase flexibility in the workplace, why don't you extend the termination date for the individual flexibility agreements from 28 days to 90 days? That was recommended by your own hand-picked review. Why don't you do something about that?
The other change that you want to put forward in this bill is employers consulting with employees around roster changes. That is already standard practice. For those on the opposite side who do not understand modern-day awards, that is already in there. What you are on about here is opening the floodgates and making it impractical for employers to run a business, to employ people, to boost productivity and to replicate the successes of the Howard government.
What about bullying? When it comes to bullying, we take it very seriously. We take it extremely seriously, but we do not accept what you are providing for in this bill. There is nothing in this bill that says that if a union official is a bully then he should pay a price for it. We want to see an amendment that holds union officials to the same level of account. We also want employees to first seek help and advice from an independent regulatory agency, such as Safe Work Australia or the Fair Work Ombudsman. If they confirm that behaviour may constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered then that must be done prior to the lodging with the commission. I have news for those on the other side: their hand-picked chair of the Fair Work review supported our policy on this.
When we were in government we had a suite of industrial relations policies which improved the Australian economy. We delivered a 22 per cent increase in real wages. We restored the AAA credit rating of this country. We paid back $96 billion of debt. On the waterfront, we doubled the speed and rate of the cranes being moved. We did all those things and we paid back all your debt that you are now burdening future generations with. But with your policies, your pandering to the union movement, your abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and your reregulation of the workplace, you are taking us backwards to before Paul Keating's reforms.
No wonder you are being hounded out of office, and every business leader from here to Timbuktu is criticising you for putting unions first and employers last. By doing that you are defeating the best interests of the employees. You are hurting productivity in this country. (Time expired.)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (12:32): It is always a pleasure to follow my esteemed colleague.
Mr Champion: Not for me, it isn't.
Mr VAN MANEN: The member for Wakefield always has some contribution to the debate, but it is usually not very helpful. Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. Again we see this Labor government trying to rush another bill through this parliament. As a result, once again, there is concern about a lack of clarity that was identified in a number of submissions to the Senate committee. This bill has been rushed right past interest groups, including employee and employer groups that made a number of suggested amendments which focused heavily on improving the wording of provisions to provide greater clarity.
The bulk of this rushed bill does not even deal with the recommendations arising from the Fair Work review. But are we really surprised? Prior to today, this bill was geared to provide significant additional rights to union bosses. Furthermore, it glosses over many things that already occur in Australian workplaces, because at the end of the day employers and employees in the majority of cases work together for the best outcomes for both parties. However, seeing that the government has addressed the bulk of the coalition's concerns we are now in a position to support this bill.
Earlier this week, I spoke about a number of broken promises by this Labor government. We almost added another to that list, because the Prime Minister said there would be no changes to union right-of-entry laws. Since the Fair Work Act came into effect we have seen an onslaught of visits. These visits usually serve two purposes: either to hunt for potential members or to intimidate. Eighty-seven per cent of the Australian private sector workers who actively choose not to join a union will be constantly badgered by union bosses to sign up for membership. It was recently reported that the Australian Workers Union made 156 site visits to BHP's Worsley aluminium site in 2012 and 175 in 2011. The Pluto project experienced more than 200 union site visits in the first 90 days of the act. You can imagine where these numbers would have led to with even more power being given to unions before today's changes. Thankfully, the government has decided not to proceed with the right-of-entry provisions.
The bill still makes a number of amendments to the Fair Work Act, which include the modern awards objective. First, the bill inserts a new modern award objective to protect penalty rates. The Fair Work Commission will have to take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working overtime, unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours, or on weekends, public holidays or shifts. As a coalition we do not believe the parliament should be in the business of legislating the detail of each and every modern award, taking account of flexibility that may be required in a range of different sectors of employment.
Secondly, the bill seeks to extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to employees: for example, those with caring responsibilities, those who are parents or responsible for the care of school-aged children, those who might care for someone older or with a disability or those supporting immediate family members or household members. The bill also explicitly states that employees returning from parental leave have a right to request part-time work. Those issues in the bill are perfectly sensible.
However, most of it already happens in workplaces across this country and the need to actually legislate these provisions is an additional red-tape burden and regulation on the business community. The proposed legislation also inserts a new subsection 65(1A) that sets out a 'non-exhaustive' list for 'reasonable business grounds' to refuse these requests. This includes an excessive cost of accommodating the request; a lack of capacity to recognise other employees' work arrangements to accommodate the request; the impracticality of any arrangement that would need to be put in place to accommodate the request, including the need to recruit replacement staff, significant loss of efficiency or productivity; and a significant impact on customer service. What this essentially means is that the government is legislating something that already exists in workplaces right around the country—the ability to request flexible working arrangements from your boss.
The bill also talks about genuine consultation on changes to rosters and hours. The bill provides for insertion in awards and agreements of a new 'genuine consultation' requirement for changes to rosters or working hours. It will be mandatory for employers to consult on proposals to change hours or rosters that do not amount to 'major workplace change'. Employers must give the employees information about the change and invite the employees to air their views about the effect of the change. Again here we see for the first time the government attempting to legislate conditions around roster changes. Seriously, I would suggest that it is common practice that employees are consulted on changes to their rostering arrangements. If employers want to have good, productive relationships with their employees and in their workplaces, I would suggest that these changes are regularly discussed with the affected employees before any changes are made.
The bill extends from three weeks to eight weeks the concurrent unpaid parental leave that eligible members of an employee couple can take. The bill also goes on to extend to pregnant employees with less than 12 months service the right to be transferred to a safe job if they are fit for work but are unable to continue in their current position because of illness or risks to their pregnancy. If there is no safe job, employees who have longer than 12 months service will be entitled to unpaid leave. The bill will also provide that taking unpaid special maternity leave does not reduce the employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave—restating, interestingly, the Work Choices position.
The bill also had a clause in relation to antibullying. The bill gives workers the right to seek rapid remedies through the Fair Work Commission if a worker is bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals and the conduct creates a health and safety risk. We take the issue of workplace bullying very seriously and are disappointed that the government did not see fit to deal with this issue in a separate bill to ensure the necessary and thorough oversight.
With this in mind we would at least like to see the following amendments included in the bill: insert a filter mechanism which will require claimants to approach an independent regulatory agency such as the Fair Work Ombudsman or Safe Work Australia confirming that the behaviour in question does or may constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered prior to the claim lodged with the commission. This is something that has been supported by the government's hand-picked Fair Work reviewer, Professor Ron MacCallum. Also, specifically include all forms of bullying, including that conducted by union bosses.
There are also some minor technical amendments to the bill to correct the rushed first amendment bill. I would like to add here that it would be very helpful for everyone involved if the government took more care when drafting bills. I point to this particular amendment as a result of what happens when this government continually rushes bills through this parliament for political purposes, without the appropriate time for consideration. Two or three days is not an appropriate amount of time to consider such matters. To say that this government has form in this regard would be an understatement. We only need to look at the past few days with the education bill and the budget bills. There is a whole long list of bills where this is exactly the case. We constantly come back to this place seeing amendments and changes made to correct drafting errors or bits they have missed out. It is an incredibly inefficient way to govern this country and gives nobody certainty or consistency.
There is a better way. The coalition has recently released our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. Our policy will improve the prospects of real higher wages for Australian workers, lift standards of behaviour in trade unions, make it easier for small business to employ people and lift Australia's productive capacity. All Australians want harmonious, productive and smart workplaces where effort is rewarded, loyalty is encouraged and where businesses and their employees share in the success of that enterprise. We want to see the take-home wages of Australian workers increase, just as they did under the coalition government from 1997 to 2007. Average real wages grew by 21.5 per cent.
Under our policy, no Australian worker will be worse off and business will be encouraged to grow. The real priority for our real solutions plan is to build a stronger, more productive and diverse economy that delivers more jobs, higher wages and better services for all Australians. That is why we can say with certainty that no Australian worker or business will go backwards because of this policy. This policy will, however, make life more difficult for militant building unions and dishonest union officials who continue to abuse their position. We make no apology for that. Australians have seen enough from the excesses of the Health Services Union and allegations surrounding the AWU to know something is very wrong with the standards and culture of some important national unions. We know that those who profit from such abuses will fight against these common-sense changes.
Our policy seeks to improve the current Fair Work laws by providing common-sense solutions to practical problems such as ensuring that right-of-entry provisions are sensible and not abused, providing practical help to small businesses within the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman and tackling lawlessness on building sites and construction projects by re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These sensible and common-sense measures will address the flexibility, militancy and productivity problems that exist within the operation of the current system. Our changes are about helping our workplace relations system work better for all concerned.
Unlike Labor, who say one thing before an election and do another thing after it, we will keep our word. We will not deliver less than our policy and we will go no further. If elected, these are the only changes that an incoming coalition government will make in a first term. The centrepiece of our economic agenda is to create one million new jobs within five years and two million jobs within 10 years. We will achieve this aim through dynamic, harmonious and productive workplaces where employers and employees share the benefits of growth. It is through our commitment to deliver stronger workplaces, lower taxes and more efficient government that the next coalition government will deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:46): It is a privilege to rise to speak on this, another one of the Fair Work amendment bills that this government has rushed into the parliament.
Mr Champion: I hope you do better, Jamie.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Cheeseman ): The honourable member for Wakefield!
Mr BRIGGS: I thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might need a fair bit of it during this contribution. It is a terrific opportunity to speak on this very important bill, and I say 'very important' because in the bill's original iteration it explained to the House and to the Australian public just where this government is at. This is a government leading into an election where they have obviously got some challenges. It seems that through this bill in this parliament, talking directly to the bill, they are trying to provide some circumstances to protect some of their friends into the future by ensuring that the unions have protections for future operations. It is all part of the same entity. Labor members opposite largely, proudly—and I will say that for the member for Wakefield—have a long service in the union movement. I am not sure about the Assistant Treasurer. I think the Assistant Treasurer was a tax lawyer at Mallesons. I am not sure there was a union involvement anywhere. It was not Mallesons. I correct the record. But I do not think he has a union background. We may need to check this and he can correct me if I am wrong.
Mr Bradbury: No, I am a unionist.
Mr BRIGGS: A union member, right. There we are.
Mr Champion: It's not a crime.
Mr BRIGGS: No-one says it is a crime. In fact, it is legal to be a member of a union in Australia.
Mr Champion: You will fix that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mayo will be heard in silence.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I predicted, I thought I might need a bit of it.
Mr Bradbury: It's union thugs!
Mr BRIGGS: That is right, an example of union thugs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is not helping, and the member for Wakefield will sit there in complete silence.
Mr BRIGGS: That would be terrific, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was present during the member for Wakefield's contribution on this bill earlier in the week and I guess it gets back to the old saying that what goes around comes around. The point I was making is that I think the latest statistic we have is that about 90 per cent of those in the Labor caucus are former union bosses of some description. It is something that many of them are very proud of. The member for Wakefield is first among equals there.
Go to the Labor Party website and have a look at the backgrounds of the MPs and the candidates who are running, obviously, as hard as they can at the moment in most seats—it is true that Labor has not preselected in all its seats at the moment; I am not sure why that is. What really surprises me is that if you try to discover where they worked prior to entering parliament—the member for Wakefield, for instance—you will find that that is very difficult to establish. It is a fascinating thing that, for people who are so proud of the fact that they are former union bosses—I think it is 90 per cent of them—it is very difficult to establish from the profiles on the Labor Party website that that was their career. I often ask myself: why would that be, with such pride in their contributions to their union over time? I acknowledge that the member for Wakefield did good things; he helped Bridgestone workers. I know that one of his proud achievements is that, when Bridgestone closed factories in Adelaide, he was there helping those workers out. I acknowledge that the union movement has done great work for people over the decades where necessary. My great-grandfather was the longest serving secretary of the Miscellaneous Workers Union in Victoria during the 1960s. That is a fact that some people find surprising. It is a fact that a former employer of mine found a little odd.
I acknowledge that some trade union members have done great work. So it does surprise me, and it perplexes me, to be honest, that despite such pride in being a union boss—or a union lawyer, as we know the Prime Minister was—that fact is not up in lights on the websites of these Labor members and candidates. I cannot figure out what the reason for that might be. Maybe it is that the Labor Party is increasingly ashamed of the fact that it has to stand by members of parliament who used to be presidents, for instance, of a once great union; stand by members of parliament on behalf of their once great party who have misused thousands—allegedly millions—of dollars of funds, who have misused the contributions of hardworking people who push trolleys up hospital corridors. I know there are those on the other side who, if that has been the case, find it completely abhorrent, want it to be sorted out and want people to be prosecuted appropriately. It is right for them to think that, because there is a black cloud hanging over the trade union movement in the country right now. It is sad, because many thousands of workers join unions for a good purpose: to receive advice and services as they require, particularly at the lower level of the wage bracket. It is a sad thing that those union members are now saying to themselves, 'Why was it that I contributed that money that was then used for things such as the alleged procurement of adult services?' That is something I think is a real shame for the Labor Party. I wonder if there is a correlation between that and the fact that I cannot find any link on any website that says that 90 per cent of them are former union bosses.
When I was here, I think it was on Tuesday, listening to the member for Wakefield make his contribution to the debate on this bill, I heard him start by talking about the pride he has in Australia having the highest minimum wage in the world.
Mr Champion: Indeed!
Mr BRIGGS: He says, 'Indeed!' I acknowledge that. One of the great achievements of the Howard government was being the first government in the history of the Commonwealth to put the minimum wage in legislation. I see that the member for Wakefield is nodding his head. He acknowledges that that was the case. John Howard put the minimum wage in legislation for the first time in the history of our country. Member for Wakefield: we support the minimum wage. You can see our commitment to it, because we put it in legislation at that time. Do you know what, Member for Wakefield? The Labor Party opposed the bill. It opposed the putting of the minimum wage into legislation.
Mr Champion: What was the bill called?
Mr BRIGGS: It was the workplace relations reform bill, Member for Wakefield. It put in place the minimum wage in Commonwealth law for the first time. The member for Wakefield was going on about how this was an important thing in his contribution on this bill. The point that the member for Wakefield does not make is that with industrial relations in this country, as across the globe, there is balance. There is a balance between those on the inside of the employment market, the employed, and those on the outside of the employment market—this category is growing—called the unemployed.
Mr Champion: How do you deal with 457 visas?
Mr BRIGGS: We will get to that. It is interesting you raise that point. The problem with the Labor Party on this subject is they are like kids in a candy shop. They have got their instructions from their industrial arm. Let us work through the SDA example just because the member for Wakefield is here.
It depends which union you work for, but the process is you start off as a union organiser, commonly known as the 'shoppies', and Don gives you the approval to go up to the next step. And then you go, 'I am not sure all the union bosses in this place did start off as workers,' and that may be one of the issues. You then end up getting in the right faction and, depending on the power of your faction, you get placed into a parliament. Some get placed into the upper house in the state parliament of South Australia—we remember those sorts of people; some get placed into safe seats in a state parliament; and some get placed into what were formerly safe seats in the federal parliament. Occasionally they turn them into marginal seats and occasionally do it the other way, which is less usual. That is generally the process, so there are a lot of former union bosses on that side, as I have established already in this contribution.
What unions and, therefore, their political arm, the Labor Party, do not ever argue for when it comes to workplace relations is a balance that encourages those who are not in the employment club to take the opportunity to join that employment club. That is where our policy is in contrast to theirs. This Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 is focused on union power and on protecting those in the system, the people with a job who are members of a union. But, the more regulation there is of people's workplaces, the harder it is for employers and employees to be able to create more opportunities for more people, and that is where we are focused.
The difference between us and the Labor Party on this subject is stark. The Labor Party legislate for unions. They legislate for the worst circumstance. They presume all bosses are evil and that all bosses will seek at some point in time to do damage or inflict some pain on their workforce rather than trusting that, instinctively, employers want to get on and do well and small-business people want to get on and do well.
Let us take a scenario. Let us say I own a pie shop. I have a couple of employees and the pie shop is going well, putting aside a couple of customers who occasionally get—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is not helping.
Mr BRIGGS: he is a serial offender—putting aside a couple of customers occasionally who may try and bully the owner of the pie shop—
Mr Hartsuyker: Who would do that?
Mr BRIGGS: There have been reports that pie shop workers are not safe. There will be no pie shop workers safe under a government I lead—or an opposition I lead, as the case may be!
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: I am not the one that went to the Fin Review and started talking about it. I digress because I am being encouraged to digress by the member for Wakefield. Let us go back to the scenario of owning a pie shop. I own a pie shop; I have a couple of employees; and I have some difficult customers from time to time—in the event that the pie is cold, for instance, and the customer is not happy and expresses his concern. What I want in that circumstance is to be able to grow my pie shop—grow the pie, so to speak, and make the pie bigger and maybe hotter.
Mr Champion: It is a big pie for all.
Mr BRIGGS: It is more pie for all, more satisfied customers, less bullying of pie shop workers. Let us have that. Let us make that a policy. No bullying of pie shop workers under a government Tony Abbott leads. How does that sound? That will be a policy we will pursue with vigour. What we want is a scenario where the industrial relations laws trust the pie shop owner and the pie shop workers that they want to get on; open at the times their customers want them open; and work together to create more opportunity to make that business as prosperous as it can possibly be—putting aside angry complaints about cold pies.
That is the pursuit that this side of the House wants and it is the desire of the Australian public and the desire of the industrial relations system—an industrial relations system which returns itself to the sensible centre if there is a change of government in approximately 99 days and 18 hours. We think that what the government is doing here is rewarding its mates—it did this in the budget by giving them money to get back through donations in an election campaign. This is more law, and we acknowledge that there have been some amendments because the bill was so flawed when it came to the parliament that even that quasi-Labor member, the member for New England, stood against it. They have changed and accepted some amendments.
We think this is a bad direction, and we have said that for some time. Australia has a productivity problem and we have to improve our productivity performance. We have a competitiveness problem increasingly against our international competitors. We live in a globalised society and world. There are many who would like to whip up a scare campaign in the community about that. We have to compete. We have to be as lean and mean and hungry as we can to compete, especially small business.
Mr Katter: Chinese wages. That would help.
Mr BRIGGS: The member for Kennedy will play every campaign trick he can and he will have the member for Wakefield who is trying to conjure up his inner Calwell. This is another bad Labor bill delivered by a government that is in chaos and dysfunction on a daily basis. We think it is a government that in 99 days the Australian people should ditch.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:01): The wonderful thing about my position is that when I stand up to speak on industrial matters I do so having been a member of the only government that has ever stood up to a union seriously when they were right over the fence. It was arguably one of the more brutal confrontations in recent Australian history. I have never resiled from the fact that I was a key player. The lights were turned off in major parts of Brisbane for over two weeks. That was the confrontation and from that point forward there was a backdown on excessive behaviour. There has been a backdown to a point now where unions in a lot of cases have become supine and, I might even say, in some cases grovelling. It is more important for them to achieve site coverage than it is for them to represent their workers. In those days one had to stand one's ground against excessive demands from the trade unions, but now I find myself, holding the same moderate position that I think I held then, having to go in the other direction.
The previous speaker said we were non competitive. Of course we are—you want a free trade deal with China. There is only one way to be competitive and that is to go down to Chinese wages. I do not doubt for a moment that the heartland of Liberal philosophy would have us go down to Chinese wages. I heard one of the biggest disasters in Australian history, Mr Paul Keating, tell us that we were going to move in a free and open economic society—that Australia would be the freest economy on earth—and he most certainly delivered on that promise. When I heard him say that, I asked myself: 'Is this person mad? Are we going to pay Chinese wages in Australia?' If you are going to have a free trade deal with China, you can close everything down in this country. Although I must admit I have not heard it recently, people in this House sometimes say we are going to be the food bowl of Asia. Those of us who come out of agricultural areas laugh. It is probably preferable that we laugh than cry. We will be net importers of food from Asia.
Let me be very specific. I have said this before in the House: if you draw a graph of the production of prawn and fish farming in China, it is almost a vertical graph. If you extrapolate on for 40 or 50 years, all of the world's protein will come from China. I cannot mention his name without his permission, but one of the biggest food wholesalers in Australia is about to get bumblebees, and I said, 'What do you need bumblebees for?' He said, 'Because you've got to stop the tomatoes coming in from China.' I do not want to go sideways on that issue again—I spoke about it before—but tomatoes will be coming in from China. The Tasmanians have told me that there are more apples and apple products coming in from China than we produce in Australia. Just wake up to yourselves, you stupid people. Your country, in three years time, will be a net importer of food thanks to the free market policies of the government and of the Liberal Party and their running dogs, as they used to be called, the National Party—the rubber stamps that come in here called the National Party.
Mr Chester: Try to be relevant once, Bob.
Mr KATTER: Well, I cannot think of one time that the National Party has taken a stand and confronted the Liberal Party in my 20 years here. Maybe there is an instance and my memory is playing tricks upon me, but I cannot remember what it was. But I do remember—unfortunately, for people like you who have been in here two minutes—the great Doug Anthony when he stood up and said, 'You will bring down the dollar or I will bring down the government.' That was a party which we will remember.
Mr Chester: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: we are debating the Fair Work Amendment Bill, and the member for Kennedy has not yet addressed the topic.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Cheeseman ): The member for Kennedy is being rather wide ranging in his comments, and I do ask him if he could restrict his comments to the bill.
Mr KATTER: Thank you for the contribution, because I do want to get on to the bill. So I thank the interjector. But I was enjoying myself so much that I got sidetracked.
I was brought up as a little kid. You can read about it in my book, as I always say—$36 at every good bookstore and a moderate bestseller, I am forced to add out of humility. As a little kid I was brought up in the Labor tradition. We were not labourers or employees. In fact, on my father's side we were always wealthy and, some of our critics would say, powerful people for many generations in Australia. I will not deny that or resile from that. But when one in 31 of the people in Charters Towers went down the mine and never came back up again, and one in 31 of those that went down the mines in Bendigo and Ballarat or the mines in New South Wales and Western Australia never came back up again, my great-grandad thought it was his duty as a decent citizen and a patriotic Australian to stop that from happening. To stop that from happening, we had to form the Labor Party. There was no alternative to that, and I very proudly recall—it is in all the history books—that my great-grandad gave 3,000 pounds, which is nearly $1 million in today's money, to the strike fund in 1894. What we won at the turn of the last century was the right to arbitration. When we went on strike and tried to get decent pay, we were smashed to pieces. We were shot dead; there were three people shot dead at Dagworth Station over our fight to secure arbitration. Two weeks after that shoot-out at Dagworth Station—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Mr KATTER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I find it a little bit difficult, because the person at the front bench here is talking continuously, and fairly loudly as well. So could you shut him up, please?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think they have paid some note to the member for Kennedy.
Mr KATTER: They introduced a concept called arbitration. As the previous leader of the Labor Party recalled, the first head of the arbitration court said that, when there is a contract of one, there is no contract. That is a profound concept. So we got arbitration and, funnily enough, from an enlightened Tory. The first arbitration in Australia came through George Reid as Premier of New South Wales. He introduced arbitration as law so that by right a worker had the right to arbitration if he wanted a fair go; he did not have to go on strike and go hungry, be shot dead, in some cases, or be thrown in jail for three years hard labour, as the entire executive of the AWU was in Queensland. He did not have to do those things. He could go in a civilised manner to an arbitration court and put his case. The employer could also go in a civilised manner to arbitration and put his case. We were a civilised society.
An incident that occurred last night in a Rugby League game indicated a not very pleasant side of not having a referee. The Liberal Party abolished arbitration in this country, so now we are playing football without a referee. That suited them because they represent the more powerful party, the powerful corporations, who are almost all foreign corporations. The Liberal Party represent the foreign corporations that own this country. All of our mining companies, all of our dairy factories, all of our sugar mills are foreign owned. Almost all of our factories—not that we have got many left—are foreign owned. So, representing their masters, the corporations, they abolished arbitration. We people of Australia might be dumb but we ain't that dumb, and a very good man lost his seat in parliament. Only twice in Australian history has a Prime Minister lost his seat in parliament, and on both occasions that Prime Minister abolished the arbitration system.
The sad news I have for the people of Australia is that you have not got it back. The ALP will lose office, and the historical record will read that they gave you back your arbitration commission but it is a catch-22: you cannot get into it. You can only get into it by way of strike, and even then it cannot arbitrate on the questions at issue. It can only arbitrate on the issue of the strike. I have spoken many times, thinking that they could, but I was incorrect. I thought that so long as you had a strike you could then get into the arbitration commission and secure arbitration. For the powerful unions that is all right. For that five per cent of the workforce that belong to powerful, good unions—some might say bad unions but I will say at least they are very aggressive on behalf of their membership—it is all right. But the other 95 per cent could go on strike as long as you like in some areas and no-one could care less. As far as the employer is concerned, you could stay out there until you go hungry.
That is why we need arbitration—so that it is fair to both sides. We are a civilised society; we do not play football without a referee. The fact is that the ALP did not give access to arbitration except in a very limited way by way of a strike. It was the only way you could you get into the arbitration commission. They will be remembered in the history books. Every one of them that sat in this parliament voted for legislation along those lines.
Please God that we will be able, before this parliament dies, to put back into this parliament—we have urged everyone in the Labor Party to please give it back—our right to arbitration so that we do not have to go on strike to get into the arbitration commission and that when we do get in there they are able to make an award. Quite frankly, an employer is supposed to try and make ends meet, and it is very difficult, because with the free-market regime imposed upon them they are forced to either close their doors completely or go down to Chinese wages. There is no in-between here!
I have two other minor matters which I need to address. Both are very difficult areas, but the area of bullying worries me greatly. Obviously, I have worked in mustering camps on many occasions in my life, and you do not say politely to the bloke, 'Shut that gate.' That is not how it works in a mustering camp, I can assure you. And in mining, if you are hitting a shaker with a sledgehammer—as was one of my many jobs at the mines when I worked there—you do not say, 'Get off that shaker because it is about to come back at you at 64 kilometres an hour.' I am afraid that the language that is used when you address someone in that situation could very well be construed as bullying. I think in a lot of cases it would be construed as bullying.
When I jumped into the big lead flue without a safety belt on, my foreman did not say: 'Oh, Bobby, that is naughty of you! Can you please get out and put the belt on?' That was not what happened. So I am worried about right of entry—very seriously worried about right of entry—because it is a de facto way of cutting out any trade union involvement at all. All we are saying is that the worker has a right to be represented, and then he has a right to a fair go: he goes to arbitration and, please God, we get reasonable outcomes from the arbitration commission. That was the system for 100 years in this country. The system in this country was that we paid more for our wages—not like the Liberal Party, who keep saying, 'Wages are too high; we've got to compete,' which is code for saying, 'We'll work for Chinese labour wages.' (Time expired)
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:17): Mr Deputy Speaker, it might surprise you to find that I am speaking on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, because I think we have strayed from the path in recent times.
It just keeps coming: the final weeks of this parliament and the mad rush from this government to jam through ill-considered legislation. It must be said that this government has an enormous track record in this area. We are used to watching the projects unravel before our eyes and, in fact, eventually inflict damage on individuals, communities, business and the economy generally.
I welcome the minister's announcement of the withdrawal of the clauses in this bill that pertained to the increased right of entry and increased obligations of employers to fly union officials in and out of remote sites. This would certainly have led to the coalition having no choice but to oppose the raft of legislation. Certainly, those two clauses in particular are totally unpalatable. Both proposals were a blatant grab to swing the industrial pendulum even further and to wind back the industrial relations time clock to the 1970s.
Before I focus on the impact of the bill as it is now presented, I might just take a moment to examine the work of the House of Representatives committees, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, which I know you have been a very active member of. One of the consequences of the unusual circumstances that this parliament has found itself in has been the huge jump in inquiries into bills referred to the House standing committees. The demands in the last few weeks have been particularly onerous, not just for the members but probably even more importantly for the staff, because in the end the quality of the reports that are returned to the parliament to consider are underwritten by the very professional conduct of the staff assigned to the various committees.
In the case of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, it seems we have been at something of an epicentre for many of the government's last-minute attempts—after more than 5½ years in parliament, it must be said—to ram legislation through the parliament in what in effect are the dying days of the 43rd Parliament. The eleventh hour, if you like, or perhaps some would see it, in the case of this government, as five minutes to midnight.
The education and employment committee, of which I am the deputy chair, have been asked to finalise no fewer than five reports pertaining to legislation in the last few weeks and now have three more on our books that the government is demanding considered responses on by the end of next week, basically, or in those very first few days when we come back for the next sitting weeks. Clearly, this is not the way that the parliament should operate and is a sign that the government is in complete disarray. Unfortunately, in a practical sense that has impacted heavily on our report on this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, which was tabled in the House just yesterday.
On this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, the committee received 40 submissions, and 12 individuals participated in a half day of hearings in Melbourne on 24 May. Just a half day—and, for a bill that had the far-reaching ramifications that the bill presented to the committee at that time had, the half day was simply not sufficient to fully examine its full implications. Most of the consideration time, not surprisingly, was drawn to the most controversial issues, which now, as of last night, have effectively been removed from the bill. So it is disappointing to me that we did not have more time to consider those family-friendly matters that are proposed in the bill and, of course, the antibullying clause. It becomes very obvious that the chaos surrounding the government's rushed legislative program is deeply impacting on the committee's very important work of providing considered advice to the parliament. I thank the hardworking members of the secretariats that are doing their best to keep up with this almost-out-of-control flurry of activity.
Of the points that remain in the bill, I think the biggest and most controversial is the proposal to introduce an individual right of recourse for those who believe they have been bullied at work. I will spend some time focusing on that clause. Some of the very good things the committee system does provide to this parliament are the considered, in-depth analyses of major issues facing our country, and such was the case with the education and employment committee's six-month-old report Workplace bullying: we just want it to stop, in which I participated as the deputy chair. This inquiry, whose report I have here with me, was not an easy inquiry. It was very confronting for the members of the committee, primarily because we invited the public to make personal statements to the committee. We received 319 submissions, and most of them, it must be said, were from individuals who felt that they had been the victims of bullying in the workplace. Many of those were confidential. As we moved around Australia taking personal representations from the various bodies which sought to give evidence, at each hearing we allotted a time frame for individuals to come forward and tell their stories if they wished. We did not identify them apart from their initials because we felt there were possible negative impacts for them in the workplace.
It was a pretty sad story. We were not adjudicators on these individual cases and we basically only heard one side of the argument, but you could see that whether or not the bullying was real or whether or not individuals have a lower threshold for things they may consider bullying is almost irrelevant because in the end there could be no doubt that individuals were damaged by what they at least saw as bullying. But it is such a hard thing for the parliament and for that committee to actually make solid recommendations about what we should do to combat bullying in the workplace. We also had quite a revealing meeting with the parents of Brodie Panlock in Victoria. Of course, there is now a law in Victoria called Brodie's Law, and that was very influential on what the committee had to say and found in the end as well.
In any event, that inquiry made 23 recommendations to the government. I must say I am disappointed that this bill, now that it has been amended—and previously—picks up on just one of those recommendations, recommendation 23, allowing for an unspecified individual right of recourse. There was, as I said, a whole raft of different recommendations in the report, and many of them were very positive in the matter. They were looking at education and support in the workforce, informing employers of their obligations, helping employers deal with those issues within the workforce and helping the workforce understand what it is to be treated in an appropriate manner within the workforce. As I said, it is a little disappointing, then, that the minister has chosen just recommendation 23—which, if anything, is the recommendation with a bit of stick in it—and seemingly ignored the recommendations that had a bit of carrot in them.
In fact, recommendation 23 was one that the coalition members felt they could not support in the form it was presented in. I will read a short quote from our dissenting report:
Further, the Coalition Members are concerned that enabling individuals to take such action will open a door to potential abuse of the device. Frivolous actions, or even worse, actions driven by malicious intent would have the ability to tie employers up in rolling court actions for extended periods.
There is no doubt that individuals should have a way of shutting off bullying when they are affected in the workplace. They need a place to go to; we understand that. But, as it is presented in that form, it becomes the first port of call for someone who believes they are a victim of bullying. It is a concern—it was a concern to the dissenting members at least—that this would become unmanageable in the workforce and may in fact be counterproductive. If in the end the individual who feels affronted by workplace bullying decides to go to Fair Work Australia before they go to their employer, I think we have a problem.
In that light, that is why I am pleased that the coalition today is putting up an amendment to this bill which would put a filter in place and establish a prima facie case before the individual could access Fair Work Australia. It should not be seen as a shut door; it should be seen as a way of making sure individuals and employers are not accused wrongly and dragged into an industrial court without having some say in that matter. I hope that those amendments are received well in the House. I think they will improve the legislation as it is being presented.
That really is what I have to say on the bullying matter. We are broadly in support of the other matters that are brought forward—certainly the family-friendly measures. I think they actually mean very little because there is nothing to stop any employee asking for a flexible work arrangement. There are no laws in the book. In fact, in every good workplace one would expect that that is exactly what would happen. I hope once again that this is not something that becomes a case of the letter first and the approach later, because I have been an employer in the past and I know how confronting it can be to receive a letter from someone that you just saw outside the door five minutes ago. That does not lead to a friendly workforce. Certainly people with the challenges in their lives that are listed in this bill should have the right to request flexible work arrangements, but then so should everybody else that goes to work. We all have the right to request flexible working arrangements.
The other part of the bill, of course, is on the rostering. Once again, as we would hope, there seems to be no compulsion in the bill. There are no penalties for not observing what the bill is asking you to do, so once again you can ask why it is in the bill. But it is in the bill, and I do not think it is sufficiently offensive to employers Australia-wide for us to say we cannot accept that. But you do wonder, because there are no consequences, why it is in there. It would appear to me that it is largely for political purposes—marketing as we head towards the election. The government is very good at naming policies to make them sound quite different to what they are. In this case the minister—
Mr Shorten: Work Choices!
Mr RAMSEY: The minister heckles me, and well he may because I might cut too close to the bone. But it may well be that these clauses are being pushed through the parliament just for the purposes of marketing.
In closing, it has become idiosyncratic of these last few weeks that I believe there are 103 bills before the parliament, and perhaps in excess of that. It is just so difficult to believe that due process can be applied to all those bills, because not only are we down to 9½ sitting days in this chamber but there are only eight in the other place. I think that, if we are moving legislation that ties Australia up for a number of years or until the government can find time to address many of the issues that this government has got wrong, it is a dangerous time for us to be shoving these bills through the parliament when there will be no right of recourse possibly until about the first week in November.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (13:32): When I introduced the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 into the House of Representatives, I made the point that the Labor government fundamentally believes that the prosperity of Australia relies largely upon the creation of production value in Australian workplaces. This Labor government encourages productive, collaborative, innovative, profitable, safe and cooperative workplaces. This bill and the amendments the government has put forward reflect these priorities. Productivity should never be about cutting wages or entitlements. We do not support a workplace relations system that allows important protections to be undermined through a 'race to the bottom' brand of flexibility. We understand that the drivers of productivity improvement at the enterprise level are stimulated by innovation and creativity. We understand that engagement at all levels of the enterprise needs to occur not just during bargaining for an agreement or contract once every three or four years but on a day-to-day basis. Engaged employees are productive employees. Increased productivity in enterprise cannot be achieved if you disenfranchise your employees. If your highly trained employee needs to leave because they have caring responsibilities, or if a worker with a strong track record cannot return to work on a particular day because they need to balance their family arrangements, this is important. On this side of the House we understand that, for the modern family, balancing work and family time can no longer simply be described by the 1960s paradigm of 9 am to 5 pm.
This bill implements several of the recommendations of the independent Fair Work review panel, and it is the result of extensive consultation with both employer and employee stakeholders during the review and since the review report was published last year. It reflects recommendation 1 of the independent Fair Work review to include in the functions of the Fair Work Commission that it should promote cooperative and productive workplace relations. It includes new family-friendly arrangements such as further flexibility in relation to unpaid parental leave and the right of pregnant women to transfer to a safe job. It provides an expanded right to request flexible working arrangements, including for working parents, workers with caring responsibilities, workers who are of mature age or have a disability, and those suffering from family violence. It provides greater clarity about what reasonable business grounds are for employers considering and responding to such requests.
Our bill makes it clear that this Labor government believes in the value and utility of penalty rates by reflecting the government's position that work at hours which are not family friendly is fairly remunerated. This is done by amending the modern awards objective to ensure that the Fair Work Commission, in carrying out its role, must take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working outside normal hours, such as employees working overtime or on weekends. This bill includes new consultative arrangements to recognise that employees have family responsibilities outside work that can be adversely affected when changes to employees' rosters and regular working hours are proposed. Furthermore, this bill provides for reforms to the right of entry regime in response to the independent Fair Work review panel recommendations, with amendments to better balance the ability of registered organisations to represent their members professionally with the need for employers to go about their business productively.
I regret this, but I often say that the Liberal Party—the conservatives—cannot be trusted on workplace relations. It is a fact. It is a matter of record. There is ample evidence to support this assertion. There were employees who were ripped off under the last conservative government. There were employees who were sacked for no reason with no compensation under the previous conservative government. There were employers who were promised simpler workplace relations laws and better economic outcomes under the conservatives. All of these businesses and employees were betrayed.
I acknowledge the position of the members for Lyne and New England in seeking through their skills to achieve consensus on workplace relations matters. That has been my approach as well. For as long as I have been advocating for workers in workplaces, I have been trying to find harmonious cooperation between employees and employers. It has certainly been my approach since becoming the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. We have reviewed legislation and provided the opportunity for all to have their say. We have consulted on policy and we have also provided information to committees reviewing the government's legislation. As a result we have introduced and passed legislation through this parliament that has had, and will have, a profound and positive effect on Australian workers and employers.
I wish to recognise and commend the member for New England's comments reported in the media on Wednesday. He said:
This pre-election environment is not conducive to reasonable discussion on industrial relations. People on both sides have retreated to their entrenched viewpoints, with the result that the debate in the House does not have a lot of relevance to the actual content of the legislation.
This, I think, is further evidence that the conservatives on workplace relations are not all they seem to be. There has been misinformation peddled about this bill and there doesn't need to be. There has been needless fear whipped up about this bill when there doesn't need to be. This has continued after the opposition spokesperson has been briefed on the bill by my very professional department—and I should at this point acknowledge their very hard work in preparing this legislation. The opposition have continued to peddle misinformation about provisions on right of entry that have been introduced into the parliament not last week but in March of this year.
Despite all of this, the opposition was writing to the Independent members of parliament making up stories and fairy tales about helicopter joy-rides, about employers paying for union officials to invade their lunch rooms. The letter actually has a heading called 'The joy-ride scheme'. All of these things are simply untrue. The conservatives know it. Their desire to attack freedom of association and for unions to be able to represent their members knows no bounds. Their only industrial relations policy is to have a royal commission into trade unions. All they wish to do is silence dissent in the community. They will say and do anything.
We have seen this before: when they told employees that their award conditions would be protected by law, or that Work Choices was 'dead, buried and cremated'. I think a better title for their workplace relations policy would have been: 'Never let the facts get in the way of a good story'. 'Never let facts get in the way of a good story' should be the description of the conservatives. They are desperately trying to be a small target on industrial relations. They certainly have extremists in their ranks, but the pragmatic 'keep a small target before the election, don't tell the voters what's going on, hope they vote for as and don't know what we are actually going to do' faction would appear to be winning in terms of some aspects of their industrial relations policy.
But we have been here before. Before the 2004 election the then government never revealed Work Choices. They never put it before the people. They simply promoted their existing policies. The rest is history. They got into power and the power went to their heads. They used their numbers in the Senate to pass laws which were just simply bad for people—and there is not a lot of repentance on behalf of the opposition. Indeed, if you look at the re-publication of the Leader of the Opposition's book Battlelines, there is a chapter in it called 'Unfinished business'. And would you believe that in the chapter entitled 'Unfinished Business' it talks about Work Choices not being all that bad.
This is a reflection of what has been done before and it is an omen of things to come: broken promises, untruths and outcomes that disadvantage Australian workers. The proposed right of entry changes are sensible and reasonable and they deserve the support of the parliament. This Labor government will always stand up for the right of employees to be represented by a union if they so choose and to be represented by their union in the workplace. Those opposite resort to vilifying an entire movement by the actions of a few. It is a shameful and deceitful approach. I have been here in this parliament for any number of years and I have never heard the opposition have a good word to say about trade unions. They fail to recognise the trade union movement's advocacy for employees who have lost pay and conditions through Work Choices; for the workers at Ford. Indeed, they fail to acknowledge the work of the trade unions standing up for the victims of asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma.
We on this side recognise that in a free and democratic society there is a role for a democratic, independent trade union movement. We recognise the role that trade unions have played in our industrial and social history in the past and also the present. We on this side recognise that in a functioning democracy you do need to have a strong and vibrant trade union movement. Employees do need a voice. They need it in the parliament, they need it in the community and they need it at work. With the best will in the world, sometimes bad things happen to good people, and this can happen at work. Work is where we make our living. It is important that people have the right to be able to be represented when they have issues and concerns about their conditions.
The government will also shortly introduce technical and clarifying amendments, including amendments to clarify the operation of the bullying provisions in respect of members of the ADF, the AFP and our security agencies. Clarifying amendments will explain the powers that the Fair Work Commission currently exercise in conferences. This does not extend the powers of the commission; it simply clarifies the existing powers. It provides for the transitional arrangements for registered organisations disclosure and reporting obligations for a limited transitional period, and clarifies the provisions relating to the disclosure of remuneration and reimbursement to avoid unintended consequences with the amendments passed by the parliament in the last year.
