The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Dr JENSEN ( Tangney ) ( 10:01 ): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Norfolk Island
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Norfolk Island residents and descendants of the original settlers of Pitcairn Island draws to the attention of the House the pending proposal to Cabinet to change governance arrangements on Norfolk Island. The Norfolk Island Chief Minister and the Minister for Finance left the meeting with the Assistant Minister, the Hon. Jamie Briggs MP, on 8 October 2014 with the view that the new model will not be the subject of community consultation before, or after, the Cabinet's and Parliament's decision on such changes.
We therefore ask the House to: Before voting on any Bill to change governance arrangements for Norfolk Island established by the Norfolk Island Act 1979 of the Commonwealth, that the residents of Norfolk Island have the right to be provided the facts and consulted at referendum or plebiscite and have a democratic say on the future model of governance for Norfolk Island before any proposed changes are voted on by the House.
from 834 citizens
Ipswich Medicare Office
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 Department of Human Services intentions to close the only Medicare office in Ipswich in November 2014. Currently located at Riverlink Shopping Centre, which is the major shopping Centre in the district and provides car parking for over 2500 vehicles and contains a Bus Interchange for easy access for all residents within Ipswich. The proposed location is to merge Medicare with the Centrelink office which provides limited parking and amenities for the public.
We therefore ask the House to:
Reconsider the Departments decision and not close the current Medicare office. Keep the office within the hub of the CBD and Riverlink Shopping Centre, which provides facilities to Medicare clients and accommodates the 8 million visitors to Riverlink every year.
from 1,404 citizens
Unicorn Foundation: Neuroendocrine Cancer Funding
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Australian citizens who recognise that equitable access to cancer-specific services is a priority, draws to the attention of the House: the unmet need for expert medical advice and support for all Australian patients suffering from neuroendocrine (NET) cancers so as to improve their quality of life and clinical outcomes.
We therefore ask the House to: dutifully provide continued funding for the Unicorn Foundation's national Neuroendocrine Cancer Nurse Specialist telephone Support Service. This service operates Monday to Friday from 9am-5pm and provides information, advice, support and a medical referral system which is unique to neuroendocrine cancers and is not replicated or provided for by any other National or State based cancer-related organisation.
from 7,251 citizens
Australia's Asylum Seekers Policies
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain ordinary citizens in the north of NSW draws to the attention of the House:
When Australia signed the Refugee Convention we agreed to provide protection for people who cannot live in safety in their own country. It is a matter of shame to the undersigned that we are dismantling our earlier agreement and building into the processes for asylum seekers and their children "unacceptable risk of unfairness."
We want politicians of all persuasions to know that many ordinary Australians are vehemently opposed to the policy changes at present being proposed.
We therefore ask the House to:
1. Cease and desist from asylum seeker policies which are grounded in our own national greed and sense of entitlement.
2. Enable us as a wealthy country to give proper attention to our obligations under the United Nations refugee convention.
3. Choose a path where our country takes a lead in our region to facilitate speedy and just processing to provide a much greater number of refugees with hope and a future.
from 152 citizens
Australia's Population Growth
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Victorian citizens draws the attention of the House to the following: Australia's population grows rapidly at an annual rate of 1.8%
Immigration accounts for 60% of this high population growth which adversely affects the environment, places pressure on services and infrastructure and sets Australia towards a future very high population.
We note that:
Victoria's population at 1.8% growth will reach 11 million people by 2050, with 8 million in Melbourne. Successive Victorian governments have been unable to keep pace with required infrastructure. Unpopular residential towers and road tunnels are unsustainable attempts to deal with growth. Severe traffic congestion is widespread.
Public transport is inadequate for new residential communities on Melbourne's fringe. Unemployment, unaffordable housing and social disadvantage are increasing. Hospital services are at their limit and ambulance queues and delays are constant. Population pressures adversely affect coastal areas, biodiversity, and waterways in Victoria. Valuable food growing areas are being built upon. A high population trajectory is particularly dangerous given that climate change which has already affected Victoria creates additional unknown factors regarding population carrying capacity. It means we must take a precautionary approach to population growth.