We wish also with these amendments to allow the Fair Work Commission to deal by consent with unlawful dismissal claims and general protection claims relating to dismissal to avoid the complexity and expense of the parties going to court. The commission can only exercise these powers by the consent of both parties. Following discussions with the Fair Work Commission and the opposition, we also recognise that we should confirm that the commencement of the Fair Work Commission's bullying jurisdiction would be on 1 January 2014.
This bill reflects the government's commitment to improving the lives of Australian workers. We are committed to supporting business flexibility and profitability. We support productivity. I would note that, under Labor, in the last seven quarters labour productivity has increased on each occasion over seven quarters. I am pleased also to report that the average of lost time industrial action under Labor has been one-third of that under the Liberals—and, in the construction sector, an even lower rate.
This bill reflects the government's priorities. We believe in modest, balanced and pragmatic enhancements to the Fair Work Act to encourage productive, collaborative and clever workplaces. The bill reflects the government's priorities to make our workplaces safer, more cooperative and more productive. We provide certainty to employers in key areas whilst ensuring workers, especially those with family and caring responsibilities, effectively participate in the workforce.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:45): by leave—I move:
That government business have priority over members’ statements for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:46): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:47): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:47): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:48): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:49): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:50): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Penalty Rates
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:51): Mr Anthony Comino is a long-term businessman who has centred his business in Emerald. He has been operating the Western Gateway Motel for 30 years plus. For the first time he has made a decision to close his restaurant on Sunday nights and public holidays. He cited the main reason as: 'I can't afford to pay the penalty rates.' Saturdays are at time and a quarter, Sundays are at double time and public holidays are at double time and a half. Another accommodation owner in Gladstone does not employ people to clean and make up his rooms on Sundays or public holidays. Where are we going as a nation? Tourism bodies must be shaking their heads.
People who want to work at a lower hourly rate on a Sunday—say, at time and a half—to make ends meet cannot work. They are simply not given the opportunity, because some of these once viable businesses are now struggling to survive. Retailers and hospitality employers are also trying to overcome the difficulties that are presented to them with these ever so high penalty rates forced on them on the weekends. Surely awards should be used to maximise employment, not the polar opposite.
Tasmanian Hospitality Awards
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:52): I rise on this occasion to congratulate those who took out accolades at the Tasmanian Hospitality Association Awards for Excellence in Hobart on Monday night. I am pleased to inform the House that Stillwater Restaurant in Launceston won Restaurant of the Year, which is truly a testament to their excellent food and service. Stillwater is situated at the historic Ritchie's Mill, and I note that it was recently awarded a star by the Gourmet Traveller's 2013 Restaurant Guide. Congratulations to Bianca, James, Rod, Kim, and Craig on their success and I wish them all the best in the future in their endeavours.
Stillwater was not the only recipient in Bass. I note that the Minister's Award for Contribution to the Industry was awarded to Grant Beaumont of Launceston, who has worked in the industry for three decades, which is an excellent achievement. Albert Taurian, who opened Novaro's Italian Restaurant in Launceston, was also the recipient of an award.
Northern Tasmania is known for its fantastic produce, especially wine. Restaurateurs are truly taking advantage of what our region has to offer. Congratulations to the 53 businesses and enterprises that received awards in a range of categories. Hospitality is the third biggest employing industry in Tasmania, and the industry as a whole should be proud of its achievements.
Haus Krai Rally
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:53): Around 300 people turned out in force to show their support in stopping violence against women in Papua New Guinea at a recent demonstration held in Brisbane. The demonstration was one of many taking place across the country and in Papua New Guinea as part of the Haus Krai movement, which arose in response to a series of horrific attacks on women—many of them in connection with alleged sorcery. Sadly, some estimates suggest as many as 70 per cent of women in Papua New Guinea have experienced domestic or sexual violence in their lifetime.
The event was based on the traditional haus krai, which means a gathering place to remember and mourn the loss of a loved one and friend. It is a very emotional part of the bereavement process for the Papua New Guinea community, involving storytelling and singing. The Haus Krai demonstration in Brisbane saw hundreds of people marching through the CBD, from the Botanic Gardens to the Roma Street Parklands. It was remarkable to see so many from the Papua New Guinea community as well as local supporters from Brisbane involved in the event, along with representatives from a number of Australian non-government organisations including Amnesty International. I commend coordinator Philma Kelegai for bringing this serious issue to the attention of local Brisbane residents.
Canberra Electorate: Economy
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:55): On 31 May the member for North Sydney made a joke on morning television. He said, 'There's a golden rule for real estate in Canberra: you buy Liberal and you sell Labor.' He then proceeded to laugh wholeheartedly. I do not think the coalition's plans to devastate the economy of Canberra are a joke.
In 1996 the newly elected Howard government slashed 30,000 public service jobs, 15,000 of which were based in Canberra and one of which was mine. The flow-on effects for Canberra's housing market were devastating. Between March 1995 and March 1998 the median house price in Australian capital cities grew by $22,950, or 17 per cent, and the median across the whole of Australia by 15 per cent. However, in Canberra the median house price fell by four per cent. As for the price index for established homes, over the same period Canberra's index fell by 3.7 points in comparison to an increase of 11 points in the weighted average of Australian capital cities. Effectively $25,000 was slashed from the average Canberra house price.
And it was not just house prices that were affected. Personal and business bankruptcies in Canberra increased, and our unemployment rate rose. The coalition is promising the same pain and suffering for Canberra, should they be elected in September, by slashing 20,000 public service jobs. I do not think this is a laughing matter. The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour: remember 1996, Canberra.
Regional Development Australia Fund
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:56): I would like to quote from the website of the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. It said:
The Regional Development Australia Fund … supports the infrastructure needs of regional Australia.
Round 4 funding—
Ms Gillard: Hear, hear!
Mr CHESTER: The Prime Minister is cheering me on! About $20 million of funding has been announced in round 4 funding, with four new projects. As a regional member, I had a look. I was disappointed to see that all four were in Labor held seats. Where are these projects? Well, two are in the new minister's seat of Ballarat—
Mr Albanese: Orange, Parkes?
Mr CHESTER: I will get to those. Two of them are in the new minister's seat of Ballarat. Not a great look, but at least she can claim to be in regional Australia. The other two are beauties; you will love these ones. One is in the seat of Watson: Canterbury City Council—right out there in the boondocks of regional Australia; 15 kilometres from the Sydney GPO—got $4 million for the Sydney Multicultural Arts and Sports Precinct. I will give you a clue if you are not sure where regional Australia is: if it has 'Sydney' in the title, chances are it is not really entitled to receive a regional Australia grant.
There is one more project announced in round 4. It is way out there, past the Westgate Bridge and all the way to Werribee. That is right, it is 25 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD—the Prime Minister has her hand up—and $9 million will go to the Wyndham City Council for the Western Indoor Sports Hub in the Prime Minister's own seat, way out there in Werribee. What a strike rate.
Ms Gillard interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I actually lived in Werribee once, Prime Minister; thank you. Five more have been announced in the past hour. Three are in Labor-supporting Independent seats, two in National seats. Guess what? There is $34 million for Labor and Labor Independent-supporting seats, and $5.5 million for— (Time expired)
Queensland Government
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (13:58): This has been a very sad week for Queensland, and I am not just talking about the State of Origin. This week was the week that Queenslanders really saw how damaging the Campbell Newman led LNP government intend to be for our state. It is absolutely shameful what we have seen this week. They brought down their budget, and with it broke a whole stack of promises and showed that they really do not understand or care what our state needs now or in the future.
First of all, we are seeing the slug to power bills of something like 22 per cent on top of price rises that we have seen in the past thanks to investments in the electricity network, and we saw the broken promise of the government on rebates to help people with the cost of those electricity prices. We saw a pathetic announcement about the Bruce Highway, where the LNP were actually trying to take credit for the investment the federal government is making in the Bruce Highway. The LNP are trying to cover up their shameful neglect of that important infrastructure.
And most heartbreaking of all, we saw the Newman government refusing to invest properly in education. This is coming at a time when the federal government stands ready to make historic, unprecedented investments in education. We are asking the Queensland government to show that they care about the students of Queensland, to care about the kids of Queensland, and match that investment. Come on board, sign the agreement for Gonski funding and let us have fairness and equity in our education funding. (Time expired)
Farm Finance Package
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (13:59): I would like to know why the Treasurer will not finance the Farm Finance Package. Why are you putting that on the states? You announced the policy; why won't you finance it? It was you who put it in place.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statement has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I remind the minister that yesterday he said he would ask his department to brief him on whether there were any other terrorists being detained in the immigration detention network, in spite of the fact that he only took this action six weeks after first being briefed on a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist being held in low-security detention in the Adelaide Hills. Can the minister update the House on the outcome of this briefing?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:00): I thank the honourable member for his question. These, of course, are very serious matters. As I said earlier this week, it is important that the honourable member, and other members who have sought a briefing, get a briefing on those matters. I can, however, confirm in response to the question in relation to that matter that the advice I have received is that there are no other IMAs in the detention network who have been identified as having an Interpol red notice. That is a very important piece of advice and I think it is therefore incumbent upon our agencies to continue to work professionally and dedicate themselves to ensure that they protect the community. I can assure the honourable member our agencies are doing just that.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:01): Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the minister satisfied that security measures at these facilities such as pool fences like these are satisfactory?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will desist from using props.
Mr KEENAN: Can the minister guarantee that there are no other terrorists currently being held in low-security facilities like this one in the Adelaide Hills?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:02): Can I say to the honourable member I have just advised him that there is no such person in the detention network. Indeed. I have also been advised that there is no-one in the detention network that would pertain to the descriptions—
The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, I am struggling to see how the minister's answer is not relevant.
Mr Pyne: Speaker, on a point of order: I am happy to explain that the minister just said that he had answered the question before. In fact, all he said was that people with an Interpol red notice were not being held in detention.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager for Opposition Business will resume his seat. Before I give the minister the call, points of order on relevance are not for debate.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I can assure the honourable member that our agencies—the department of immigration, the security agency ASIO and the Australian Federal Police—will continue to ensure that they protect the interests of the Australian people. I have been advised that there are no others in the detention network that are on the red notice and I have been advised that the agencies continue to properly assess the situation in the detention network to protect the interests of the Australian people.
Migration
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Minister, why is the government reforming the 457 visa subclass to support jobs and build a stronger economy? Will the minister outline recent examples of abuse in the 457 visa system?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:04): I thank the member for Throsby for his very important question and also his ongoing advocacy for workers in the Illawarra in his electorate who are concerned about ensuring that their jobs are protected and also the opportunities they and the young people in Illawarra have to be trained and fill jobs before employers seek to fill those jobs from temporary overseas workers.
Can I say today we have introduced into the House very important legislation that ensures that Australian residents and citizens will be preferred before employers can seek applications for temporary skilled workers. That is a very important piece of public policy and I will tell you why. There are legitimate reasons for the temporary skilled stream, and there are employers who do the right thing, but there are people who can be exploited if there is a misuse of the scheme. You might want to read the Fairfax newspaper. Firstly, there are those overseas workers who have been exploited, underpaid and treated very shabbily and badly and in many cases it would appear unlawfully. That is unfair. We need to make sure we protect the interests of those workers. We also have to ensure that the 457 scheme is not being used in a manner that actually deprives and denies workers in this country getting jobs first.
I refer to the Migration Council of Australia's survey where they said 15 per cent of employers in this country have no trouble at all finding local employment and yet they do not employ locals. That is a damning statistic and it should not happen. That same survey said that seven per cent of 457 applicants were paid less than Australian workers. That should not happen. It is not fair for the overseas worker, it is not fair for the Australian worker who misses out and it is not fair for the employer who does the right thing and uses the 457 scheme properly and is at a competitive disadvantage against the employer who does the wrong thing.
This is very important public policy. That is why we have taken steps to fix the problem identified in the scheme. We have announced regulations to tighten the scheme and today we have introduced legislation that requires employers in the majority of occupations to show that they have genuinely sought labour locally by putting an ad in the newspaper, in a trade publication or website before being given access to the 457 scheme. They will have to satisfy the department that they have genuinely looked for local workers before they filled those positions with temporary skilled workers from overseas.
Ms Gillard: Speaker, I have a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship but during his contribution, on more than one occasion—I think on four or five occasions—the member for Sturt called out an unparliamentary remark towards him and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr Ruddock interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! It is not surprising the member for Berowra missed it. You could not really hear much over the constant noise that was going on. The member for Sturt can withdraw, seeing that he has just assisted the chamber so amply.
Mr Pyne: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but I hardly see that xenophobia—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. For the 900th time, I think from every Speaker who has occupied the chair: unparliamentary depends on the context in which it is said. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
National Security
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that when the opposition first revealed that a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist was living amongst families in a low-security detention centre in the Adelaide Hills she dismissed it as a very ugly campaign to raise fear in the community. So I ask the Prime Minister: if this was such a beat-up, why has the government announced an inquiry into it?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I have announced an inquiry because I happen to think that facts matter. I know that they are alien to the Leader of the Opposition but I do believe it is important that facts matter and that this matter is the subject of an inquiry by an independent officeholder. I understand that a little bit earlier today the Leader of the Opposition was himself saying there should be an independent inquiry. Well, there is an independent inquiry, as announced by me yesterday.
To the Leader of the Opposition more generally, what we have seen from the opposition across this parliamentary fortnight is an ill-informed fear campaign. We had the Leader of the Opposition claiming ASIO resources had been cut across the life of this government—that is not true, but not surprising, given he has never been briefed by ASIO during the life of this parliament. Then, of course, Senator Brandis, who was briefed by ASIO, could not wait to rush up to a TV camera to burble out what he had been briefed on. Then, of course, yesterday we had the unedifying spectacle of the shadow minister for immigration trying to have a parliamentary committee, without statutory authority to investigate this matter, do that investigation. Then of course the member for Stirling could not approach the dispatch box and even move a motion. On top of all of that—
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: my question invited the Prime Minister to concede that there was actually something in what the opposition has been saying.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That was an absolute abuse of a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much. Then in terms of the campaign that has been pursued by the opposition: wrong on ASIO; then revealing an ASIO briefing; the shadow minister for immigration wrong on the powers of a parliamentary committee; the member for Stirling unable to approach the dispatch box and use the words 'I seek leave'; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition out, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, 'We've got an arrangement with Indonesia' and then having to shamble away from all of that—across this week when we have had to listen to so much nonsense from the opposition on national security, I think at the end of the week that has been we are entitled to say that every day the opposition has put in a performance where it has had no acquaintance with the facts. A fact has never actually mattered to them: not about ASIO resources; not about our relationship with Indonesia; not about who can mount what sort of inquiry. So, to the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat!
Ms GILLARD: if he is interested in a bit of humility, he might want to start with some humility about the opposition's performance this week and he might also want to verify to the Australian people that they have no solutions on border security. They have been stepping away, piece by piece, from any representations about results in border security—no answers, just a campaign of fear where the facts have never mattered.
Education
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering a smarter future by making every school in the country a better school?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:12): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I understand now that the opposition will chat amongst themselves because we are talking about a topic so incredibly boring to them: that is, the future of the Australian nation and investing in Australia's children. Of course they are bored, because they have no agenda to improve schools. Indeed, they have a plan to make schools $16.2 billion worse off. I am asked by the member for Robertson, who cares so passionately about education: what are the government's plans?
I want to start this answer by noting that whilst we have just continued wrecking by the opposition saying no to investing in the potential of every Australian child, saying no to making us a stronger, smarter nation in the future, not every conservative in the country is taking this wrecking approach. I point to the approach being taken by the Minister for Education in New South Wales, Mr Piccoli, who on an earlier occasion I did insult by referring to him as a Liberal—he is a National Party member. He is out there trying to convince other conservatives in the nation that it is important to invest in the future of children. He, as a conservative, is prepared to put children first. And he, as a conservative, has yet again put a skewer into those who are seeking to deny Australian children the quality education they need.
In particular, he has been very clear about how good a deal this is for New South Wales. Mr Piccoli said:
There's nothing secret about it, we are trying to get all the facts out there. The briefings—
those are the briefings that Mr Piccoli is doing himself—
are to say that this is what we have signed and why we have signed and why we think it's a good deal. It's about putting policy ahead of politics, which is the one thing people always ask politicians to do.
Mr Piccoli goes on to say:
I hope all the states sign up.
Mr Piccoli is right. He is showing that it is possible to be a conservative and to care about the future of Australian children. It is possible to be a conservative and work with a federal Labor government that is determined to invest in every child's future and to properly resource our teachers, classrooms and children for generations and generations to come.
I recommend to those opposite, who are not at all interested in education, who have no plan for Australian schools except cuts to the bone, that they listen to the wise words of Mr Piccoli; he cares about Australia's children and Australia's future. Why can't this opposition do the same?
National Security
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Having belatedly called an inquiry into the security of our detention system, will the Prime Minister finally concede that having a convicted Egyptian jihadi terrorist behind a pool fence for almost a year has undermined the Australian people's confidence in her government's ability to protect our borders?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:15): I refer the Leader of the National Party to my earlier answer and to the shambles we have seen across this parliamentary fortnight from the opposition. He is sitting next to the deputy leader; does he think she has to deal with Indonesia? Yes or no?
Mr Truss: Speaker, on a point of order: these remarks are not relevant to the question that has been asked.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I can understand why the Leader of the National Party does not want me to go down that track; it is too embarrassing for them. I refer the Leader of the National Party to my answers across this parliamentary fortnight where I have detailed the facts about ASIO resourcing, as opposed to the opposition's fear campaign; where I have detailed the facts about what we can do to inquire into this matter, as opposed to the silly proposal from the opposition to try and give it to a parliamentary committee without power; where we have dealt with the facts of our relationship with Indonesia, rather than silly claims being made by the opposition; where we have dealt with independent expert advice on asylum seeker and refugee claims, which the opposition refuses to countenance and refuses to listen to.
So I suggest to the Leader of the National Party: (1) our nation is served well by our security agencies, (2) in relation to this particular matter, the person in question was always in detention and (3) I believe that it is appropriate for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to look at the matter, and that is why I have asked her to do so.
Dobell Electorate: Mining
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Further to my question last week, new data released by the mining company Kores shows people will die from coal dust; 79 million litres of water will be lost every day, jeopardising the future supply of water on the Central Coast; and over 245 private homes, 755 rural structures and 420 dams and roads will be affected by savage subsidence, in some cases up to two metres. Prime Minister, will your government put the health and lifestyle of the people of the Central Coast before mining interests and support my private member's bill?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the member for Dobell for his question. I understand he is seriously concerned about this matter. He has raised it in the parliament on an earlier occasion. Of course there is nothing more important to a community than water supply and water security. Water is life; we all know that. I know that the community on the Central Coast is concerned about water supply and water security. We want to make sure we are responding to those concerns by getting the balance right as there is mining development—that is, for any mining development we need to properly weigh up the factors about that mine and its environmental impacts, including the potential impacts on water, which is why the approach that the government has taken is to amend the relevant legislation so that issues about water can trigger an assessment by the federal minister for the environment.
We have also very much invested in scientific expertise in this area. As the national government we are the custodians of great institutions like the CSIRO. We have the ability to resource and finance scientific leadership, and we have done that in this area through the resources made available for the expert panel.
I say to the member for Dobell that I do not agree with his private member's bill, except that it is a sincere attempt by him as local member to deal with this question on behalf of the community that he serves. But we do not think that that private member's bill is the appropriate road to go down. We think the appropriate road to go down to get this right for the community of the Central Coast and for communities around the country is what we are intending to do through federal government environmental law.
Economy
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the underlying strengths of Australia's economy? How is the government making the choice to invest in a smarter and fairer nation to build a stronger economy into the future?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:20): I thank the member for Parramatta for that question. Yesterday's national accounts data demonstrated the underlying resilience of the Australian economy. We face global uncertainty, and our economy is making some very big transitions at home.
In particular, the resource sector is transitioning from unprecedented growth and investment towards growth in production and exports. More broadly, we are making the transition to non-mining sources of growth. We can see this in the accounts yesterday—0.6 per cent in the quarter; 2.5 per cent through the year; faster than every major advanced economy. We have mining investment close to its peak, while private business investment is at 50-year highs. This investment is generating strong growth—export volumes up 13.2 per cent over the year—and we have record low interest rates, supporting solid consumption and, particularly, a recovery in housing construction.
But, as we know, this transition is not seamless. We have an economy which is 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007, and that is because we got the big economic calls right. And we have got the big economic calls right again in this budget, where we are putting jobs and growth first and a slower transition in our economy back to surplus. So we support jobs and growth because we understand the importance of jobs and growth.
In the face of that story, what do we get? We get the opposition, day in and day out, trash-talking our economy: Senator Cormann up there in the Senate this morning, the shadow Treasurer almost every day and the Leader of the Opposition. We have even had the absurd claims in sections of the media of a possible recession. This sort of talk is deeply irresponsible. Those who go around talking like they do, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, are deeply irresponsible. Every time they do it they show how unqualified they are to run a $1.6 trillion economy.
We on this side of the House understand to our bones the importance of supporting jobs and growth in an economy. We understand that. You showed how you did not understand that at the height of the global financial crisis, and you are showing it yet again. We are demonstrating it because we are also prepared to make the tough decisions to invest in the future, particularly through education. You trash-talk the economy; you waved our budget through up in the Federation Chamber this morning, then you go out in public and trash-talk the economy every day of the week. That shows how deeply irresponsible you are, and your approach if you were elected would be to cut education and health to the bone. That is what you are not prepared to tell the truth about to the Australian people.
The SPEAKER: I again remind the Treasurer that the use of the word 'you' is not appropriate.
National Security
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that her government has taken no steps to remove from Australia the convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist previously held in the Adelaide Hills, despite the fact that this individual remains the subject of an Interpol Red Notice and is not under the protection of the refugee convention where there is a national security threat? Why is the Prime Minister continuing to give the benefit of the doubt to a convicted jihadist terrorist?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:24): I assure the shadow minister that we will always put Australia's security interests first. That is what we will do in relation to this individual and that is what we will do generally on the advice of security agencies about the specific treatment of this individual and any police matters involving him.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:24): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. In relation to this matter and the inquiry the Prime Minister has announced, why does the Prime Minister refuse to include the conduct of her ministers in this independent inquiry into the government's decision to place a convicted jihadist terrorist in low-security family accommodation in the Adelaide Hills?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:25): The shadow minister misunderstands the way in which the legislation and the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security work. Let me assure him (1) that she is an independent statutory office holder, (2) that the inspector-general has extensive experience in and strong powers for inquiring into operational matters concerning security and intelligence issues and (3) that she is not subject to general direction from me or other ministers about how she carries out her powers under the act—indeed, no member of parliament or any government official could interfere with the inspector-general's powers. The powers of the inspector-general under the relevant act are serious, wide-ranging and intrusive. Let me assure the shadow minister who asked the question that the government will cooperate in every way with this inquiry.
Education
Ms HALL (Shortland) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister inform the House of the response to the passage of the Australian Education Bill through the House yesterday? What are the next steps in making our nation's schools smarter and fairer?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:26): I thank the member for Shortland for her question. I know how important it is to her that schools and students in her electorate are well supported.
The commitment from the government to education has been on full display in these last two weeks in parliament. Last week we released analysis of how the National Plan for School Improvement—described as a game changer by Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, whom many people here will know—will be transformative for Indigenous students in this country. We know how the national plan will deliver investment in schools across the regions, reinforced so clearly when the New South Wales education minister came into the parliament to brief National Party colleagues, in his words, that the Gonski reforms are 'a deal too good to ignore'. We have also announced additional support for special schools over the next six years, and yesterday we had a signally important moment when the House of Representatives and the parliament considered and enshrined a fairer, needs based funding system in legislation, in the Australian Education Bill, which passed through this House.
Incidentally, it passed through this House without amendment, so it has been a proud record for the government—not such a good record for the shadow minister, who is on the record as wanting to sack one in seven teachers, who could not convince the parliament to oppose this bill and who ended up at the dispatch box ranting and raving whilst in the meantime we had over 5,000 primary school leaders rejecting unequivocally the position put by the opposition in relation to us implementing a new fairer funding model.
The only person I can think of who has had a worse two weeks in education than the member for Sturt is the Queensland Premier. The Queensland Premier went on Sky talking about alleged secret meetings that were held by officials—I don't know—but forgot to mention that Commonwealth officials have met with Queensland officials 56 times, and not a single one of those meetings was a secret meeting; I have to break it to those opposite. Today we read that Premier Newman is preparing a list to sell off schools in his state. We already know that they have cut education in the state. Finally, he capped off his week by taking the ridiculous step of writing to Queensland senators, saying, 'Vote against the billions of dollars that would go to investment in Queensland schools.' He asked them to vote against the reforms that will improve the results of Queensland students, to vote against the most marginalised students in his state receiving the support that we would be providing, with him, if they signed up to the National Plan for School Improvement.
The Queensland Premier has the power to do something positive for his state, as do other premiers. Sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement so we have better schools for all Australians.
National Security
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Attorney-General. I remind the Attorney that, in response to questions about the convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist held in the Adelaide Hills for almost a year, he stated, 'There is no evidence that the individual concerned has committed any offence while in Australia.' Does the Attorney-General believe that terrorists who first commit their crimes overseas pose no risk to this country?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (14:30): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I said that this morning in the context of making the point that the individual concerned remains in detention, has been in detention at all times since the person entered Australia, and is now in detention and, in addition, there is no evidence that he has committed any offence while in Australia. That is the context.
Queensland Budget: Infrastructure
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and it follows on from the question that I asked him yesterday. How have the federal government's new nation-building commitments been assisted by this week's Queensland budget?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (14:31): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. In this year's budget, our new nation-building projects were directed towards Queensland—both Brisbane and the built-up communities and also regional Queensland. There was $718 million for the upgrade of the Gateway Motorway North, on top of the $125 million we have already put into the Gateway Motorway North project. I would have expected something in the Queensland budget, because they have had a bit to say about that project and they have had press conferences with the Leader of the Opposition. I looked for some funding in the Queensland budget and there was not one zack—nothing.
I then looked for some funding for the Ipswich Motorway, where we have got $300 million on the table for the next section between Rocklea and Darra—building on the $2.6 billion we have already invested. We already have given Queensland $10 million to complete the business case, and that is being rolled out. So I thought, 'Where will the money be?' Well, they did a bit better. We have put about $3 billion on the table for the Ipswich Motorway and they have put in $5 million—so they have done better than zero.
Then I looked for any mention of the Bruce Highway. The Queensland government say $690 million, but $587 million is federal government money. Then I looked for the Cross River Rail project. There is $715 million from us—recommended by Infrastructure Australia. Queensland asked for that amount of money and said they would match it, but there is not a dollar. So I thought, 'Well, maybe they have some alternative plan,' and indeed they do. To quote the Brisbane Times:
The LNP plans to do this by adapting the train signals to let trains run more frequently, by removing seats and making extra standing room, and by using station platforms more effectively.
So I thought, 'They've probably done a bit of a study,' and indeed they have. It is the Tokyo solution—putting people on the platforms and cramming them into the trains. That is their solution.
But I thought, 'That will only last so long,' and indeed they have got a post-2020 measure, said a spokesperson for Minister Scott Emerson. That of course is the Indian solution!
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will desist from using the props.
Mr ALBANESE: That is the LNP vision for urban public transport in this country, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. They do not have a plan for Brisbane. They looked for best practice overseas, and that is what they came up with! They say that the federal government has no right to have any input into urban public transport— (Time expired)
National Security
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Attorney-General. Yesterday the Attorney defended the government's failure to safeguard Australia's national security because the convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist had been in detention for the entire time that he had been here. Is residence behind this pool fence—in the photo I hold—his idea of satisfactory detention?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (14:35): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I considered objecting to the form of the question. I do not accept the premise of the question about the description of the government's conduct. I repeat, in case the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had trouble understanding, that the individual in question has been in detention at all times—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Mr DREYFUS: I repeat: the individual in question has been in detention at all times since the individual in question entered Australia—in detention.
Employment
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, how are the government's policies making sure every Australian has the right to get good jobs in fairer workplaces? Minister, are there any obstacles to this?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:36): I thank the member for Reid for his question. He has a profound interest in making sure that all Australians get access to good and fair jobs. I can tell him that as we speak more Australians than ever in the history of the Commonwealth are at work. I can also tell him there are more Australians working full time than ever before. I can also tell him that Australians are working harder than they have been in a very, very long time. I can inform him that labour productivity has gone up not only in the last quarter or the quarter before but no less than seven times. Australians, despite some of the doom-and-gloom merchants opposite, are working hard, and there are more of them working, and one of the reasons is that we have a very good set of workplace relations laws.
To support this proposition that Australians are doing well, I can also inform the member for Reid that, despite some of the opposition propaganda and spin, the amount of lost time in industrial action in this country for the life of Labor governments is lower than it was under the coalition when they were in power. It is not just half as low as it was; it is a third as low. I can even say that in the construction sector, much beloved of some of the opposition propagandists, industrial action in that very tough sector is also well down, with the average under a Labor government lower than it was under the conservatives.
We are not content to rest on our laurels. We are not complacent about the 960,000 jobs. We also want to make sure that Australia has a bright future. One of the ways we are making sure Australia has a bright future is by making sure that our kids get the best chance in life. That is why all in this House should be supporting the National Plan for School Improvement. For those who would perhaps listen to the opposition catchcry that Labor somehow is off on its own in wanting to give the best chance in life for our kids in the future workforce then I would give them the evidence of Premier Barry O'Farrell. How is it that thoughtful Liberals in the state of New South Wales will pick the kids over the politics, but less thoughtful coalition members in the federal parliament will pick the politics over the kids? That is not how we train the workforce of the future. Nine in 10 of the fastest-growing sectors in the Australian economy for jobs require a post-secondary-school education. We cannot afford to betray future generations by not giving our kids the best chance in life. We also cannot afford to betray the current generation by allowing Liberal workplace relations laws to come into practice.
If we need evidence, despite the squirming, secret, small-target plans of those opposite, let's have a look at how state Liberal governments go when they get into power. It may interest the member for Reid—in conclusion—when he talks about obstacles to good workplaces that 72 per cent of recent industrial disputes have been caused by state conservative governments, because Liberals make bad bosses.
National Security
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the inspector-general's inquiry into how a convicted jihadist terrorist was held behind a pool fence for almost a year while ministers were allegedly kept in the dark will be completed and will be made public before the election?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:40): Once again, the Leader of the Opposition is showing a lack of understanding of national security, our security agencies and structures like the inspector-general. It is impossible for me to give a direction to the inspector-general. In answer to the shadow minister's question a little bit earlier, I explained to the Leader of the Opposition, who now is yelling abuse presumably directed at the inspector-general, that under the relevant law—that is, the law of the country, Australian law, laws that have gone through this parliament—the inspector-general is an independent statutory officeholder. The inspector-general is not subject to general direction from me or other ministers about how she carries out her powers under the act.
What the opposition leader is asking me to do does not fit with the way in which we have set up the inspector-general. I understand that it fits in with the general Liberal Party philosophy that what you do is wander around thugging people. But we do not do that. We respect independence.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw that reference.
Ms GILLARD: I withdraw. What we will not do is behave inappropriately, as invited to do by the Leader of the Opposition. Can I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, after the serial errors that he and his team have made this week about basic matters—the Leader of the Opposition not briefed during this parliament by the director-general of ASIO, the Leader of the Opposition misrepresenting the resources of ASIO, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition misrepresenting matters pivotal to our relationship with Indonesia, the shadow minister for immigration misrepresenting the powers of the joint parliamentary committee, the shadow minister for border protection unable to walk to the dispatch box and even move a simple motion, the shadow Attorney-General out breaching confidentiality requirements of ASIO briefings—after all of those errors this week—
Mr Morrison: I rise on a point of order on relevance, Speaker. The relevance is that the Prime Minister did not know there was a convicted jihadist terrorist in the country.
The SPEAKER: That is an abuse of the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: After that series of errors I would counsel the Leader of the Opposition to not add to that series of errors today by coming into this parliament and misrepresenting the way in which the inspector-general works. What this has shown across the course of this week is that the Leader of the Opposition can be trusted with a slogan but he cannot be trusted with national security, because you have to get to grips with the details and the Leader of the Opposition has not shown the ability to do that at any point during this parliamentary week.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar is warned.
Queensland: Health
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the government's investment in Queensland's health system? Is the minister aware of other choices that have recently been made regarding health services in Queensland?
Mr Dutton: Start with the Redcliffe Superclinic.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:43): You could ask a question if you want to. You haven't yet.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: Ask me a question—I dare you: ask me a question!
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume her seat. The minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I am proud of our investments in Queensland health. The 2013-14 budget showed continued investment: $13.2 billion extra going into the Queensland health system. It is extra money into not just the system but also the buildings. We have $100 million in the member for Moreton's own electorate at the QEII hospital to redevelop the emergency department and for new palliative care beds and a brand-new endoscopy unit. There is $400 million for Townsville Base Hospital and $220 million for Logan Hospital. We have made a choice to invest in better health services for Queenslanders.
But there is a very stark contrast. Campbell Newman's first budget cut $3 billion from the Queensland health system and sacked more than 4,000 Queensland health workers. Queenslanders were hoping for a bit of relief this time around. They were thinking that maybe the Queensland government realised that it had cut too deeply last time and it would reverse some of those cuts. But there was no such luck. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that an extra $241 million was required to invest in hospitals just to stay still—not to go backwards—just because of population growth and inflation. That has fallen short by $137 million.
That means the equivalent of 6½ thousand hip operations that will not get done, or 7,000 knee operations that will not get done. I will tell you that on top of that, when you look at page 21 of the Queensland budget papers, it shows that on top of those fewer operations there will be 70,000 fewer outpatient services in Queensland hospitals this year—70,000 fewer outpatient services in Queensland hospitals. I table the budget documents that show that.
In this press release here, they promised to do 40,000 more outpatient services; in fact they will do 70,000 fewer, and I table that press release. Patients will miss out on palliative care, they will miss out on pain management and they will miss out on the specialist clinics that are held in hospitals for outpatients.
And, when it comes to local hospital districts, $36½ million is out of the member for Dickson's own local hospital district. Is he going to protest that? Is he going to complain? Is he going to stick up for his residents, or is he going to sit there silent, like he has done for years now? And, not just in Metro North but in Wide Bay and right across Queensland, the Sunshine Coast and the south-east coast, this is just the curtain-raiser to Tony Abbott's cuts. The Leader of the Opposition cut hospital funding last time he had the chance and he would do it again.
Asylum Seekers
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: will the inquiry that she announced yesterday include the handling of the case of Mr Khoda Doost, who was allegedly involved in more than 250 incidents, including assaulting immigration staff, and released in Victoria under community residency, where he threatened to kill people and burn down his house? Does she regard that kind of detention as satisfactory?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:47): Once again, can I explain to the opposition that the Inspector-General of Intelligence is an independent statutory office bearer. I have asked her to conduct an inquiry into some of the complex cases, including the one that has been the subject of so much discussion. For the ambit of how she then goes about that work: of course, in line with being an independent office bearer, that is a matter for her.
Taxation
Mr LYONS (Bass) (14:48): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. How have Tasmanian families and businesses benefited from real tax reform under this government? And what would be the impact on Tasmanians of other approaches to tax reform?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:48): I thank the member for Bass for his question. This government stands up for hardworking Australian families and small businesses. That is why we have been delivering real tax reform—reforms like tripling the tax-free threshold and cutting taxes on superannuation for our lowest-paid workers, and standing up for Australian businesses by making sure that multinational corporations pay their fair share.
Meanwhile, each of these policies has been opposed by those opposite. But that should not surprise us because, when it comes to tax reform and the coalition, all roads lead to one place and that is the GST. We know that they want to increase the GST, which will smash families, it will smash pensioners and it will strangle small businesses with red tape.
I revealed yesterday that the Liberal candidate for Pearce, the former WA Treasurer, was out there yesterday saying that he wanted the Liberals to jack up the GST. But that is not all he said. He also said that he wanted to see the Liberals 'sort out the distribution of GST'. We all know what that means. That means more money for his state but by ripping hundreds of millions of dollars away from states like Tasmania. The member for Bass asked the question, and $600 million would be ripped away from Tasmania if the Leader of the Opposition gets his way in moving towards something that resembles a per capita funding arrangement for GST.
He said that on Sky about a year ago. But I note that, when he went down to Tasmania recently, he got up there in a press conference with some of his Liberal candidates there—there he was with his little pamphlet under his chin, as he does—and he said, 'Don't worry, because we can't do anything unless we have the unanimous support of the states.' Well, that is not true; it is not true at all. And even one of his own members of his team, the Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Senator Bushby, confirmed this yesterday in a press release, where he said:
… the final decision on relativities is indeed a decision of the Federal Treasurer of the day …
Tasmanians have nothing to worry about while ever we are in government, but they do have a lot to be concerned about if those opposite ever get into office.
The Leader of the Opposition and Senator Bushby are out there and they are saying, 'When it comes to the GST, trust us.' Well, when a Liberal asks you to trust them on the GST, they might as well tell you, 'Never, ever,' because they cannot be trusted. When it comes to the GST, they want to increase the GST; it is in their DNA. They introduced it; they want to jack it up—
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is warned!
Mr BRADBURY: The choice for the Australian people is a government that will stand up for a fair share for all states or an opposition that wants to rip money away from states like Tasmania.
Asylum Seekers
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this article in The Sydney Morning Herald which states that a whistleblower told Fairfax Media that another detainee had been released into the community only two weeks after threatening to kill staff in a rooftop protest. The whistleblower said:
This person could be your next door neighbour.
Does the Prime Minister agree that this is satisfactory detention, and will she include this incident in the inquiry that she referred to the inspector general yesterday?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:52): What we are seeing today—and I think this question has absolutely crystallised it—is that the opposition have been, over several days, trying to raise fear in the community. They have gone on and on and on, and now, of course, their source for questions in question time in the Australian parliament is a newspaper clipping from an anonymous source. They have no ability to check the veracity of what is claimed. Presumably the next question will come from trawling the outer reaches of the internet and finding what kooks and cranks on the outer reaches of the internet have got to say. They will rush in here and present that as something worth hearing about on national security. Doesn't that just go to the difference between being a responsible government and being an opposition driven by slogan and spin. To the shadow minister—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: The Leader of the Opposition is laughing now. Here is his big attack on national security—'Oh, it's so hard-hitting!' He's such a serious man! He's prime ministerial material! And in the middle of a question time on national security he is laughing. It is just a game to you, isn't it? Your demeanour shows it. The fact that you are laughing shows it. The fact that the shadow minister who asked the question is spending the answer looking up at the press gallery and laughing shows it. The chatter across the opposition shows it. It has been a game all week, and in this question it is transparently a game. You have come into this parliament suggesting something is worthy of inquiry and report when you have got absolutely no knowledge of its truthfulness.
To the shadow minister: if he genuinely thinks this is worth the time of the inspector general then he should submit it to her. When he does that he should say to her: 'I know nothing about it. I read it in the newspaper. I don't know who the source of the complaint is. I've got absolutely no knowledge about it. I've got no concern about it. But I played a little question time stunt with it, so I'm forwarding it through.' That is the degree of concern of the opposition about national security matters. Gee, at the end of the week it's pretty embarrassing for the opposition it's come to this!
Carbon Pricing
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. How is the government's clean energy future plan driving change in our electricity market and building a stronger national economy? What other policies have been proposed?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:55): I thank the member for Corangamite for his question, because climate change is about our responsibility to future generations. This government accepts that responsibility. We must cut carbon pollution to protect the environment for future generations at the same time as we continue to grow our economy, because reducing the emissions of the economy is the key to future competitiveness.
Since the carbon price began on 1 July last year, it is important to note the facts. More than 150,000 new jobs have been created at the same time as the economy has grown at an annualised rate of 2.5 per cent. Interest rates are low, inflation is contained and unemployment is at one of the lowest rates amongst the advanced economies. These are important facts in this debate. At the same time, since carbon pricing commenced, renewable energy generation is up 30 per cent and the most emissions-intensive coal fired power stations' emissions are down 14 per cent. Emissions in the National Electricity Market in particular have fallen by almost 12 million tonnes as the energy we are using is becoming cleaner.
This is the effect of carbon pricing, and right around the country businesses are making the changes that reduce pollution and make them more competitive over time. Farmers and meat processors are capturing their methane and turning it into electricity. Sugar mills are recycling their sugarcane waste to power their operations and selling electricity into the grid. Landfills are capturing methane, converting it into electricity and selling electricity into local communities. The government took the responsible course of action in tackling this issue.
In contrast, of course, the coalition and the Leader of the Opposition have travelled around the country making the most irresponsible, deceitful and mendacious claims; threatening people over their jobs; causing fear for their job security; telling communities their entire town will be wiped out and their industries will be destroyed; and, worst of all—most irresponsible of all—frightening people on low incomes like pensioners around the country that they would not be able to afford their grocery bills once the carbon price commenced. Demonstrably false. Never ever offering any credible alternative policy—just a mendacious scare campaign. And, as the mendacity went up and up and up, it has cleaned out its credibility big time. You will be called out for it.
Ms Gillard: That being the normal number of questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ABBOTT: I do.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: On a number of occasions this week the Prime Minister has claimed that I have not sought security briefings. I have had multiple briefings from ASIO, including from the director-general. I have had briefings from the Australian Federal Police, from Border Protection Command and from customs. I have had numerous briefings on intelligence and on defence, and most recently I had a briefing from the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. The Prime Minister should stop misleading on this subject.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Sturt claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr PYNE: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt has the call.
Mr PYNE: In question time today, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth again claimed that I had said that we should sack one in seven teachers. I have never said any such thing. In fact, I do not employ any teachers, so I can hardly sack any. Secondly, he said that the Australian Education Bill had passed without any amendment. In fact, he introduced 71 pages of amendments, which were passed en masse.
The SPEAKER: The member must demonstrate where he has been misrepresented. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has the call.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:59): Thank you, Speaker. I table 'Christopher Pyne's school lunch', where he has a conversation with Mark Latham. Amongst other things, they discussed removing one in seven teachers from the teaching system.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:00): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Cook claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr MORRISON: I do, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Today in question time the Prime Minister indicated and said that I had moved a motion to refer a matter to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I have moved no such motion. The only motion I moved this week was for a House select committee into those matters, which those opposite voted against.
COMMITTEES
Education and Employment Committee
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER ( 15:00): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be supplementary members of certain committees.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH ( Perth — Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House ) ( 15:0 1 ): by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Mr Hawke be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; and
(2) Mr Tehan be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 42 of 2012-13
The SPEAKER (15:01): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 42 of 2012-13 entitled Performance audit: co-location of the Department of Human Services' shopfronts.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:01): A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Reference
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:02): by leave—I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services shall inquire into and report by 17 June 2013 on the creation of a regulatory framework for tax (financial) advice services based on Schedules 3 and 4 to the first reading of Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. In particular the Committee will focus on:
(1) the application (ie definition) of the regime to ensure that the regime is applied to the appropriate persons;
(2) steps that can be taken to minimise regulatory duplication on industry participants;
(3) the interplay of the Tax Agent Services Regime with the Future of Financial Advice reforms, in particular the Best interests duty;
(4) ensuring that new advice providers are not prohibited from employment in the future; and
(5) what further transitional relief may be required.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Workplace Relations
The SPEAKER (15:03): I have received letters from the honourable member for Throsby and the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Throsby, namely:
The urgent need—
Opposition members: Where is he?
The SPEAKER: Order! I am reading, and I think it is highly disrespectful to not let me at least read this while there is silence:
The urgent need for the Government to protect Australian jobs and workers and prevent the exploitation of foreign workers.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. As the individual proposer of the matter is not present, the matter lapses.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, on indulgence, it is quite unusual for another MPI to be selected over one submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. I accept that it is your right to do so. But it is particularly unusual for someone who thought this was so important that it should be the subject of a matter of public importance debate today not to be in the House for this. This is completely, absolutely and utterly unprecedented. It smacks of a set-up, if I may say so, Madam Speaker, and I suggest that—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on the chair, and I am finding this quite offensive.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, whether you meant to or not, that is what you have just done.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: can I say that I think what the Leader of the Opposition was doing was not reflecting on you in any respect but reflecting on the member for Throsby and the government. It is not your fault that the member for Throsby is not in the chamber. Clearly you made a decision. You would not have known that the member for Throsby was not in the chamber when it was called on. It is clearly no reflection on you, and therefore I would ask you to hear the rest of the Leader of the Opposition's statement.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will conclude his statement.
Mr ABBOTT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, I absolutely agree with the Manager of Opposition Business that there was no reflection intended on you and it would have been disorderly of me to do so. But how could the member for Throsby seriously submit this matter for debate and then absent himself from the House? How could this happen? Under the circumstances I submit that it would be open to you to say, 'Well, really, obviously the matter which is most worthy of debate is that submitted by someone who is actually present in the House.' I suggest that you now put this matter forward for debate.
The SPEAKER: We are bringing on the order of the day. I understand what the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to do, but it is not within the powers of the standing orders. I do not have the ability to do what you have requested.
Mr ABBOTT: Can I argue, on indulgence, for the benefit of the House. I wish to protect your position, Madam Speaker, and I think you have been placed in an impossible position. I believe there has been a set-up orchestrated by members opposite. I think you have been placed in a very embarrassing position. I think you have been placed in a humiliating position by the Leader of the House and by the member who put this MPI forward, obviously never intending to bring it to debate today, obviously intending to deny the opportunity for the opposition to raise a perfectly legitimate matter of public importance. I am embarrassed, I am ashamed, that you have been put in this position by this Leader of the House and by the absent member, and I believe the only way to protect the dignity of the parliament is for you, Madam Speaker, to revise that decision on the floor from the chair and to put this matter of public importance that I submitted now.
The SPEAKER: I understand completely the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, but it is not within my ability within the standing orders to do as he has requested. The member for Mackellar will resume her seat; I will not entertain any more on this matter.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:06): I have already summed up. It now goes to the vote.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:10): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (18) on sheet AB231.
Leave granted.
Mr SHORTEN: I move government amendments (1) to (18):
(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 and 2), omit the title, substitute:
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to workplace relations, and for related purposes
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:
6A. Schedule 3A |
At the same time as the provision(s) covered by table item 2. |
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:
7A. Schedule 4A |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
(4) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 10), omit "item 3", substitute "items 3 and 4".
(5) Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 17), insert:
17A. Schedule 6A |
Immediately before the commencement of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. |
(6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 17), after "2011", insert ", but does not include a member of the Defence Force".
(7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 26), before "The FWC", insert "(1)".
(8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of section 789FE, add:
(2) However, the FWC may dismiss an application under section 789FC if the FWC considers that the application might involve mattersthat relate to:
(a) Australia's defence; or
(b) Australia's national security; or
(c) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police; or
(d) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police.
Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss applications under section 789FC, see section 587.
(9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (after line 36), at the end of Part 6‑4B, add:
789FI This Part is not to prejudice Australia ' s defence, national security etc.
Nothing in this Part requires or permits a person to take, or to refrain from taking, any action if the taking of the action, or the refraining from taking the action, would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, prejudicial to:
(a) Australia's defence; or
(b) Australia's national security; or
(c) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police; or
(d) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police.
789FJ Declarations by the Chief of the Defence Force
(1) Without limiting section 789FI, the Chief of the Defence Force may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this Part do not apply in relation to a specified activity.
(2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms.
789FK Declarations by the Director ‑General of Security
(1) Without limiting section 789FI, the Director‑General of Security may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this Part do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director‑General.
(2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms.
789FL Declarations by the Director ‑General of ASIS
(1) Without limiting section 789FI, the Director‑General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this Part do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director‑General.
(2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms.
(10) Page 19 (after line 36), after Schedule 3, insert:
Schedule 3A—Conferences
Fair Work Act 2009
1 At the end of section 592
Add:
(4) At a conference, the FWC may:
(a) mediate or conciliate; or
(b) make a recommendation or express an opinion.
(5) Subsection (4) does not limit what the FWC may do at a conference.
2 Subsection 595(5)
Omit "any of the powers referred to in subsection (2) or (3)", substitute "the power referred to in subsection (3)".
(11) Page 28 (after line 29), after Schedule 4, insert:
Schedule 4A—Consent arbitration for general protections and unlawful termination
Part 1—General protections
Fair Work Act 2009
1 Section 12 (definition of general protections court application )
Omit "370(2)", substitute "368(4)".
2 Subsection 361(1)
Omit ", in proceedings arising from the application,".
3 Section 365 (heading)
After "with a", insert "dismissal".
4 Sections 368, 369, 370 and 371
Repeal the sections, substitute:
368 Dealing with a dismissal dispute (other than by arbitration)
(1) If an application is made under section 365, the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration).
Note: The FWC may deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)). One of the recommendations that the FWC might make is that an application be made under Part 3‑2 (which deals with unfair dismissal) in relation to the dispute.
(2) Any conference conducted for the purposes of dealing with the dispute (other than by arbitration) must be conducted in private, despite subsection 592(3).
Note: For conferences, see section 592.
(3) If the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful, then:
(a) the FWC must issue a certificate to that effect; and
(b) if the FWC considers, taking into account all the materials before it, that arbitration under section 369, or a general protections court application, in relation to the dispute would not have a reasonable prospect of success, the FWC must advise the parties accordingly.
(4) A general protections court application is an application to a court under Division 2 of Part 4‑1 for orders in relation to a contravention of this Part.
369 Dealing with a dismissal dispute by arbitration
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the FWC issues a certificate under paragraph 368(3)(a) in relation to the dispute; and
(b) the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute; and
(c) the notification:
(i) is given to the FWC within 14 days after the day the certificate is issued, or within such period as the FWC allows on an application made during or after those 14 days; and
(ii) complies with any requirements prescribed by the procedural rules; and
(d) sections 726, 728, 729, 730, 731 and 732 do not apply.
Note: Sections 726, 728, 729, 730, 731 and 732 prevent multiple applications or complaints of a kind referred to in those sections from being made in relation to the same dispute. A notification can only be made under this section where there is no such other application or complaint in relation to the dispute at the time the notification is made. Generally, once a notification is made no such application or complaint can be made in relation to the dispute (see section 727).
(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration, including by making one or more of the following orders:
(a) an order for reinstatement of the person;
(b) an order for the payment of compensation to the person;
(c) an order for payment of an amount to the person for remuneration lost;
(d) an order to maintain the continuity of the person's employment;
(e) an order to maintain the period of the person's continuous service with the employer.
(3) A person to whom an order under subsection (2) applies must not contravene a term of the order.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
370 Taking a dismissal dispute to court
A person who is entitled to apply under section 365 for the FWC to deal with a dispute must not make a general protections court application in relation to the dispute unless:
(a) both of the following apply:
(i) the FWC has issued a certificate under paragraph 368(3)(a) in relation to the dispute;
(ii) the general protections court application is made within 14 days after the day the certificate is issued, or within such period as the court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days; or
(b) the general protections court application includes an application for an interim injunction.
Note 1: Generally, if the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute (see subsection 369(1)), a general protections court application cannot be made in relation to the dispute (see sections 727 and 728).
Note 2: For the purposes of subparagraph (a)(ii), in Brodie‑Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
5 Section 372 (heading)
After "with a", insert "non‑dismissal".
6 Subdivision C of Division 8 of Part 3 ‑1
Repeal the Subdivision, substitute:
Subdivision C—Appeals and costs orders
375A Appeal rights
(1) Despite subsection 604(2), the FWC must not grant permission to appeal from a decision made by the FWC under subsection 369(2) (which is about arbitration of a dismissal dispute) unless the FWC considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
(2) Despite subsection 604(1), an appeal from a decision made by the FWC in relation to a matter arising under subsection 369(2) can only, to the extent that it is an appeal on a question of fact, be made on the ground that the decision involved a significant error of fact.
375B Costs orders against parties
(1) The FWC may make an order for costs against a party (the first party) to a dispute for costs incurred by the other party to the dispute if:
(a) an application for the FWC to deal with the dispute has been made under section 365; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that the first party caused those costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission of the first party in connection with the conduct or continuation of the dispute.
(2) The FWC may make an order under subsection (1) only if the other party to the dispute has applied for it in accordance with section 377.
(3) This section does not limit the FWC's power to order costs under section 611.
376 Costs orders against lawyers and paid agents
(1) This section applies if:
(a) an application for the FWC to deal with a dispute has been made under section 365 or 372; and
(b) a person who is a party to the dispute has engaged a lawyer or paid agent (the representative) to represent the person in the dispute; and
(c) under section 596, the person is required to seek the FWC's permission to be represented by the representative.
(2) The FWC may make an order for costs against the representative for costs incurred by the other party to the dispute if the FWC is satisfied that the representative caused those costs to be incurred because:
(a) the representative encouraged the person to start, continue or respond to the dispute and it should have been reasonably apparent that the person had no reasonable prospect of success in the dispute; or
(b) of an unreasonable act or omission of the representative in connection with the conduct or continuation of the dispute.
(3) The FWC may make an order under this section only if the other party to the dispute has applied for it in accordance with section 377.
(4) This section does not limit the FWC's power to order costs under section 611.
377 Applications for costs orders
An application for an order for costs in relation to an application under section 365 or 372 must be made within 14 days after the FWC finishes dealing with the dispute.
377A Schedule of costs
(1) A schedule of costs may be prescribed in relation to items of expenditure likely to be incurred in relation to matters that can be covered by an order under section 611, 375B or 376 in relation to an application under section 365, including expenses arising from the representation of a party by a person or organisation other than on a legal professional basis.
(2) If a schedule of costs is prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1), then, in awarding costs under section 611, 375B or 376 in relation to an application under section 365, the FWC:
(a) is not limited to the items of expenditure appearing in the schedule; but
(b) if an item does appear in the schedule—must not award costs in relation to that item at a rate or of an amount that exceeds the rate or amount appearing in the schedule.
378 Contravening costs orders
A person to whom an order for costs made under section 375B or 376 applies must not contravene a term of the order.
Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
7 Subsection 539(2) (at the end of the cell at table item 11, column 1)
Add:
369(3)
8 Section 544 (note 1)
Omit "subsections 371(2)", substitute "subparagraphs 370(a)(ii)".
9 Paragraph 601(5)(a)
Omit "section 369", substitute "paragraph 368(3)(a)".
10 After paragraph 609(2)(e)
Insert:
(ea) the requirements for making a notification to the FWC;
11 Subparagraph 727(1)(b)(iii)
Omit all the words after "under", substitute "paragraph 368(3)(a) (which provides for the FWC to issue a certificate if the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful)".
12 After subsection 727(1)
Insert:
(1A) This section also applies if:
(a) a general protections FWC application has been made by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the dismissal; and
(b) the application has not:
(i) been withdrawn by the person who made the application; or
(ii) failed for want of jurisdiction; and
(c) a certificate in relation to the dispute has been issued by the FWC under paragraph 368(3)(a) (which provides for the FWC to issue a certificate if the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful); and
(d) a notification of the parties' agreement to the FWC arbitrating the dispute has been made as referred to in paragraphs 369(1)(b) and (c).
Part 2—Unlawful termination
Fair Work Act 2009
13 Section 12 (definition of unlawful termination court application )
Omit "778(2)", substitute "776(4)".
14 Subsection 539(2) (at the end of the cell at table item 35, column 1)
Add:
777(3)
15 Section 544 (note 1)
Omit "779(2)", substitute "778(a)(ii)".
16 Subparagraph 730(1)(b)(iii)
Omit all the words after "under", substitute "paragraph 776(3)(a) (which provides for the FWC to issue a certificate if the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful)".
17 After subsection 730(1)
Insert:
(1A) This section also applies if:
(a) an unlawful termination FWC application has been made by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the dismissal; and
(b) the application has not:
(i) been withdrawn by the person who made the application; or
(ii) failed for want of jurisdiction; and
(c) a certificate in relation to the dispute has been issued by the FWC under paragraph 776(3)(a) (which provides for the FWC to issue a certificate if the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful); and
(d) a notification of the parties' agreement to the FWC arbitrating the dispute has been made as referred to in paragraphs 777(1)(b) and (c).
18 Paragraph 774(1)(a)
Omit "60", substitute "21".
19 Sections 776, 777, 778, 779, 780 and 781
Repeal the sections, substitute:
776 Dealing with a dispute (other than by arbitration)
(1) If an application is made under section 773, the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration).
Note: The FWC may deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).
(2) Any conference conducted for the purposes of dealing with the dispute (other than by arbitration) must be conducted in private, despite subsection 592(3).
Note: For conferences, see section 592.
(3) If the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful, then:
(a) the FWC must issue a certificate to that effect; and
(b) if the FWC considers, taking into account all the materials before it, that arbitration under section 777, or an unlawful termination court application, in relation to the dispute would not have a reasonable prospect of success, the FWC must advise the parties accordingly.
(4) An unlawful termination court application is an application to a court under Division 2 of Part 4‑1 for orders in relation to a contravention of subsection 772(1).
777 Dealing with a dispute by arbitration
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the FWC issues a certificate under paragraph 776(3)(a) in relation to the dispute; and
(b) the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute; and
(c) the notification:
(i) is given to the FWC within 14 days after the day the certificate is issued, or within such period as the FWC allows on an application made during or after those 14 days; and
(ii) complies with any requirements prescribed by the procedural rules; and
(d) sections 726, 727, 728, 729, 731 and 732 do not apply.
Note: Sections 726, 727, 728, 729, 731 and 732 prevent multiple applications or complaints of a kind referred to in those sections from being made in relation to the same dispute. A notification can only be made under this section where there is no such other application or complaint in relation to the dispute at the time the notification is made. Generally, once a notification is made no such application or complaint can be made in relation to the dispute (see section 730).
(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration, including by making one or more of the following orders:
(a) an order for reinstatement of the employee;
(b) an order for the payment of compensation to the employee;
(c) an order for payment of an amount to the employee for remuneration lost;
(d) an order to maintain the continuity of the employee's employment;
(e) an order to maintain the period of the employee's continuous service with the employer.
(3) A person to whom an order under subsection (2) applies must not contravene a term of the order.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
778 Taking a dispute to court
A person who is entitled to apply under section 773 for the FWC to deal with a dispute must not make an unlawful termination court application in relation to the dispute unless:
(a) both of the following apply:
(i) the FWC has issued a certificate under paragraph 776(3)(a) in relation to the dispute;
(ii) the unlawful termination court application is made within 14 days after the day the certificate is issued, or within such period as the court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days; or
(b) the unlawful termination court application includes an application for an interim injunction.
Note 1: Generally, if the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute (see subsection 777(1)), an unlawful termination court application cannot be made in relation to the dispute (see sections 730 and 731).
Note 2: For the purposes of subparagraph (a)(ii), in Brodie‑Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
779 Appeal rights
(1) Despite subsection 604(2), the FWC must not grant permission to appeal from a decision made by the FWC under subsection 777(2) (which is about arbitration of a dispute) unless the FWC considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
(2) Despite subsection 604(1), an appeal from a decision made by the FWC in relation to a matter arising under subsection 777(2) can only, to the extent that it is an appeal on a question of fact, be made on the ground that the decision involved a significant error of fact.
779A Costs orders against parties
(1) The FWC may make an order for costs against a party (the first party) to a dispute for costs incurred by the other party to the dispute if:
(a) an application for the FWC to deal with the dispute has been made under section 773; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that the first party caused those costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission of the first party in connection with the conduct or continuation of the dispute.
(2) The FWC may make an order under subsection (1) only if the other party to the dispute has applied for it in accordance with section 781.
(3) This section does not limit the FWC's power to order costs under section 611.
780 Costs orders against lawyers and paid agents
(1) This section applies if:
(a) an application for the FWC to deal with a dispute has been made under section 773; and
(b) a person who is a party to the dispute has engaged a lawyer or paid agent (the representative) to represent the person in the dispute; and
(c) under section 596, the person is required to seek the FWC's permission to be represented by the representative.
(2) The FWC may make an order for costs against the representative for costs incurred by the other party to the dispute if the FWC is satisfied that the representative caused those costs to be incurred because:
(a) the representative encouraged the person to start, continue or respond to the dispute and it should have been reasonably apparent that the person had no reasonable prospect of success in the dispute; or
(b) of an unreasonable act or omission of the representative in connection with the conduct or continuation of the dispute.
(3) The FWC may make an order under this section only if the other party to the dispute has applied for it in accordance with section 781.
(4) This section does not limit the FWC's power to order costs under section 611.
781 Applications for costs orders
An application for an order for costs in relation to an application under section 773 must be made within 14 days after the FWC finishes dealing with the dispute.
781A Schedule of costs
(1) A schedule of costs may be prescribed in relation to items of expenditure likely to be incurred in relation to matters that can be covered by an order under section 611, 779A or 780 in relation to an application under section 773, including expenses arising from the representation of a party by a person or organisation other than on a legal professional basis.
(2) If a schedule of costs is prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1), then, in awarding costs under section 611, 779A or 780 in relation to an application under section 773, the FWC:
(a) is not limited to the items of expenditure appearing in the schedule; but
(b) if an item does appear in the schedule—must not award costs in relation to that item at a rate or of an amount that exceeds the rate or amount appearing in the schedule.
20 Section 782
Omit "section 780", substitute "section 779A or 780".
21 Subsection 783(1)
Omit ", in proceedings arising from the application,".
(12) Schedule 5, page 29 (line 1), omit "Functions of the", substitute "The".
(13) Schedule 5, page 29 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:
4 Paragraph 632(b)
Omit "that provides for the office to be held by an FWC Member".
(14) Page 31 (after line 23), after Schedule 6, insert:
Schedule 6A—Registered organisations
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012
1 Section 2 (table item 3)
Repeal the item, substitute:
3. Schedule 1, Part 1A |
1 July 2013. |
1 July 2013 |
4. Schedule 1, Part 2 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
2 After Part 1 of Schedule 1
Insert:
Part 1A—Amendments commencing on 1 July 2013
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
39A At the end of Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 5
Add:
142A Model rules for policies relating to expenditure
(1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, issue guidelines containing one or more sets of model rules dealing with the matters referred to in paragraph 141(1)(ca). An organisation or a branch of an organisation may adopt model rules in whole or in part, and with or without modification.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
39B After Division 3 of Part 2 of Chapter 5
Insert:
Division 3A—Rules relating to disclosure
148F Model rules relating to disclosure
(1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, issue guidelines containing one or more sets of model rules dealing with the matters referred to in sections 148A, 148B and 148C. An organisation or a branch of an organisation may adopt model rules in whole or in part, and with or without modification.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
39C Transitional—model rules
(1) Sections 142A and 148F of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, as inserted by this Schedule, apply, during the transition period, as if Part 2 of this Schedule had commenced at the same time as this item.
(2) In this item:
transition period means the period:
(a) beginning on 1 July 2013; and
(b) ending on 31 December 2013.
3 Part 2 of Schedule 1 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Part 2—Amendments commencing on 1 January 2014
4 Item 56 of Schedule 1
Repeal the item.
5 Item 57 of Schedule 1 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
57 Before section 148F
6 Item 57 of Schedule 1 (heading to new Division 3A)
Omit the heading.
7 Item 57 of Schedule 1 (after new subsection 148C(2))
Insert:
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a payment made to a related party if:
(a) the related party is an officer of the organisation or the branch (as the case may be); and
(b) the payment:
(i) consists of remuneration paid to the officer by the organisation or the branch (as the case may be); or
(ii) is reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred by the officer in performing the officer's duties as an officer.
Note: Under section 148A the rules of the organisation or branch must require certain disclosures in relation to remuneration.
8 Item 57 of Schedule 1 (new section 148F)
Omit the section.
9 Item 58 of Schedule 1
Repeal the item, substitute:
58 Transitional—disclosures to be made in relation 2013 ‑14 financial year
(1) This item applies to:
(a) an organisation that is, as at 1 January 2014, registered as an organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; and
(b) a branch of such an organisation.
(2) Rules made under subsection 148A(1) or (2) of the new Act are taken to require:
(a) the disclosure of remuneration paid during the period beginning on 1 July 2013 and ending on 31 December 2013; and
(b) the disclosure to be made as soon as practicable after 31 December 2013, but not later than 31 January 2014.
(3) Rules made under subsection 148B(1) or (2) of the new Act are taken to require:
(a) the disclosure of interests each officer has or acquires during the period beginning on 1 July 2013 and ending on 31 December 2013; and
(b) the disclosure to be made as soon as practicable after 31 December 2013, but not later than 31 January 2014.
(4) Rules made under subsection 148A(4) or (5), 148B(4) or (5) or 148C(1) or (2) of the new Act are taken to require disclosures to be made:
(a) in relation to the period beginning on 1 July 2013 and ending on 30 June 2014; and
(b) by 31 December 2014.
(5) Despite anything in the rules, disclosures of a kind referred to in a provision mentioned in subitem (4) are not otherwise required in relation to the period referred to in paragraph (4)(a).
(6) Disclosures made in accordance with subitems (2) to (4) are to be made in the manner provided for in the rules.
(7) Subitems (2) to (5) do not otherwise affect the rules.
(8) In this item:
new Act means the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 as in force immediately after the commencement of this item.
(15) Schedule 7, item 1, page 33 (line 13), after "commencement", insert "of Part 4".
(16) Schedule 7, item 1, page 34 (after line 13), after Part 4, insert:
Part 4A—Conferences (Schedule 3A)
8A Schedule 3A to the amending Act
The amendments made by Schedule 3A to the amending Act apply in relation to a matter that arises before or after the commencement of that Schedule, whether or not a conference starts to be conducted in relation to the matter before or after that commencement.
(17) Schedule 7, item 1, page 34 (after line 29), at the end of Schedule 4, add:
Part 6—Consent arbitration for general protections and unlawful termination (Schedule 4A)
10 Schedule 4A to the amending Act
(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4A to the amending Act apply in relation to dismissals that take effect after the commencement of that Schedule.
(2) The amendments made by Part 2 of Schedule 4A to the amending Act apply in relation to employment that is terminated after the commencement of that Schedule.
(18) Schedule 7, item 1, page 34, at the end of Schedule 4 (after proposed Part 6), add:
Part 7—The FWC (Schedule 5)
11 Item 4 of Schedule 5 to the amending Act
The amendment made by item 4 of Schedule 5 to the amending Act applies in relation to an appointment made after the commencement of that Schedule.
The government has proposed five non-controversial amendments to address anomalies in the operation of the fair work legislation on sheet AB231. The first amendment clarifies powers during conferences of the FWC. This technical amendment to the Fair Work Act will clarify the powers the commission can exercise when conducting a conference. The amendment refers to the commission's capacity to conciliate, mediate, express opinions or make recommendations. The amendment is clarifying in nature and will not confer any additional determinative powers or functions on the commission such as arbitration.
Amendment (2), Fair Work Commission consent arbitration of dismissal claims, would allow the Fair Work Commission to undertake arbitration of general protections, dismissal and unlawful termination claims but only where both parties expressly consent to the commission exercising this function. At present, resolution of these matters may only occur via proceedings in the Federal Court. This can involve significant legal costs for both parties and can discourage people with legitimate claims from pursuing a fair outcome. By allowing the commission to exercise this function, it will provide a further option for these matters to be dealt with quickly in a cost-effective way. The changes will provide access to a faster, less expensive, less formal alternative to court proceedings. The jurisdiction will only be available where both parties expressly consent to the commission exercising this function.
Amendment (3) is a technical amendment to clarify that a Fair Work Commission deputy president or commissioner is not prevented from holding concurrent appointment with the president's approval to an office under Commonwealth territorial law. This amendment will provide clarification that deputy presidents or commissioners can be appointed to offices under Commonwealth or territory laws in which their expertise may be useful. From time to time members of the commission and its predecessor have undertaken roles outside the FWC which drew upon their experience and expertise, including in recent years in respect of 457 visas or terms and conditions in the aged-care sector. The clarifying amendment removes a potential impediment to FWC members being considered for appointment to a wider range of roles.
Amendment (4): bullying amendments relating to Defence Force and security personnel. These amendments would limit the operation of the workplace bullying provisions in relation to the Defence Force, Australia's security agencies and the Federal Police to align with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act, including limitations to the powers of the Fair Work Commission in relation to particular circumstances going to defence, national security or existing or future covert or international operations of the AFP, and to exclude the operational provisions to members of the ADF. These amendments will reflect the sensitive nature of the work that is undertaken by Australia's defence, security and law enforcement personnel.
Amendment (5): transitional arrangements for reporting of registered organisations disclosures. The government proposes amendments to ensure the disclosure of remuneration to officers of an organisation reflects the government's policy that the five highest paid officers of a national office or the two highest paid officers of a branch are required to disclose their remuneration under section 148A. The amendments provide an exception to obligations to disclose payments to related parties, section 148C, to ensure the disclosure of remuneration only occurs under section 148A. The amendments also clarify the reimbursement of minor expenses, such as the cost of taxi fares, stationery or other incidentals which are reasonably incurred as a result of officials' responsibilities, are not required to be disclosed. They provide transitional disclosure arrangements for the period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013 by requiring disclosure of certain matters as soon as practical after 1 January 2014 and no later than 1 January 2014. These amendments allow registered organisations to undertake the required steps to amend their rules as required by amendments passed by the government last year. For the FWC to approve these rule changes, these amendments will not shorten the periods for which disclosure is required. (Quorum formed)
Relevant disclosures will be for the remuneration paid to the officer, because the officer is a member of the board or related part of the organisation, and material personal interest of the officer. I understand these amendments are supported by the House. I commend the amendments to the House.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (15:16): On this occasion we do agree with the government and the minister, but on nothing else related to this Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. These amendments have been the subject of discussion. I understand they are broadly supported by industry and were recommendations of the Fair Work Commission. We have no issue with them.
Question agreed to.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:17): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 and move government amendment (1) on sheet BW301:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item, substitute:
6. Schedule 3 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
Again I believe this is broadly agreed in the House. The bill currently before the House provides that relevant provisions will commence on proclamation or not later than six months after royal assent. The amendment clarifies that the provisions will commence on 1 January 2014. This will provide certainty to all stakeholders, including employers, employees and the Fair Work Commission, about the operation and commencement of this important jurisdiction. (Quorum formed)
Question agreed to.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:19): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1A together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 5), after item 16, insert:
16A Subsection 55(3)
After "subsection (2)", insert ", except as provided in section 56A".
(2) Schedule 1, page 8, after proposed item 16A, insert:
16B After section 56
Insert:
56A Flexible working arrangements: no contracting out of enterprise agreements
None of the following has any effect to the extent that it would be inconsistent with an enterprise agreement:
(a) an arrangement or agreement made as a result of a request under section 65 (which deals with requests for flexible working arrangements);
(b) a decision of the FWC of the kind referred to in subsection 598(1) in relation to a dispute about the operation of Division 4 of Part 2‑2 (which deals with requests for flexible working arrangements);
(c) any other exercise of a power of the FWC, including an outcome of a process carried out in accordance with subsection 595(2) (which deals with the FWC's power to deal with disputes otherwise than by arbitration), in relation to a dispute about the operation of Division 4 of Part 2‑2.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 9 (after line 27), at the end of the Part, add:
18A After section 65
Insert:
65A FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Division
(1) The FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Division (including a dispute about whether a refusal of a request under section 65 is on reasonable business grounds).
(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration.
Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).
(3) The FWC may deal with the dispute only on application by any of the following:
(a) an employee who has made a request under section 65;
(b) an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) Schedule 1, Part 3, at the end of the Part, add (after proposed item 18A):
18B Section 146 (note)
Omit "65(5) or".
(5) Schedule 1, Part 3, at the end of the Part, add (after proposed item 18B):
18C Subsection 186(6) (notes 1 and 2)
Omit "65(5) or".
(6) Schedule 1, Part 3, at the end of the Part, add (after proposed item 18C):
18D Subsection 739(2)
Omit "65(5) or".
18E Subsection 739(2) (note)
Omit "65(5) or".
(7) Schedule 1, Part 3, at the end of the Part, add (after proposed item 18E):
18F Subsection 740(2)
Omit "65(5) or".
18G Subsection 740(2) (note)
Omit "65(5) or".
Very briefly, I spoke to these amendments during my contribution in the second reading debate. These are simple amendments that would extend and provide a means for enforcing the right that people have under the Fair Work Act to request flexible working arrangements. These amendments would in situations where an employer unreasonably refuses that right allow the employee to take the matter to the Fair Work Commission, where they would be able to balance the needs of the employer, including the operational requirements of the employer, and the legitimate needs of the employee. This is important. It is important that the right to request these arrangements has teeth, otherwise it amounts to little more than a right to have a conversation. That would be the state that the bill would be in if we did not pass these amendments. I think these amendments would have broad support in the community. People are increasingly struggling to balance their work and life arrangements. I commend the amendments to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Melbourne's amendments be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:25): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) of sheet 2, (1) of sheet 3, (1) of sheet 4, (1) of sheet 5, (1) of sheet 6 and (1) of sheet 7 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:
4A. Schedule 1, Parts 6 to 11 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 1), after "Family‑friendly", insert ", job security and fairer bargaining".
(3) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 6—Objects
Fair Work Act 2009
31 At the end of section 3
Add:
; and (h) providing workplace relations laws that enhance job security; and
(i) promoting full employment in Australia; and
(j) helping working Australians to achieve a better work/life balance.
(1) Schedule 1, page 14, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed Part 6), add:
Part 7—Notice requirements for industrial action
Fair Work Act 2009
32 Subsection 414(5)
After "engages", insert ", or changes normal operations for the purposes of engaging,".
33 After subsection 414(5)
Insert:
(5A) The period of notice for the purposes of paragraph (5)(a) must be at least 3 working days.
(1) Schedule 1, page 14, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed Part 7), add:
Part 8—Orders suspending or terminating protected industrial action: general
Fair Work Act 2009
34 Subsection 423(1)
Omit "if", substitute "to the extent that".
35 Subsection 424(1)
Omit "if", substitute "to the extent that".
(1) Schedule 1, page 14, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed Part 8), add:
Part 9—Orders suspending or terminating protected industrial action: requirements
Fair Work Act 2009
36 After subsection 423(6)
Insert:
Requirement—permitted matters capable of settlement
(6A) For an order terminating protected industrial action, the FWC must be satisfied that:
(a) terms to deal with all the permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement could be included in an industrial action related workplace determination; or
(b) all the bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement have agreed to settle all the permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement by another means by which a binding settlement of those matters might be achieved.
Example: For paragraph (b), the bargaining representatives might have agreed to conciliation by the FWC and to the inclusion in the proposed enterprise agreement of any terms recommended by the FWC to settle the permitted matters at issue.
(6B) For an order suspending protected industrial action, the FWC must be satisfied, in relation to any permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement that cannot be dealt with by including terms in an industrial action related workplace determination, that:
(a) there is a means by which a binding settlement of those matters might be achieved (if all of the bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement agreed to settle those matters by that means); and
(b) if the protected industrial action is employee claim action or employee response action—the bargaining representatives of the employee or employees who are engaging in the industrial action have not agreed to settle all of those matters by that means; and
(c) if the protected industrial action is employer response action—the bargaining representatives of the employer or employers who are engaging in the industrial action have not agreed to settle all of those matters by that means.
37 Subsection 424(1)
After "The FWC must", insert "(subject to subsections (1A) and (1B))".
38 After subsection 424(1)
Insert:
(1A) The FWC must not make an order terminating industrial action of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) unless the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) terms to deal with all the permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement could be included in an industrial action related workplace determination; or
(b) all the bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement have agreed to settle all the permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement by another means by which a binding settlement of those matters might be achieved.
Example: For paragraph (b), the bargaining representatives might have agreed to conciliation by the FWC and to the inclusion in the proposed enterprise agreement of any terms recommended by the FWC to settle the permitted matters at issue.
(1B) The FWC must not make an order suspending industrial action of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) unless the FWC is satisfied, in relation to any permitted matters at issue during bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement that cannot be dealt with by including terms in an industrial action related workplace determination, that:
(a) there is a means by which a binding settlement of those matters might be achieved (if all of the bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement agreed to settle those matters by that means); and
(b) if the protected industrial action is employee claim action or employee response action—the bargaining representatives of the employee or employees who are engaging in the industrial action have not agreed to settle all of those matters by that means; and
(c) if the protected industrial action is employer response action—the bargaining representatives of the employer or employers who are engaging in the industrial action have not agreed to settle all of those matters by that means.
(1) Schedule 1, page 14, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed Part 9), add:
Part 10—Orders terminating protected industrial action: limits
Fair Work Act 2009
39 After section 424
Insert:
424A When the FWC must not terminate industrial action
Despite subsections 423(1) and 424(1), the FWC must not make an order terminating protected industrial action if either or both of the following apply in relation to any employer response action concerned:
(a) a purpose of the action is to make any application under section 423 or 424 more likely to succeed;
(b) the action is not a proportionate response in the circumstances.
40 After paragraph 426(5)(a)
Insert:
(ab) in the case of employer response action—whether the industrial action is being engaged in for the purposes of making any application more likely to succeed;
(1) Schedule 1, page 14, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed Part 10), add:
Part 11—Repeal of Ministerial declarations power
Fair Work Act 2009
41 Subsection 266(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) A termination of industrial action instrument in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement is an order under section 423 or 424 terminating protected industrial action for the agreement.
42 Paragraph 413(7)(b)
Repeal the paragraph.
43 Division 7 of Part 3 ‑3
Repeal the Division.
Again, very briefly, I addressed these matters in my speech in the second reading debate. These amendments would address some of the issues that have arisen in respect of the operation of the Fair Work Act. In particular, for nurses and people in the public sector where they face powerful employers—workers, for example, in areas like Qantas—it would provide them with some protection against powerful employers tactically using industrial action or tactically dragging out negotiations. It would give the Fair Work Commission greater power to resolve the whole of disputes and ensure that, from the perspective of powerful employers, they could not do these things tactically—for example, by prolonging disputes or by grounding a fleet. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question negatived.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:27): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) of sheet 8 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:
5A. Schedule 2A |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Page 15 (after line 11), after Schedule 2, insert:
Schedule 2A—Family violence
Fair Work Act 2009
1 Section 12
Insert:
experience of family violence includes:
(a) a current or past experience of family violence; or
(b) the experience of providing care or support to a member of a person's immediate family or household who is experiencing family violence; or
(c) an experience of family violence imputed to a person.
2 Section 12
Insert:
family violence: see section 17AA.
3 After section 17
Insert:
17AA Meaning of family violence
(1) Family violence is violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member, or causes the family member to be fearful.
(2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to) the following:
(a) physical assault;
(b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour;
(c) economic abuse;
(d) emotional or psychological abuse;
(e) stalking;
(f) kidnapping or deprivation of liberty;
(g) damage to property (whether or not the victim owns the property);
(h) causing injury or death to an animal (whether or not the animal belongs to the victim);
(i) behaviour that exposes a child to behaviour of the kind described above.
4 Section 351
Omit "or social origin", substitute ", social origin or experience of family violence".
5 After paragraph 772(1)(h)
Insert:
; (i) experience of family violence.
Briefly, I referred to this in my speech in the second reading debate. This bill proposed by the government makes some welcome moves to extend protections to people who have experienced family violence. In particular, I applaud the government for extending the right to request flexible working arrangements. What my amendments would do is strengthen the protections against adverse action for victims of family violence. What this would mean is that someone who is in a position where they have experienced family violence or are looking after someone who has experienced it, who perhaps then makes a request of their employer, or perhaps not, are protected against adverse action from their employer. For example, if someone is not in a position to turn up to work on a particular day because they have been the victim of family violence, then it would be prohibited to take adverse action against them that might otherwise be lawful. This amendment has the support of domestic family violence campaigners. It is something that I hope receives sympathetic attention from the government and the opposition.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Melbourne's amendments be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:30): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 9 as circulated in my name together:.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 10), insert:
10A. Schedule 5A |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Page 29 (after line 14), after Schedule 5, insert:
Schedule 5A—Increases to compulsory superannuation not to affect minimum wage reviews or orders
Fair Work Act 2009
1 At the end of section 285
Add:
(4) In exercising its power in an annual wage review:
(a) to make determinations referred to in paragraph (2)(b); and
(b) to make a national minimum wage order;
the FWC must disregard any increase in relevant superannuation contributions that takes effect after this subsection commences.
(5) Relevant superannuation contributions are contributions to a superannuation fund made by an employer to the extent that one or more of the following applies:
(a) the employer would have been liable to pay superannuation guarantee charge under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 in relation to the person if the amounts had not been so contributed;
(b) the employer is required to contribute to the fund for the employee's benefit in relation to a defined benefit interest (within the meaning of section 292‑175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) of the employee;
(c) the employer is required to contribute to the fund for the employee's benefit under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
As we have seen recently, when the Fair Work Commission assesses the minimum wage it takes into account potential superannuation rises for employees. This amendment would have the effect of saying that would not be taken into account for future increases to the minimum wage. I accept that for wages above the minimum wage it may be appropriate to consider whether to trade off future superannuation increases against wage increases. But for those who are on the minimum wage, when the minimum wage is so low, that trade-off should not be made because they are probably going to retire on the pension and not be reliant on their superannuation in the same way as others. So they need a wage increase now and that should be taken into account by the Fair Work Commission.
Question negatived.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (15:31): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (27) on sheet 1 as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (line 6), omit "allows a worker", substitute "allows a worker or employer".
(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 16 (table heading), omit "Workers bullied at work", substitute "Workers or employers bullied at work".
(3) Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (line 21), omit "workers bullied", substitute "workers or employers bullied".
(4) Schedule 3, item 5, page 17 (line 1), omit "workers bullied", substitute "workers or employers bullied".
(5) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 5), omit "Workers bullied", substitute "Workers or employers bullied".
(6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 8), omit "a worker who", substitute "a worker or employer who".
(7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 9), omit "stop the bullying", substitute "stop the bullying after seeking advice from the Fair Work Ombudsman or Safe Work Australia or such other organisation as prescribed by the regulations".
(8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 12), omit "Stopping workers", substitute "Stopping workers and employers".
(9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 14), omit "A worker who", substitute "Subject to subsection (1A), a worker or employer who".
(10) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 15), omit "at work", substitute "at work by a worker, employer or official of a registered organisation".