We therefore ask the House to take urgent action to reduce net overseas immigration to a maximum of 70,000-90,000 p.a. including the current quota of 20,000 refugees as a starting point in stabilising Victoria's, and Australia's, population later this century.
from 227 citizens
Religious Pilgrimages
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Panjtan Society of Victoria draws to the attention of the House: that we welcome and acknowledge the need for the Counter-Terrorism Amendment (Foreign-Fighters) Legislation Bill 2014 ("Bill"), yet we bring to your attention a crucial issue. For Shi'a Muslims, after the Holy Pilgrimage to Mecca (Saudi Arabia) for Hajj, the main sites of Holy Pilgrimage are in the cities of Iraq, which primarily include Karbala, Najaf, Kazmain, Kufa & Sammara. If Australian Shi'a Muslims are prevented from performing the Holy Pilgrimages in Iraq as a result of the amendments to the Bill, it is likely that community members will become very anxious and upset, as they may believe they are being prevented from practicing their religion. As a result, uninformed community members who do visit Iraq for this pilgrimage may be in breach of Australian law and possibly become innocent victims of the Bill, the aim of which is to identify, prevent and sanction Australians from and for becoming foreign-fighters, rather than punishing Australians performing spiritual Holy Pilgrimages in Iraq.
We therefore ask the House that if the above mentioned cities of Iraq, or Iraq in its entirety falls under a `declared area' under the meaning of the Bill and eventually the corresponding Act, then as per part 119.2 (3) of the Bill, such Religious Pilgrimages be considered an exception and that 'entering and remaining' in the declared areas be considered for a 'legitimate purpose'.
from 185 citizens
Asylum Seekers Offshore Processing
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition is conducted by a group of likeminded students associated with human rights and social issues at James Cook University, Townsville.
We are drawing the attention of the House to the inhuman policies, discrimination of people arriving by boat, and living conditions of those detained in offshore detention centres. It is of great concern to us that these people in offshore detention centres are being ignored by Australia and ill-treated due to the fact they are fleeing from persecution in their country of origin. After reaching Australian waters, asylum seekers are subject to years of waiting, physical and mental illness, worry and fear. Refugees are not less than us, they are equal and deserve fair and just treatment in accordance with Australia's obligations under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1954 Refugee Convention.
We therefore ask the House to close down offshore detention centres to protect the safety of asylum seekers and to bring stronger legal and civic accountability to the Australian government.
from 89 citizens
Migration Act
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
THIS PETITION OF the family of Rashpal Singh TOOR , other members of the Sikh community and Citizens and residents of Australia
DRAWS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE that Mr Singh entered Australia to visit his family, all of his children (3) are residing in Australia and suffered a catastrophic health setback wherein he is now is unable to travel and requires dialysis 3 times a week. Being taken to and from hospital by ambulance. Doctors diagnose as "end stage renal failure" and advise of the need for a kidney transplant to halt his deteriorating health. But such is not possible without his first being granted residency and thus eligible to join the patient waiting list for a kidney(s) transplant.mr Singh also suffers with diabetes and has suffered a stroke and has other health issues.
WE THEREFORE ASK THE HOUSE to recommend to the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection that as a request has been received by him requesting his intervention as provided by Section 417 of the Migration Act, that the House support the request.
from 267 citizens
Morayfield Medicare Office
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
Medicare has made the decision to close the Morayfield Shopping Centre branch mid-December 2014 to combine services offered at the Caboolture Centrelink office as has been outlined in new legislation approved by the Commonwealth Government. This merge will not only fail to achieve the objective of making processes more efficient for those who require a Government Service, but will also create unnecessary congestion at Centrelink offices, as has happened with mergers that have already gone ahead. Having Medicare located at Morayfield Shopping Centre generates the convenience of not having to visit another location other than shoppers' daily routine (i.e. supermarket, pharmacy, doctors, public transport and BUPA in the one location). The existing office provides more convenience and efficient service to the public in the current location than would be provided by merging services with the Centrelink office.
Your petitioners, therefore, request the Federal Government to keep Morayfield Medicare where it is currently located.
from 5,133 citizens
Migration Act
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
THIS PETITION OF Rajendra Prasad Joshi, Anita Shrestha and Arika Joshi and members of the Nepalese community and Citizens and Diners of the Ascot Vale community,
DRAWS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE that for some five and more years the above petitioners have operated a family friendly restaurant at Mt Alexander Road Ascot Vale. The Restaurant is an award winner, contributes to the liveability of its area, and also is recognised as a leader in establishing and continuing an awareness of Nepalese/Indian cuisine in Melbourne. It recognises its obligations to the wider community as to paying taxes, supporting other community activities and employing Australians including apprentices. As with all small business owners their lives are now entangled with their business, they have high hopes for its future and have plans for business growth. It is the policy of Government to support the growth of small business and we support via this petition that this is a venture that should be allowed to have a future.
WE THEREFORE ASK THE HOUSE to recommend to the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection that as a request has been received by him requesting his intervention as provided by Section 351 of the Migration Act, that the House support the request.
from 88 citizens
PETITIONS
Responses
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:02): Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Awabakal Newcastle Aboriginal Co-operative
Thank you for your letter of 1 September 2014 about a petition requesting an independent review of the corporate governance of Awabakal Newcastle Aboriginal Cooperative (the Co-op).
The Co-op is a major provider of services to Aboriginal people throughout Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens and the Hunter Valley. I am advised that a review of the Co-op's financial and administrative management practices was undertaken by the Department of Health in 2012. This review recommended a course of action aimed at strengthening governance and operational practices.
The Department of Health advises that the organisation has been positively working to implement these recommendations. No misuse of Commonwealth funding was identified and the organisation's performance continues to be monitored by the Department of Health and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The Commonwealth provides funding to the Co-op through a variety of Funding Agreements. The services and activities delivered by the organisation are monitored under the performance requirements outlined in the Agreements. As part of monitoring, staff from the relevant departments will act on any identified non-compliance issues.
Given the progress made by the organisation since 2012 to strengthen its governance and operational practices, I do not recommend an independent review of the Co-op. Similarly, given the Co-op's achievement of performance requirements in its current funding agreements, I do not recommend an independent qualitative evaluation of its services and programmes.
from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mr Scullion
PETITIONS
Statements
Dr JENSEN ( Tangney ) ( 10:03 ): As we approach the end of 2014, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the petitions received so far in the 44th Parliament.
Since the 2013 federal election, the Petitions Committee has considered 178 petitions, of which 128 met the standing order requirements for petitioning the House. Only 50 petitions, or 28 per cent of those received, were found not to meet requirements. To compare this to a previous year, between June 2012 and June 2013 the committee considered 164 petitions, of which it found that 21 per cent did not meet the standing order requirements.
These statistics emphasise the importance of the role of the Petitions Committee and its secretariat. A major part of the committee's role is assisting petitioners before they submit their petitions so that they are more likely to meet the requirements and thus attract all of the benefits that petitioning the House can bring. For example, the committee's website contains useful information for people considering starting a petition to the House. The web page has a sample petition which explains the standing order requirements and assists petitioners with the layout of their petitions.
The committee also has a dedicated petitions hotline, which I would encourage all potential petitioners to call before they begin to gather signatures. By doing so, petitioners can receive advice on whether their draft petitions are likely to meet the standing order requirements, or what changes they may need to make in order to do so. The Petitions Committee is committed to doing all it can to assist the Australian community to access this important democratic mechanism for bringing matters directly to the attention of the House.
The committee also facilitates the presentation of ministerial responses in the House. Since the 2013 federal election, the Petitions Committee has considered 93 ministerial response letters. These letters responded to 105 petitions. Considering that, between 1901 and 2007, only 21 ministerial responses to petitions were presented in the House, 93 response letters in a single year represents a considerable improvement. This enhanced engagement by ministers in the petitions process has been one of the real strengths of the current arrangements introduced in 2008. While ministers are often unable to grant the requests made in petitions, the number of responses received shows a genuine dedication to the petitions process from my colleagues in the ministry.
Both the number of petitions and the number of ministerial responses demonstrate a strong and abiding commitment to petitions by both the House and the wider Australian community. The efforts of petitioners help to remind us how lucky we are to live in a democracy like Australia, where any citizen can have a matter placed directly before this House via a petition. I encourage my fellow Australians to continue petitioning the House. In addition to providing a voice to citizens, petitions can help inform members about issues at play in our country and in their electorates, and add to political discussion in this country. If we are to judge from the statistics I have discussed today, it seems that petitions will continue to play an important role in our democracy.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Mr SUKKAR ( Deakin ) ( 10:07 ): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report No. 1 of the 44th Parliament entitled Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Takeovers Panel and the corporations legislation.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the committee's duties as set out in section 243 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The report discusses the committee's inquiries into:
the activities of the Takeovers Panel and ASIC;
the operation of the corporations legislation; and
ASIC's 2012-13 annual report.