(11) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (after line 15), after subsection 789FC(1), insert:
(1A) Prior to applying to the FWC for an order under section 789FF, the worker or employer must seek preliminary advice from one of the following organisations confirming that the behaviour in question does, or may, constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered:
(a) the Fair Work Ombudsman;
(b) Safe Work Australia;
(c) an occupational health and safety organisation of a State or Territory prescribed by the regulations pursuant to subsection (1B).
(1B) The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing an occupational health and safety organisation of a State or Territory. However, if the Governor-General makes the regulation, the regulation must include at least one occupational health and safety organisation from each State and Territory.
(12) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 3), omit "worker bullied", substitute "worker or employer bullied".
(13) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 4), omit "A worker", substitute "A worker or employer".
(14) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 5), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(15) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 8), at the end of subparagraph 789FD(1)(a)(ii), add "or".
(16) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (after line 8), after subparagraph 789FD(1)(a)(ii), insert:
(iii) an official of a registered organisation;
(17) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 9), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(18) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 10), omit "group of workers of which the worker is a member", substitute "group of which the worker or employer is a member".
(19) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 33), omit "a worker", substitute "a worker or an employer".
(20) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 2), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(21) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 4), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(22) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 6), omit "order it considers appropriate", substitute "order it considers appropriate including an order revoking a union right of entry permit".
(23) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 8), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(24) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 15), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(25) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 18), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(26) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 30), omit "a worker", substitute "a worker or employer".
(27) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 31), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
These amendments relate to workplace bullying and many speakers on this side of the House have alerted members opposite in the government to the ridiculousness of including provisions on workplace bullying in a fair work bill.
There is a plethora of state and also federal agencies that can take complaints about workplace bullying. There is a Work Safe Australia in every single state and territory. It is bizarre that the government should have decided that they want to include a whole new subject matter in a bill to amend the Fair Work laws of this country that actually has nothing to do with that. There are provisions already underway with the government's own Safe Work Australia. Why would you introduce a new mechanism about a new subject that is already under discussion for legislative debate with Safe Work Australia into a bill that is designed to look at the Fair Work review? We take very seriously the issue of workplace bullying. We noted with interest the House of Representatives committee's report into the issue, but we are really disappointed that the government did not see fit to deal with the issue in separate legislation.
We support the proposals to address workplace bullying, but only if it is clear that the worker has first sought help and impartial advice from an independent regulatory agency and, further, that these provisions are expanded to include the conduct of union officials towards workers and employers. The amendments that I move achieve this objective and I would encourage members on the crossbenches to support them. It is important to recognise that these amendments have already been supported by the government's handpicked lead reviewer of the Fair Work Act who was reported in Workplace Express on 14 May as having said the coalition's proposal that bullying claims go through an independent regulatory agency before being lodged with the Fair Work Commission was a great way to do it.
In fact, the minister just moved an amendment that we agreed to that said that the workplace bullying activities of the Fair Work Commission would not start until 1 January because there is absolutely no way that the Fair Work Commission can get together a whole unit to deal with the subject matter that is not really in its purview in the next couple of weeks. So the government acknowledges itself that it cannot get its act together before 1 January and has extended the period by six months. The most sensible thing would be to filter out complaints of bullying made in the workplace through the existing agencies and the existing structures which include state OH&S law as well as the common law. Then, if there is no resolution, maybe bring it to the Fair Work Commission.
As well as that, it is perfectly obvious to everyone in this place that some of the biggest bullies in the workplace are union bosses. So we are saying that the bill should be amended to include bullying by union bosses of workers and employers in the workplace. Every speaker on this side of the House has brought evidence to the parliament in this debate of exactly that. These are perfectly moderate amendments and I commend them to the House.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:34): The government will not be agreeing to these amendments. They are a stunt. The opposition spokesperson in the other place has been advised about the operation of the legislation in briefings by my department.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (15:35): I agree with the last part of what the member for Farrer was saying. Obviously, coming out of mustering camps and having worked as a labourer on many occasions in the mines, I have difficulty here because what one person may construe as bullying may be another way that people just simply talk to each other in situations of very high tension and very high danger. We are not people to equivocate in the bush and in the mines, I can assure you. So the definition worries me greatly and I have had difficulties with no part of the ALP proposal except in this area. I would agree with the first part of the opposition's amendments but certainly not the second.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:40]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Ms LEY (Farrer) (15:45): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) of sheet 2 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7), omit the table item.
(2) Schedule 4, page 20 (line 1) to page 28 (line 29), omit the Schedule.
(3) Schedule 7, item 1, page 34 (lines 14 to 29), omit Part 5.
I will speak briefly about the amendments, but what is more interesting and important in the case of these amendments is the process. The government and the opposition struck an agreement to remove the expanded right-of-entry provisions from the Fair Work Amendment Bill yesterday. That agreement was still in place when we all woke up this morning and, as far as I know, it was in place at lunchtime today. But in a hasty scramble, only an hour before question time, the government informed us that in fact the very amendments that they were about to move, to take the right-of-entry provisions out of this bill, were not going to be moved, and that the bill as originally circulated by the government was going to stand.
So the government's own amendments were pulled at the last minute. Why could that be? Who benefits from union right of entry, or should I say expanded right of entry? Unions, of course. What dirty deal must have been done? What insistence was there that more money be allocated to the union coffers in this last few hours before these right-of-entry provisions hit the table to make this minister and this government scramble away from them and give in to the union bosses that hold them to ransom?
We have referred to the Prime Minister's promise of no expanded right of entry. Right-of-entry provisions in this country today are very strong. They are very firm. They allow unions way too much, and we have said that we will draw them back. Only today I heard of an example of a childcare centre in Queensland where the union, United Voice, desperate to sign up new members, barged into the lunch room, looked at the sign-on sheet and said: 'We haven't met these members of staff. Who are they? Where are they? Why can't they come in? Why can't we sign them up to the union?'
What we are moving with these amendments is to take out the right-of-entry provisions that the government had agreed with us to do. We are concerned about joy-rides and lunch room invasions; the default provisions in this bill say that the union can choose the lunch room as the default meeting place. Only 13 per cent of Australian workers belong to unions; the other 87 per cent have to have their lunchtime and their quiet time interrupted in this manner.
I strongly commend these amendments to the House and I look forward to the support of the crossbenchers.
Debate interrupted.
PRIVILEGE
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:48): I apologise to the House for interrupting this important debate. But, as members would recall, a while ago in this chamber a matter of public importance debate was not proceeded with, because the member who had submitted a letter calling for a definite matter of public importance to be debated absented himself from the chamber at the relevant time—and there is no mystery as to what time these matters are called on.
The member in question, the member for Throsby, obviously is not in any way incommoded. He is here in the chamber. He does not appear to be ill. He does not appear to have had any legitimate reason whatsoever for being absent from the chamber at the time when the matter of public importance debate was called on. Under the circumstances, it appears that the member for Throsby submitted his matter of public importance, deliberately intending to absent himself from the chamber. That is as grievous a breach of privilege by a member of this parliament as could possibly be imagined.
I have consulted with the Father of the House, who has been in this chamber for 41 years and provided 41 years of service to this House, and not once, on not one occasion, has someone submitted a matter of public importance for debate and then, without the intervention of any other proceedings of this chamber, been absent from the House.
What happened earlier today was an utter abuse of the procedures of this House. It was a scandalous breach of the dignity of this chamber. It put you, Madam Speaker, in an invidious position, in a humiliating and embarrassing position. We all know it was orchestrated by the Leader of the House, but the fact of the matter is that, by allowing himself to be duped by the Leader of the House in this way, the member for Throsby has been guilty of a grievous breach of privilege. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, and I would ask you to consider this matter carefully and report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. The dignity of this House must be respected. The rights of members of this chamber must be respected, and ruses and set-ups such as this should not be tolerated.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, I raise a point of order. Given that the former Leader of the House used to knock off the MPI on regular intervals, this is a farcical contribution. We should get on with the business before the House.
The SPEAKER (15:51): Not that I would wish to not concur with the member for Berowra, but, when I was Deputy Speaker in the previous parliament, there were occasions when MPIs did fall over. But I will give consideration to this matter of privilege as I do all matters.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
The SPEAKER (15:52): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (15:52): After the debacle of the member for Throsby not being present, I wanted to debate the Scottish svengali, John McTiernan, on his 457. I wanted to debate that in the House and why the TWU has employed three people—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong will get to the amendments or I will sit him down.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Here I am finding myself debating an important amendment that we put forward about the right of entry. The reason we have to debate this point is the Labor Party has done a backflip under the pressure of the unions—their paymasters in the unions. Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you! Not only is it good enough that 50 per cent of all votes at the federal Labor conferences go to the unions but 100 per cent of members of those opposite in the caucus are also members of the union. If you go to the number of members of unions across the private sector of Australia, only 13 per cent are members of the union. Here we have right-of-entry provisions that this government wants to introduce to allow union bosses to go into the lunchtime hours of private sector workers across the country. What about the 87 per cent of the workers who are not members of the union? They want to eat their burger and chips in quiet. They do not want to have the union bosses storm into their lunchtime hours and try to recruit them.
If it was not good enough that the Labor Party, whether in the childcare sector or in the aged-care sector, made someone's payments to those sectors contingent upon them joining a union, now they have taken it to the workplaces of every private sector employer in the country. That is not good enough, because it was not a recommendation of the Fair Work review panel hand-picked by those on the other side. They hand-picked their own reviewers, led by Professor McCallum, and those reviewers did not even recommend this amendment before the House. That is why the pieman, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, said he was going to remove this amendment. But now he has got the phone call from the TWU and the CFMEU and the AWU—they have all rung his office at once and said, 'Bring back that right-of-entry provision.'
What is absolutely outrageous about this is that it is in breach of the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about the carbon tax. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about private health insurance. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about family tax benefit A. And we had a promise from the Prime Minister about right of entry. This is what the Prime Minister said about keeping the right-of-entry provisions as they were, in the National Press Club debate on 8 November 2007:
I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign—
yes, we would—
sign a contract in blood—
yes, we would—
take a polygraph—
yes, we would—
bet my house on it—
yes, we would—
give you my mother as a hostage—
yes, we would—
whatever you'd like.
She said they would keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are. How outrageous is that? I say to the Independents: how outrageous is it that the Prime Minister goes to the Australian National Press Club and tells the people across this country—all 23 million of them—'We are going to keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are'?
Again, Julia Gillard in a media press release on 28 August 2007 said, 'As of today federal Labor will maintain existing right-of-entry rules without exception.' They have not. We know, through the economic reforms that we introduced, that we delivered a 22 per cent increase in real wages and two million new jobs, paid back $96 billion of debt, lifted the credit rating from AA to AAA and doubled the crane works on our waterfront. That was as a result of our workplace relations reforms and our prudent economic management. Those on the other side have broken promise after promise to the Australian people, have come into this House and done a backflip out of all proportion and now are saying to every employer of Australia, 'Your lunchrooms are not safe because we will be in there at the first opportunity.' Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:57): I have to respond to that fairytale espoused by the member for Kooyong. First of all, what is most revealing is to hear the member for Kooyong enthusiastically embrace the workplace relations system of the Howard era. I know that he is waiting for some of his shadow front bench to move on so he can see his own ambitions fulfilled—it is an open secret. I read the Peter van Onselen columns as much as you guys leak to them.
But in terms of the member for Kooyong's speech, such as it was, he ran with his usual anti-union bile and prejudice. The provisions currently in the bill reform the right-of-entry regime in response to the recommendation findings from the independent Fair Work review panel. The provisions better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively.
As a government we believe in freedom of association. We reject the language of the opposition where freedom of association somehow means an invasion. We believe that people have the right to choose to belong or not to belong to a union. We believe this is a fundamental right. We reject the proposition of the opposition that this freedom should be accessed only with the permission of an employer. We understand that the vast majority of trade unions and employer organisations are accountable to their members. We also believe that anyone in a position of trust or responsibility in a registered organisation has to comply with the law. We believe in balancing the right of employers to go about their business without undue interference, with the democratic right of employees to be represented in the workplace and to participate in discussions with their union at appropriate times. We reject the exaggerated language about joy-rides. There is no evidence that has been offered for that, not a scintilla of proof. That, as ever, has hardly stopped some of the anti-union, bigoted baiters opposite from attacking us.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Touched a sore nerve there, I think. We do not believe employers should be out of pocket. We do not believe in employees being forced to talk to people to whom they do not wish to talk, but that is why the bill as it currently stands does not provide for any of the fears, concerns, dogma, propaganda, prejudice, bile and ignorance that we hear from those opposite.
This debate proves yet again that you cannot trust conservatives on workplace relations. The contributions of those opposite yet again prove that the coalition are never straight with the Australian people on workplace relations. The bile, the prejudice and the anti-union hysteria of the far-right extremists which seem to be emerging in the ranks of the employee-hating conservatives prove yet again that the Liberal Party's policy position is anathema—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Those on my left—
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Moncrieff! Those on my left will sit in silence. The minister has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: The debate proves yet again that the conservatives' policy position is anathema to cooperative workplace relations. We oppose the amendments moved by the conservatives.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (16:00): One question, Minister: why the backflip? I have here government amendments: 'Excise schedule 4'. The entire right-of-entry provisions were going to be taken out of this bill by you up until lunchtime today. So my short, sharp question—not debating the right of entry or the increased right of entry per se—is: why the backflip?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (16:00): We had today an arrangement that had recognised clear deficiencies in these right-of-entry and joy-ride provisions—something even the government recognised—but then at the eleventh hour the provisions are back on the table. What happened? Was it the fully owned subsidiary of the union movement, being the Gillard Labor government, not having done enough to pay their dues to their sponsors? Is that what happened? It is not clear, because we have had no explanation.
Bear a thought for the small businesses of Australia. It is bad enough that this government broke its promise not to disclose the addresses of home based businesses when it came to the Australian business name register. The small business community did not want their privacy breached by this national scheme that ignored the protections that were in the state based schemes, where home based businesses could provide another address as a point of contact and not have to tell the whole world where their home is. That promise was broken, and that broken promise on disclosure of people's home addresses for home based businesses is now matched by another one.
You can imagine a union fronting up to someone's home based business, where there might be one or two people in there, and banging on the door—because of the broken promise about not having that privacy matter disclosed—and saying: 'I want to use your lunch room. Hang on; it's your home. I want to take over your dining room. I want to go into the family area. I want to go into the house.' Why? Because these laws have not been thought through.
The only construct of economic contribution Labor understand is that of big organisations and big unions with big workforces where there are dozens of people who look after these tricky amendments and changes that this government is inflicting on people. Labor do not understand the nature of small business. Imagine if you were a corner store selling pies or something like that and someone came in wanting to talk to your staff—someone wanted to barge their way through the store area into what would be the family room of your home, if that business were attached to a home in a residential area.
There has been no thought given to how these measures—which were supposed to be off the table last night but are now back on the table—will be yet another affront to the small business men and women of Australia. They have been let down time and time again. Their privacy has been breached. That was a broken promise. The Prime Minister provided all of these assurances and even said, 'I will bet my house on it.' Minister, small business men and women bet their house on their business every day and, if they are operating from home, they do not need someone coming in and demanding entry under your laws and then taking over their dining room. Why? Because not all workplaces are big unionised shops like you seem to think. There is a vast number—millions of people—contributing to the economy and the wellbeing of this nation who do not fit this construct that you have.
The small business men and women of Australia have had a gutful of Labor, who have done nothing for them. Employment in that sector has gone down. The number of small businesses willing to employ is not even where it was back when this government was elected. We are seeing small business formation halved. Why? Because time and time again this Labor government has been completely insensitive and indifferent to the real-life challenges that small businesses face. Minister, this is an invitation for home based businesses to have their door knocked on—because you breached their privacy, in another broken promise—and to have someone demand access to their place. There is no lunch room; it is their lounge room; it is their dining room. It is their personal home. It is where their kids are.
This is why you have not thought this through. This is why we thought you had actually been sensible in your assurance to the coalition that you would carve out these provisions. But something has happened. You got a knock on the door and someone said, 'Oh, Bill, Bill, as part of a labour movement, you are a fully owned subsidiary of the unions that are demanding this be put back in,' with no interest in its impact on the small business men and women who are creating opportunities across this continent. You have no idea about the pressures they face. These provisions should be carved out because you have not thought them through. These provisions are offensive. They are an affront to small business men and women. We say to all those tens of thousands of small business men and women who operate from their homes to create wealth and opportunity: you cannot count on Labor—they have never done anything for you—but you can count on the coalition, because we respect what you do, we recognise your contribution and we value the risk that you take, and you do not need a union person coming in and taking over your dining room as well.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:05): I will not detain the House for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I believe that, within the provisions of this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013—and my audience is the crossbenchers—there is a genuine unintended consequence for family business and for larger enterprises. The provision I speak of is linked to the right of entry—the lunch room invasion. In and around my electorate I have businesses that employ up to 800 people on site. As a show of good faith, these businesses forgo business space on their sites and give that free of charge to the union movement so that the union delegates on site, who are free to come and go as they wish, can meet with—
Mr Husic: No, they're not.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: The intimidation shown there is consistent with the intimidation that you get throughout the union movement. Minister, you have the power to repeal this one section of the bill. There are good businesses out there that have invested in locations on site where the unions can go and meet. The unintended consequence of this schedule in this bill means that there is no right of refusal for the business owner to be able to say, 'I have provided that to you free of charge; take that space.' There is no right of refusal for the business owner, when the union delegate comes in and says: 'I don't want that spot. I want to speak to the guys in the lunch room.' I will stand corrected, Minister, if that is not the case and then I will take that with humble pie. But, if it is an unintended consequence, I do implore you and the crossbenches to reconsider your support for this bill, because it is fundamentally wrong. There are other provisions in which union guys can get their message across.
Minister, in an earlier response you said that everyone has the right to be a union member. Exactly, but everyone also has the right not to be a union member if they so wish. It is unthinkable that if I were in a coffee shop or a public locality—as when a telemarketer rings my house and asks me to join, I have the right to say no. Under these provisions the unintended consequence is that there will be no provision for those people that wish not to be part of a union to remove themselves from the company or the union delegate on site unless they physically get up and leave the lunch room. This is unfair, Minister.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:08): On the point the opposition makes about its core business, yes, it would have been highly desirable if an amendment had been moved to eliminate from the bill businesses under 15 or something of that nature. But members of the opposition clearly are not aware of what happens in a real place of work. If you had been in a crib room on a mine—
Mr Buchholz: Rubbish!
Mr Van Manen: I've run my own business.
Mr KATTER: I am rather intrigued. If you had been in a crib room at a place of work then you would know what we would do to any union delegate that came in there if we did not want him in there, I can tell you. I speak from experience.
All the same, I would ask the minister to consider that maybe somewhere along the track that should be moved. If the opposition as a government moves it in the next parliament, I would most certainly back the sort of proposition that the opposition spokesman put forward with respect to small business.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:13]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:20): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 10), insert:
10A. Schedule 5, item 4 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Schedule 5, page 29 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:
4 At the end of Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 5 ‑1
Add:
595A Conciliation and arbitration of disputes
(1) Despite any other provision of this Act but without limitation, the FWC may deal with a dispute in the following way:
(a) in the first 3 months of the dispute—by fixing a date to begin conciliation;
(b) in the 3 months following the date fixed to begin conciliation—by conciliation;
(c) after the end of the period referred to in paragraph (b)—by arbitration (including by making any orders it considers appropriate) on application by:
(i) an employee who is a party to the dispute; or
(ii) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such an employee.
(2) On application in accordance with paragraph (1)(c), the FWC:
(a) may arbitrate the dispute; and
(b) must arbitrate the dispute if arbitration by the FWC is agreed to by:
(i) a majority of the employees who are parties to the dispute, by a voting method approved by the FWC; and
(ii) any organisations entitled to represent the industrial interests of those employees.
(3) On request by an employee who is a party to the dispute or an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such an employee, the FWC may, but is not required to:
(a) consider; and
(b) approve or refuse to approve;
a voting method for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(i).
I will speak very briefly. The issues that I am talking about are extremely complex, so I will just give generalities without going into all the specifics. But the generality is a fairly simple principle: where people are having an argument about whether they should get a pay rise or whether they should not, for 110 years in this country when that dispute occurred it was resolved by way of arbitration. I tend to feel that I am looking like an extremist insofar as I am putting up a proposition which successive governments have subscribed to in this country for 110 years.
When we play football, we have a referee; it is a fairly simple concept. When we have a disagreement between the employer and the employee, we then go to a referee called an arbitration commission to make a determination. The opposition abolished our right to get a fair go and, of course, the government has not restored it, because the current access to the arbitration commission is really no access at all, except for the purpose of stopping a strike. There is no ability for either side to go to the arbitration commission and ask for an award determination. That power is not there. All I am asking is what every successive government in 110 years in this country agreed to—anything but an extremist position. The fact that I actually have to defend that position is a reflection upon every person in this House who is not going to vote with me and the member for Denison. We are simply asking for a restoration of the parties' access to arbitration.
There are other bits and pieces here, but, the time being late, I know I will not be given the time to complete an explanation of the other aspects of the bill, so I will just state the central thrust of what we are talking about here. The Liberal government removed arbitration. They said, 'You will now play football without a referee'—a touch of humour, Madam Speaker. We did it last night and I didn't think it was a real good idea, but that might be a viewpoint of a New South Welshman! But to put aside the humour and come back to the seriousness of this debate: all I am asking for is that, when an employer and an employee cannot agree about, for example, a CPI increase, the parties have the right to go to arbitration—we are back playing football with a referee, which every single government in this place for 110 years has considered a reasonable proposition. When that right was removed, the people thought it was so unreasonable that they threw Prime Minister Bruce out of parliament altogether. John Howard—except for this little aberration, a very decent Australian, in my opinion—they threw out as well.
Our position is not unreasonable. Our position is the position that every single Australian, if they thought about it, would have. They would be in here voting the same way as me and the honourable member for Denison.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, in this division I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (16:26): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (16:27): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 18 June 2013 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 10 a.m.;
(b) the Federation Chamber shall meet from 10.10 a.m. until 1.45 p.m. and from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m., and standing order 193 (Members’ Constituency Statements) shall be suspended;
(c) during the period from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and
(d) during the period from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that she will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:28): Order! It being so perilously close to 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Petition: Enoggera Barracks
Infrastructure
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:28): I rise to present a petition that has been found to be in order by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions and which has been signed by 272 Australians in my electorate.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the failure of the Government to commit to a new entrance to the Enoggera Army Base on Samford Road and the uncertainty and delay that this creates in reducing the impact of traffic on local roads.
We therefore ask the House to urge the Minister for Defence to instruct his Department to contribute to the construction of a new entrance to the Enoggera Army Base on Samford Road in consideration of the residents and businesses in that area.
from 272 citizens
Petition received.
Ms GAMBARO: This petition is signed by the local residents of Ashgrove and Enoggera and draws to the attention of the House the failure of the government to commit to a new entrance to the Enoggera Barracks on Samford Road and the uncertainty and delay that this creates in reducing the impact of traffic on local roads. It goes on to ask the House to urge the Minister for Defence to instruct his department to contribute to the construction of a new entrance to the Enoggera Army base on Samford Road in consideration of the residences and businesses in that area.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the biggest local issue I have in my electorate is traffic congestion on local roads. It is not confined to one suburb or a block of streets; it is becoming a significant source of frustration to many of the local suburban residents. Large amounts of traffic, including heavy vehicles such as semitrailers, are rat-running using our local streets as opposed to using the main arterial routes. This is tending to mainly affect the inner suburbs, where traffic to and from the city during peak times diverts through local roads and is a major safety issue, as well as incredibly inconvenient.
However, this afternoon I am going to concentrate on a local road issue that will not go away. I am talking about the traffic congestion around Ashgrove and Enoggera and the failure of the government to commit to opening a new entrance to the Enoggera Army base on Samford Road to alleviate traffic. This saga—and it is a saga—has been going on since 2010, and it is just not good enough. I have raised this matter before in the House and recently I welcomed the shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel, Stuart Robert MP, to Enoggera to meet with local residents about their concerns.
Meetings first commenced in June 2010 between the Department of Defence and the Queensland government's Department of Transport and Main Roads to include the Samford Road entrance to the Enoggera Army base as part of the Queensland government's Samford Road corridor plan. An article in the North-West News of 7 July 2011 notes that Defence announced it is working with the transport and main roads department for a new entrance as part of the state's Samford Road corridor. The Department of Defence is quoted as saying:
… plans would be finalised as part of the Samford Rd corridor plan …
Then, in November 2011, the answer to a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works question on notice on the LAND 17 phase 1A infrastructure project included the following response:
The Department of Defence is committed to putting an entrance on to Samford Rd, but we cannot proceed with any works on Samford Road until the final road design for the Samford Rd and Wardell St intersection upgrade has been finalised.'
Meetings continued between the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and the Department of Defence, and the dialogue went through all of 2011 and 2012. They met to progress these projects. Campbell Newman announced the revised plans on 22 June 2011 for the Samford Road-Wardell Street intersection, which would also include a new entrance to the Enoggera Barracks at a cost of $65 million. Senator Feeney, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, also indicated in correspondence dated 26 June that Defence would possibly contribute $5.4 million for the new entrance to the barracks off Samford Road.
After all the negotiations and all the work that has been completed over this issue over a period of two years, the government then indicated in estimates in February that they would not commit to a new entrance after all but instead would commission yet another study. Works on the Samford-Wardell upgrade have now been started by the Newman government, and this is quite farcical: there will be a turning lane into a fence, as there will be no entrance because Defence will not commit to a new entrance off Samford Road. This is just incredible.
In direct contrast to this government, we are committed to working through the issues surrounding traffic management around the Enoggera Army base and surrounds, and should the coalition win the election later this year we will make absolutely sure that we will resolve this issue and make it a top priority.
National Security
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (16:33): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek indulgence to add to an answer in question time today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The minister has the call.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Thank you. In addition to the answer I gave earlier to the member for Stirling in question time today, where I advised that there are no other known people in detention with Interpol red notices for terrorism activities, I wish to add that there are, of course, 55 people in the immigration network in high-security detention with adverse security assessments, a fact publicly well known.
Media Ownership
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (16:33): On 11 June 2013, Mr Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation will hold a special meeting for shareholders to vote on amendments needed to authorise the company's plan to break into two separate publicly traded entities, dividing its newspaper and book publishing assets from its television and film business. The publishing unit, which will retain the News Corporation name, will include Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones and Mr Murdoch's other newspapers, including the New York Post and The Australian. The film business will be called 21st Century Fox and includes News Corporation's 39.1 per cent stake in BSkyB, the 20th Century Fox film and TV studio, the Fox broadcast network and cable channels including Fox News. The split will most likely take effect on 30 June 2013, the end of the company's fiscal year. Mr Murdoch will serve as chair of both companies and the chief executive of 21st Century Fox, Robert Thomson, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, will be chief executive of News Corporation.
Today I read more tripe in The Daily Telegraph. This is not quality journalism—not by any stretch of the imagination or by any measure of journalistic standards. No wonder the circulations of newspapers are going down. Advertisement figures are down, circulation is down, and Mr Murdoch is hitting the panic button. Mr Murdoch is now in Australia to administer the latest poison pill. Next week he will flag through the separation of his profitable entertainment business and the underperforming newspapers. But you will not be reading the real agenda in The Daily Telegraph or The Australian. They have to look after their master. They cannot talk about job cuts or how Mr Murdoch is trying to siphon away his profitable asset and kill off anything that is not making money. Well, I have some advice for Mr Murdoch: if he wants to cut more costs out of his unprofitable assets, he can start right here and get rid of this tripe.
But let's be realistic: he will not. Expect more tripe. Expect more stories about reporters falling into pot plants and/or almost knocking politicians over. It was not meant as a serious report—just one to ridicule a politician, and not just any politician, mind you, but a Labor politician. Why? Because it fits Mr Murdoch's political and business agenda to knock this Labor government. Make no mistake: Mr Murdoch's political and business agenda are one and the same. If it is good for Mr Murdoch's business, he will support it. If it is bad, he will knock it down and destroy it. If citizenship gets in the way of business expediency, he will trade it in for another. If a newspaper and its staff get caught up in a phone-hacking scandal, do not expect Mr Murdoch to accept personal responsibility. He will blame the journalists, blame the editors, blame everyone else and then shut the newspaper down.
Australian employees of Mr Murdoch should not expect a better response when their turn to face the axe comes, and it will come soon. Why? Because it is expedient for business. The financial bottom line comes first and foremost, ahead of all else. The standard of tripe reflects Mr Murdoch's standards. He is not interested in the content as such, but the editors know what is expected. That is why the News of the World scandal happened in the United Kingdom. Everyone knew what was expected. What they did not count on was that they would be the fall guys for a bigger picture—a picture that had room for one man alone.
I exhort everyone to read Mr Murdoch's own words in George Beahm's The Sun King—Rupert Murdoch. Read Man Bites Murdoch by Bruce Guthrie. Read Robert Manne's 'Bad News: Murdoch's Australian and the Shaping of the Nation' in Quarterly Essay and read Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain by Tom Watson MP and Martin Hickman to gain insight into the brutal influence Mr Murdoch holds over our democracy, not to mention in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. And, finally, read Michael Wolff's 'Murdoch tries for new legacy' in USA TODAY of 2 June 2013.
How dare Rupert Murdoch tweet: 'Oz polls show nothing can save this miserable government. Election cannot come soon enough. People decided and tuned out months ago.' The reason people tune out, Mr Murdoch, is because of the tripe served up in your tabloids and your cross-promotion of that tripe. Everyone knows you twist the political agenda to suit your business agenda and in so doing you crush and corrupt our democracy. We are not frightened of you and we will not surrender to your massive media power encapsulated in your tweet.
Parkes Electorate: Employment
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (16:38): I am concerned about the government's demonising of workers who are in Australia under the 457 visa scheme. Indeed, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship claimed that there were 10,000 rorts under the 457 visa scheme, which is an unsubstantiated claim. Throughout the Parkes electorate the people on 457s are doing valuable work, whether it is in, for example, engineering, auto electrics, health care or aged care. Indeed, one of the employers using 457 visas in western New South Wales is the department of health.
One of the problems with the 457s, however, is that, with the change to the classifications of occupations the year before last, it is very difficult for farm workers to come in under a 457 visa with the overseer category discontinued. It is very difficult for people to come in under that scheme. As a result, much of the work is being done by people out here on the 417s—the backpackers.
As we speak tonight, there would be hundreds of young people from all around the world planting wheat, chickpeas and barley on farms right across my electorate. What we need to do, I believe, is to put some flexibility into the system. This system was meant to be a cultural exchange, where visitors to this country could experience part of Australian culture, work for a short time and move on. What is happening is that there is a percentage—not a great percentage, but a percentage—of these people who find that they actually have an aptitude for this work and take a liking to the local small communities. They are fulfilling a role and I believe we could add some flexibility into the system to enable some of these people to roll into maybe not permanent citizenship but maybe a longer term arrangement. Indeed, I have a committee in the northern part of my electorate now working with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, NSW Farmers and local businesses, looking at different possibilities to come up with a visa category that would fit these farm workers.
On the other side of the coin I am concerned that there is a percentage of the citizens in my electorate that are being left behind. Due to the modernisation of agriculture and mining industries, a lot of people now have been excluded from the workforce. You cannot work in agriculture unless you have some qualification in chemical accreditation or you are able to program a GPS. The technology in a lot of this equipment is beyond some people. I firmly believe that we need to be upskilling a lot of people in my electorate.
This is particularly relevant to the Aboriginal community. For many of those people who were formerly working in the cotton industry, land clearing and the like, changes in technology have precluded them from a lot of those jobs. In an attempt to address that I am working very hard with the shadow minister for the environment to try to get some Green Army projects up in these areas, particularly in the Boggabilla-Toomelah area, where long-term unemployed Aboriginal people can get a job in resource management. There will be a partnership with the Moree Plains Council and work can be done on weed spraying, riverbank control and the like. The proviso is that in the last month or so of this program there would be a transition into work on local farms and local businesses. I believe that this has got potential. I will be continuing my lobbying of the shadow minister so that, if there is a change of government in September, we can put something into these communities that is of a practical nature that will deliver real outcomes, because if there is one thing that can put stability and future into a home it is a job.
Deakin Electorate: Education
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (16:44): On 17 April this year I had the great pleasure of visiting a school in my electorate, Nunawading Christian College—a great school with a really well-earned reputation—which is growing bigger and better by the year. I quite regularly visit the school and it is really pleasing to see how it has come on in the time that I have been the member for Deakin
Not only do they have a brand-new hall there, which was built with BER funds, but they now also have a brand-new oval. The school is just growing and expanding as not only its facilities but also the teaching inside it is recognised by the wider community.
On the Wednesday, 17 April, my great privilege was to escort our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to the school, along with the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett. We went there to hold not only a question and answer session with the senior school students about—of all things—education but also a general question and answer session. It was a really good event. Approximately 180 students attended—the senior school students, plus the year 6 students. The year 6 students got to come in as well because a group of them was going to be visiting Parliament House here in Canberra. They subsequently did that, last week, and they had a great experience by coming up here. The school does that program every year and it is very encouraging to see our local schools so interested in the work that all of us do here in parliament.
On that day, however, our question and answer session was filmed for posterity. The students were particularly interested in asking questions about how their education experience could be made better and how schools such as theirs could be made better. Of course, that debate has gone on in here since that time as well. As I said, it is really interesting to see that students of that age are interested in what we do as politicians.
Also, on the same day, I had the great privilege of hosting a community cabinet in the Deakin electorate. That was held at Norwood Secondary College, which is another excellent school within the electorate. These days, Norwood is considered to be quite an old school, but it also has a very good reputation in that part of Ringwood. Many families choose to send their children there from quite some distance away. The community cabinet itself was attended by 380 people and I am told that it booked out in about three days, which I am told is extremely fast. It was amazing to see how many people turned up and all the different issues they came with. The opportunities they had to meet with ministers and to talk them about their particular issues and to ask questions from the floor made for a really fantastic night for everyone involved.
I would especially like to thank the people who were involved at Norwood Secondary College itself for making the event what it was, because without people on the ground to organise large events like that they can easily descend into chaos, and this one most certainly did not. Vin Virtu, the principal of Norwood Secondary College, was more than willing to assist and did a great job in introducing people on the night. I think the students of the Norwood Secondary College vocal ensemble stole the show. Their performance of the national anthem, which they sang, was just fantastic. I thank the students: Elise Gaudion, Victoria Heard, Lauren Arnett, Ellie Brindle, Mzimazisa Mpofu, Joseph Jackson, Joshua Loh and Luke Nichol. To be able to sing, with that quality, unaccompanied in front of 380 people is really special.
A large number of ministers and parliamentary secretaries were also there and everyone spoke. As I said, the audience got to ask some very in-depth questions, which I thought were very considered. Sometimes at large events you can expect things to come out of left field. There were a few of those, but they were all really well put together questions. I think it is a great privilege to be at a meeting such as that and be able to tell ministers of our government that these are the people of the electorate and this is how thoughtful and considered they are when they ask a question. Again, it is great to see not only that respect for the parliamentary process but also the knowledge of people who are not directly part of our process. It is true to say that they watch what we do in here and they know and understand what we do in here. I think that is a great thing for all of us. It reminds us all that we need to perform at our best and we need to be on our best behaviour in a place like this. This place has its good days and not so good days. I am one of those people who like to advertise our best days.
Dobell Electorate: Mining
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (16:48): I rise to talk about the proposed coalmine in my electorate. Deputy Speaker Scott, you will know that I asked a question today of the Prime Minister in relation to this coalmine. It is the third question I have asked in the last month about it. I need to get on the record right at the start that I am actually not anti coalmines. We have coalmines all around the Central Coast, up the Hunter and so forth. But this particular coalmine is right under the water catchment area for the whole of the Central Coast. Over 50 per cent of the water from the Central Coast will be affected by this coalmine.
This is a matter that I have been fighting since before I came to this place. Quite frankly, I thought it would have been resolved many years ago. Eventually, we got the previous state Labor government—and we have seen of recent times that they tend to have an attraction for mining, mining owners and entrepreneurs—in the months before the last state election to say, 'This coalmine is not in the public interest and won't go ahead.'
That was half the story, because everyone knew that the opposition—what became the O'Farrell government—was going to win the election. Very importantly, we got the incoming Premier to also commit not just verbally but in writing that he would protect the valleys of Wyong shire, our water catchment areas, from mining. Before the election he said, 'This is what we're going to do.' After the election, suddenly, we have another application, identical to the previous one, to mine this precious area.
We are more aware than most areas of what water shortage can do. We got down to about 10 per cent of our water supply only a few years ago. Even though we have had years of rain, our dams are still only just over the 50 per cent mark. So water is very precious on the Central Coast. It is unbelievable that we are able to have governments and oppositions saying that they are going to do something about protecting our water supply, playing the political game when it is around the election, yet, when it actually comes to protecting it, doing absolutely nothing.
I can tell you this: this is what the public hate most about politicians. They hate that politicians make promises, and say, 'Vote for me and we will fix this problem,' and, as soon as they get into government, what do they do? Nothing. The water supply of the Central Coast is too important to allow the major parties at this next federal election to play politics with it again. I fully expect both the Labor candidate—when Labor gets a candidate—and the Liberal candidate to be out there saying: 'We're going to save the water; we'll do something about this,' because that is what happens.
But if they really want to do something about supporting the Central Coast's water supply, they need to support my private member's bill now, before the election. We have had this issue going on for too long. People of the Central Coast need some certainty about their water supply and, for that reason, I have written both to the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, saying, 'We might only have 2½ or three weeks to go'—when I wrote; now it is two weeks—'but this is the most important issue for people on the Central Coast.' Quite frankly, you could understand why: the water supply of a community, the fact it could run out, is the most important issue that anyone can face.
The simple figures in relation to our water supply are this: if this coalmine goes ahead, the coalmine proponents are saying that we will lose 79 million litres of water a day. That is more than the average rainfall for the whole Central Coast. So we are going to lose that every day while this mining goes ahead. The aquifers that feed the water supply are going to be irreparably damaged. Our water supply is going to be under threat, and experts say it will take more than 200 years to fix. More than 245 homes are going to be affected by major subsidence. The roads in the valleys are going to suffer subsidence up to 1.75 metres. And, most shockingly, the coalmine owners themselves say people will die from this coalmine because of coal dust.
This is something where neither the government nor the opposition can stand up and say, 'We are looking after the people of the Central Coast,' if they do not stand up and support my private member's bill in the next two sitting weeks to make sure that this coalmine that will irreparably damage the lifestyle, the lives and the water supply of the Central Coast goes ahead.
Holt Electorate: Coptic Community
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (16:53): Last Sunday I had the pleasure of attending the official launch of the Manna4life food van with His Grace Bishop Suriel, Father Abanoub Attalla and Councillor Sam Aziz, who is the Deputy Mayor of the City of Casey. We joined with the local Coptic community at the St Mina and St Marina Coptic Orthodox Church in Hallam. This is a landmark church, I might point out.
Manna4Life is a not-for-profit organisation established in 2012 that works with local communities to provide support and assistance for some of the most vulnerable members of the community, ranging from our youth to the elderly. Manna4Life aims to assist vulnerable members of society by providing relief from poverty for homeless persons, offering support for youth and adolescents, providing low-income families with access to financial support, encouraging basic health and hygiene standards within communities, and promoting the significance of religious and social education by actively involving the broader community.
It was an honour to attend the official launch of this Manna4Life food van and to lend my support for this project, run by our wonderful local Coptic community. Australia's Coptic community has some 100,000 people and has made an enormous and positive contribution to our way of life and to our society over recent years. This community based project is just one example. Through this project, my local Coptic community is trying to bring the community together to help those in need.
And yet this very same community lives under the shadow of the persecution of loved ones, friends and family members in Egypt. Following the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 there was a chance for the newly elected Morsi government to include all Egyptians, including minority groups, in its future without persecuting those minority groups. Unfortunately, time-in time-out, on the reports from our local communities, this appears not to have happened. Since Mubarak's overthrow, attacks on Copts and their institutions have been widely reported.
My intense interest in this matter was aroused in January 2011 when Coptic Australians were devastated and outraged after the heinous and evil Orthodox New Year suicide bomb attack on an Egyptian church in Alexandria. It was just a terrible event. In October 2011, for example, following the burning of a Coptic church in Upper Egypt, security forces clashed with Christian protesters and 28 people, mostly Copts, were killed. In April 2013 Muslim extremists laid siege to Egypt's main Coptic cathedral in Cairo. This assault followed a funeral for five men who died days earlier in Khusus, a small town north of Cairo, in clashes with militants.
The Australian Coptic community has explicitly expressed concern that President Morsi is not doing enough to quell the violence. And while President Morsi did issue a statement of regret following the attacks, it is still the case that President Morsi does not fully engage with Coptic Christians in Egypt. The incidents of sectarian violence between members of the Muslim and Christian communities have occurred with increasing frequency and intensity since 2008 according to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which tracks such attacks. However, prosecutors initiated investigations in only one case, in Dahshour, south of Cairo, in July 2012, and even these investigations did not lead to any prosecutions.
Since President Morsi became Egypt's first democratically elected president, the authorities have taken no steps to investigate serious incidents of sectarian violence committed under the preceding military government, or during the rule of former President Hosni Mubarak. Moreover, Egyptian law discriminates against Christians by prohibiting construction of churches without a presidential decree, a requirement which is not applied to other religions and their places of worship. This has long been a source of tension between Christian and Muslim communities.
I could go on, but I think economically Egypt is hurting, particularly with more than 100,000 Copts leaving Egypt because they just do not feel safe in their own country. We have ongoing representations from the Coptic community in Australia about the persecution that seems to be experienced almost daily by Copts who still live in Egypt. It is very tough for their community to have to put up with the persecution of their loved ones and friends and family over there, but the Australian Coptic community is a remarkable community. It adds to my local community, and I am very glad it is there. We will do whatever we can to continue to voice their concerns in this House.
Casey Electorate
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:58): In the remaining minute or so, I just wanted to recognise 11 local primary schools in the Upper Yarra that conducted a post-Anzac Day service on Wednesday, 8 May. Naturally many of the local schoolchildren attended Anzac Day services on the day itself, but this was an opportunity for 11 schools to combine and hold their own service, which was conducted entirely by themselves.
The schools all sent their grade 6 students along. The service was MCd by the Launching Place Primary School this year, by principal Steve Shaw and students Tanisha and Mitchell. I also want to recognise each of the schools that attended: Millwarra, Woori Yallock, Warburton, Gladysdale, Wesburn, Yarra Junction, Don Valley, Hoddles Creek, Yellingbo and St Joseph's.
During the service the students placed wreaths made with the assistance of the Upper Yarra Museum, and I want to recognise Rhonda O'Meara for her great work, and more than 230 wooden crosses were prepared by the great team at Ben's Shed in Yarra Junction. The students researched a member of their family and included their history on the crosses. I also recognise Shelley Grey from the Upper Yarra RSL, who coordinated the event, and the Upper Yarra RSL President, Rob Worlley, and the Secretary, Lorraine Green.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mr Georganas: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that 15 June is International Cleaners Day, recognising cleaners all over the world for their work and efforts;
(2) recognises the:
(a) importance and significance of the work of cleaners; and
(b) important contributions of cleaners across the Australian community;
(3) supports the call for a fair go for cleaners and recognises that cleaners are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia; and
(4) congratulates all cleaners for their achievements and the work that they have done in advocating for the rights of fellow cleaners through the Clean Start campaign.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr BC Scott) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Canning Electorate: Asbestos
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (09:30): I wish to discuss a serious public health issue to the people of Mandurah in my electorate of Canning in Western Australia. In December last year I was contacted by a lawn mowing contractor in Mandurah who had witnessed subcontractors in France Street removing and replacing a Telstra pit in preparation for the rollout of the NBN. This whistleblower visited the site after the subcontractor had finished and was astonished to see fragments of asbestos concrete strewn over the lawn. He subsequently contacted my office. A staff member inspected the site. We had the fragments tested at my own expense and confirmed that the fragments did indeed contain asbestos. We found the material at not one but several sites. As we know, asbestos poses a significant health hazard to those who are in contact with it.
While the NBN asbestos issue has obviously been hot news in recent weeks, I must say that we alerted to the relevant authorities many months ago—six months ago in fact. While I have seen Telstra wear the blame for this issue in recent days I think it is important to keep in mind that the asbestos in the Telstra pits is a matter that should have been a appropriately foreshadowed by NBN prior to the rollout of what is Australian's most expensive national infrastructure project.
Like everything else this Labor government does, all the emphasis is placed on the announcement, and detail is a secondary consideration. This is a matter that NBN Co. were well aware of yet now we see Prime Minister Gillard and Ministers Conroy and Shorten scurrying away from an issue that any responsible government would have known would become a significant problem. Yes, it is true that Telstra owns and therefore ultimately is responsible for the pits that are the source of the asbestos. However, the fact remains that this is not a concern that has arisen unexpectedly.
After I alerted authorities to the issue in Mandurah, Comcare initiated an investigation. Curiously, I did not receive any follow-up report from Comcare until my office contacted the department last month. My office was told that the report on the investigation would be provided; however, days later, no such report had been provided. The following week my office was provided with a three-paragraph summary of the investigation undertaken by Comcare, which included very little detail on this very serious matter.
When I subsequently contacted Comcare to request a full copy of the inspector's report, I was astonished when I was told that I must submit a freedom of information application to see the report. The absurdity of this situation is astounding. After having brought this issue to the attention of relevant authorities, I now as a federal member of parliament need to submit an FOI application to see the full results of the federal department's investigation. Perhaps these departments need to be reminded that they exist to serve and are funded by the Australian people.
I also have concerns over the truncated summary of Comcare's report. It states, 'I can advise that Comcare inspected the Telstra pit,' which indicates they inspected the single pit in France Street where the issue originated. I have evidence that the asbestos was found in several sites in France Street alone. I want to see the full report. (Time expired)
Gorton Electorate: Gorton Young Leaders Award
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (09:33): I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the electorate of Gorton has produced another round of exceptional young leaders, who have been recognised with the Gordon Young Leaders Award. The Gorton Young Leaders Award recognises young people who have shown exceptional commitment to public service in their final years of secondary college, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community service. This is the fourth year we have run the awards, and I am consistently impressed by the calibre of the recipients. Fourteen former year 12 students from across seven schools were awarded the Gorton Young Leaders Award based on their achievements during 2012.
The achievements of all 14 prize winners were diverse, spanning a range of worthy causes. One student was an academically successful year-12 house captain who volunteered his time on the college's partnership with Sunshine Hospital. Another student established and coordinated a mass tutoring program at a school. She was also a member of the student executive and involved with the college's after-school care program. Another was a leader in her school's gay-straight alliance, leading the charge against homophobic and transphobic bullying. Another student volunteered his time with local musicians and dancers' crews to teach and engage disconnected youth.
The winners for 2012 were as follows: from Copperfield College, Claudia Ralevski and Fostin Nshimirimana; from Marian College, Helen Duong and Lisa Le; from Catholic Regional College, Sydenham, Andrew Porco and Ivana Zovak; from Victoria University Secondary College, Kadin Coffin and Rebecca Alusoska; from Keilor Downs Secondary College, Johnny Nguyen and Maddison Verduci; from Taylors Lakes Secondary College, Alexandra Spera and Jarrad Archer; and from Overnewton Anglican Community College, Edward Charles Buijs and Elizabeth Duong.
I am truly pleased to be able to say that so many bright and capable young leaders call Melbourne's west and the electorate of Gorton their home. Each and every successful recipient here demonstrated an exceptional commitment to active public leadership within their schools and their communities. They should all feel very proud of their efforts.
Some weeks ago I convened an afternoon tea and presentation at my electorate office in Caroline Springs to recognise the achievements of these young leaders. Students were presented with certificates and a small prize. It was a wonderful opportunity to meet with these capable young adults, as well as their parents, friends, principals and teachers.
Now enrolled in courses at university, TAFE and other educational institutions, these young leaders certainly have very bright futures ahead of them. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the young leaders who were the recipients of this award on their efforts and wish them every success for the future.
Education
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (09:36): I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's dictum that education is the first defence of the nation. It does not matter whether it is early learning, schools, vocational training or tertiary education; they are all equally important. The education cycle is virtuous and lifelong.
Indeed, in my maiden speech to this parliament I talked about the need for a greater focus on the pursuit of excellence in Australian education. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the Gillard Labor government has cut more than $2.3 billion in funding to universities at a time when our universities have never been more important. These funding cuts have hit right across the board. Research, teaching and student support are all affected.
Moreover, to do so on the basis of the Gonski school funding program is even more unconscionable, given that education at school and university are inextricably linked. To cut one will inevitably diminish the benefit of the other. The government will piously claim that they have increased university funding, but this is simply false.
In the words of Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and a non-partisan figure:
The government's claim that it has hugely increased funding to universities, and that despite these cuts growth will continue only at a slower rate, is smoke and mirrors.
As Hilmer points out, the creation of a demand-led system has led to more student places so that the level of real funding per student is, at best, flat.
It is just not good enough that Australia ranks 25th out of 29 leading economies when measured in terms of public investment in the tertiary system. It will be our universities that turn out the graduates who will help ensure Australia remains competitive in the Asian century.
I ask the government: what is the point of having an Asian century white paper, which makes uncosted and unfunded promises to turn Australia into the innovative capital of the region and, at the same time, cuts funding to the very sector which can spearhead that objective?
There are over 1.2 million university students in Australia. Seventy per cent are domestic and 30 per cent are international. The income earned for Australia from international students alone is over $10 billion annually. These students come here from the region because they expect a good education. If we keep stripping money out of the university sector, they will know that we cannot provide that.
I have Swinburne University in my electorate of Kooyong, with its more than 30,000 students and a University of Melbourne campus as well. These are great institutions and I want them to not just survive but prosper. But we can only do that if we improve their funding streams, not cut them; if we reduce the red-tape burden, not increase it; and if we consult with the sector in a mature and fair manner, seeking their input into government policy decision making. In fact, Fred Hilmer said:
Universities were blind-sided with this recent announcement. There was no consultation, to my knowledge, other than a few hours' notice before the first media releases landed.
This is not good enough—and that statement comes from the vice-chancellor of a group of eight universities and, in fact, the chairman of the Group of Eight. If we get the opportunity on 14 September we will do a better job with our universities. (Time expired)
Adelaide Electorate: Roads
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) (09:39): Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were to travel through Adelaide at the moment you would see a skyline scattered with cranes. You would see record investment in infrastructure and in upgrades. You would see Adelaide Oval about to become an even better modern sporting facility. You would see the $200 million federal investment in building the SAHMRI building, the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. You would see that there is so much happening, and we are proud that we are quite literally building Adelaide.
But we know it is not just about buildings, institutions and sporting facilities. I hear regularly from residents in Adelaide about the quality of roads and the need for upgrades to some critical pieces of road infrastructure, which is one of the reasons I was so proud of our recent budget announcing that this government would deliver $448 million to upgrade South Road in between the Torrens River and the River Torrens in collaboration with the South Australian government. I know that this project is the No. 1 priority for people in this part of the community that I represent. In fact, in over 16 street-corner meetings in that particular area of Adelaide just this year, this is an issue that came up time and time again. I advocated on behalf of the community and I am incredibly proud that we are delivering on this result.
This is about local residents getting to spend more time with their families; spending more time productively, less time stuck in traffic and less time in gridlock, particularly amongst heavy commercial traffic. The upgrade to South Road will see two major intersections removed, at Port Road and at Grange Road, which will ease congestion and move us further in our plan to have a non-stop South Road. This is a project which would be jeopardised and on the cutting room floor should there be a change of government on 14 September. Both the member for Boothby and that Leader of the Opposition have confirmed that they will scrap this project which is of utmost importance to the community that I represent.
But this is not the only road upgrade which Labor is committing to. I was incredibly pleased to see, this week and earlier this morning, announcements from the South Australian budget of $3.2 million to upgrade the Britannia roundabout, something that I have been a passionate advocate of for nine years now. I have met many times with the state government and written many times of behalf of the local community. As someone who used to live near the roundabout I know that some people are very confident and some people will go a long way out of their way to avoid going round it. I am also pleased to this morning see an announcement of $7.7 million to upgrade North East Road at Gilles Plains. Labor is building Adelaide and we are very proud of what we are doing for our road infrastructure.
Australian Education Bill 2012
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:42): I rise today to talk about an issue that is incredibly important to my constituents—that is, the importance of education and of all of our students receiving the best educational opportunities. The whole process as to the debate of the Australian Education Bill has been a farce from beginning to end. The government claims on the one hand that it is introducing the Gonski reforms as recommended in the Gonski report, yet it is doing nothing of the sort. The central recommendation of that report was $6.5 billion of new funding; that is not what this government is doing. This government is cutting funding to school education by more than $300 million.
What concerns me particularly is that what we saw yesterday was a gagging of debate in the chamber on the Australian Education Bill and the 71 pages of new amendments. What concerns me about this is that the government has rammed through this legislation when only two out of eight jurisdictions have signed on, the Catholic and independent schools sectors have raised questions that have not been answered, and most of the discussions have been in secret with confidentiality agreements. Why? We learnt a little bit when we looked at the 71 pages of amendments that were dumped into the parliament two days ago in the evening.
The first is the 'capacity to contribute'. This is one of the two critical nasties that were included in this bill. The 'capacity to contribute' is really code for parents paying more; that is, parents paying increased fees if they choose to send their child to an independent or Catholic school. It is clear from what was introduced into the amendments that we are not talking about aggregating when considering 'capacity to contribute', we are looking at individual parents and what they can pay. This will see an increase in fees.
The second thing that should concern everybody, the second nasty included in these amendments, was in the implementation plans. The minister for education is giving himself the power to reach into every school—state schools, independent schools and Catholic schools—to approve their plans so that if any school intends to vary the national model, the minister will need to sign off. This should give everybody great cause for alarm.
I know that in my electorate schools like Korowa, Lauriston, St Catherine's, King David, Melbourne Girls Grammar and Catholic schools like St Cecilia, St Joseph, St Mary, St Michael's, St Roch's, Presentation College, Holy Eucharist and Our Lady of Lourdes are all concerned about what it is going to mean for them, for their parents and for certainty of school funding going into next year. We are none the wiser and I call on the minister to clarify. (Time expired)
Australian Manufacturing and Farming Program
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:45): Last month I had the pleasure of attending an industry day which was the 2013 function at Reliance Manufacturing in Dandenong. It was run by the Australian Manufacturing and Farming Program and hosted by my parliamentary colleagues Senator John Madigan, Senator for Victoria, and the Hon. Bob Katter, the federal member for Kennedy. The day was an incredibly interesting snapshot of the best of Australian manufacturing and farming technology and innovation, with companies and small businesses displaying their Australian made goods. Local manufacturers at industry day 2013 included Alpine Smallgoods, Fischer Plastics Products, Lester handmade shoes—I actually bought a pair of them and they are fantastic, Aussie Wipes and Aqualex Gutter Protection. This day was held on the same day that Ford made the announcement it did. It showed that on a very grave day local manufacturers are still contributing enormously to our local economy during difficult economic times and a very overvalued Australian dollar.
South-eastern Melbourne is one of Australia's most dynamic manufacturing regions with hundreds of companies providing tens of thousands of skilled jobs and investing in critical research and development. Manufacturing in the region remains a dynamic and important component of both the state and national economies. According to the local manufacturing group SEMMA, more than 300 exporters are based in the region, demonstrating the strong international links which have been forged and which reflect the international competitiveness of local manufacturers. South-east Melbourne generates 44 per cent of Victoria's manufactured product. Industry provides 47 per cent of south-eastern Melbourne's 358,000 jobs. As I have said, more than 300 exporters are located in the region. Regional manufacturing capabilities include agriculture, automotive, building and construction, chemical, defence, electronics, food, health, IT, machinery and equipment, marine, medical, mining, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, plastics, textiles and transportation—a pretty good mix there.
I would like to lend my support to this fantastic program, the Australian Manufacturing and Farming Program, which is a non-partisan program aiming to provide us parliamentarians and the Australian community with a better understanding of life in the Australian manufacturing and farming sectors. This program was launched by Senator John Madigan and Senator Nick Xenophon and Bob Katter back in December 2011. Going there that day and seeing the resilience of our local manufacturers in very difficult economic circumstances and the quality of the product that they are offering gives me great hope. We have got to talk about manufacturing in a positive sense and we should be making it a career to aspire to because it still is the future of our country.
Riverina Electorate: Wagga Wagga Committee of the Children's Medical Research Institute
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (09:48): Thirty years ago a small group of generous, kind-hearted and driven Riverina women established a Wagga Wagga committee of the Children's Medical Research Institute. On 26 May, amidst laughter, a few tears and a good deal of pride, the committee, now considerably larger numerically, celebrated three wonderful decades. Since its establishment the committee, which now boasts 90 members and 30 volunteers, has raised an impressive $1.184 million for CMRI at Westmead in Sydney. That money has assisted the fantastic people at the institute to significantly increase the lifespan of children with what were once terminal illnesses. Many of those children have hailed from the district where the Wagga Wagga committee's money was raised, many from elsewhere. It matters not; a child's life is priceless.
The committee's founding member was Margaret Cerebona, of Wagga Wagga, and the inaugural president was Libby Lamont, of Old Junee. The current president is Catherine Cruikshank, of Brushwood, between Coolamon and Ganmain, who gave an emotional address at the recent luncheon attended by 140 guests. She drew on her personal experience of a young relative—her nephew Jake Fryer, aged 12, who has needed ongoing care and treatment—to emphasise the importance of the CMRI's work. One member afforded special and deserved praise at the function was Penny Lamont, of Harefield, whose idea to host a garden party led to the annual Christmas fair at the Wagga Wagga Racecourse which has been the committee's trademark event and biggest charity earner.
The Wagga Wagga anniversary was honoured to have the eminent professor, Roger R Reddel, as guest speaker. He told of the marvellous advances in medical research and how this has been largely shaped by the dollars raised by the 25 CMRI committees. He told me later:
I left that event with two very strong impressions. One was the palpable feeling of community, which I hope Wagga Wagga and the surrounding areas never lose.
The other was that the attendees are not only generous but also smart: like so many other members of the Australian public, they are willing to give generously to support victims of natural disasters, but they also support the research work that takes very many years and has little instant gratification while steadily accumulating to give us the extraordinary increases in health that we have enjoyed over the past 50 years.
Well said, Professor Reddel. Well done to Catherine and the outstanding ladies in her fabulous organisation. May they enjoy many more years of fun, friendship and fundraising for a most worthy and notable cause.
La Trobe Electorate: Mental Health Services
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (09:51): I am very pleased today to be able to put on the record some of the local and very practical results of this government's investment in mental health. There has been a very sizeable, in fact a record, commitment by this government during this term to mental health services, research, support arrangements, respite and carer support services. This is an opportunity for me today to be able to reflect on some positive developments, particularly over the last few weeks, which have been the result of the collective efforts of many in my community to bring additional mental health services to an area that is a growing part of Melbourne.
I had the opportunity in recent weeks to visit a new carer support service which is operating out of Narre Warren in my electorate and which has been the beneficiary of around $600,000 from the federal government through its mental health funding commitments. It is a service called Mind Australia and it will be providing respite care and support to those who have family members who experience considerable mental health issues and have mental health concerns. So it is a place where not only people with mental illness can attend and obtain support but also those who support them can in turn be provided with some assistance.
This is complemented by the very recent opening of a new Headspace unit in the same part of the world—a little bit further away from Narre Warren but servicing the needs of the Greater Dandenong, Casey and, ultimately, Cardinia communities. It is a very welcome initiative. I know that many other communities around the country have similarly benefited, but this is certainly something which I think will not only be able to provide a fixed service in Dandenong for people to visit but have the capacity ultimately to provide outreach services more particularly for communities a bit further out, in Cardinia and Casey.
A third initiative—so three initiatives have occurred almost simultaneously in recent weeks—is one I was very pleased to finally be able make an announcement about, and that is of some additional resources for young people in the Berwick and the broader Casey region. The Minister for Health came down to make an announcement about that a couple of weeks ago and we were able to do so at the Berwick Healthcare Centre, which has previously been known as the Berwick Superclinic. Again, this will be a very welcome development for our region.
Economy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:54): I was interested to read last night the comments by ex-Labor chief pollster Rod Cameron who said:
The majority of the modern Labor Party—the caucus, the leadership, the machine and, importantly, the union bosses who now dictate policy—has totally lost the plot.
I could go on giving many examples but one I would like to give is the complete delusion being run by this government in their Australia in the Asian century white paper that Australia is destined to be the food bowl of Asia. We certainly have the potential to be, but let us have a look at what is happening under the policies of this government. Recently we have seen Windsor Farm Foods in Cowra, the last Australian owned cannery, close. Rosella, the iconic brand and food producer, has closed its doors. Heinz in Victoria, maker of the iconic tomato sauce label, has closed its doors. Golden Circle's beetroot cannery in Queensland has closed its doors. And now we have seen today that Simplot may close the last cannery in New South Wales. This is going on and on. And we have also heard that down in the Goulburn Valley SPC are cutting back their demand from growers and we are going to bulldoze three quarter of a million fruit trees. All of this is happening under the policies of this government.
Honourable member interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Three quarters of a million fruit trees may seem to be a joke to you, but what can we do to try to fix these problems? Firstly, we are reaping what we have sown by allowing trade practices laws to evolve into a situation where more than 80 per cent of the market is controlled by the two largest supermarkets. The other problem we must tackle is labelling laws, which allow overseas products to be privately labelled with the country of origin hidden on the back which consumers cannot see. We should have labelling laws the way we do for our seafood and our fruit and vegetables, so that consumers can see on the front of the package whether they are buying Australian produce or produce from another country, so that they can make up their own minds.
Honourable member interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Instead, it is only on the back in fine print. Government MPs do not understand the problem we have and this is the tragedy we have with this government. They cannot even admit that we have a serious problem. Under this government, in the last 12 months we have seen 7,000 jobs lost in the food producing sector, 335 small food manufacturers closed down and these blokes just sit and have no idea.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: They are here just filling in time through the last 100 days. It is an absolute joke. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Leader of the National Party, what are you calling for?
Mr Truss: The member should withdraw. He used a word which yesterday was required to be withdrawn in the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Wide Bay and Leader of the National Party. I did not hear it over the noise. The member would assist the chamber if he would withdraw unreservedly.
An honourable member: I withdraw unreservedly.
Queensland Budget
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (09:58): This year's budget in Queensland and Premier Campbell Newman and the LNP state government are doing nothing to support jobs and provide better services for Queensland families and families in the electorate of Blair. Campbell Newman has simply cut too hard, too fast, with savage cuts to jobs and frontline services, particularly in health and education, and has devastated business confidence. In fact, Campbell Newman has let a child's state of origin affect their educational funding and health outcomes. While New South Wales schools will benefit by $1.6 billion over the next six years, $2.2 billion extra is on the table for Queensland schools over the next six years and Campbell Newman should sign up to the Gonski reforms. Instead, he is putting the Liberal Party interests ahead of the kids of Queensland. He has no credibility, given the savage cuts he has inflicted on the educational sector, including closure of state schools in Queensland. He should be talking constructively with this government to make sure that every child in Queensland has a better life.
Queensland Treasurer Tim Nicholls failed to mention that his budget centrepiece, in the fine print, the Great teachers = Great results initiative, relies on Commonwealth government funding. When it comes to health, the coalition government in Queensland is devastating front-line health services to all Queenslanders. Campbell Newman is slashing about 70,000 outpatient services, such as palliative care, pain management and rehabilitation, as a result of this budget. These vicious cuts come on top of the budget papers and reveal that health funding falls short in Queensland by the $137 million required to keep up with the growth in services that Queenslanders need. Investment in Queensland Health is not even keeping up with population growth or health cost increases.
Around 70,000 specialist and allied health outpatient services, such as palliative care and pain management, will be lost under Campbell Newman. To maintain the current level of services, he would have to include an extra $241 million—that is, 6.3 per cent in the state budget—for acute care services. Instead, he is providing an extra 2.7 per cent less than health inflation. The shortfall is the equivalent of 6,570 hip operations or 6,980 knee operations. This shortfall means that Queenslanders will have to wait longer for surgery. In fact, in 2012, Queensland was the only state not to have met its 2010 baseline targets for reducing the number of elective surgery outpatients who have waited the longest. This means that patients will have to wait longer this year than in 2010.
The Campbell Newman government has cut $3 billion from its first budget, continued that and sacked over 4,140 health service operators, particularly doctors and nurses providing front-line services. This has a negative impact on all of Queensland and on Queensland patients. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Consideration in Detail
Infrastructure and Transport
Proposed expenditure, $591,372,000
Debate resumed.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:02): The 2013-14 budget not only continues to roll out federal Labor's Nation Building Program but begins identifying future funding priorities. This budget continues the achievements of the first phase of the program, with the final instalment of $5.7 billion in 2013-14. Already we have doubled the federal roads budget. We have increased investment in rail tenfold. We have committed more to urban public transport since 2007 than all previous governments combined since Federation. In this budget we announced more additional investment in urban public transport than any previous budget since Federation.
The budget announced $24 billion for the next phase of the Nation Building Program, which commences in 2014-15, taking the total program to a record $60 billion. This is the largest capital works program in the nation's history, and the new projects announced in the budget build on this. In the budget, we provided $715 million towards the construction of the Brisbane Cross River Rail, and $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro. Both of these projects have been identified by Infrastructure Australia as priority projects of national significance that are ready to proceed.
But these mega transport projects are on a scale that also requires private sector contributions, so we are taking a new innovative approach which is structured around an availability payment model to attract private sector investment. We are also determined to engage with the private sector when it comes to urban road infrastructure, particularly in our biggest city of Sydney. That is why we allocated $400 million to finally get the 'missing link' between the F3 and M2 to go to market within months. We brought forward $5 million into the current financial year in order to assist with taking that project to market.
Federal Labor's investment in Australia's vital infrastructure extends well beyond the limits of our cities. Regional Australians are also big winners of the Nation Building Program, with almost two-thirds of all funding being invested in regional Australia. The program is funding a number of highway upgrade packages vital to our regions, such as the $4.1 billion 10-year package to upgrade and maintain the Bruce Highway. The budget also announced $500 million for a 10-year capital works program along the Midland Highway in Tasmania and $307 million for the Great Northern Highway in Western Australia.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be very pleased with the $317 million allocated for the Warrrego Highway in Queensland. Might I add: more money than National Party ministers ever allocated to the Warrego Highway in Queensland was allocated in this budget. There was $257.5 million provided for the duplication of the Princes Highway West. The budget also provides $2 billion to continue important transport safety and improvement programs, including $1.8 billion over five years for network maintenance, and an additional $100 million over five years for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. In addition, the budget provided $5 million to assist the Australian shipping industry to meet its future workforce training needs as well as almost $10 million for urgent safety upgrades at remote airstrips across Australia.
Federal Labor understands the importance of investing in land transport infrastructure in terms of national productivity and the liveability of our cities. We have the processes right. Now, in this budget, as well as Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro, we funded the two managed motorways programs in Melbourne that were identified by Infrastructure Australia. That means that all 15 projects—15 out of 15—that have been identified by Infrastructure Australia have received funding by this government. We have the process right. We have put the dollars in, the investment in, to create jobs and growth, not just now but into the future.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (10:07): Once again we have listened to the over-the-top rhetoric of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. We have been listening to that for quite some time. However, this is the budget where it all comes unstuck, because the reality is that, in spite of the minister's claims, this budget actually predicts a $1.2 billion cut per year for road and raid funding under their so-called nation building 2 program, which is set to commence on 1 July 2014. A $36 billion program has on the government's own figures become a $24 billion program. Once more, even that figure is probably overblown. The minister makes big announcements about things such as the Melbourne Metro link project. He talked again just now about it being a $3 billion project. What he did not say is that there is only $75 million in the next four years to actually fund it.
He was boasting about WestConnex being a $1.8 billion project—although we all know the Prime Minister has put conditions on that project which make it absolutely impossible for it to ever proceed—but there is only $400 million actually provided. There is not $1.8 billion—it is only $400 million. And, since the government is insisting that there be no tolls, there is about a 75 per cent gap in the funding for a project of that nature.
The reality is that there will only be $2 billion spent on the entire national highway network across the country in the first year of nation building 2 program. This is just typical of Labor's approach in other areas, where they announce big programs but they are not funded—like the NDIS, like Gonski. They announce what sound like big amounts of money, but the money is not provided. When you look at these kinds of investments, we are left with significant gaps in what is actually going to be able to be achieved. What is even more alarming is that the government seems to be manipulating the figures to make the $24 billion look as big as it is.
For instance, the department confirmed in Senate estimates last week that almost $4 billion of untied local road grants for local government is included now as a subprogram in Nation Building 2. I ask the minister, is that $4 billion included in his $24 billion announcement? In the past, that money has been dealt with in other ways. But this time the department has said that this $4 billion funding, the traditional funding that goes to local government for roads, is now part of their nation-building strategy. When you look at the program and realise that $1.5 billion of that $24 billion is coming out of the Building Australia Fund—created entirely by the previous Howard government—and when you realise that there is $2 billion being transferred out of the mining tax, the real amount allocated for road funding over the next five-year program is not $24 billion; it is about $17 billion. This will be the smallest program that we have had in this nation for a very long time in real terms.
The minister again talked about their $4.1 billion program for the Bruce Highway. We have actually had candidates out there announcing projects—including a member who I notice is in the chamber—yet the funding is not profiled in any way in the budget announcement. When asked about this in Senate estimates, the minister's department said the profiles were not available yet we have got candidates announcing that these projects are going to be built while the profile for the funding is not announced.
Of the $4.1 billion that the government says is committed to the Bruce Highway, $1.7 billion has been previously announced and $1.1 billion will not be available until after 2019—a lot of big numbers but, when you look at them, they do not seem to add up.
Since I will only get one chance to speak in this debate—because the government always manages to talk these estimates out these days—let me talk about another issue, the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal where, quite extraordinarily, the government has announced that there are to be four new board members appointed to the terminal, but the department was unable to give the names of these members during estimates. So I am now informed that these four board members have actually attended board meetings yet their names are still a secret. The government has not announced their names yet these people are already attending board meetings. This seems to be remarkable. At the department's own estimates just a few days ago, they were unable to name those people. (Time expired)
Mr Chester: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the shadow minister's comments, the minister made an unparliamentary interjection. I would ask him to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not aware. I did not hear an unparliamentary comment but that does not mean to say that one might not have been made. The minister would assist the chamber if at least—
Mr Albanese: It will put it on the record if I withdraw it.
An honourable member: You are soft as.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the minister has withdrawn.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:13): The shadow minister made some extraordinary statements during that contribution. One was that the Building Australia Fund was somehow a creation of the Howard government. It was created through legislation moved by me as the minister as part of the creation of Infrastructure Australia. It is a part of the infrastructure Australia setup, something that they never did. They never set up a process and indeed they opposed the Infrastructure Australian legislation. It is complete nonsense from those opposite.
He went on to pretend that programs that are under construction with real money creating real jobs, creating real improvements in infrastructure do not exist. He should go to Rockhampton, have a look at the Yeppen roundabout, have a look at the duplication of the bridges that are under construction right now. It is not an apparition; it is real. It exists. There is steel and concrete, and there are workers and cranes working right now on the Bruce Highway.
This shadow minister was once the minister and he described the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway as the worst section of road in Australia. He was the transport minister, it is in his electorate and he did nothing about it. Well, we have for one section of it. We promised it, funded it, built it and opened it. He did not play a role in any of those activities. I say to the shadow minister that next week I will be turning a sod on construction in his electorate. Come along—Cooroy to Curra section A, funded by us. Come along.
Mr Truss: You haven't invited me. You don't invite me.
Mr ALBANESE: You know full well that the—
Mr Truss interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: You might not. You are so hopeless that you might not know that the state government—the Newman government—and your mate Jeff Seeney organise the invites. So ring up Jeff. Get yourself on the list. He might not know you exist. The state government will be looking after the sod-turning on Cooroy to Curra next Wednesday. Come along. He can say that that is not real as well, because he has gone out there and said—even when we fund projects in his own electorate—that it is not happening. Well, drive on the road. You can, because one section of it is open and the next section of construction we are funding, brought forward into this financial year, will commence construction.
Then he went on to criticise the funding that we have provided for all of these programs, including the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. The Moorebank Intermodal Terminal is absolutely vital for Sydney's infrastructure, ensuring that we take 3,300 trucks off the road every day. You know what the opposition did?
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: You see, it is really not that complex. You have a port and then you have the city of Sydney, and then you have an intermodal terminal. Here is what an intermodal does—and maybe the member for Hughes can think about this, because he has campaigned against it. His own party are supporting it, but he has campaigned against it, showing how disingenuous and unfair they are. The state government support it. Your opposition support it, because it will take trucks off the road, because you have freight moving onto rail. It is not that complex: trucks off the road, freight onto rail, rather than going through all of the streets, including in the electorate of Hughes, in order to get to its destination. The freight infrastructure investment that we have done will take nine hours off the journey on the East West Link and seven hours off the journey from Melbourne to Brisbane. Let me tell you: what he does not say is that the land and the site were chosen by the Howard government. They chose the site. Since then the coalition campaigned against it at the last election and now they are for it again. If he is fair dinkum, he will say at the next election campaign that they are actually for this vital project. We issued a release with the board members on the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, as we do with all board appointments. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I call the member for Gippsland. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
Mr Adams: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Capricornia was on her feet before last time, and she beat the jump again this time—
Ms Livermore: That is true.
Mr Adams: She has been ignored again by the chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was going from one side to the other.
Mr Adams: It doesn't work like that.
Mr Albanese: We had one—now one from here. Then him. It goes that way. Otherwise our people don't get a go.
Ms Livermore: Exactly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland will resume his seat.
An honourable member: Unnatural!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.
Ms Livermore: I appreciate that.
Mr Albanese: You're a good man!
Ms Livermore: The point is that the minister is always going to be jumping in from this side.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No-one has the call at the moment, Member for Capricornia. It would also assist, in the limited hours that are available in these portfolios, if the members asked the question and the minister responded in more of a summing-up way. I think that would be useful and would allow more questions to be asked of the minister. But I am only suggesting that, not directing that. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the member for Capricornia.
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (10:19): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this very important portfolio and what it is doing for the Central Queensland region. I was just thinking that we are not even 20 minutes into this consideration in detail and I have already lost track of the number of projects that the minister has talked about and the amount of funding that is in discussion here this morning.
I think back to consideration in detail in the nine years I spent in opposition when I would come in and be part of listening to the minister's counterpart in the Howard years, and I cannot really imagine what he would have talked about. But I know what I would have been talking about: I would have been talking about what was not happening on the Bruce Highway and what was needed in terms of this very important piece of infrastructure for the state of Queensland and indeed the entire nation.
We have heard many times from this government, and we speak about it with great pride and conviction, that since coming to power the Labor government has spent four times as much—the minister will correct me if I get this wrong—on the Bruce Highway in half the time compared to the entire spend in the time of the Howard government. That is a great figure to quote but what does it really mean when we talk about that level of investment in this very important highway? I can tell the House, and constituents of Capricornia could tell the House, that it means basically constant nonstop roadworks setting about greatly improving the Bruce Highway both north and south of Rockhampton. Go south of Gladstone and you get to the Calliope crossroads, an enormous project underway there. In the northern part of my electorate there is the southern access to Mackay, which is an extremely busy and important section of road which really doubles as the Bruce Highway but also a very vital connection between the community of Sarina and the industrial area of Hay Point, the massive coal terminal, and Paget to the south of Mackay. We have duplicated that southern access to Mackay. It was done within a couple of years of us taking government. Work improving that section of the highway continues with further overtaking lanes between Sarina and Mackay.
Very important is the project the minister has already referred to, and you just have to laugh when the shadow minister talks about, 'They have announced this and what does it mean.' The minister has invited the shadow minister to please come to Rockhampton, although if the shadow minister comes to Rockhampton it could get very embarrassing, because so far we have had the shadow Treasurer and the opposition leader twice come to Rockhampton and fail to make a commitment, refuse to make a commitment for this extremely important project for the people of Central Queensland. This project is fixing up the Yeppen floodplains, finding a solution to this section of the Bruce Highway which we know from very painful experience in 2011 and before that in 1991 can be cut in times of flood, which cuts off Rockhampton and the entire northern half of the state for weeks at a time, causing huge disruption to our local economy, huge disruption to very important businesses right around Central Queensland and beyond. So there is work going on right now on the duplication and lifting of the Yeppen Bridge, and that is going to include very important improvements to the congestion for people having to travel in and out from Gracemere every day, something that is very important to our local area.
What comes next is what is required to really boost the flood immunity of that stretch of road. I would like the minister to talk a little more about what is in the budget for the Yeppoon South project. Even more than that, because there is so much to talk about in terms of Bruce Highway improvements, I would like the minister to talk about the Bruce Highway funding package in the budget.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:23): In terms of the Bruce Highway I really want to pay tribute to the member for Capricornia over her time representing that important part of Queensland for the work that she has done. There is no greater tribute to her work and her legacy as the member, given that she has announced her retirement at the next election, than the work that has happened around the southern approaches to Rockhampton. In this budget we have brought forward funding to make sure that this southern approach can be fixed. We brought it forward to the next financial year. This goes on top of the other work that is occurring.
Already right now under construction are: the Calliope Crossroads project; the Bruce and Capricorn highways; the Yeppen roundabout; the southern approach to Mackay; the Burdekin River bridge; flattening and straightening the Bruce Highway over Cardwell Range; projects associated with the Burdekin Road safety audit; the southern approach to Cairns—where I will also be next week—straightening and widening the highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road and across Back Creek Range; straightening the highway just south of Gin Gin; and straightening and raising the Bruce Highway between Sandy Corner and Collinson's Lagoon.
We will shortly begin the upgrade of the Pumicestone Road interchange, part of a $195 million contribution from the federal government. Over the next year, in 2013-14, we will have the Cooroy to Curra section A construction commencing with the sod turned next week; the duplication of the highway just south of Townsville between Vantassel Street and Cluden; the construction of the new interchange and replacing the existing intersections between Roy's Road and Bells Creek Road, part of a $195 million contribution; and construction of the final section of the Townsville Ring Road between Shaw Road and Mt Low.
These are the sorts of projects that have led the LNP member for Herbert to say:
I will give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce highway than we did before.
That is what local members who are rational say about our contribution to the Bruce Highway. There has been a total funding commitment of $5.7 billion since we came to office compared with the former government's $1.3 billion. Even those arithmetically challenged should recognise 5.7 is a lot more than 1.3. It is not just a figure though because what that means is that there are real jobs as a result of the contributions that have been made.
It compares favourably across the board because we heard before the shadow minister dismiss the $24-billion figure that we have announced already for Nation Building 2. I have no doubt there is more to come in future budgets as state governments and territory governments submit properly funded projects. He said that is a terrible figure. The former government's big trumpet under AusLink was $11.4 billion. The shadow minister says it was more than that. Maybe they got it wrong because they are not real good with numbers. But $11.4 billion was the headline in their press release for Australia's roads and railways. That was their contribution. Twenty-four is more than 11 and—that is moving forward as we receive further projects.
What we know is that investment in infrastructure produces a return in productivity, a return that leads to higher growth, a return that leads therefore to higher revenues and a return that produces outcomes in economic growth and jobs. It is the driver of our national economy. We can invest in two things: physical capital and human capital. That is why we regard infrastructure and skills of the two parts—investing in people through education and training, and investing in nation-building infrastructure. (Time expired)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (10:29): It is always fascinating for members on this side to receive lectures about supposedly not been good with numbers when the member for Lilley has presided over the worst deficits in Australian history. I would like to take the minister to his opening comments where he referred to the future funding priorities in his budget. In particular I want to refer to the Princes Highway, not only in my electorate but also along the south coast of New South Wales.
The minister is well aware of both my concerns and the concerns of the member for Eden-Monaro about the state of the Princes Highway. Without wishing to be political on the issue, I think the highway between Sydney and Sale has probably been neglected and ignored by governments of both political persuasions. In fact, some parts of that highway are in a deplorable state. I do acknowledge that some work has been undertaken in the Eden-Monaro area, the Bega bypass and other areas under The National Road Network as an off-network project.
My particular interest, Minister, relates to the duplication project, which has been jointly funded between Traralgon and Sale, with $140 million from the federal government and $35 million from the state. The minister would be aware that the current funding for this project is set to expire with the completion of the stage between Stammers Road and Minniedale Road. I think the minister would be aware of that. There is concern within the community, within Latrobe City Council, Wellington Shire Council and the general public about whether future funding opportunities exist for that duplication work. I understand that the cost of the project is in the order of $500 million and that $175 million has been allocated to it. So I would be interested to know: where does the Princes Highway East, Traralgon to Sale, fit in the government's future funding priorities?
The second question I would like to ask the minister relates to an issue he may well be able to clarify for me—and that is, the $20 million reprofiling that occurred, due to the EPBC Act issue, around the time of Queensland floods. I know the minister is aware of this issue. I am hoping to get some clarity about whether that funding has now flowed through to the actual project.
Perhaps more generally—and I invite the minister's comments on this particular issue—in terms of road-funding activities across Australia, I am particularly concerned about the amount of the road budget that is being redirected into issues relating to things such as the EPBC Act. The way in which we have been forced to move roads out of road reserves because of EPBC Act intervention, I think, is a concern for this government and future governments.
From my understanding of the EPBC Act, it was really meant to relate to issues of national significance, yet we are seeing local highway duplication projects being moved out of the road reserve onto private property at significant expense to the Commonwealth and the relevant state governments. I would invite the minister's comments: how significant an issue is this for our nation? How much road money allocated to the transport department is being diverted into these environmental issues, which are sometimes quite spurious? I would invite your comments on that, Minister.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:32): I thank the member for Gippsland for his considered approach to infrastructure. I acknowledge that he is one member on the other side of the House who genuinely makes representations on behalf of his electorate and who plays a constructive role in the putting forward of that funding.
I note that the member has acknowledged that this is the first time that significant funding, $140 million from the federal Labor government and $35 million from the Victorian government, has gone into this section of the Princes Highway East. The current schedule of works is scheduled to be completed in late 2015. We have done exactly what we said we would do: duplicate the highway between Traralgon and Sale. I acknowledge that I would like more to be done and acknowledge the representations of both the member for Gippsland and the member for Eden-Monaro about these issues.