The committee examined a range of the proposals for reform of the Takeovers Panel. Based on the evidence before it, the committee considers that the Takeovers Panel is working effectively. The committee considers that while a number of the proposals for reform may have merit, the committee is not making any recommendations for changes at this time.
The committee's examination of ASIC has been undertaken in the context of avoiding unnecessary duplication of the Financial System Inquiry and the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the performance of ASIC which have coincided with this oversight period. The committee will carefully examine ASIC's implementation of the government responses to both of those inquiries and will continue its detailed scrutiny of ASIC's performance in the next oversight report.
The committee considered the penalty regime available to ASIC. The committee encourages the government to follow the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry and the Senate Economics References Committee and hold an inquiry prior to determining a new penalty regime for ASIC. The committee has recommended that the review of penalties include a broadly based consultation process.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (00:00): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report 446, entitled Review of the operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
This is the first report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The PBO commenced operation in July 2012.
The inquiry is part of the committee's ongoing oversight role, which has enabled us to review the progress of the PBO after only two years of operation.
The PBO is also subject to external audit by the Australian National Audit Office, which tabled a favourable report on the administration of the PBO, in June 2014.
On behalf of the committee, I commend Mr Phil Bowen, the inaugural Parliamentary Budget Officer, for his clear-sighted leadership of this important new parliamentary body.
It is a significant achievement to build a new organisation from scratch and prepare for a general election at the same time.
It is fair to say, the PBO quickly gained the confidence of members and senators and built a reputation for professionalism, independence and expertise.
The main work of the PBO is providing confidential policy costings to parliamentarians.
In the lead-up to a general election, the PBO's role shifts to a more public one.
Members will recall that the 2013 federal election was the first time all parliamentary parties and independents were able to get their election commitments costed.
Immediately following the election, the PBO also produced the first ever post-election report—an assessment of the budget impact of election commitments of the main parties, including the Australian Greens.
The PBO also launched a self-initiated research program. These are considerable achievements.
The committee's review was an early opportunity to examine the framework and operations of the PBO and consider international best practice.
The Australian PBO is one of 10 such bodies in the OECD, and 29 around the world.
The success of the Australian PBO is due in no small measure to the existence of a clear legislative mandate, statutory independence, adequate resources, and qualified staff.
But these alone would not be sufficient without the co-operation built up between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the heads of Commonwealth agencies under a non-binding memorandum of understanding.
To build on this success we have made eight recommendations that fall into two categories—access to information and the PBO's mandate.
Access to information
It goes without saying that access to information is essential if the PBO is to fully discharge its mandate and provide high-quality support to members and senators.
To this end the committee has recommended that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's right to free and timely access to executive information should be clearly spelled out in the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.
Such an amendment will bring the PBO into line with international best practice and allow the parties to the MOU to act with confidence.
It is also prudent to adopt a legal safeguard against any possible change in the political climate in the future.
The committee also dealt with four matters of detail that warrant early attention.
First, the committee was disappointed that the ANAO found over half of the responses to PBO requests are routinely late.
The government needs to ensure that agencies meet the time frames agreed in the MOU.
Second, we agree with the Parliamentary Budget Officer that details of the individual components of the contingency reserve should be released to the PBO.
There is more than adequate provision in the Parliamentary Service Act to protect the confidentiality of that data.
Third, the government should work with the PBO and Commonwealth agencies to identify and remove or modify legal provisions that prevent the release of data to the PBO.
This is largely a housekeeping matter and should proceed as soon as possible.
Fourth, the outsourcing of budget estimates or policy costings has led to fees being levied by third parties—including the Australian Government Actuary.
This is inconsistent with the parliament's intention, the MOU and international principles of best practice.
To rectify this situation Commonwealth contracts should guarantee the PBO free and timely access to data held by third parties in the public or private sector.
After the 2013 election the government established the National Commission of Audit.
The commission recommended that the Commonwealth should adopt certain fiscal rules and the PBO should report against the government's adherence to those rules.
We have deferred our full consideration on that issue until there is a government response to the commission's report.
We did conclude, however, that the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be expanded to include the preparation of detailed medium-term projections on an annual basis.