At the other end, the Bega bypass is currently under construction, fully funded, 100 per cent, by the Commonwealth government. Not one cent has come from the New South Wales government. However, that will not stop them from turning up at media opportunities, should they arise in the future.
Labor has done substantially more than the former government did. That is not hard, because they did not put a cent into this section of the highway. There is more to be done. The current process for Nation Building Program 2 is that we have asked all of the state and territory governments to make submissions as to their funding priorities on the road and rail networks. I sat down on a number of occasions with the Victorian government, the Victorian minister, and worked out some initial priorities in terms of the major projects for Nation Building Program 2 that the Victorian government wanted. Part of that was the Melbourne Metro project that, in Minister Mulder's own words, is the No. 1 priority for Victoria. We worked out funding for that project—$3 billion from each level of government plus an availability payment model, as I said in my opening remarks—but the Victorian government appear to be stepping away from that. I must say we have had difficulties getting any cost-benefit analysis from the Victorian government for road projects such as the east-west tunnel. Their proposals talk about it beginning in the east, and there is a question about what the appropriate model is. I certainly believe in funding both road and rail projects, but it is beyond me why the Victorian government are refusing to submit this cost-benefit analysis or any business plan to the federal government, my department or to Infrastructure Australia.
I indicate to the member for Gippsland that as part of those discussions we also talked about savings that exist on current Victorian projects that were part of NB1. We have not received from the Victorian government any proposals as to where their priorities would be. But I say to the member that I would be happy to continue to work with him in a constructive way on Nation Building Program 2. We indicated very publicly, on budget night—the shadow minister seems to be surprised by this—that these are instalments for specific projects that we have included in the program.
I am a minister who argues for additional funding for infrastructure. The former government seemed to have transport ministers who just rolled over for the Liberal Party partners and did not seem to actually be able to win an argument in their party room, in the cabinet or wherever. There was a distinct lack of funding. Indeed, the last time the coalition were in office they cut $2 billion from road funding in their first budget, and their budgets never recovered from those cuts.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. Given that there are a lot of members who want to ask questions, for the convenience of the House, if members on my right could ask questions seriatim and then not speak for so long, you will get your questions in and the minister can respond. Members on my left, I take it that the Leader of the Nationals and the honourable member for Dawson are going to ask questions? Okay. I will lead off with the member for Gellibrand.
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (10:38): I will ask a very brief question in order to enable my colleagues to raise some of their issues, because the minister has touched briefly on the issue that I wanted to ask him about, which is for him to address further this question of infrastructure, particularly in the western suburbs of Melbourne. The lack of funding for roads by the coalition is true not just if you look at spending from our government compared with the previous, Howard government but also if you look at the last 20 or 30 years: the big infrastructure projects were funded by Labor governments.
Minister Albanese, I am wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the latest investment in the Western Ring Road, the western suburbs of Melbourne being one of the fastest growing communities in the country; and how they complement our investments in regional rail and the latest investments in the Melbourne Metro. I, perhaps cheekily, put on the record that, if the east-west tunnel—as others persist in calling it—is to go ahead, I would like to call it the west-east tunnel! I do believe, given where the particular population pressures are, that, if it were to go ahead, consideration should be given to building it from the western end rather than the eastern end. That has a long way to travel, as the minister mentioned, when work has not already been done by the state government—and you might want to address that too, Minister. But I understand my colleague is going to ask you some questions to handle together.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Gellibrand for her brevity.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (10:39): I take this opportunity to ask the minister some questions in relation to expenditure on transport and infrastructure in the budget appropriations. There have been some great investments in Tasmania under this Labor government—about $1.9 billion. That has been great for lifting the infrastructure which is so urgently needed and for creating great jobs. The electorate of Lyons is 50 per cent of the state of Tasmania and has most of the great highway between the south and the north. I am often referred to as 'the honest broker in the middle' and it is a title I enjoy wearing. The minister might like to outline the $500 million announced in the latest package for work on the Midland Highway and also the Launceston bypass. Planning for the new Bridgewater bridge is continuing. There is the upgrading of the Mona Vale and St. Peters Pass, one of the oldest passes in Tasmania. There is quite a bit of activity around Mona Vale—I see there is a cherry farm in that area—and between Mangalore and Bagdad. In the north towards Launceston, just past my electorate office in Perth the highway is being duplicated and upgraded between Perth and the Launceston airport roundabout. They are urgently needed upgrades, which have been put aside for too long.
When you come to Tasmania you can see much work going on in infrastructure, with all the water pipes for the Midlands Irrigation Scheme sitting beside the highway. Down in the Colebrook sportsground you can see the rail sleepers for the upgrading of the rail at Rhyndaston and there are plenty of bulldozers. With the great work done on the Brighton bypass, that town is now in the biggest growth area in Tasmania. So Minister, I ask you how you see those areas and that infrastructure coming together with the $1.9 million this government has put into infrastructure in Tasmania.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:43): I thank members for their questions. Firstly, the member for Gellibrand is very conscious of the federal government's investment of $13.5 billion into Victorian infrastructure. That is a shift from $89 per head to more than $200 per Victorian. So we have more than doubled the infrastructure budget for Victoria. Concerning specific projects, we are currently investing more than $3.2 billion in the regional rail link, including through the member's electorate. Right now, there are 3,500 Australians working directly on that project as a result of that investment. Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and Melbourne are all benefitting. It is a very exciting project, one I have visited on a number of occasions and one which I note the federal Leader of the Opposition did not even know existed—an extraordinary proposition—when he said on Melbourne radio that the federal government does not invest in any urban rail projects, except for the Moreton Bay rail link. It is an exciting project.
The M80 has also been an absolutely critical project. We have committed some $900 million to the upgrade of the Western and the Metropolitan ring-roads. In this budget, we have added a further $525 million for that project, which is absolutely vital for the efficiency of the Victorian road system. It is an absolutely vital project for Melbourne. The important thing about the east-west—
Honourable member interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: or west-east, as the member said—
Honourable member interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: That is why you have a business plan; it is to work out issues—for example, with the West Gate Bridge: what is the priority for where the link should begin? We want to see it. The Victorian government say that they have got it, but they will not show it to anyone. It is quite an extraordinary proposition. I think our record in Victorian infrastructure stands in stark contrast to our predecessor's.
In Tasmania, we have invested $1.9 billion. This, again, is almost a doubling of infrastructure spending in Tasmania. In this budget, the Midland Highway package is particularly important for the electorate of the member for Lyons. There is planning for a future Launceston bypass, duplicating the Perth to Breadalbane section, and dedicated safety upgrades at Mona Vale, St Peter's Pass, and between Mangalore and Bagdad, as well as activities to advance the Bridgewater Bridge. The Freight Rail Revitalisation project is also absolutely vital. It includes replacing approximately 290 kilometres of old rail track. This creates jobs in manufacturing as well as in the specific work that takes place there. Also, there are the commitments to the Brooker Highway, the Domain Highway, the Huon Highway and the Tasman Highway ramps. All of this adds up to a major benefit.
Of course, the opposition have said that they can duplicate the Midland Highway for $400 million. That is just a nonsense. We have committed $500 million. We are not pretending that we will be able to duplicate the whole highway. The opposition pluck figures from nowhere. It is bit like the construction of the Hunter Expressway, which is now underway, at $1.65 billion. When the coalition said that they would do something about the expressway, they did not actually advance the project. In 2004, they said the costing was $382 million. By 2007, they said it was $1.2 billion. They just make up these figures as they go along. They hold out false hope and pretend that they can build things with an amount that they simply cannot. We have invested real dollars into real projects that are making a real difference in terms of costing. The whole duplication has been costed at $2.7 billion. That is more than $400 million. Those opposite need to stop the sort of nonsense that they go on with. We have invested real money in those real projects.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:48): Deputy Speaker, I have three issues to put to the minister. The first is in relation to the upgrade of the Bruce Highway from Vantassel Street in Townsville to the Flinders Highway. The minister would know of it: $110 million was announced in the budget for this project. It was certainly something that the government was going to remove altogether to pay for the flood reconstruction in Queensland, and only after campaigning by the Liberal-National coalition was it reinstated in the budget. That was a good outcome. I have written to the minister, and I believe that the Townsville City Council has written to the minister—and perhaps the minister has also received correspondence from the Townsville Turf Club—about some issues that the community have with the upgrade of that road. I am just wondering whether the minister is aware of that and what the minister is going to do about those concerns.
The second issue I refer to concerns the Bruce Highway. The minister and, I believe, the Prime Minister came to Rockhampton to announce a supposed $4.1 billion Bruce Highway package. We later found out that roughly $1.76 billion of that was already announced funding. This leaves around $2.4 billion to be spent over the next 10 years.
The Department of Main Roads in Queensland has a Bruce Highway action plan where they say that $6 billion over the next 10 years is needed for the highest priority projects on that highway. The $2.4 billion that you have allocated over the next 10 years is not even half of what is needed. The minister will probably respond that all of that $1.76 billion was announced after the Bruce Highway action plan came into effect, but that answer will only really fly if the $1.76 billion in funding that has already been committed out of that $4.1 billion is for projects that are actually contained within the Bruce Highway action plan. So my second question to the ministry is whether he can assure me and indeed the House that out of that $4.1 billion that has been allocated, including the $1.76 billion that has already been allocated, all of it is going to projects that are identified in the Bruce Highway action plan. The following question is, if there cannot be an assurance there, what projects are we going to miss out on? Will the Haughton River Bridge be something we miss out on, the upgrade of Sandy Gully near Bowen, the planning for Beganga Plains in the Whitsundays be something we miss out on?
In relation to the ring road, there was a visit by the Prime Minister on 24 April to Mackay and she announced that the ring road would be funded by the government. There were no details but she told reporters that in the budget the ring road would be included. We have got the budget before us and there is no line item mentioning the ring road whatsoever. There is no mention of the ring road in the budget. There have been indications made to journalists by the Prime Minister, by the minister and indeed by the Labor candidate in the electorate of Dawson that the ring road funding will be available in the 2013-14 financial year. I want a clear answer from the minister, a yes or a no: will the ring road funding be made available in the 2013-14 financial year?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:52): I am very pleased to get this question from the member opposite. It seems he does not understand budgets and he does not understand infrastructure the way that it happens. The Department of Main Roads Queensland, his Tory colleagues, run the projects in regard to the Vantassel Street issue that he raises, in terms of that upgrade. The process of the implementation, the management of the projects is done by the Queensland LNP government. Okay? It is not that hard, mate. You should be able to work that out. So in terms of issues with regard to specific details of construction we provide money to the Department of Main Roads, you have a contract between the federal and state governments and they then manage the project.
With regard to the funding that is in the budget, he also does not seem to understand that what you have is line items in the budget of funding for the Bruce Highway. He has produced some ads on the Mackay ring road, which is bizarre because of the quotes he uses to say what the promise is. I read from his ad. He said that the Prime Minister said funding would be sourced from a federal infrastructure scheme known as Nation Building 2. That is the commitment of the Prime Minister.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: According to you. This is your ad. The broken promise he says is Infrastructure Australia are now in a position to release a preliminary schedule of new projects to be funded and delivered over the five-year life of our next nation building program, which is Nation Building 2. We said we would fund it under Nation Building 2. Your ad says Nation Building 2—
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Nation Building 2, you nong. It is in the ad that you produced. 2014-15—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): Minister—
Mr ALBANESE: I withdraw. That is a compliment. 2014-15 to 2018-19. It is there in your ad. You cannot help some people. We already have funding to progress the planning. Funding is already there for the community consultation for the Mackay ring road, which I announced in Mackay, which closes next month.
Mr Christensen: It's already underway, mate.
Mr ALBANESE: We're funding it, you nong! We're funding it!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, will you not use that language. Withdraw.
Mr ALBANESE: I withdraw. It is not that complex, mate, and you should talk to the member for Gippsland about the way that he approaches infrastructure investment in his seat. He makes approaches, as a member of the National Party. He gives credit when it is there; he says, 'This is a good thing for my electorate,' and he asks for more. That is what he does. That is what a good local member does.
You have got money for planning—$10 million, and not a cent from the state government but totally funded by us, to do the planning. We have released, now, for community consultation, the proposed route. That is out there. As to the community consultation, that funding has already been provided under Nation Building 1. We have a program for the Mackay ring road: planning in Nation Building 1, and then construction in Nation Building 2. That is what the Prime Minister said. That is what is there.
And in yesterday's state budget, 85 per cent of the $690 million the Queensland government said was being committed to the Bruce Highway is funding from us—85 per cent is from the federal government.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: And you have not promised a zack, a cent, of funding for the Bruce Highway, but you come in here and get critical about funding for your electorate! You are one of the only members of parliament I have ever seen in the entire time I have been here, 17 years, who have complained about funding being in your electorate. You have campaigned against it, and you need to do your job. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have just a few minutes left. The honourable member for Robertson has the call.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (10:57): Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we have a quick question and a quick answer, we will be on time.
Ms O'NEILL: It will indeed be a quick question. I want to note, in the minister's comments today, not just the significant amounts of money that are being invested, and not just the vision and a deep understanding of investment for the benefit of the nation, for our productivity and our future, but the constant awareness of the reality that these projects create jobs.
I come from a family steeped in construction. The first photographs I have of me, Minister, are of me sitting on top of a D9, a great big bulldozer, when my father was helping build the Bradfield Highway. And I was delighted to climb onto a Hitachi excavator in the electorate just last week for the announcement of the Gosford passing loops and that $146 million project.
But my questions go particularly today to the F3-M2, because this is a critical piece of infrastructure, and also to the widening of the exits and sections of the F3, which will improve not only the safety of people from the Central Coast in travelling to and from Sydney but also their lifestyle, by helping them to be able to get home. So this is part of a great national investment, and I would like to hear more from the Minister about the F3-M2.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Petrie has the call but it should be a quick question.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie—Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (10:58): I have a very quick question, Deputy Speaker. I am very interested to hear from the Minister what further investments there are in my electorate of Petrie on the Moreton Bay rail link, something that was promised for 102 years and which took this federal Labor government to make happen; it is important that that money keeps being committed in this year's budget. But also I am interested to know if the state government is fulfilling its commitments. Also I am interested in the Gateway Motorway upgrade, which is critical to the whole of the north side of Brisbane. But so is the Cross River Rail. I am very interested to hear what the commitments are of this federal Labor government.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (10:59): To wrap up this series, the F3 to M2 is an absolutely vital project. It effectively will be the Sydney bypass. It means that vehicles can go from the south, head north via the M7 and M2 and on to what has been the missing link. It is a vital project. We sat down constructively with the New South Wales government and with Transurban and got this done. Without the federal government's $400-million investment, it simply would not have happened. The previous government did lots of studies but no action. On top of that we have the F3 upgrades we announced with the Prime Minister and the member for Robertson. It will make a huge difference to the Central Coast.
It appears that the Queensland state government is against investment in Brisbane because, in the budget they handed down yesterday, they failed to put any money into the Gateway North project at all. They have only put $5 million into the next section of the Ipswich motorway and they failed to put any funding at all into the Cross River rail project, which is absolutely vital in dealing with congestion. Indeed they have come up with quite an innovative plan.
A new rail crossing across the river would ensure that people not just in Brisbane but people on the Sunshine Coast and on the Gold Coast and everywhere in between could benefit. Four new rail stations were also envisaged. But after writing to us and making a number of requests—all of which were agreed to—and after exchanging letters in writing about this project, they walked away from it under pressure from the federal coalition.
The Queensland state government have come up with another unique and innovative plan. They plan to rip the seats out of the existing trains and make people stand on the train so they can squeeze more people in. I am sure they will have an employment project just like you see in Tokyo whereby people with gloves will be charged with pushing people, cramming them like sardines, on to the trains.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: As member the for Moreton suggested, that might be stage 2 of the solution from the Queensland state government.
What we now know about the Moreton Bay regional rail link is that all contracts which have not been entered into on public transport projects are under threat from the federal coalition should they be elected. The Cross River rail project was first promised in the Queensland parliament in 1895. The whole of the next century went through without a commitment. It took the current federal Labor government, largely due to the campaign by the member for Petrie over and over again, to make this a reality. It has begun but I am very concerned that the project is under threat because of the statements on the record from the coalition, which is they do not believe in any investment in public transport. To quote the Leader of the Opposition, they should 'stick to their knitting', which consists of minor road funding in marginal electorates. It was what the record was previously. There should be no funding.
They and the Leader of the National Party have made it very clear that they do not believe in sticking to commitments where contracts have not been entered into. They have made it very clear that is their position. We know in spite of the fact that there are so many people on the record, including the Premier of Queensland and the transport minister, supporting the Cross River rail project but it is not going ahead. I think other projects would be under threat as well. The only way to ensure proper infrastructure funding for South-East Queensland as well as for the whole of regional Queensland, including the Bruce Highway, is with the re-election of the Labor government. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): I thank honourable members and ministers for their contributions. As the debate on the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio has concluded, I propose to put the question.
Mr ALBANESE: Just before you do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the ad placed by the member for Dawson. It is such a cracker of an ad! I am prepared to table a coalition ad because it is so absurd.
Proposed expenditures agreed to.
Prime Minister and Cabinet
Proposed expenditure, $377,103,000
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (11:05): The government is making the choice to keep our economy strong and to invest in our future. The Australian economy, by international standards, continues to perform extraordinarily well. We have a low debt-to-GDP ratio, one of the lowest in the developed world. We have strong employment, with the unemployment rate having a five at the front of it. Our economy has grown by 14 per cent since the global financial crisis, while Europe's economy has shrunk and the US economy has grown by just a couple of percentage points. The Australian stock market has grown strongly and the Australian economy is a standout performer on the international stage.
The government has recognised the challenges that the high Australian dollar places on our public finances. So the 2013-14 budget charts a pathway to return to balance in 2015-16 and to surplus by 2016-17, improving the sustainability of Australia's public finances and building on Australia's record of fiscal and economic strength. The priorities of the budget are providing schoolchildren with the opportunities to reach their full potential, with $9.8 billion invested in new school funding; providing support for people with severe and permanent disability through the historic $14.3 billion investment in DisabilityCare Australia; and providing critical infrastructure, as we heard in the previous portfolio's consideration in detail, with $24 billion of new investment in road and rail.
The budget charts a path to surplus, although the hit to revenues will see a budget deficit in 2013-14. The budget continues the government's record of identifying strategic savings rather than making savage cuts. While those opposite would cut back vital services that Australians depend on, while they would raise superannuation taxes on low-income workers, we on this side of the House have a different set of priorities. The coalition believe it is appropriate to take away money from children on their first day of school—
Mr Briggs: Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, I raise a point of order on relevance. I understand this is the parliamentary secretary's first attempt at a consideration-in-detail stage of portfolio expenditure, but he should confine his remarks to the budget papers, as I understand it. Talking about the opposition, telling fibs about the opposition, does not relate to the budget papers for the forward estimates—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): The member for Mayo will resume his seat.
Mr Briggs: so, if he could confine his remarks to the budget papers, that would be terrific.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will take his seat. There is no point of order, and I think the honourable member for Mayo knows that.
Dr LEIGH: The budget makes $43 billion of savings across the forward estimates, continuing a legacy of making responsible savings so that we can fund necessary investments. The government has chosen a sensible path of consolidation, maintaining strong growth and low unemployment while ensuring that Australia's debt levels are among the lowest in the developed world. Through these investments in the National Plan for School Improvement, DisabilityCare Australia, the National Health Reform Agreement and aged care, the government is ensuring that Australia is a stronger and more socially cohesive nation.
On the topic of aged-care investments, it was my pleasure recently to join the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing in my own electorate to speak with local residents about the importance of aged-care reform. This is just one of many consultations the government has held on aged-care reform.
The government's investments keep to our medium-term fiscal strategy, a fiscal strategy that has remained unchanged since the government's first budget in 2008-09—and that is, to achieve budget surpluses, on average, over the medium term; to keep taxation as a share of GDP, on average, below the level from 2007-08; and to improve the government's net financial worth over the medium term. While we have seen significant hits to revenue, the government has continued to hue to that path.
For the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, there are three new measures in the 2013-2014 budget, with a total fiscal impact of $112 million over four years. The government will provide $13.8 million over four years to the department to maintain existing organisational capacity and to support the government's critical initiatives and reform agenda. There will be $97.5 million over three years to support the G20 meetings in Queensland, in 2014, and there will be $0.65 million over three years to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to support Australia's membership of the United Nations Security Council.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:11): Firstly, given the seniority of the cabinet minister at the table—and I appreciate him being here—I might ask the questions I have in relation to the Social Inclusion Unit and get the minister to respond before asking some questions of the parliamentary secretary in relation to the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
The coalition thinks that all Australians deserve the best opportunity at the life they wish to pursue. That is why we have announced a series of policies as part of our real solutions plan, to ensure people have those opportunities over the coming months. Where we find a little inconsistency is when the government has this so-called Social Inclusion Unit but seeks publicly to denigrate Australians it does not agree with. I refer in this respect to the terrific and remarkable contribution last week by the member for Batman in his speech to the parliament announcing his retirement, in which he made the point: 'We should be about creating opportunities for all Australians, not pursuing our pointless class rhetoric.'
How does a minister justify having a Social Inclusion Unit at the same time as the Treasurer of the country seeks to pursue, it would seem daily, this class warfare rhetoric in the parliament and outside by targeting Australians because of their success? How is that consistent with establishing this so-called Social Inclusion Unit and, in so doing, spending millions of dollars? Equally, Minister, can you outline to the parliament how much funding has been allocated to the Social Inclusion Unit over the forward estimates? How much of that funding has been allocated to the board as well as to the unit itself? How many people are currently employed within the Social Inclusion Unit? And what is the total expenditure so far in 2012-13 for this unit?
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (11:13): I thank the member for Mayo for his question and his interest in the concepts of social inclusion and for giving me the opportunity to talk a little bit about that and to answer, as best I can, his questions and maybe take on notice some of the more specific questions about dollars.
The government, since we came to power in 2007-08, thought it was important to have a social inclusion approach to government. I will talk a bit about the precise focus of that agenda, because I am not sure the member for Mayo has completely understood the idea of the social inclusion agenda, at least from our government's perspective.
Social inclusion, essentially, is about a fair go for all Australians. But taking particular account of the fact that, in spite of our extraordinary economic success over the periods of the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Howard government and our government since 2007, 21 years of uninterrupted economic growth which, as the parliamentary secretary eloquently said, has been the envy of the advanced economies around the world, that rising tide has simply not lifted all ships. We know through research that there remain around 600,000 adults in Australia who experience multiple points of disadvantage, by which I mean that it is not just that they are experiencing poverty or it is not just that they are experiencing disability or it is not just that they are experiencing unstable housing or perhaps homelessness. It is that they are experiencing a whole range of those disadvantages.
The Social Inclusion Agenda recognises two things: 1) that any country worth its salt needs to continue to focus on ensuring that, in our case, those Australians have the opportunity enjoyed by all others to participate in this country's success; and 2) that some of the traditional approaches to dealing with disadvantage are simply not working for that group. By that I mean that traditionally what we have done for someone experiencing poverty is to give them an income support program. What we have done for someone experiencing mental illness or disability is to give them some mental health support, and what we have done for someone experiencing housing issues is to give them housing support. Where people are dealing with multiple points of disadvantage we recognise there is an obligation on government and delivery agencies funded by government to work more in a joined-up way so that rather than those Australians having to go forum shopping with eight or 10 different agencies, they are given an approach that is centred upon them rather than centred upon different government agencies or different NGOs.
The member for Mayo will see that through a number of different reform initiatives pursued by this government. In my area of mental health, the Partners in Recovery program, which seeks to support some of the most chronically and seriously unwell in our community, is deliberately a joined-up program that seeks to bring together often eight or 10 different agencies that are providing support to these 60,000 or so Australians and ensure that the agencies work through one centralised support program rather than expecting those Australians and their families or carers to go shopping time and time again for different supports from different agencies. That is the purpose of our Social Inclusion Agenda.
I think the member for Mayo has slightly misunderstood the idea of social inclusion and taken a much broader sweep than we are intending to do through our agenda. Be very clear, our agenda on social inclusion is focused on those Australians experiencing the most intractable disadvantage. We receive very good advice and support from the Social Inclusion Board. Their How Australia is faring report is one of the best reports to bring together a range of different sources of evidence and research to understand better what is driving that level of disadvantage among those Australians—the extent to which it is locality based, the extent to which it focuses around poor health and disability. We know through those research pieces that these are the surest paths into intractable disadvantage, but we also understand that the surest path out of that disadvantage is training and employment. I appreciate the advice we have received from the Social Inclusion Board. I will take on notice the particular questions about the dollars that the member for Mayo has asked me and I thank him again for his interest in this very important policy agenda.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (11:18): I would like to start my contribution, prior to asking the minister the question I have, by thanking him very much for visiting my electorate last week and for the Social Inclusion report that has been done on Wyong Shire Council, and particularly the area he visited which is extremely disadvantaged. It is an area that will benefit enormously from the government's contribution in the area of social inclusion. I particularly thank him for meeting with a number of young people on the issue of mental health and the need for mental health resources in a very poor and isolated area. The report on Wyong Shire has shown just how people in that area have missed out. The concept of social inclusion is very important. It is not playing one group against another; it is making sure that everybody in our society has an opportunity.
The government has invested substantially in improved mental health services over the last five years, culminating in a record $2.2 billion package of reforms announced in the budget, which are now being successfully implemented across Australia. We all just need to look at our electorates to see how successful it has been. We express our thanks to the government, at least on this side of the House. A key part of that reform package was to establish a new mental health commission, to bring better transparency and to report on performance to our mental health service and in our entire mental health system. The budget continues the government support for funding of the National Mental Health Commission and the commission continues to be funded through the Prime Minister's office. Could the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform inform the chamber how this funding will be used and what progress the commission has made already? I also invite the minister to reflect on the leadership of the commission, especially given the recent announcement by Robin Kruk AM about her intention to resign from the Australian Public Service.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (11:20): I thank the member for Shortland for her question. For the benefit of the chamber, I am sworn as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform so that I can be sworn to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet because that is where the National Mental Health Commission is situated as an agency, for reasons I will explain shortly.
I thank the member for Shortland for hosting me last week in her beautiful electorate, for the events we were able to hold there and for the discussions particularly that we were able to have with an incredibly impressive and resilient group of young people in San Remo. This is a group of young people who have been through pretty tough times in family circumstances dealing with mental health issues, who advocated very clearly and forcefully the need for mental health services in the northern part of the Wyong Shire. The strip from the Central Coast up to Newcastle is well serviced by headspace services. The headspace Gosford service, now called headspace Central Coast, is one of the oldest headspaces and one of the most professional services we have in the country. Deb there is a great leader of headspace, not just in that part of New South Wales but around the country. We were able to open headspace Newcastle last week as well.
The arguments were forcefully made that there perhaps is the need for us to consider some support for the northern Wyong Shire Council, nestled between Gosford and Newcastle. I was particularly struck by some of the arguments made by young people, their parents, their teachers, their high school principals and, in some cases, their grandparents about the particular social circumstances of that part of the Shortland electorate. There are relatively speaking low rates of car ownership impacting on someone's capacity to drive to Gosford or to Newcastle. The relatively low rates of internet connection restrains a young person's ability to tap into our investments in e-headspace and other mental health initiatives. That for me was a very powerful discussion and again I thank you for that.
As your question intimates, the National Mental Health Commission is structurally a very important part of our mental health reform agenda. I want to place on record that the idea of mental health reform and the need to improve mental health services has happily been a bipartisan idea for several years. We differ sometimes on the details of that effort, but I am very pleased that, from the community's point of view, that is seen as a bipartisan obligation on all governments—Commonwealth or state.
As I was developing the reform agenda to take to cabinet for the 2011 budget process, I heard very forcefully from mental health academics but also and most importantly from consumers and carers that they wanted a body like the National Mental Health Commission, for two reasons. They wanted an agency at arm's length from government that would report without fear or favour on the performance of our mental health services. We have reported now for more than 20 years in this country in minute detail the number of beds we have in the mental health system, the number of staff we have in the system, but we have not been good at reporting on outcomes. We have not been good at reporting on the degree to which those investments through taxpayer dollars change people's lives and help them recover from their illness, help them connect back with their families and communities, back to work, back into stable housing and so on.
That is the message I heard most clearly from consumers and carers, and that is the job of the National Mental Health Commission. They have done it marvellously well in their first year. The report card that they released just before Christmas put a spotlight—I think for the first time—on the extraordinary physical health disadvantage that, particularly, people with severe mental illness experience. Their life expectancy gap—the gap between their life expectancy and the average—is almost 30 years. The only other group in the Australian community that experiences a similar life expectancy gap is Indigenous Australians. I think that was a very powerful piece of work, and they also put the spotlight back on the use of seclusion and restraint, particularly in state mental health systems.
Robyn Kruk has been a great leader of this commission. She is a former New South Wales Director General of Premier and Cabinet and director general of the health service. She has held senior positions in the APS. She has announced her retirement from the APS, and consequently the position of head of the commission, in the past several weeks. I want to place on record her work in setting up the commission to be, I think, a long-term benefit to the Australian community.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:26): I want to acknowledge the minister's comments just then, acknowledging that this has been a bipartisan commitment. I thank him for that. It has been. The shadow minister for health has pursued these issues with vigour in the last few years, and the Leader of the Opposition also. I also acknowledge the minister's commitment. In my own electorate he has met with groups and attempted to solve some of the challenges that I think there are, particularly in regional mental health issues. You would know yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, that they are a different set of issues and are very hard to fix. I know the minister has put some attention on that, and we appreciate that. I am not sure we have yet got it right, so it is an issue which we need to continue to focus on.
I want to turn my attention to the administration of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, particularly with the parliamentary secretary here. Some of the machinery aspects of government which I think are important have been downplayed by ministers in this place this week, but I think they are substantially important to the operations of an effective executive government. During the Howard years, of which I had some experience as a staff member, there was a focus on ensuring the proper process was always followed—certainly from the Prime Minister, who very much respected the office that he held and the processes and traditions of that office. What has become apparent this week in estimates and in questioning in this place is that it seems that there are a series of ministers, through the chaos and dysfunction of the events of March this year, who have not received their charter letter from the Prime Minister.
For those unfamiliar with it, a charter letter is the letter which in effect is a job description for the minister. It outlines what it is the minister is responsible for, acts and the expectations of the minister. In the Howard years, the Prime Minister would have a session with each minister every 12 months to go through the charter letter and work through whether the outcomes that he expected to be achieved in the portfolio area to further the government's agenda were indeed being achieved. It was a very important letter for internally holding ministers to account to ensure that the aims and the pursuit of the policy direction of the government—which is usually announced at the beginning of a term in the Governor-General's speech—were being achieved.
It strikes me as quite remarkable that the Minister for Human Services, who is responsible in this budget for $157 billion worth of payments—the agency of human services is responsible for $157 billion worth of payments which Australians rely on, whether it be pensions, childcare payments, payments in relation to family tax benefit or Medicare rebates; you name it, they are responsible for it—does not have a charter letter from the chaos and dysfunction of March. There was no charter letter. It was then revealed in the portfolio of the minister for social and community services, Minister Macklin, that she does not have a charter letter. I presume the minister for mental health and other issues has a charter letter.
After that short preamble, my questions to the parliamentary secretary are as follows. How many ministers have not received their charter letter? Will they get the charter letter prior to the government entering into its caretaker period, which is about 78 days away? Have the Prime Minister and her department drafted those letters yet? Is this stuck in the in-tray? Do they intend to put some urgency to it? Can the parliamentary secretary update us on these matters?
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (11:30): I thank the member for Mayo for his questions. He raises an important question of proper process, the details of which I am happy to take on notice and supply to him. But I share his commitment to proper processes and have great faith in the diligence of public servants, not just in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but in other departments as well.
This government has a strong commitment to reform and a strong commitment to ensuring that proper processes are followed. That is why under this government we have seen a continued series of important reforms making a difference in people's lives. We have seen the development of the National Broadband Network, DisabilityCare Australia, a profit based mining tax and a price on carbon pollution—any single one of which policy developments, under other governments, might have taken the entire attention of the government. Yet this government has managed each of those reforms in the context of a global financial crisis and the unusual perfect storm of a high Australian dollar and a fall-off in commodity prices. The government's commitment to reform remains steadfast, as does our commitment to public servants. It is not for this side of the House to be slashing 20,000 jobs out of the Public Service. We have great faith in the Public Service. It is the view of this side of parliament—
Mr Briggs: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This was an issue raised about when the Prime Minister was going to send charter letters to her ministers who have not received them. Talking about the opposition's plans to live within our means and to ensure that we have got a Public Service which is operating efficiently—and this instance shows quite clearly that it is not—has not got anything to do with the question I asked.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): As I understand it, the question time rules do not apply. The parliamentary secretary's response is appropriate if it is relevant to the parliamentary secretary's portfolio.
Dr LEIGH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I share your view that someone who is focused upon the importance of proper rules and proper process should also be aware of the rules and processes of this place and the rules that govern consideration in detail.
I will conclude by saying that this government has a strong record of working constructively with the Public Service. We recognise the great reforming work that public servants do. That is why we are committed to a strong Public Service. That is why this side of parliament will never resort to the sorts of attacks upon public servants that we see from members of the opposition, which are so regrettable because of the great work that is done by public servants to build a stronger and more cohesive nation.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:34): I have a couple of questions for the minister on the not-for-profit reform agenda. I spent a number of years—in fact a couple of decades—of my life working in the not-for-profit sector and have extraordinary regard for the people that work in it, largely from firsthand experience. I got into it as a piano player—a repetiteur in the opera company, coaching singers in their roles—in my early 20s, and I spent the next nearly three decades in it before going into business on my own. It is filled with people who can start with a blank piece of paper and can identify some of the most extraordinarily large problems and chip away at them, on the smell of an oily rag. If you want to see efficiency, look at the not-for-profit sector. They achieve the most extraordinary things with very little money quite often.
But one of the things you also notice when you work in that sector is the amount of time you spend applying to government and, particularly, reporting to government. If you are a large organisation, you might apply for funding across six states and territories plus to the Commonwealth government and local councils, and you might apply to several departments in each of those places. So it is not unusual when you are reporting to have to provide anywhere from three to six copies of annual reports even three years back. In my office we had a shelf of annual reports each year for the last three years, a shelf of constitutions and a shelf of folders that contained things like certificates of cooperation. Several times a year you would send not an envelope off to a government department but a box of stuff.
When applying for grants there is also the need to continually establish your bona fides. There is an incredible amount of repetitive red tape to supply to different bodies and different levels of government. I was really pleased to see the work done by the Labor government in reducing that red tape. It started to rationalise how the not-for-profit sector relates to government, particularly with its exchange of information. I know that incredible work has been done, but I would really like an update on the progress of that reform agenda and the recent achievements in reducing red tape and simplifying Commonwealth grants programs for those who apply for them.
The second matter for me is the issue of gags. Between the years of 2004 and 2007 when I was representing Parramatta in opposition I saw first-hand some of the ramifications of the Howard government's gag clauses. In fact, I went to a forum in this house run by one of the members of the now opposition called 'Participatory democracy: a threat to democracy'. The forum was actually about a view that people in the not-for-profit sector who are representing a community but are not elected by the people are a corruption in democracy. It was actually quite scary. It was filled with Liberal members. I was the only one in the room who was not a Liberal member. I saw the impact of that view in my community when we had organisations representing some of the most vulnerable people in the community who did not feel that they had the right to speak on their behalf. It is my view, and I know it is the government's view, that a good government should be brave enough to feed the hand that bites it. It is the job of the not-for-profit sector to identify problems as they emerge at the coalface, make those well known and speak very, very loudly for those who are not able to speak for themselves.
I know that the Campbell Newman government has reintroduced gag clauses. I know that the Barry O'Farrell government is talking about reintroducing them. I know that the Labor government abolished Howard's gag clauses as one of its first actions in 2008. I would just like the minister to advise the chamber on recent announcements on the gag clauses both from the Commonwealth and from other governments and to inform the House about the impact of those announcements on the freedom of the not-for-profit sector to advocate for policy reform on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in the community.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (11:38): I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and for reminding us of her piano skills. I remember walking past the Great Hall when she was rehearsing Rachmaninoff's piano concerto No. 2, which is an extraordinarily difficult piece.
Honourable member interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: No—a drummer. I have no particular musical sense. I have some vague sense of rhythm but no sense of tune!
I thank the member for Parramatta. I also thank her for hosting me on a number of occasions in the electorate of Parramatta to meet with some fantastic not-for-profit organisations, the latest of which was when we met with the Evolve Housing organisation, which is a wonderful community housing organisation in the west of Sydney.
I also want to place on record my thanks to the member for Parramatta for her chairing of the House Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the ACNC, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, which is a centrepiece of the government's not-for-profit reform agenda. We have a very strong and firm view that not-for-profit reform is one of the outstanding pieces of microeconomic reform. By 'outstanding' I mean that it is one of those pieces of microeconomic reform that is still to be done. In many respects the ACNC reforms, and a number of other reforms associated with them, mirror the reforms that the Hawke government drove in the late 1980s, in the corporations sector, to do away with the myriad of reporting obligations that corporations back then had to comply with at Commonwealth and state levels.
The not-for-profit reform sector constitutes about 600,000 organisations. It is responsible for, or employs, about eight per cent of Australia's workforce. It engages about five million, or five-sixths, of the entire Australian volunteer workforce. It contributes—at last count, which is a little bit out of date—about $43 billion to Australia's GDP, which makes it a larger economic contributor to Australia than agriculture and tourism, just to name a couple of other industries. This is a very substantial part of Australia's economy and workforce.
But perhaps even more importantly, its value is inestimable in terms of its social contribution. All of us as local members of parliament and as members of the Australian community, come across, every day, NFP NGO organisations working with paid staff and with volunteers who are teaching young kids to play footie or engage in surf lifesaving, or delivering some of the most important social services to support some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
In addition to establishing the ACNC we recognise the government's role as a good citizen—as an organisation which contracts with many tens of thousands of not-for-profit organisations who, as I have said, deliver some of these incredibly important services to the Australian community. And I think we have an obligation to be a good citizen in that respect.
It concerned me, as a line agency minister to a number of departments, the number of contracts that we have with the NFP sector that run for only 12 months; the number of contracts which are renewed only very late in the financial year, which creates great uncertainty for those organisations and their staff; and the number of contracts which do not see timely acquittals. I think we have a very important obligation, regardless of the political flavour of the party in government at the time, to ensure that we are a good purchaser of services from these NGOs.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:42 to 11:55
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:55): The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet obviously plays an extremely significant role across government activities. In the short time remaining, I am interested in asking the parliamentary secretary—he probably does not have full details—whether he can enlighten the parliament a bit more, given this is a very quickly moving story. Yesterday, at the end of question time, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a review or an inquiry into the events surrounding the placement of a convicted Egyptian Islamic jihadi terrorist in the low-detention facility in the Adelaide Hills for seven months, with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship knowingly having that person there, before the person was moved into high security at Villawood on 17 April, after the West Australian newspaper raised the issue.
As I said, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet traditionally plays a cross-portfolio role in these sorts of issues and usually establishes a group which, from the public service side, leads inquiries, or the secretariat or support, and provides advice and so forth. I am wondering whether, at this stage, given the government has announced its review, it has worked through the details of what the department's commitment on assisting this review will be, to ensure that the full facts are revealed about why this convicted Islamic terrorist was put into the Inverbrackie facility, which the department of immigration knew, and no action was taken to move that person until this was made public. Given the revelations the minister for immigration made in this place during the week—that the minister was not advised, and then subsequently updated the parliament that the previous minister was advised—obviously the Prime Minister’s department will play an important role in bringing all of this together as a cross-portfolio function. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us, in the short time remaining, how much work has gone into preparing for the inquiry that was announced yesterday and how many resources will be allocated to it?
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (11:58): I thank the honourable member for Mayo for his question. The inquiry that was announced yesterday will be conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, not the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The independent Inspector- General of Intelligence and Security will focus attention on making sure that information is shared appropriately. But I would reinforce the point that the Prime Minister made in the House yesterday—that the individual in question was in detention at all times. That is an important factor for all members of the House to be aware of.
It is vital that this House is not misled on this matter. It has, I think, been disappointing to see the opposition opposing the independent investigation by the Inspector-General, who has legal authority to conduct such an inquiry, and instead calling for an inquiry by a parliamentary committee that does not have authority to have such an inquiry. It is disappointing and it does speak, I think, to the opposition's willingness to use the important issue of national security as a political football.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Consideration in Detail
Proposed expenditure, $184,775,000
Debate resumed.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (12:03): Mr Deputy Speaker McClelland, thank you for giving me the call. I hope this does not get me into too much strife, but I want to make four points very quickly. Firstly, I want pay homage to this building on the 25th anniversary of its opening. I think it has been one of the great buildings of Australia. It is not the members' and senators' building; it is the building of the people of Australia. Serendipitously, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are in the chair. I announce to the public that you and I will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of this building with a commemorative photo being taken of us in front of the foundation stone. As former Prime Minister Hawke has often told me, he took great delight in the fact that he laid the stone and that this was witnessed by Senate President McClelland and Speaker Jenkins. And I can think of no more fitting way that you and I can celebrate this great building than by doing that in the next sitting fortnight.
The second thing I wish to do is congratulate all members of all the parliamentary departments for their professionalism—that is, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the embryonic Parliamentary Budget Office. These are examples of great professionalism from a Parliamentary Service that sets an example throughout the world.
The third thing I wish to do is emphasise the work of the new House of Representatives Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, which I think be one of the great highlights of this period of parliament. I hope that it continues. I hope that people see the great virtue of having such a committee of members of the House that can assist in the formulation of proper estimates and proper budgets for the House. This year the committee has indicated that the House was successful. There were a number of bids made for a total of $2.177 million. New bids were allocated $1.966 million. There was a deduction across the board of 15 per cent throughout the service. I think that these things are important. I urge people to take note of the work of the committee and make sure its effectiveness is maximised.
The last thing I wish to do in this short contribution is urge members of this place to continue to look at ways in which we can modernise the way we go about our business. The Federation Chamber, a chamber which debates many issues at the same time as the main chamber, is an important example of the way we can improve the opportunities given to members to be involved in debates and discussions about policy matters and bills. The Federation Chamber has been mimicked by Westminster, and I think that is important. I also urge that we do our work in consideration of the fact that we are one parliament but two houses. We often have jokes, sniggers and smirks about our colleagues in the Senate. The thing I have learnt is that they have a culture and we have a culture but together we are the one Australian parliament, and I think that is the way we should go forward.
In this period of minority government, where the strength of the House of Representatives committee system has been seen at its best, there has been a developing cooperation between Senate committees and House of Representatives committees so that we do not engage with the public in a way that would waste the community's time and we do not unnecessarily duplicate committee deliberations. Committees use the work of other committees, whether they be House of Representatives committees or Senate committees, to assist them, and I think this assists us.
In the mutual things that are under the control of the Department of Parliamentary Services, I think we should move forward and do even better and seek more efficiencies. To say that we are a parliament in the Westminster tradition is correct, but, in the provision of services, we would not want to be Westminster. At Westminster, a pipe down in the basement can suddenly go from being under the control of the House of Commons to being under the control of the House of Lords. There are very few examples of cooperative effort in Westminster. I believe that we can show the way if we look at this place as being controlled by the one parliament but used by the two houses. I hope that those who go after me and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as we leave this place will see that there is no need to have these conflicts between the two separate chambers and that we can be cooperative. I think we can be cooperative if we understand that we are one parliament but two houses. I thank the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (12:10): The Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 provides for mandatory notification of data breaches by entities regulated by the Privacy Act 1998 as amended last year. The measure outlined in this bill was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008. The bill will introduce new protections to help keep personal information more secure in this digital age and ensure that companies notify their customers if they suffer a data breach. Whilst the coalition supports the passage of this bill through the House, we reserve the right to move amendments following any recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which will inquire into the bill in a thorough manner.
This bill seeks to improve consumer privacy protection and will keep personal information more secure in this digital age, as well as encourage agencies and private sector organisations to improve their data security. As more and more personal information is collected online by both government agencies and private companies, there is inevitably an increased risk of data breaches.
There have been a number of high-profile data breaches in recent years, including in April 2011 when 77 million PlayStation Network accounts were hacked. This apparently cost Sony millions of dollars in profit while their site was down for an entire month. This is viewed as the worst gaming community data breach of all time. The hacker has still not been found, yet the person gained access to over 12 million unencrypted credit card numbers as well as full names, postal addresses, passwords and email addresses.
In February of this year, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's main website was hacked, resulting in almost 50,000 people's personal details being exposed online. As these types of data breaches become more prevalent, it is important that consumers know when their privacy has been breached and their personal details compromised because of a data security breach. The bill will seek to make it a requirement for organisations to notify any affected individuals if they have a data breach.
The Privacy Act was extensively amended last year to harmonise the privacy principles regime for the public and private sector, provide for positive credit reporting, establish a regime for voluntary and mandatory privacy codes and increase the range of remedies for privacy breaches. The measures contained in this bill are intended to commence on 12 March 2014, immediately after the measures in the 2012 amendments.
The bill proposes that a mandatory data breach notification be sent to the affected person and the Privacy Commissioner if certain personal information is accessed, copied, obtained or modified by unauthorised persons. The personal information to which the regime is intended to apply is information of a type the unauthorised use or disclosure of which could give rise to a real risk of serious harm. This can include physical, psychological, financial or reputational harm. The regime does not apply to small businesses and intelligence agencies. A law enforcement agency that reasonably believes compliance would be likely to prejudice its law enforcement activities is able to seek exemption on a case by case basis.
There have been some possible issues identified with this bill and I wish to emphasise that the government would be wise to wait for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to complete their inquiry and hand down their report on 24 June. There is widespread concern that the code process mandated under the 2012 amendments is facing a logjam in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and with other regulators. The coalition has been informed that there is little confidence the transitional arrangements and consumer education campaign will be in place by September as required. This will have an adverse effect on the legislated commencement date for the scheme proper. As I foreshadowed, the coalition reserves the right to propose amendments following any issues that are identified by the Senate committee inquiry.
As more and more Australians provide their personal information to online organisations it is essential that these organisations have a certain level of responsibility when it comes to storing this information securely and reporting any data breaches to those customers that are affected. This bill will provide an incentive for businesses to keep their customers' personal information safe and secure. Whilst the coalition supports the broad principles in this bill there are still some concerns that require thorough investigation. That is why the coalition will wait for the Senate committee's report into this bill, and we reserve the right to propose appropriate amendments. I recommend that the government do wait for that Senate committee report to be handed down, and that should still give the government time to have the legislation passed before this parliament concludes.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:15): I am pleased to speak in support of the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill. I do so as a former practitioner in this area, acting not only for corporations, dealing with their privacy practices and compliance measures, but also for individuals, advising often on a pro bono basis on potential privacy breaches. I can fully appreciate from the corporate perspective what sort of an impact privacy breaches have on organisations that are subject to the Privacy Act but I also understand how important it is for individuals who are affected by such practices.
It is useful to go back to first principles when we are discussing privacy. Once upon a time—the member for Banks will know this as well—when we talked about privacy it used to be about the right to be left alone. Many cases in Australia involving privacy had to do with trespass, and in some cases contract. We need to recognise today, in the digital age, that it is virtually an untenable concept with how far we have progressed in terms of information sharing and the ability of individuals and organisations to collect, use, store and disclose personal information.
It is important to recognise when we talk about privacy that Australia has had some of the world's pre-eminent privacy thinkers—people like Justice Kirby and many others have contributed to the formation of what have become standardised privacy benchmarks in the EU and elsewhere. I do believe privacy is the here and now frontier when we are talking about the digital age. The amount of personal information being stored and traded and the acquiescence of many people, freely giving away personal information but at the same time expecting a certain level of protection, pose great challenges for the law. This bill is an important development arising from the landmark ALRC review, and it is important that it be implemented.
It is useful to remember that 'risk management' and 'sound privacy practices' are no longer terms that are tacked on the end of a due diligence—they have become a fundamental part of corporate life and a fundamental part of due diligence. Even before the Privacy Act 1988 was extended to cover private sector entities rather than just government entities, we still had a system of disparate privacy laws in Australia that exists today. There is telco-specific privacy legislation contained both in the Telecommunications Act and in the various interception and access regimes. We have specific rules relating to tax file numbers, and of course we have specific rules relating to government and to the private sector in general. It is important to recognise that Australia has some of the most rigorous privacy regimes when it comes to personal information.
Turning now to the bill, this is an introduction of a mandatory data-breach notification scheme so that government agencies and private sector entities that are covered by the Privacy Act will be required to notify the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and affected individuals of serious data breaches. These will be breaches that give rise to—and it is an important term—a real risk of serious harm to an affected individual, with 'a real risk' being defined as a risk that is not remote. It will also give the opportunity to affected individuals to take action—to put in some remedial steps to prevent things like identity theft and fraud. In a practical sense, this could include changing passwords, cancelling credit cards or the like.
As I mentioned, the development of this bill has been the subject of wide-ranging consultation. Consultation arose from the ALRC's landmark 2008 report. Also, the bill's development was subject to consultation in a discussion paper in October 2012 with a number of key stakeholders.
This bill is important because, in practice, it will provide a lot of incentive to encourage government agencies and private sector organisations to lift their standards and improve transparency about how they handle people's personal information. This will be a very important step in giving people not only more confidence in how their information is handled but also opportunities to remedy any breaches as they occur.
Those breaches can occur in a number of ways. There can be hacking or poor security and carelessness. I note the Attorney-General's media release of 28 May where he stated—and I think this is a very important point:
To make sure that the new laws have teeth, the Information Commissioner will be able to direct agencies and business to notify individuals of data breaches.
And the commissioner does have the option of seeking civil penalties if there is serious or repeated non-compliance with the notification requirements.
Unfortunately, it is rare for a week to go past where there is not an expose on the television or in the newspapers about a large organisation that has had an inadvertent breach. One was reported recently on 16 May where someone doing a Google search actually found a lot of private Telstra customer data, and this was a person who was looking for what you can find quite freely: telco carrier access codes. So, for a very legitimate purpose, this person was doing a search and all of a sudden discovered a wide range of data, including customer names, telephone numbers and, in some cases, home and business addresses. And that was a case of Telstra, but it could just as easily, as I think everyone here knows, be any big organisation, such as a bank or an insurer—any large entity that holds a lot of information.
I note that the Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has welcomed the release of these mandatory breach notification laws. He has been a strong supporter of them, ever since they were first proposed as a recommendation in the ALRC report. In a media release dated 28 May, Mr Pilgrim noted:
The last couple of years have seen a number of high-profile data breaches and subsequent own motion investigations initiated by me, and research suggests that the frequency of data breaches in Australia has continued to grow over the past three years …
Interestingly, though, as the media release says:
Despite this upward trend, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner … only received 46 data breach notifications in the 2011–12 financial year …
That was actually a decrease of 18 per cent from the previous year. So I can understand his comments that:
I am concerned that we are only being notified of a small percentage of serious data breaches that are occurring. Many critical incidents may be going unreported and consumers may be unaware when their personal information could be compromised …
I would also note that since 2008 we have had an OAIC guide on voluntary data breach notification processes, on how to assess privacy breaches and respond. I am referring to the current version, of April 2012, Data breach notification—A guide to handling personal information security breaches. Again, I think there are a couple of first principles in it that are useful to go to, including the definition of a data breach, because 'data' is not actually referred to in the Privacy Act; it is really more a common term. 'Data breach', it says in this guide, means:
… for the purpose of this guide, when personal information held by an agency or organisation is lost or subjected to unauthorised access, use, modification, disclosure, or other misuse.
As mentioned, there is a note to this definition:
The Privacy Act regulates the handling of personal information, and does not generally refer to ‘data'. As such, in the interest of consistency with the Act, the previous edition of this guide used the term ‘personal information security breach',
However, the term ‘data breach' has since entered into common usage in Australia and in various other jurisdictions. Accordingly, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, this guide uses the term ‘data breach' rather than ‘personal information security breach'.
Coming off that, it is also useful to remember what personal information is. This is set out in section 6 of the Privacy Act. It probably has three key components. It needs to be:
… information or an opinion—
so it can be something that can be tested in fact or a comment about that—
whether true or not and whether recorded in material form or not, about an individual—
this is an important point—
whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from that information or opinion.
I think the term 'personal information' has come to be misunderstood in common usage, but certainly the term 'data breach' has entered popular language.
It is useful also to look at the four key steps that are set out in the guide that are probably also quite accurate in the commercial world for what is done when an organisation suspects or is intending to respond to a breach. Step one is to contain the breach and do preliminary assessments. If you are doing something wrong you stop or if there is something that needs to be done you do it straight away. The second step is to evaluate the risks associated with the breach. Risk assessment, again, is a very commercial action that needs to be taken but also a very reputational intensive issue. The third step is notification—whether you notify the individual or notify the Privacy Commissioner. In the various seminars that I have been to and on occasions where I have had the opportunity to interact with the Privacy Commissioner one point became very clear—and I am sure the Attorney-General would not disagree with me—and that is if you realise there is a problem the best thing to do is to own up to it. I think any organisation that does that probably has a greater ability to re-establish trust with its customers and clients compared to somebody who chooses to cover it up. The fourth step, which is very important, is to prevent future breaches. So you put in place any necessary steps to ensure that the breach does not happen again. Again, in my experience, if this can be demonstrated to the Privacy Commissioner if an investigation is going on by being able to say, 'We are actually doing something about it,' that is far better than covering it up or trying to claim that nothing is wrong.
In the remaining time I have I would like to refer to someone who I have had the pleasure of working with and who is very eminent in the private sector area of privacy law—Peter Leonard of Gilbert + Tobin. He, along with Michael Burnett, a lawyer in his group, has written an excellent brief which I would be very happy to provide to the Attorney-General about the new mandatory data breach notification scheme for Australia. That points out some practical compliance issues. I think that these are very valid compliance issues that any firm would want to have a look at.
It says:
Regulated entities are likely to face a number of challenging practical issues in their efforts to comply with the new scheme; not least of which will be determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a serious data breach in respect of personal information it holds.
I also note that when we are looking at the definition of 'serious harm' a lot of this does require guidance because a lot of this needs to be very practical in nature. The brief says:
Helpfully, the OAIC Guide provides some insight into the Commissioner's views as to what might fall within the scope of serious harm. The Guide suggest that serious harm may include identity theft, financial fraud, the disclosure of credit card details, and the stigma and discrimination that may result from the misuse of health information.
I believe it is very important—I raised this myself in writings when the ALRC report came out and a lot of its recommendations referred to the need for the Privacy Commissioner to issue guidelines—for the Office of the Privacy Commission to have all the resources it needs to implement these laws if this is going to be practical, incentive regulation and if it is going to encourage good best practice in the commercial world. I know there has been a very strong focus on that by this government.
I am very pleased that this government has been able to do that, and has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to do that. I think that the ability of the OAIC to issue and keep updating its data-breach notification guidelines, and still have very useful guidance—as has been noted by the authors I have referred to—is a very good thing. I am sure that will continue under the Attorney-General.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (12:30): I rise in support of the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on a bill that secures the protection of consumers and strengthens consumer laws and the Privacy Act itself. These are very important for the individuals that do business with big firms, companies, banks, telcos, et cetera.
We should remind ourselves at this point that it was Labor, back in 1988, that passed one of the first privacy laws that this country had seen. Again, we see Labor acting to strengthen these laws. No doubt, back in 1988, one of my predecessors, the member for Hawker, Ralph Jacobi—Hawker was a neighbouring seat to Hindmarsh and has now merged with Hindmarsh—had a lot to do with this bill, as he had a very keen interest in consumer affairs, insurance laws and protecting the rights of consumers.
As I said, in today's world, where we do business with multinational firms and internet companies, we all have usernames, databases, pass codes. I might have half a dozen passwords which, if I did not write them down and keep them somewhere safe, I would forget. But all these passwords give us access to our banking accounts, to our telephone accounts, to our taxation accounts and to a whole range of things that keep this world going. That is why I am very pleased to see that this bill will strengthen these laws and introduce a mandatory data-breach notification provision for agencies and organisations that are regulated by the act. That means that if these particular organisations, agencies or businesses have their databases breached then the consumer or the individual will have to be notified immediately of that breach.
These reforms will strengthen the Privacy Act. We have also seen bills that will give more power to the Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, so that individuals can get enforceable remedies—for example, in the courts—rather than just make a complaint. That is real action that helps people all over Australia.
As I said, the bill before us will implement key recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into privacy and it will implement a mandatory reporting scheme that will enable the individuals affected by a data breach to take action to prevent identity theft and fraud, by taking action such as cancelling their credit cards or changing their passwords et cetera.
It will also encourage private sector organisations, individuals and government agencies to lift their on-line security standards. No big bank or organisation wants to risk its reputation by having its data breached at any time. This bill is all about more transparency. It will ensure that organisations are more transparent about how they handle people's very private and personal information.
We have seen events such as the hacking of the ABC online site, which someone got into and was able to access thousands of passwords. You know at that point there is a legal requirement to notify the consumers that that privacy has been breached. That is one example of a breach of privacy. Another example that comes to mind is the security breach that was sustained by Sony on the PlayStation network that led to the possible disclosure of hundreds of thousands of consumers' personal data. If there is not a system in place that ensures consumers are notified when their personal data is vulnerable then consumers are not able to remedy the situation. That is what this bill does: it allows the consumer to remedy the situation by changing a password, cancelling a credit card or doing whatever needs to be done. In an example where you have your credit card stolen, if you work it out immediately then you are able to cancel that credit card, but, if it takes you about two weeks to work out, a lot of damage can be done in those two weeks.
This proposal has strong support from the information and privacy commissioners, consumer advocates and IT security companies. It is the right time to implement these reforms. I am very proud to be part of a government that is committed to the privacy of Australians. This bill is a big win for consumers. It enhances their privacy protection in an ever-advancing digital landscape. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (12:36): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013. I thank the member for Stirling, the member for Greenway and the member for Hindmarsh for their support. I also note the support that has been expressed for this bill by Microsoft, OzHub, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Electronic Frontiers Australia and Choice.
This bill is an important step in consumer protection in Australia. It will create a safe and transparent online environment that will help grow Australia's digital economy. In an increasingly digital world, more and more personal information and data is being collected from Australians. The government believes it is time that companies and agencies which hold that personal data were under an obligation to tell consumers when the security of that personal information has been breached. While it is impossible to tell exactly how many breaches are occurring, international studies suggest that there has been an upward trend in the occurrence of data breaches worldwide. Meanwhile, as the member for Greenway observed correctly in her speech, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner received fewer notifications in the 2011-12 year than the year before. In the face of this and other information suggesting underreporting, Australia's current system of voluntary reporting of data breaches by companies and agencies is not working for Australians. It is also clearly unacceptable that a number of recent high-profile data breaches involving Australians' personal information have come to light through the media. This is why this bill is so important.
As a result of these amendments, Australians will be better able to mitigate the risks resulting from data breaches and reduce the risk of identity fraud and cybercrime. In the face of a data breach, Australians must have the knowledge and power to change their passwords, improve their security settings online, cancel credit cards or completely change businesses. Many other places around the world are introducing or considering mandatory data breach laws: New Zealand, the United States, Canada and the European Union. As a world leader in many important areas of reform, Australia cannot afford to be left behind on consumer privacy protections. This bill represents the latest in a number of landmark privacy reforms that this government has delivered on. These achievements will ensure that Australians will continue to have a modern, adaptable and robust privacy framework, one that continues to provide the high standards of privacy protection that we envisaged Australians should have when the Privacy Act was enacted in 1988. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (12:40): by leave—I move:
That order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (12:40): I rise to lend the opposition's comment on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013. A bit of history is always instructive. The Woomera Prohibited Area is our most important military testing range, established in 1947 as a long-range weapons testing facility by the UK and Australia under the Anglo-Australian Joint Project, which wound down in the seventies.
By way of geography, the Woomera Prohibited Area is located in South Australia, 450 kilometres north-north-west of Adelaide. It is 127,000 square kilometres in size—just under half the size of New Zealand, to give some scope. It is the largest land range in the world. It has a centre-line of about 600 kilometres. Its centre-line is comparable to that of England. It is remote, as I know from having been there in 1993 with the 3rd Battalion, dealing with a particular demonstration as part of Operation Easter of Peace—I remember it well. It is unequalled in size globally.
The Woomera Prohibited Area has a very quiet electromagnetic environment. It is an ideal test and evaluation site for Australia, its allies and its partners. It is still utilised extensively by Defence. Yet, in the eighties and nineties, it is fair to say its relative use declined and it was opened up to non-Defence users, introducing the resources sector. The majority of it is South Australian crown land. It is covered by pastoral leases and mining tenements granted by the South Australian government. The Woomera Prohibited Area overlaps a major part of South Australia’s potential for significant minerals and energy resources. It includes 30 per cent of the Gawler Craton, one of the world’s major minerals domains, and the Arckaringa, Officer and Eromanga basins for hydrocarbons and coal. Olympic Dam is adjacent to the prohibited area and of course is part of the same geological formation. Some estimates are that in the next decade $35 billion worth of iron ore, gold and other mineral resources are potentially exploitable from within the Woomera Prohibited Area, noting of course BHP’s reticence to move forward in terms of Olympic Dam; however, let us take it as read that there is a potential.
In 2010 the government announced the Hawke review, to make recommendations on the best use of the Woomera Prohibited Area in the national interest. Dr Allan Hawke AC did the review, released in May 2011. The significant judgement underpinning the framework is that the South Australian government and Defence are key stakeholders. The review investigated how to use the Woomera Prohibited Area in a way that ensured that its full national security and economic potential was realised. It recommended that Defence remain the primary user of the area, quite rightly. It also acknowledged that exploitation of the Woomera Prohibited Area's considerable natural resources would likely bring significant economic benefit to South Australia and the nation more broadly. I do not have a problem with that, although if BHP is not moving on Olympic Dam it is a fair stretch to say that the Woomera Prohibited Area is going to save the South Australian economy. However, the review proposed that the Woomera Prohibited Area be opened up for resource exploration and mining to the maximum extent possible within the primary use of defence for Australia’s purpose. It is an important distinction the coalition wishes to make that the primary purpose of this area is for defence of Australia and its interests. The government has noted that implementation of the review and operation of the new legislative scheme require continuing close cooperation between the Defence and Resources portfolios, a statement of the bleedingly obvious. It also requires cooperation between Commonwealth agencies and of course South Australian government entities and broader stakeholders.
It is important to note that once you give up Defence land, you never get it back again. This is the world's largest weapons test range. In terms of long-range missiles, it has a straight centre-line of 600 kilometres. There is nowhere else in the world where Australia, its allies and partners can, over land, test modern weapons over that range. If Defence's capacity to achieve that level of technology is given up, Australia and its allies will never get that type of land back again. Defence's use remains of the primacy.
This bill is designed to provide a framework—coathanger legislation, if you will—which provides certainty for all users of the Woomera Prohibited Area, Defence and non-Defence alike. It is designed to provide greater certainty over access arrangements. It allows users to make commercial decisions with some assurance as to when they will be required to leave the area because of defence activity. Importantly, the legislation will ensure the Woomera Prohibited Area remains first and foremost a national security and defence asset. I am pleased to see that is front and centre in the legislation. Ensuring that defence and national security remain a priority of the highest order is appropriate, sensible and welcome.
The fact that there will now be, to use the government's term, a 'coexistence scheme' which will allow other non-Defence users to access the Woomera Prohibited Area may be acceptable if the appropriate steps are taken to ensure the area remains available and suitable for testing of defence capability. This is a unique capability that we possess and it is of the highest priority that we retain that capability. At this point, it is important to note that the bill will not alter the current arrangements as they apply to Indigenous landholders or pastoralists with an established presence or to existing mining operations. The provisions of the bill and new coexistence scheme will apply to new users—a line in the sand, if you will. Existing users will have the option of voluntarily joining the coexistence scheme established by these measures.
Given the Woomera Prohibited Area contains recognised traditional owners and significant Indigenous sites, it is appropriate the bill regulate how non-Defence users who gain access to it treat and protect those sites and comply with all relevant native title and Aboriginal heritage laws. The coalition is very comfortable with that. The bill ensures that Indigenous groups with current statutory and access rights expressly retain these rights and will not need to re-apply for permission under the bill. We support that; it is sensible. These are important points which we expect the Senate to examine in some detail when the bill is referred to have committee. But, on the surface, we accept it.
It is also important to note that the bill sets out the broad framework for the new coexistence scheme within the Woomera Prohibited Area. It enables the creation of new security provisions and powers, general rules, offences, penalties et cetera. It details how the new scheme will operate. This is contained within the rules which are currently open for public consultation. The rules will be jointly agreed by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Resources and Energy. They will, I gather, be amended by regulation as required—and such regulation will be disallowable by parliament, I understand.
We are not opposed in principle to the new management framework for the Woomera Prohibited Area. Given it is highly prospective, given that there is an estimated $35 billion worth of mining development possible over the next decade, it would be churlish at best for us not to welcome it in principle. A draft of the Prohibited Area Rules has been published and written submissions were invited up until 12 July. Due to the ongoing process and following consultation with stakeholders, further scrutiny of the bill would be prudent and there is time to do that—so we should take that time. We do not oppose it. We will certainly seek to refer it to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee to allow stakeholders—including Defence and the national security community—to put forward their views.
This is a one-off area. There is nothing like this in the world. It is a phenomenal piece of Defence real estate. We should not rush into folly. We should take our time if we have it—and we do. Clearly we reserve our right to amend the bill post the Senate committee review. We are supportive of the government establishing an independent advisory board to monitor and report on the Woomera Prohibited Area and to oversee the implementation of the coexistence arrangements. This is important because the area may be utilised by the resources sector but will still be utilised as a strategic asset by Australia and its allies. As such, all care must be taken to ensure we do not do ourselves significant harm for short-term gain—with a longer term lack of gain.
The bill enjoys the coalition's guarded support. We will push it to the relevant committee and the Senate to further explore any unintended consequences or known unknowns. From there the coalition will make its decision and reserves its right in the Senate.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:50): I rise to make some remarks on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013. The bill, which facilitates mining exploration for between 14 and 70 days per year in the Woomera prohibited area, is being rushed through this parliament. The rush was apparent when public consultation on the bill allowed three working days for initial submissions. On Wednesday, 8 May, the defence minister and the resources minister released the draft exposure legislation to increase access to the Woomera prohibited area to miners. Three working days later, on 13 May, the submission period closed. That is just not good enough.
Lawyers representing the Maralinga people advised my colleague Senator Scott Ludlam last week that the consultation on this legislation has been deficient, despite approaching the defence minister on the issue in July 2011. The minister's second reading speech informs us that it was not until Friday, 24 March 2013, 12 days ago, that the South Australian government hosted a discussion between defence officials and traditional owners of Maralinga Tjarutja and APY lands about the legislation. Under the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 the Maralinga Tjarutja people have been managing all access and mining issues in relation to the 100,000 square kilometre Maralinga lands since 1984 and in relation to the former nuclear test sites since 2010. After everything these people have endured—literally the use of nuclear weapons and the resulting and ongoing health issues of being exposed to nuclear blasts and the radioactive contamination of their lands—they at least deserve the dignity of consultation over the lands that they have managed under this law for 27 years.
This bill has the capacity to diminish the land rights of these traditional owners, whose interests were not recognised in the Hawke review or the information paper. Another Aboriginal group in the area, the Kokatha people are dissatisfied that protocols in the area are being implemented. They object to the fact that sensitive sites have been disturbed and that activities have taken place in the area without the permission of the local people. It would appear that there are already problems in the handling of the Woomera area and that further opening it up to mining companies would exacerbate them.
Certainly there was a review into this question, led by Dr Allan Hawke, resulting in an 82-page report. However, a three-day consultation period is a joke. The consultation with the traditional owners has been negligent and rushed, and the same can be said of parliamentary scrutiny. Certainly the mining companies have been consulted. The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy is celebrating that $1 trillion stands to be made. Some 83 per cent of the mining industry in Australia is overseas owned and, according to an Australia Institute report, 81 per cent of the profits went abroad. Whether it be the South Australian government's prediction that $35 billion can be made from mining in this area or the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy's prediction, over 85 per cent of this money will not benefit Australia.
The Greens have been consistent in identifying the lack of fairness in whom this mining boom benefits, and this bill will simply amplify the problem. Our mineral resources are finite, and the wealth generated from exploiting these resources needs to be shared appropriately among the community while the opportunity remains. The mineral wealth potential of the area should be subject to a reconfigured mining tax, similar to that originally proposed by Treasury, to fund investments to benefit Australians for generations.
This area has an estimated 75 per cent of Australia's known uranium reserves. If uranium is mined in this area, this bill will amplify the irresponsibility of exporting dangerous radioactive materials. As members will know, Australian uranium was in each of the reactors at Fukushima when the earthquake and tsunami hit, and 160,000 people continue to be displaced from the contamination zones. The genesis of the nuclear disaster that befell Japan started here in Australia, likely from uranium sourced from BHP's Roxby mine, which is very close to Woomera. The implications are massive.
Uranium is very thirsty, and Woomera is in the driest state in the driest continent on earth. Further uranium mining in the area poses particular dangers for Australia's water security. As member's will know, due to the indenture act BHP is exempt from many of South Australia's environmental, Aboriginal heritage and water laws in operating the Roxby uranium mine. For the price of precisely nothing—not one dollar—BHP is legally able to use up to 42 million litres of water per day. This is having a very serious effect on the Mound Springs, the sensitive and unique water springs in the area of Lake Eyre. Further mining will certainly contribute to further impacts, and uranium mining will especially do so.
While the Greens are absolutely opposed to mining uranium anywhere in Australia, we are not opposed outright to other mineral exploration in the Woomera Prohibited Area if negotiations with the traditional owners can reach agreement and if strict environmental guidelines for exploration are also strictly applied inside the Commonwealth area. The Greens believe this bill should be subjected to a thorough Senate inquiry. We look forward to examining its provisions in more detail throughout that process and will seek to ensure that the environment in this area is not further degraded and that the rights of Aboriginal people are upheld.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:56): I thank both members for their contribution. The government of course is very keen to see that this legislation can be enacted by the parliament before the parliament is prorogued at the end of June. Its rationale for wanting to do that is to ensure that there is greater certainty for present and future access users of the Woomera Prohibited Area. I thank the member for Fadden for his in principle support and acknowledge that the Senate will look at the fine detail not just of the legislation but also of the rules which have recently been published in draft form.
I thank the member for Melbourne for his contribution. I will not rise to the occasion to respond to the Greens well-known policy of total opposition to any development which might involve uranium and general opposition to minerals resources development per se. I would prefer to deal with the point of his speech which I think has some merit and does need some response, both now and into the future. It is of course very important, and I acknowledge the member for Melbourne's contribution in this respect, that, as the legislation and the rules are progressed through the parliament, there is appropriate consultation with interested stakeholders—in particular, the Indigenous groups who have a legal interest and a philosophical and spiritual interest in the area concerned.
The first occasion on which the Department of Defence sought to consult with the relevant groups was in 2010, in the course of the Hawke review. Whilst the member may make a point about consultation on the legislation, it is not the case that this is a new issue or an issue where there is any great surprise. There has been consultation and efforts at consultation on the Woomera Prohibited Area, how the government of the day could open up greater access to new users and how the rights of existing users could be preserved. These have been in play, under consideration and in discussion with relevant groups since the Hawke review was established. The Hawke review's time period was 2010-11 and, over the period of the receipt of the Hawke review, the government, initially through me as Minister for Defence and the then minister for minerals and resources, Martin Ferguson, together with the South Australian government, made it clear that we accepted the review's recommendations and we wanted to implement them.
That is the process we are now engaging in. so far as the legislation itself and the rules are concerned, the legislation makes it expressly clear that any existing right that a current person who has access to the Woomera Prohibited Area has will be expressly preserved by this legislation. There is an express reference to the rights of Indigenous communities laid out in the relevant South Australia land rights legislation. Those rights are expressly preserved. There are, of course, in this legislative regime rules that will be published with the authority of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Minerals and Resources which are disallowable and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They were published on the same day that I introduced the legislation into the House some two or three weeks ago. They are also the subject of exhaustive consultation. So far as Indigenous groups and land owners are concerned, my advice is that in the course of the next week there will be further consultations on the detail of both the legislation and the rules, as is appropriate. But the primary starting point so far as the Indigenous land holders are concerned is that their existing rights are not disturbed in any way and that is expressly and advisedly made clear by the legislation. Having said that, it is important to ensure that there is good faith and confidence in the consultative processes and mechanisms, and that will occur.
If I could encourage both of my colleagues to encourage their Senate colleagues to understand the importance of this framework legislation. It will clarify the rights of new access holders; it will preserve the rights of existing land holders; and enable greater access to the area itself for the purposes of an appropriate balance between national security, reflected by the testing regime, and the economic interest which will see greater mineral resources development in that large land area. It will provide benefits to the state of South Australia and the people of South Australia, including Indigenous groups and land holders.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:02): I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to introduce amendments to provide additional support to single parents who are transitioning to work or undertaking other related activities. The amendments also provide unemployed Australians the opportunity to earn more before their income support payment is affected.
This bill at its heart attempts to undo some of the damage which Labor has done in their callous attack on single parents and their attack on the household budgets of many single parents. When the former coalition government undertook welfare reform, we acknowledged that there was an upfront investment required. In fact, we spent several billions of dollars when we undertook the social security changes 2004-05, including funds to assist those people who were affected. To recap, in those changes the Parenting Payment recipients who were at that stage on Parenting Payment were left in the system on the understanding that over time when their youngest child turned eight they would effectively wash out of the system. For people who had not had a child at that stage but who were coming into the system then the changes were made that prospectively when their youngest child turned eight then they would move from the Parenting Payment to Newstart. What has happened here is to take that existing stock of people and effectively say to them, 'Now, all of a sudden, from a certain date you're on Newstart'—instead of on the Parenting Payment without any corresponding contribution to their household budgets and indeed with a reduction in the funds available for funding. No wonder there was an outcry from the community, particularly from those who were affected by the change. The approach was to drive a wrecking ball through household budgets to create uncertainty and to try to return people to the workforce without any training funding and without any funds available to those people to boost their skills or qualifications. So this bill is a response to the outcry that occurred over that decision by the government—a decision that was taken, basically, because of the parlous state of the Commonwealth finances.
This bill includes three measures. The first measure would increase the income-free area that applies to recipients of Newstart allowance, widow allowance, partner allowance, parenting payment partnered and sickness allowance. The income-free area is the amount of ordinary income that an income support recipient is able to earn in a fortnight before the rate of payment of their various allowances is affected. The income-free area for these payments will increase from $62 to $100 per fortnight. This will allow recipients to earn some additional income before their payment rate is affected. The change to the income-free area will take effect from 20 March 2014. The income-free area will also be indexed to the CPI from 1 July 2015.
The second measure would extend the eligibility for the pensioner education supplement to single principal carer parents receiving Newstart allowance payments. This extension will begin on 1 January 2014 and will be available to eligible single principal carer parents undertaking approved education and training courses. The pensioner education supplement is paid at the current full rate of $62.40 per fortnight or the current concessional rate of $31.20 per fortnight, depending on a person's study load.
The third measure would provide a 12-week extension of eligibility for the pensioner concession card to single parents who no longer qualify for the parenting payment single because their youngest child has turned eight years of age and they do not qualify for another income support payment due to earnings from employment. The pensioner concession card provides a range of concessions to holders for services at Commonwealth, state and local government level, including for medical services, transport, telephone utilities and rates. Consistent with current arrangements, a person would remain qualified for the pensioner concession card until the extension period of 12 weeks expired, the person died, they moved permanently overseas or until they started to receive an income support payment for which the concession card is available. This measure will commence from 1 January next year.
This bill is typical of a chaotic and dysfunctional government. On one hand, they make a decision which is a direct hit on single parents; and then, when they realise the community is outraged by this proposition, they rush to try and fix the problem, including the problem with this bill—but of course they cannot. The reality is they have no money to fix the problem, so the solution is to effectively allow people to work one minimum shift of three hours at the minimum wage on top of the hours they can currently work and remain on their benefit. Let me repeat that: what this bill does is allow people to work one minimum shift of three hours at the minimum wage on top of the hours they presently work, and that is meant to make up for the hit, which is the reduction in the amount they would have received under the parenting payment compared to what they receive under Newstart.
Mr Broadbent interjecting—
Mr ANDREWS: That is right: a very large number of these people are not in that situation, as the honourable member for McMillan points out. This is trying to play catch-up in response to an outraged section of the community who are concerned about this matter and who would share the view, I believe, that this hardly represents a government that is committed to social justice for the most vulnerable members of our community.
We are in a difficult situation because of the financial mess that this government has left the country in, with deficit after deficit, year after year, and an increasing Commonwealth debt. We did not do this when we made the changes a decade ago. We knew that these people would wash out of the system, and that was the most effective and fair way to deal with it. But, given the parlous state of the Commonwealth's finances, we will not oppose the bill.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:09): I rise to make a few brief comments on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013. Yes, this is undoing some very harsh damage that was done, but the damage would not have been done if the coalition had not voted for Labor's attack on single parents. When the vote came I, together with some coalition members who in fact crossed the floor, voted against these measures. We knew that, from the start of this year when up to 100,000 single parents were kicked off their parenting payment and onto the dole, it was going to have an enormous effect on people. That is why at the time we urged all members of parliament to vote against it. Sadly, we could only muster a handful. So I have no time for crocodile tears from people who helped engineer this situation. The coalition worked with Labor to plunge people into poverty, in order to save a bit of money to reach a now abandoned goal of getting back to surplus. So do not come back here crying crocodile tears, saying that it is all Labor's fault. I have no time for the decision that the Labor government made; the legislation only got through this parliament because the coalition supported it.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are doing it tough. They are under enormous pressure, particularly financial pressure, and nowhere more so than in my electorate where we have more people in public housing than in any other electorate in the country. Many of those people, as well as many others, who are out looking for a job find themselves living below the poverty line on the incredibly low rate that is Newstart.
When you have, in round figures, $250 a week to spend, if you are trying to find a place to live in somewhere like inner-city Melbourne in my electorate, it can be very tough. The public housing waiting list in Victoria is over 30,000 people long. So if you are looking for a place somewhere else you may not find anything if you are a single person, recently unemployed, cheaper than about $180 a week to rent. I spoke to someone who recently found themselves homeless. They went to a homeless service in my electorate and they found them a rooming house. You would think that a rooming house, with many people in it, might provide something near an affordable rental rate. A single room in a rooming house cost $180. Of course, when you are in a rooming house and you are sharing a kitchen with someone else, you cannot buy good food to feed yourself. You are forced to go out and buy food. And your costs increase and increase. But $180 out of $246 leaves you with $60-odd, before you have even passed Go.
Out of that $60 on Newstart you have to meet all your other costs. You cannot do it. It is for that reason that so many groups have been urging this government to have the courage to raise the revenue that we need, to give people, at minimum, a $50 boost to their Newstart. We have not seen that. Instead, we have seen this government go the other way. We have seen, in particular, single parents, with Labor and the coalition working together, pushed off their single parent payment onto the dole. That was done, as I said before, to raise some money to balance the budget bottom line.
Up until a very short while ago, Labor had taken more money off single parents this financial year than they have so far raised from the mining tax. This is what happens when you do not have the courage to stand up to the big end of town and say, 'You have to pay your fair share,' and when, instead, you turn your arsenal on people like single parents. Single parents tend not to have a spare $26 million lying around to run an advertising campaign, like the big miners do. So they are seen as a softer target.
What is the effect of pushing single parents onto the dole? Some of them lost up to $140 a week. When you are a single parent and you are balancing work—if you are lucky enough to find a job—plus looking after your kids, there is not a lot of fat in your budget, in either your money budget or your time budget. What we found was exactly what the Greens predicted and why we urged this parliament not to vote for that bill in the first place. We found that the ones who were hardest hit were the ones who were already working the most. In fact, when you look at the analysis, single parents were the group of welfare recipients who had the highest number of people in work, because that is what single parents want to do. They want to stay in connection with the workforce and improve their skills and also be able to look after their kids.
This gave the lie to the rationale from Labor that this move was all about putting people back into the workforce, because when you are on the single parent pension you can work more hours and keep more of your money but as soon as you get pushed onto the dole you cannot keep as much. The ones who were the hardest hit were the ones who were working the most and earning the most. As a result, many of them found themselves saying, 'I don't know what I am going to do—now I cannot get the concession card any more the car registration has gone up; now I don't have the money any more.' I met one single parent who had retrained herself as a graphic designer and then had to go and put her computer, her tool of trade, into hock because she had to find $200 to pay for schoolbooks. That is not a way of encouraging someone back into employment.
We found many single parents who just said, 'I am now going to go without some of the basics myself.' The most heartbreaking stories were when people came up and said, 'My child has even stopped coming to me with the slips for school excursions because they know it makes Mum upset when I cannot give them what they want, and when I cannot send them off to basketball camp like everyone else in the class.' These are people who are doing it tough already.
Quite rightly, there was an enormous outcry, led by the Greens here in this place and led by community groups like the Single Parents Action Group and the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children who said, 'Hang on, if you want to balance the budget there have to be better ways to do it because you are now kicking the people who most need help. That outcry went right across the country, and it touched a nerve because people could say, 'These are people who are already doing it tough, why is Labor attacking them?' We have come some small way towards fixing some of the damage, but it is a bit of an insult to put people not back to where they would have been before but to where they are only about a third worse off—they can do a little bit of work and get a bit more money but they are still going to find themselves at a disadvantage compared to when Labor came to power. That is a disgrace.