This will fill an important gap in the financial data currently available to the public.
The post-election report analysis should also be extended beyond the current—
The SPEAKER: The honourable member's time—
Dr SOUTHCOTT: four years required by the act to provide, as far as possible, projections over a 10-year medium term.
The creation of the PBO is an important development in our democratic arrangements and has already made a significant contribution to transparency and accountability in the country's finances.
The changes we propose are important refinements to ensure the PBO can continue to bring reliable and comprehensive analysis to the public debate and promote fiscal responsibility across the political spectrum.
I would like to thank all the members of the committee and all the members of the committee secretariat involved in the preparation of this report.
I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Dr SOUTHCOTT: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10:16): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: It was a most interesting comment on the report, but I would remind the member that he has an allocated time and he must meet it.
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Statement
Mr CHRISTENSEN ( Dawson — The Nationals Deputy Whip ) ( 10:16 ): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I rise to inform the House about the committee's current inquiry into the child support program.
The committee launched the inquiry in April this year, following referral by the Minister for Social Services. Under the terms of reference, the inquiry is considering the design and operation of the child support program, including the assessment and change of assessment processes; enforcing the payment of child support liabilities; dealing with high-conflict families; supporting victims of family violence; mediation services; and the emotional toll of child support disputes.
From the very start of the inquiry we were determined to make ourselves as accessible as possible. We wanted to ensure that ordinary, everyday Australians with an experience of the child support program could contribute to the inquiry. To achieve this, we launched an anonymous online questionnaire, we planned and held community statement sessions and we received confidential written stories from individuals about their experiences. We have also received 128 submissions and held 13 public hearings across Australia. We have heard from many groups, including those representing mums and dads, legal services, psychologists, social workers, academics, government agencies and members of the public.
As we are considering the shape of our report and the recommendations we will make to government, it is worth pausing to look at the inquiry so far. Too often, we focus on the report as the only outcome of an inquiry and we sometimes forget how important the inquiry process is to those who contribute to it.
I now turn to some of the innovative features of the inquiry process. Our questionnaire has been a runaway success, with over 11,000 responses received. Each response shares the experiences, suggestions, frustrations and hopes of individuals who have a connection to the child support program. We have already published three snapshots of responses to the questionnaire online. Over 100 individuals have also spoken to the committee at a series of community statement sessions. We asked people to register online and then used a randomised process to invite a sample of people to speak to us either in person or over the phone about how the child support program does or does not meet their needs, and how it could be improved. We have also received over 100 written stories from individuals who wanted to share their personal and sometimes traumatic experiences in detail.
Our aim was to set up a variety of ways for individuals to safely and respectfully contribute to the inquiry either publicly or anonymously. While many contributions have been accepted confidentially to protect the privacy of those involved, every story forms part of this inquiry and will help us to compose our findings and recommendations in the report.
These innovative inquiry features are all part of our community engagement strategy which we designed at the start of this year to ensure that we could gather evidence from a wide range of people in a sensitive way. The Child Support program assists people in some very difficult stages of life, and we wanted to engage with these people without causing additional stress or anxiety. I would like to thank each and every person who has contributed to the inquiry process.
The committee looks forward to delivering its recommendations and report in the New Year—recommendations that will improve the Child Support system and the experiences of people interacting with the system. However, we should not measure the success of an inquiry only by the final report, but also by how well we listen to and engage with the Australian public, and let their firsthand experiences inform our work.
I am proud to chair the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee that is actively working to improve how we engage with the Australian public. Finally, I would like to thank my deputy chair, the member for Newcastle, who is present in the chamber, and all committee members—I note the member for Moreton is also here—for their diligent work in the inquiry.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the committee secretariat under the leadership of Dr Anna Dacre. I particularly want to single out Thomas and Peter for their hard work as part of this inquiry. It is something that hopefully will make things better for all of those engaged with the Child Support system. Thank you.
BILLS
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Boosting Superannuation for Women) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:21): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Greens believe in equality.
And we are committed to doing whatever we can to achieve equality.
Equality in our community.
Equality in our society.
Equality in our economy, and our workplaces.
The gains we have already made in achieving equality have come from a long, hard struggle; taking many twists and turns.
It has required conflict and compassion, education and legislation, courage and conviction.
The Greens are committed to continuing our walk on the long road to equality.
That is why today I am introducing the Greens bill to boost women's super. The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Boosting Superannuation for Women) Bill 2014 will be another modest but important step on the road to equality.
Equality for women is still a long way off particularly when it comes to pay equity.
Despite the many steps forward women often still do not get equal pay for equal work, women on average still earn less than men and do not have the same opportunities as men to progress their careers.
One of the areas where workplace inequality and pay inequity hits hard on women is in retirement.
This bill is one step in addressing the significant financial inequality women face in retirement.
In 1984 the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, highlighting the need for anti-discriminatory legislation to protect women's rights and enhance gender equality. Section 14 of the Act prohibits 'discrimination against women in employment or in superannuation.' It is a sad fact that 30 years later there still remains a significant financial imbalance between men and women. The gender pay gap has hovered between 15 per cent and 18 per cent for the past two decades and is currently 17 per cent. The Global Gender Gap Report 2014 ranks Australia as only 24th of 142 countries for women's equality. It seems we have made little progress in addressing gender inequality. It is not happening fast enough, and it is an issue that this government is making worse.
The gender pay gap persists after women stop working. It is evident further in retirement. When you look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on average superannuation account balances. They show that in 2011-12 the average superannuation account balances were $82,615 for men and just $44,866 for women. There is a number of reasons for this. Women have average lower incomes and there is a lack of women attaining senior positions at work. Women take more time out of paid work to undertake unpaid caring work, such as raising children or caring for other family members. Women are more likely to work in part-time or casual roles, and in such circumstances will inevitably receive lower incomes.
We need laws that reflect the reality of women's working lives. We need to encourage employers to take steps to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce in addition to the other responsibilities they may have. If we do not, we will see an increased number of women in poverty in their old age.
This bill seeks to take a step towards addressing this imbalance in retirement, by ensuring employers are able to contribute more super for women employees than men employees without being considered to have breached anti-discrimination legislation. Progressive and far-sighted employers who recognise the need for women to receive higher superannuation contributions, currently have to apply for an exemption from the anti-discrimination legislation. There are employers already doing this. Financial advisors Rice Warner, for example, contribute an additional two per cent in super contributions for their women employees, having gained such an exemption. This bill will remove the barrier of employers having to apply for an exemption; a barrier that takes time and money for those progressive employers who want to take steps to rebalance financial gender equality.
I will briefly outline the details of the bill. Schedule 1 of the bill sets out the relevant amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Items 1 and 2 will be additions to section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and provide for the application of the proposed new section 41C. The proposed new section 41C confirms that discrimination by an employer against a female employee is not unlawful if the discrimination is on the grounds of the employee's sex and involves the employer making an employer superannuation contribution that is more than otherwise required by law.
These simple but effective changes will make a significant difference to an employer's willingness to contribute more to women employees' superannuation. The bill will not create any financial burden on the budget or cost to government, but it will give effect to important human rights obligations of our country, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Article 11(d) of the convention states the right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.
The Greens believe there will be widespread support amongst business and the community for these changes. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, AFSA, the peak industry body for the superannuation sector, recently released a report entitled The future of Australia's super: a new framework for a better system, which outlines a number of recommendations. This bill will implement one of those recommendations: that employers should be able to contribute more to super for women without being considered to have breached anti-discrimination legislation.
Addressing the gender imbalance in superannuation funds is particularly important given the difference in life expectancy between men and women. On average, women live three to four years longer than men yet have considerably less superannuation to live on in their retirement. Women are retiring without enough money and the gender inequality of both pay and superannuation are compounding to leave many women disproportionately impoverished in their retirement. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that women are reaching the end of their working lives without enough money to live on. It is something this parliament can do something about, and it is something this parliament should do something about.
Instead of taking steps towards addressing this inequality, unfortunately, the current government continues to move backwards on financial gender equality, abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution, from July 2017, which will impact one in every two working women. And, of course, the planned university fee interest hikes will disproportionately affect women who take time out of the workplace for caring responsibilities or who undertake part time work, during which time the interest on their student debt will continue to pile up. And the government has delayed the increase in the superannuation guarantee charge to 12 per cent until 2025.