The Greens will steadfastly stand side by side with single parents and people on the dole who are doing it tough and say, 'Like everyone else, we agree that the best thing to do is to find a well-paid meaningful job for you that works and that fits with your own personal family needs, and if we cannot do that and you fall through the cracks and onto hard times, this parliament should not punish you—it should support you until you get back on your feet.' Because this bill goes some small way to doing that we will be supporting it, and we take some small credit for having played a role in drawing public attention to what is really a disgrace. I am pleased this is happening but people will still be worse off than when Labor came to power. The Greens will continue to campaign to make sure that parliament has the guts to stand up to the people who can afford to pay a bit more so that we can become a more caring society.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:18): Like many members of this parliament, from 16 years of age until my ripe old age of 62 years of age I have been able to feed myself and my family quite well. I have not been a single parent, a single male with children to look after and put through school. I have lived well and been on what you would call a relatively high income from an early age. I had the talent, the ability, to do whatever I wanted to do and I did it. I am not of the group of people that we are talking about here, and it is most difficult for politicians, wherever they come from, to identify with single parents across this nation. I choose to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill because, unlike your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker McClelland, my electorate is diverse in its regionality and we do not have the infrastructure and support that goes with a city electorate.
The legislation that came before the House, which the opposition did not oppose—the member for Melbourne was right—because of the budget emergency that was put to us, was crafted around the ability of people to get to another job or to be in work. It was suggested in the legislation that, when the children of single parents turn eight, those single parents can just go straight to a job; we have just got to push them. If this nation were in a crisis today like the one we experienced in 1999—when the member for Banks and also the member for Fairfax were here with me; the three of us in this room came to this place in 1990—when the unemployment rate for young people was around 30 per cent and for male adults in my electorate it was around 19 per cent, and we needed to crush people to push them like mad to go out and get a job at any price, we could; but we do not have that crisis today. We have unemployment at 5.1 to 5.4; it could perhaps go to 5.7 or even rise to six per cent. In my time as a member of parliament and as a business person in the community, can I say that that is relatively low compared to what I have experienced in my lifetime. When it is compared to what is happening overseas at the moment, it is a relatively low figure. Look at Greece at 45 per cent unemployment. So why have we attacked the most vulnerable?
As the shadow minister said, this legislation is designed to show some empathy for the plight of these single parents and to address that. But it only helps those who are already in work; it does not help any of the single parents who are not in work at this time. There is no advantage in this legislation for them. In our case, the Howard government made similar changes prior to the change of government. After the change of government, I had to go to Brendan O'Connor, the then minister, and say: 'Look, this is what is happening in my electorate. People are being breached, and the moment they are breached and have no income they go straight around the back to the Salvation Army and say, 'We haven't got any money.' Then the Salvation Army come to me and say, 'Can you help us with this? We can't have these people being breached all the time.' People were told: 'If you're in a regional area—move.' Well, if you move, you have to move away from your family structure, your family support. If you are a single parent, the last thing you need to move away from is the sort of support that you get from family and friends and all the other things that make a difference to how you are living, especially in a regional area. So I went to Brendan O'Connor, and he was actually very, very kind to me, an opposition member. He said: 'Let's have a meeting. I can't go, but I'll send all my people down.' We had a meeting at Currumburra. We sat around a table and said: 'What can we do about this?' He made changes through the department so that these people would not be breached. So what would possess the government or the cabinet of today to come along and make these same changes? Here I am today in the exact same position, asking, 'How can we fix up some of these problems for people who have children and who happen to be single?'
There 80,000 of these people across this country. What were the Labor Party thinking when they attacked who they thought were their own voters? Maybe it was: 'We can do what we like with them. It will not make any difference. They'll vote for us anyway because we are a Labor government.' I tell you: they will not. They get hurt just like anybody else and they are in everybody's electorate. If you want to look at this from a political point of view, these people are in every electorate and some of them have lost between $80 and $110 a week. For a single household, even if the parent is working part-time, what does that 140 bucks a week pay for? It pays for food. It pays for the things that you put in the supermarket trolley. This is not the time in our history to be attacking 80,000 vulnerable families.
I just do not get it. Is it a budget emergency? We can spend some $50 million on advertising. I am not saying that previous governments did not do it. I am not going to say that future governments will not do it. But for heaven's sake, you have a measure here that is going to affect the most vulnerable at a time when we are lauding each other over the NDIS. We are saying, 'This is a historic change for disability.' In 1996, I was taking on the Howard government on disability when they tried to make a change. I did not mind overturning the executive then on behalf of people with disabilities and I have not minded overturning the executive on a few other occasions since, which not many backbenchers do.
What did somebody say—'People should pull their heads in'? That is not what I meant. It is time to take a step back and ask what are our values, what are our goals, what are we on about here? Woe betide members of parliament and governments who bring in laws that hurt the most vulnerable in our community while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. I feel ashamed that now we are coming to a point where, for 80,000 single parent families, we have said, 'It's all right. You can take 110 bucks off them because then they'll have to get a job; they'll have no alternative.' You heard the member for Melbourne say, 'But they already had a job.' If I do not plead on their behalf, coming from a Liberal-National coalition, who will tell the story for them? All of this legislation should be repealed. We should recognise that there are people out there who perhaps do not have the skills and abilities or who through no fault of their own married the wrong bloke or the wrong woman.
Mr Melham: I'm a bachelor.
Mr BROADBENT: I know you are a bachelor. Through no fault of their own, these people find themselves alone. Through no fault of their own through accidents, they find themselves alone—not only alone but with children. It is hard to bring up children—I say Bronwyn brought up our kids because I was an absent, disappearing father. I worked day and night. That was hard enough. I cannot imagine what it would have been like to have had that responsibility without my wife. That would have weighed enormously heavily on anybody—to be a single parent with a family. You do not just triple the problems; you complicate them by a factor of 10.
We are not opposing this legislation, because it suggests that it is going to right some wrongs, but I put to the House that in a wealthy nation, which one day will be wealthy again, we should take pride in and be world renowned for the way in which we look after the most vulnerable in our community.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (13:27): The Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013 supports the participation of unemployed Australians and parents with caring responsibilities by increasing the amount they are able to earn and keep, smoothing the transition to paid work and providing extra assistance to undertake study and training. The Gillard government believes that anyone who is able to work should benefit from the economic security and dignity that having a job brings. This bill will also allow up to 800,000 Australians on parenting payment (partnered), Newstart allowance and widow, sickness or partnered allowance to earn $100 per fortnight, which is $38 more per fortnight than they currently can, before their income support is reduced. This is the first increase to this in more than a decade.
In addition, the income-free area will, for the first time in Australia's history, be indexed against the CPI from 1 July 2015 to ensure the real value of this increase is maintained over time. From 20 March 2014, income support recipients currently earning more than $62 per fortnight can look forward to an average increase in their payments of $19 per fortnight or an average of $494 per year. This increase to the income-free area supports a majority recommendation from the Senate inquiry into the adequacy of the allowance payment system. Australia has a relatively low level of unemployment; however, joblessness amongst families continues to be a significant social and economic challenge facing this country.
This bill continues the government's commitment to provide incentives and support for single parents so that they and their families can share the benefits of paid work. From 1 January 2014, all single principal carers receiving Newstart allowance who take up approved study will be eligible to receive the pensioner education supplement. The supplement is paid at a full rate of $62.40 per fortnight or at the concessional rate of $31.20 per fortnight, based on study load. It is expected that around 115,000 single parents will take up approved study or receive the pensioner education supplement over the next four years, increasing their job readiness and giving them a better chance of returning to the workforce and leaving income support.
Through this bill, single parents will also receive additional support from the extended access to the pensioner concession card. From 1 January 2014, single parents who cease to be eligible for parenting payment due to the age of their youngest child and who do not qualify for any other income support payment due to their earnings will retain their pensioner concession card for 12 weeks. The pensioner concession card allows holders and their dependants to receive benefits, including bulk-billed GP appointments, reduced out-of-hospital medical expenses and medicines listed on the PBS at the concessional rate, in addition to concessions offered by state, territory and local governments.
In combination, the measures contained in this bill amend the social security law to improve incentives for income support recipients to become self-reliant through employment. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said in his second reading speech:
This package … represents the very strong advocacy of government MPs, including the member for Canberra, the member for Page, the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby, amongst many others. I also acknowledge the advocacy of the council of single mothers—
as I do. This bill delivers on the government's commitment to support single parents moving off the parenting payment so that they and their families can share the benefits of paid work once their children are older. The Gillard Labor government believes that everyone should benefit from the dignity, challenge, experience, social acceptance and camaraderie that comes from having a job, especially people who have been trapped in a cycle of entrenched disadvantage for too long. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (13:32): The Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 relates to the component pricing requirement for the Australian Consumer Law. The bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulation-making power to enable regulations to be made to exempt certain representations from the component pricing requirement of the Australian Consumer Law, which is schedule 2 of the CCA. The amendment will allow a regulation to be made to place restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days outside component pricing requirement in the ACL. In May 2009, the Trade Practices Act was amended to stipulate that restaurants and cafes were required to incorporate any additional surcharges enterprises listed on menus. The ACCC advised:
No asterisks, no small print. You’ve got to have a separate menu with the prices clearly spelt out.
In other words, restaurateurs must pay inflated penalty rates. But, as they cannot make it known to the public that the inflated prices are down to the government forcing them to pay penalty rates, they must wear the disapproval of the public.
The proposal reflected in this bill was announced in the Australian government's response to the Productivity Commission's Annual review of regulatory burdens on business: business and consumer services—research report 2010 on 13 September 2011. The amendment will enable regulations to be made that will reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses in the restaurant and cafe sector, as identified in the Productivity Commission report. The bill we debate today is not here because the government is the champion of red tape reduction. Today's debate is due to tenacious representation by industry, in particular from John Hart of Restaurant and Catering Australia. As articulated in the coalition's deregulation reform discussion paper of November last year, the Productivity Commission has estimated that reducing the burden of red tape could generate as much as $12 billion in extra gross domestic product each year. I am glad the government has finally gotten around to actioning this undertaking. I hope it signals that this government is finally waking up to the issues of red tape. The slowness of the government introducing even this small token towards red-tape reduction highlights that red-tape reduction is a low priority on its list. That is in stark contrast to the actions of the coalition.
I draw the attention of the House to a couple of examples of where restaurants have fallen foul of the ACCC over restaurant menus: Georges Bar and Grill, Brighton-Le-Sands and Steersons Steakhouse. In September 2010, the ACCC instituted proceedings against four cafes and restaurants for alleged breaches of the component-pricing law by failing to include Sunday and/or public holiday surcharges in their menu prices, involving the restaurants I have named. The ACCC alleged that traders breached section 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which requires businesses show a part of the price payable for a product or service and also provide a single total price for that product or service. The ACCC sought declarations, injunctions, civil penalties and costs. Although the ACCC now claims it was only doing what it felt it had to do, the officiousness displayed by the ACCC in driving media attention tells a much different story. The ACCC indicated this in its media release:
On 28 June 2010, the ACCC issued Infringement Notices to eight traders for having menus that it had reason to believe did not comply with component pricing laws on 20 June 2010. Four traders paid the Infringement Notice and no further action was taken. The court actions are against those who failed to pay the Notice.
The clear message was this: rollover and cop it, and you will endure no more hardship than continued red tape pressure; oppose it and defend your business from ridiculous red tape, and face the full force of the ACCC pursuing the maximum penalties available to it under the law. The traders which paid the infringement penalty notices included Belluci's here in Manuka, an excellent restaurant known to most members of the House and one of Canberra's best establishments, renowned for its great Italian food and its extensive wine list. But returning to the restaurant example in Brighton-Le-Sands where they in breach of the all-inclusive pricing laws with their menus, this bill finally deals with the matter they fought for and is a victory for the proprietor.
This bill needs to be passed so another public holiday does not go by and create some sense of confusion for business operators and consumers. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand so businesses and consumers are no longer confused on how the surcharge applies and businesses can apply it in the correct manner. I am glad the government has finally gotten around to actioning this undertaking. As the member for Wentworth said in this place the other day during the MPI, this government would put an 'arthritic snail to shame' such is the glacial pace in which it discharges its responsibilities. It is slow to act and the people who pay the price are business people. This government is all too quick with a flashy announcement and a immediate release but slow to follow through with legislation unless it is a bill that guarantees a newspaper headline.
The restaurant and catering sector have been waiting since September 2011 for the government to bring this legislation forward following the government's announcement—almost two years to follow through on fairly straightforward matters. At that time, I welcomed the announcement the government would be removing the burden on restaurants and cafes to provide separate menus on weekends and public holidays that incorporate service charges. This is a policy change that the coalition have been advocating for quite sometime, along with major tourism, catering and hospitality services peak bodies. Two years ago, my release said: 'Today's action is long overdue'. Two years and six months ago, the ACCC issued fines ranging from $6,000 to over $20,000 against restaurants that were non-compliant, with the commission arguing that it was compelled to do so under the law. As I said in my media release at the time, this is a government that burdens small business with bundles of red tape and then claims to be their champion when they remove it.
Whilst this change to the Australian Consumer Law is welcome, I urge the government to continue to find other ways to lift red tape on struggling restaurants and hotels. Restaurants are subject to costs and adverse policies that hamper their ability to grow and to hire more staff. A second week has been spent on menus for what is only a relatively minor issue when compared to other costs faced by the restaurant and catering industry. Ay far the most effective thing the government could do would be to drop its carbon tax. The restaurant and catering sector is one of the most exposed Australian industries under Labor's carbon tax plan. Restaurants and cafes stand to pay significantly more to run their dishwashing machines, ovens, lights, vacuum cleaners and office equipment should Labor's carbon legislation continue. Additional costs built into the cost of food inputs could see many restaurants and cafes around Australia close.
So it is appropriate that the House consider in the context of this bill the underlying reasons why Australian restaurants need to charge a surcharge on public holidays. There are many but it is particularly twofold: the high cost of labour, including especially the business cost of weekend penalty rates, and the fact that Australia does not have a tipping culture.
On 5 September 2012 ABC radio in Hobart broke the news that the now former tourism minister, the member for Batman, backed a penalty change push:
The Federal Tourism Minister hopes a review of awards by Fair Work Australia will ease wage pressures on the hospitality sector.
Martin Ferguson told delegates at a national hospitality conference in Hobart he has received many appeals from businesses struggling to pay weekend loadings and penalties.
He said weekend and public holiday ''penalty on penalty" issues were a major obstacle for the industry in challenging economic times.
The minister said it was important the penalty provisions were considered in Fair Work Australia's review which was expected to be completed by the end of the year.
This sort of practical, business minded approach by the member for Batman was the cause of plaudits given to him on both sides of this House upon his announcement that he would not contest the next election.
In relation to weekend penalty rates, which are one of the main reasons why restaurants have to put surcharges on their menus on Sundays and public holidays, the then tourism minister told ABC radio:
"That would go a long way to satisfying some of the difficulties that they've got at this particular point …
"I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this point in time."
As I said, the main reason why there is a surcharge needed on restaurant menus on Sundays and public holidays is the increased penalty rates that operations are faced with.
In the moments left to me, I will point to another reason why penalty rates need to be addressed. The tourism industry is a predominantly Friday, Saturday, Sunday and public holiday industry. That is when its peak operational periods occur. It is just strange that during that peak operational period the wage costs are so expensive. A lot of operators, particularly in rural and regional areas, shut down on Sundays and public holidays. There is no tourism pleasure in taking a trip away on an extended weekend where you travel on the Friday night to book into your accommodation and go out on Saturday to have your meal and then get up on the Sunday and have to go in search of a cafe or restaurant open, only amplified on the long weekend Monday. As I said, this does not happen so much in the cities as in rural and regional Australia. Tourism is all about the experience. If people go on a holiday weekend, in particular, and there is nowhere open for them to have their lunch or dinner or for entertainment then it is not a good experience and the reality is that people will not come back. They will also spread the word that the town, business or area is not open to business.
I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be a serious review by Fair Work Australia about how we can engage more Australians into work, and that includes the restaurant and catering industry. One of the ways of doing that is by addressing the issue of penalty rates for the tourism sector, which relies on people to stay open at an affordable rate on Sundays and public holidays. I commend this Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 to the House. It is just disappointing for the restaurant and catering industry in particular that it has taken so long—over two years—to get to this point and that penalties have had to be paid and people have struggled to stay in business.
Sitting suspended from 13:44 to 15:3 6
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:36): I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulations-making power to enable regulations—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Pr oceedings suspended from 15:37 to 15:52
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulation making power to allow regulations to be made to exempt certain representations from the component pricing requirement in the Australian Consumer Law. This amendment will allow a regulation to be made to place restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days outside the component pricing required by the Australian Consumer Law.
For the background to this amendment we have to go back to May 2009 when the Trade Practices Act was amended by this government to put in a clause which stipulated that restaurants and cafes were required to incorporate any additional surcharges into their listed prices on menus. As the ACCC advised at the time, no asterisks, no small print—you have got to have a separate menu with prices spelt out. The bill that this government brought in was clearly an overkill. It was just another example of the red tape this government has brought in which is strangling small business. At the time that regulation was brought in we already had a provision to deal with this, which was section 52 of the old Trade Practices Act. This section is a catchall section which provides that a person must not in trade or commerce engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. So if a business was using component advertising and prices that were misleading, we already had legislation in place that would have captured that activity. But this government thought it was necessary to bring in additional legislation, and now we see the unintended consequences and the damage and harm done to small business.
But at least I will give them some credit. On this occasion they have learned the error of their ways and they are fixing this problem, this mess they have created. First, it should never have been brought in. Even if there were any examples where we see advertising of cheap fare for holidays where the component pricing was built as a little surcharge down the bottom, it was longstanding and it was an uncontroversial practice within the hospitality industry for the percentage surcharge on public holidays, weekends and other special occasions. What they did was have all these small businesses that were doing the right thing and had been doing the right thing find they were in breach of the law even though they were not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
What did we see as a result? We saw the ACCC, with not a great record of doing the right thing by small business, going after a series of small businesses. In September 2010 the ACCC said it had instituted proceedings against four cafes and restaurants alleging that they had breached the Trade Practices Act. This attack on small business was severely criticised by the Restaurant and Catering Association's John Hart. He said at the time:
Our board is absolutely furious with the way this has been dealt with. There is much more anti-competitive behaviour and yet so many bigger players get away totally unscathed. Because they will not pick a fight with them—
referring to the ACCC—
they go after the smaller players.
That appears to be exactly what happened. One of the small business owners that the ACCC went after for engaging in this terrible activity against the laws that this Labor government brought in said:
There was no warning and it has not been publicised. It was not publicised through our association. No-one called and we did not receive any correspondence. All we received was an infringement notice and they expect us to pay it now without any warning.
This is just another example of how small businesses have been unfairly treated under this government.
What is also interesting is that at the very same time as the ACCC was going after these small businesses, these small cafe owners that were committing this hideous crime of putting on the bottom of their menus a 10 per cent surcharge on public holidays—like they have probably been doing for a long time, probably for generations—the ACCC was letting some of our largest corporations get away with some of the most egregious acts. In fact one of our largest supermarket chains, at exactly the same time that ACCC was proceeding these, had large signs up in their stores saying 'low prices that you can count on'. They were engaging in the most aggressive examples of geographic price discrimination, charging 100 per cent higher prices in one store than they were in stores a few kilometres away. Where those prices were higher, they had these big signs up to assure the consumer 'trust us, these are low prices that you can count on'. The ACCC decided to take no action on that yet would go after these small businesses. That is the mess this government has caused.
That is not all we have seen from the ACCC. The ACCC may very well argue that it has to enforce the law that has been legislated by this parliament. That is a fairly legitimate argument. But if that is the case, why has the ACCC not brought one single case on what is known as the 'Birdsville amendment' to amend our laws on predatory pricing since it was legislated at the end of the Howard-Costello government? Not one single case has been brought on. The ACCC was prepared to not look at that law and not to prosecute on that law but to go after these poor small businesses. Thankfully, this amendment will fix this problem.
There are many reasons that small businesses, cafes and restaurants might legitimately want to put a surcharge on their price. It could be for the extra costs of employing staff on the weekends, which is sometimes a legitimate cost, but what about a carbon tax surcharge? Restaurants can put on the bottom of their menu 'additional surcharge for carbon tax'.
We know the carbon tax is only $23 at the moment. We know in about three short weeks the carbon tax goes up. It increases next year as well and then we morph to the ETS. We have seen the Treasury projections and this government hopes that under its plans the carbon tax, which is now $23 a tonne, will go to $350 a tonne. What costs will this add to small business? Small business may well have to have a 100 per cent surcharge because of the increased electricity prices when the carbon tax reaches $350 a tonne.
Another surcharge small business might want to put on is a Labor debt repayment surcharge—because somebody is going to have to repay that debt. We know from information released a few days ago in Senate estimates that the Christmas present that this government will leave under the tree for every Australian will be a debt of $290 billion. This government will leave this debt as a Christmas present under the tree. When we look through the budget papers we remember that over this year and over the next four years, clearly detailed in budget papers, the interest payments on that debt will be $34½ billion.
Mr Bradbury: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have all been very generous in allowing the member to engage in a wide-ranging discussion. But he is now going well and truly beyond matters of relevance to this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): I remind the member for Hughes that this is about the Competition Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. Please stick with this bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: The bill enables restaurants and cafes to apply a surcharge on to their menus. I am going through some of the possible things that small businesses, restaurants and cafes have and the surcharges they may have to apply.
Mr Bradbury: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member should be very careful. The sort of guidance he is seeking to provide to small businesses is verging on encouraging them to engage in conduct that is actually prohibited under Australian consumer law. He should stick to the matters that are the subject of this bill, which relate to surcharges for cafes and restaurants.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): The member for Hughes has the call.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: The member makes a reasonable point, which I would like to comment on. They have often scared business about putting their prices up. Small businesses operate in a very competitive environment, especially cafes and restaurants. If they put their prices up they will lose customers. So no small business wants to put surcharges on the menu because they know that risks customers going to other businesses. It is a very competitive environment, but we cannot have the minister coming in here and creating a false impression that small businesses are able to increase their prices as long as they can justify it and it is not misleading. It gets back to the point of this bill. The mistake was the original bill that this bill is amending. We had a catch-all provision under the old section 52 and it was not necessary.
I am happy to leave my comments there. The coalition is pleased to support this amendment because it undoes one of the most disastrous policies of this government we have seen. I am sure that after September 14 there will be many other examples as we start to undo the damage that this government has done.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:06): We all have small businesses in our electorate. My electorate is a regional electorate. There is a concern. I have recently been to hotels in regional Victoria where they all had a surcharge on Sunday. You walk past to the next one and on Sunday there is a surcharge there too. I do not think any of these people would know they are breaking the law. They are just trying to survive on a Sunday.
This bill goes a long way to sort that out. I think it was an unintended consequence. In our approach to every piece of legislation we need to look at unintended consequences. Having said that, I still have a problem with the difficulties regional restaurants and tourism operators have with Sunday and public holiday penalty rates.
Last Sunday morning I was watching what was happening in the breakfast restaurant Bronwyn and I were in and it was very clear that the family was working. There might have been one staff member there when there is normally five. It is a very busy place. They do a great job. I will not name them because they are not in my electorate. Clearly, the whole family was working on Sunday because it is just too expensive for them to pay staff on Sunday mornings. It is interesting that when the family is there the babies are there because there is nobody left to babysit so they have to bring their kids into the restaurant, which made it more pleasurable for me to see these beautiful young children of the owners of the restaurant in the morning in that place. But I think if they had their way they would rather they were not there on Sunday morning. They would rather that they were able to employ their staff on a Sunday morning. Because of the politics of the day, really, nobody is saying anything about these issues, except they affect real people on a daily basis wherever I go.
I had a delegation come to my office. That does not happen very often. A delegation of restaurateurs and tourism operators came to me to ask, 'Do you understand, Russell?' Having been in small business nearly all of my life except for the last few years, I said, 'Yes, I do understand the cost of wages. I am a person who laid awake at night wondering how I was going to pay them on a Thursday sometimes. There have been tight times over the years. I understand how these people were feeling. They were saying, 'We're working flat out. We want this to succeed. We give people work on the weekends, but we only open in the country areas on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and, if it is a long weekend, Monday.'
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:10 to 16:32
Mr BROADBENT: As I was saying before the division, since the year 1934, small business and medium-sized business have been good to my family through generations of pub owners, grocers, mercers, drapers, hardware merchants, general store owners and others. For all those generations, small business has been good to our family, and I am a product of those generations. Having said that, over the time that we are in this House we all have an obligation, everyone of us, to look to small businesses. Why? Because, at the business's largest point, I had 40 people in my employ and those 40 people were family to me, and I wanted to do the best for my family and the best for their families I could possibly do.
In conclusion, we have a responsibility to make sure every small business entrepreneur can do the best they can with the opportunities that they are given. Small business has been good to me; I want to be good to small business; and I want this government, and any future government, to be good to small business.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (16:34): The purpose of the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 is—remarkably, under the present government—to reduce in a minor way the regulatory burden which applies to a small category of small businesses. You will appreciate the incredulity and, at the same time, the sense of relief with which we on this side respond to this unexpected, but nevertheless welcome, recognition by the government of the importance of reducing the regulatory burden wherever possible.
The particular effect of this bill is in relation to the restaurant and café businesses. Anybody who has ever been to a restaurant or café, and happily that is just about everybody, would recognise that these are very tough businesses to run. The hours are long and unsociable. When everybody else is relaxing and enjoying some convivial time with family and friends, you as the restaurant or café owner or proprietor or staff member, are hard at work. It is a very, very competitive business. New restaurants and cafes open all the time. Restaurants and cafes are all too frequently going out of business.
It is a business where the margins are very slim indeed. The pressures on people who run a hospitality business—a restaurant, a café or similar such businesses—are extraordinary. The standard of food, wine, catering, service, and hospitality that we in modern Australia have come to expect and take for granted from the restaurant industry, the café industry or the catering industry is truly extraordinary.
I want to take a moment before I turn to the substantive provisions of this bill to express my appreciation and admiration for the small business people who every day open their café or their restaurant and carry out another day's work in providing excellent service to their customers, in creating a convivial environment where people can, in the time-honoured phrase, eat, drink and be merry and in offering a standard of food and wine which no other nation can equal. I put it to you Madam Deputy Speaker that no other Australian ever has the experience of going to another country and saying, 'Gee, their food's a lot better than ours.' No Australian ever has that experience. No Australian ever has the experience of going to another country and saying, 'Gee, their food's fresher than ours, isn't it? Gee, the quality we're experiencing of this fruit and these vegetables is better than we are used to at home.'
The quality that we have in the restaurant and catering sector is absolutely extraordinary and we do not often enough take the time to acknowledge the excellence which has been achieved in that industry. Nor do we often enough stop as regulators, as lawmakers, to think about the many daily impediments, burdens and challenges which those operating restaurant and catering businesses face.
One of those challenges has been the operation of a very detailed provision of what used to be called the Trade Practices Act, which has now changed to the Competition and Consumer Act. A very detailed provision was added to that act in 2009 which made it more difficult for restaurant and café owners who were carrying out what was a fairly common practice in that industry, for perfectly good reason, to specify on their menus that a surcharge applied on particular days—weekends and public holidays. As a result of the amendments to the act which were made in 2009, introducing a so-called component pricing provision, it was made more difficult for restaurant and café owners to adopt this hitherto common practice in their industry.
It was no longer adequate under the changes that were made to the Trade Practices Act in 2009 for a restaurant or a cafe to have a menu which said, for example, that the beef burger cost $16 and then to put a note at the bottom of the menu saying that there was a 10 per cent surcharge on weekends and public holidays. That was no longer possible because to do so breached the component-pricing provisions in the Trade Practices Act.
Now, I do not doubt that the relevant officials who recommended this approach did not envisage that it would cause great difficulty. I do not doubt that they never took a moment to think through the practical implications for a small business person running a cafe or a restaurant and needing to deal with this in addition to customers; in addition to getting down to the markets early in the morning to buy produce; in addition to recruiting, hiring, training and retaining staff; in addition to coming up with menus that were attractive and met the needs of customers in a very competitive market; in addition to keeping their facilities clean, safe and compliant with all of the standards that properly apply in those areas; and in addition to keeping the accounts of their business, complying with their GST and business activity statement requirements and complying with their tax obligations. I do not doubt that it never occurred to the officials who recommended these provisions that this would be an additional, onerous burden on the small business people running restaurant catering operations.
I do not doubt that the officials who came up with this provision did so with good intentions, and that there was no malice in the fact that they simply failed to think through the practical day-to-day implications for a business owner in this very demanding and very competitive sector, with an extraordinary range of pressures. They failed to think through the practical implications of the component-pricing provisions, which required them to have now not one set of menus but two sets of menus: one set of menus showing that the beef burger was $16 during the week and another set showing that on the weekends it was, for example, $17.60.
But for the small business person running a restaurant or a cafe, very often with themselves as the only full-time staff member—perhaps a couple of part-time or casual employees or perhaps it is a family business with both husband and wife involved—the additional practical burden in these circumstances with the additional cost burden of producing and maintaining two sets of menus and two sets of printed menu boards in cases where restaurants have such boards outside, and all of the other complexities associated with that, represent an additional burden. Indeed, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Australia has estimated these costs per restaurant at between $8,000 and $10,000. That is a nontrivial amount of money for a small business operating, as restaurants and cafes often do, on very narrow margins.
In its annual review of regulatory burdens on business, the Productivity Commission in 2010 recommended that the Australian government should amend the Trade Practices Act to have restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days placed outside the scope of the component-pricing provisions of that legislation. And it would seem that a miracle occurred, because it is not unreasonable to suspect, based upon this government's track record and approach, that an annual review of regulatory burdens on business is a document that would not be closely read by ministers in this government. I venture to suggest that it is a document that upon receipt would immediately be filed by most such ministers in the circular filing cabinet.
On this occasion, extraordinarily, and for reasons which we will not speculate about, the government has chosen to accept this recommendation. An exposure draft of the amendment that we are now contemplating was released in December 2012, and there followed after that an extensive period of public consultation before we reached the point at which the requisite number of jurisdictions agreed to amend the competition law.
It has taken a long time, and it should not be like this. It should not be that small businesses can have such onerous regulatory burdens placed upon them which, when weighed up against the public benefit, are difficult to justify. Of course, if people are to be charged more on weekends or on a public holiday, they ought to be notified of that. Of course, it would be inappropriate if a restaurant had a price on the menu but then unilaterally charged people more without notifying them of that. That is not the question. The question is whether that desirable policy outcome is satisfactorily achieved by the previous standard industry practice of noting on the menu that there was a surcharge on weekends, or whether it required the more onerous, prescriptive, detailed, expensive, time-consuming, burdensome regulatory requirement of specifying the specific prices and requiring two duplicate sets of menus for one restaurant, for one business.
Happily, sanity has prevailed. On this side of the House, the coalition is pleased to welcome and support this brief outburst of sanity from this government. The coalition has a strong commitment to the reduction of unnecessary red tape which impinges on business activity, which harms economic activity and in turn harms employment and the economic prospects and conditions faced by all Australians. We have a government today which purportedly is committed to reducing regulation, but instead the reality is that we have seen an explosion of red tape: some 21,000 new or amended regulations introduced, only 1,100 repealed.
I want to make a point which is relevant to the bill before us. This is a point which the shadow minister for small business makes repeatedly, eloquently and passionately. The burden of compliance with regulation falls heavily on large business, but it falls even more heavily on small business. Large businesses can afford a legal department. They can afford a compliance department. From my own experience as a senior executive of a large corporation with a team of some 18 lawyers employed by the company discharging the many regulatory and compliance obligations that we faced, I know that while this is burdensome for big business, it is more feasible to deal with than is the case for small business. In a small business, there is no legal department, there is no compliance department. There is very typically just one struggling person trying to serve customers and make a profit while dealing with a forest of burdensome regulatory requirements and the ever-growing ingenuity and creativity of this government and its officials in dreaming up yet more regulatory requirements to impose on business.
In the bill before the House this afternoon we have seen an unlikely and unexpected outbreak of sanity. On this side of the House, we welcome it. We wish simply that it were not a one-off.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:48): I would like to thank all of those members who have contributed, especially the member for McMillan who is still here. I thank the member for Bradfield for his dynamic contribution. Made on a Thursday afternoon, it is as good as a coffee.
The Australian consumer law put in place by this government in 2011 provides Australian consumers with effective rights and protections wherever they are in Australia. It has delivered significant benefits to the national economy since its introduction. The Productivity Commission has estimated the total long-run prospective economic impacts of the Australian consumer law reform to be almost $1 billion annually. That is the sort of reform on a deregulatory front that those opposite seem determined to choose not to recognise.
The single pricing requirement in the ACL provides a fundamental protection for consumers. The requirement ensures that the most prominent price of a good or service displayed by a business is in fact the full price. The government recognises that restaurant and cafes are an essential part of the Australian economy and that it is important that these small businesses are not subject to any unnecessary regulatory burden. That is why this government is taking action to reduce regulation for small businesses by amending the single pricing provision to allow for a targeted exemption to be made for restaurant and cafe menu surcharges. This practical amendment will enable many venues that are open on weekends and public holidays to continue to provide valuable service to consumers in major cities and regional areas. The amendment will also ensure that consumers continue to have protection and clarity when it comes to ordering from menus.
There has been extensive consultation in relation to this bill and there is broad community and industry support for this change. I would like to thank all those who have made contributions to the consultation process, and I would also like to thank my colleagues in the states and territories for their ongoing cooperation. I simply note the contributions of others. I thank the member for Dunkley for his contribution. I note that the member for Hughes made some rather disturbing statements. It seems as though he believes that the correct process of law reform really requires a complete repeal of these provisions. He seems to think that reverting back to section 52 on its own would be the most effective and appropriate way of protecting consumers rights. If that is in fact his coalition policy then I think consumers should be very concerned about that. He, of course, will say that it is a matter they will discuss as part of their root and branch review. That root and branch review will be fun viewing, if that ever comes about because there is clearly a very strong divergence of views on the other side of the table. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:53): I wish to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill 2013. The coalition supports these measures because we are most concerned that we have a stronger, more flexible and 'easier to bring about an action' set of antidumping measures. The country suffered for a very long time when it was evident from the information that there was an antidumping action that should have been brought. However, because of the costs of bringing about a review of the situation and because of the time it took, too often the damage was done to the domestic industry and so people simply gave up. Timeliness, effectiveness and the significant costs—all of these problems—are now in the process of being addressed. In particular. I want to commend the coalition's plan to strengthen Australia's antidumping regime. I also speak in these remarks on behalf of the shadow minister, the member for Indi. She is of like mind that Australia's antidumping regime has to be stronger and that it also has to be more in line with other developed nations.
We have a situation in Australia where we are export dependent. We also have quite a small domestic market, where a duopoly is in place in the form of Coles and Woolworths, and our own domestic manufacturing certainly will not survive if it is a case of them having to compete with imported product brought in unfairly and where they do not have ready recourse to measures that can be brought about quickly, appropriately and in accordance with WTO measures. We are seeing our manufacturing going to the wall.
The particular issues that are being addressed in these amendments include the removal of the minister's mandatory obligation to consider the so-called lesser duty rule. This was the ridiculous situation—and it is a very old measure that goes back many decades—where the minister of the day was required to always look to a lesser duty, rather than putting in the appropriate duty, if he or she found an antidumping action was in fact proved. There is also a closer alignment of retrospective duties provisions with the relevant WTO agreements. There is the introduction of new provisions relating to anticircumvention that widen the range of options available to the government, including addressing the practice of sales at a loss and attempts by foreign producers to evade the full payment of duties.
Self-evidently, these are all very sensible measures. The lesser duty changes will ease current restrictions on the minister's ability to choose whether or not to apply a full margin of duty in order to remedy the impact of dumping activity; and, under article 9.3 of the WTO antidumping agreement, antidumping duties may not exceed the dumping margin calculated during an investigation. The Australian government has, until now, been limited by further provisions that have forced the minister to consider the lesser duty rule in every case. Quite clearly, that disadvantaged the Australian business or manufacturer trying to achieve an outcome that levelled the playing field in terms of the cost of the imported product compared with the cost of the domestic product.
The changes to the retrospective notices provisions essentially permit the minister more scope and discretion in making decisions about the level and timing of duties to be retrospectively applied to companies that have dumped goods in Australia, with a view to reversing the damaging effects to local industry more effectively. Again, the coalition strongly support that measure and had already canvassed those very issues in extensive stakeholder communication and consultation. In short, we can see that these measures will provide the minister with greater scope and discretion in considering the level of duties, and the timing of the application, to impose on companies found to have dumped goods in Australia. The measures will also reduce inconsistencies between the approach of Australia and that of other countries in relation to the interpretation of articles 9 and 10 of the WTO antidumping agreement. As I began by saying, these are very significant measures, as is anything that deals with antidumping in an environment like ours, where, as I said, we have a small domestic market, we aim to export and we have some of the world's most valued producers of good-quality, low-cost food.
At the moment, we are seeing a destruction of the food-processing industry in Australia. Just today we heard that another company, Simplot, may no longer be viable, and it is in fact the last processor of vegetables in Australia. It is not likely that the company will be able to go beyond 12 months of production in one of their factories in New South Wales and only several years more in Tasmania. I am pleased to say that leaves one Simplot factory in Echuca, in my electorate, but that is hardly any consolation when I think of the hundreds of employees out of work and the hundreds of farmers who will no longer be able to supply great vegetables to this company, Simplot, in other regional economies.
The fact is that Simplot are going out of business due to their inability to compete with the extraordinary volume of frozen vegetables now coming into Australia at very low prices. Some of those come via New Zealand. For example, there were recent revelations that frozen broccoli and other vegetables were being imported by New Zealand, packaged in New Zealand, labelled as 'made in New Zealand' and then, under the CER special arrangements, imported into Australia without any tariffs, duties or any other consideration at all. This is where Australian producers reach for their domestic market, thinking they can at least succeed there if they cannot export in the face of such low-cost product. But then, with the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, who compete on price and price alone, and who are aiming to have 80 per cent of their supermarket produce in the generic or home brand category as soon as they can achieve that goal, growers are also squeezed on price. Put all that together and you have a very difficult situation for the survival of Australia's food manufacturing sector, even though we all acknowledge that the Asian century presents unprecedented opportunities for high-value food markets, especially protein related markets, into the near future.
SPC Ardmona in particular, a fruit-preserving company, cannot wait to see improved antidumping measures. They are in the process of submitting an antidumping measure to this government. They are going to submit, in the first instance, an action against Italy for canned tomatoes. We all know that in Italy, as in other European countries—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (17:01): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:01
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Financial Advice Reforms
(Question No. 363)
Mr Fletcher asked the Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 11 May 2011:
In respect of the consultation paper Review of compensation arrangements for consumers of financial services: future of financial advice (Richard St. John, April 2011); (a) why does the paper provide little discussion or analysis as to why the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated superannuation funds are subject to a statutory compensation scheme (provided under Part 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) yet self managed superannuation funds are not; and (b) will he consider seeking advice and publishing a consultation paper on this important and topical issue, particularly in light of the collapse of Trio Capital Ltd resulting in many investors in self managed superannuation funds losing substantial superannuation savings; if not, why not.
Mr Shorten: The answer to the Honourable Members question is as follows:
(a) and (b) As part of the Future of Financial Advice reforms the Government commissioned Mr Richard St. John to undertake a review to consider the need for, and costs and benefits of a statutory compensation scheme. This review was announced in response to recommendation 10 of the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia.
Mr St. John has since provided his final report on Compensation arrangements for consumers of financial services to the Government. On 8 May the Government released Mr St. John's report for public consultation.
Chapter 3 of that report considers 'compensation following recent licensee failures' including the compensation position of APRA regulated superannuation funds, trustees of SMSFs and of individual investors.
On 16 May the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services publically released their report following an Inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital. This report also examines the impact on Trio Capital investors and the issue of compensation.
The Government responded to both reports on 26 April 2013.
Byford Animal Quarantine Facility, Western Australia
(Question No. 1505)
Ms Marino asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
(1) In respect of the Byford Animal Quarantine Facility in WA, why has the facility temporarily ceased the intake of animals until 31 May 2013; if the risk of bushfires is the reason, (a) why does the closure extend beyond the end of the typical bushfire season, and (b) what was the bushfire risk level in Byford in April 2013.
(2) Will the facility definitely reopen on 31 May 2013.
(3) What has the Minister's department done to (a) minimise the financial impact of the closure on, and (b) make alternative arrangements for, users of the facility.
(4) What cost savings have been made by the Minister's department through the temporary closure of the facility.
Mr Burke: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The facility was temporarily closed from 15 February 2013 until 31 May 2013 because of the risk of bushfires. The closure dates aligned with the bushfire risk period defined by the local Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire fire authority and published on its website.
(2) Employees will return to the site from 31 May 2013 to prepare the facility for the first intake of animals. It is expected this first intake will occur on 17 June 2013.
(3) The department refunded daily quarantine fees for all animals that were evacuated from the Byford facility from 15 February 2013 and released under quarantine surveillance. For cats and dogs imported from 15 February 2013 until 18 March 2013, the department arranged, and paid for, all domestic transfers to and from Perth airport to Eastern Creek Quarantine Facility in Sydney. Owners that were provided with a reasonable period of notice of the temporary closure, that is those seeking to import to Byford between 19 March and 31 May 2013, were given the option of delaying their import until the end of the fire risk period or using alternative quarantine facilities at their own cost.
The department operates two alternative dog and cat quarantine facilities. Both these facilities had sufficient space to accommodate all cats and dogs booked into Byford Quarantine Facility from 15 February 2013 until 31 May 2013.
(4) There were no cost savings arising out of the decision to temporarily close the Byford Quarantine Facility. Fixed costs were still incurred and all employees were temporarily reassigned duties within the department.