This bill, without imposing any obligation on government, will allow far-sighted employers to help redress some of these inequalities. What is worth underscoring is that any action by employers remains voluntary. The bill will not force employers to contribute more superannuation to women employees than men, but will remove the costs in both time and money of having to apply to the Human Rights Commissioner for exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
The Greens hope that it will encourage more employers to recognise the need for women to have more super contributions given the significant financial imbalance they face in retirement. This bill gives employers an opportunity to act to fix the systemic inequality that women continue to face without placing an additional obligation on them to do so. In fact, from the government's point of view, this removes an element of the so-called red tape that the government so often claims is restraining business. I note with interest that in all of the bills that have been brought before this parliament to reduce so-called red tape not one of them has contained a positive measure such as this that would have the impact of reducing inequality. This is one that we hope the government can get behind.
For that reason, the Greens will not be seeking to push this bill to a vote immediately. We hope that this is a bill that can pass this parliament with everyone's support. As I have said, from the government's perspective, it imposes no additional obligation on employers and, in fact, removes the requirement for them to apply for an exemption. From the opposition's perspective, given their commitment to superannuation and to closing pay gaps, it is a measure that they support as well.
We are keen to allow members to examine and consider the implications of this bill because we believe every member of parliament should be able to it. We intend to move for an inquiry into the bill to enable this and other barriers to retirement equality for women to be addressed. Gender inequality in the workforce is a continuing problem and no more so than when it comes to women's retirement. The Greens are committed to solving this problem. This bill is not the complete solution, but is an important step towards righting the gender imbalance. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:32): I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Apology to the Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:33): I move:
That this House notes:
(1) that 16 November 2014 marked the 5th anniversary of an important milestone in Australia’s history, when the Australian Government delivered its formal apology to the Forgotten Australians and former child migrants;
(2) the significant work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the inquiry’s Chair, the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM, to date in:
(a) raising public awareness of Forgotten Australians;
(b) conducting public hearings and private sessions to ensure that the victims’ voices are heard;
(c) examining abuse in particular institutions across Australia; and
(d) reporting allegations of child abuse to appropriate authorities; and
(3) the Government’s commitment to provide additional funding to extend the Royal Commission’s Inquiry.
I thank the member for Berowra for seconding this motion. I appreciate that as a father of the House, he might have been around at the time when these sorts of events were occurring that the apology was directly attributable to. It was a dark time in the history of care in our state systems.
I would like to set the scene of the day of the national apology and to take the opportunity to acknowledge the members for Corio and Blaxland, who were involved with me on the national apology committee. During that process, we worked closely to make sure that the national apology on 16 November was a day that would help a lot of people who had been through those experiences. On the day there was a lot of anticipation and a lot of excitement in the air. A lot of people travelled to Canberra to the Great Hall to hear former Prime Minister Rudd and then opposition leader, the member for Wentworth, deliver their apologies on behalf of not only the government but the opposition.
There were over 900 people gathered in the Great Hall, and I am sure the member for Corio and the member for Blaxland, who were there, remember the anticipation and the buzz within that room. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition entered the hall, it fell silent, and then those words that meant so much to so many people, to over 500,000 forgotten Australians and child migrants, were delivered. Who can forget Peter Hicks coming up to the podium when Malcolm Turnbull was delivering his speech and hugging him halfway through? It was one of many emotional times during that day. It was a day full of emotion.
I want to acknowledge the work done by Joanna Penglase and Leonie Sheedy from CLAN, who worked with the members for Blaxland and Corio to make sure that the apology was actually delivered in parliament. I also want to acknowledge the Senate committee reports that had been done on the forgotten Australians and the victims of child sexual abuse in institutions in Australia; and Senator Siewert and former senator Andrew Murray, who is now on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, for the work they did to help the apology come to the fore in this place.
My brother had come up for the apology. He was one of the children who was left behind; he was not taken away but left behind. The emotions he felt on that particular day, along with all the other people in the hall, were enormous. I left the hall to go and do a quick interview with one of the radio stations, and there was a young woman from Western Australia whose name was Cheryl just standing outside the hall in the foyer; she was shaking and just did not know what to do. I went over and gave her a hug, and she said that was one of things that made the day for her—that the MPs who were involved and who helped deliver the apology were there and were prepared to get emotionally involved with them.
We then held a fantastic barbecue out on the front lawns of Parliament House. For the first time and the only time while I have been in parliament, I got leave from question time to go and join all the forgotten Australians and child migrants on the front lawns. The mood was ecstatic. One woman, who had got out of her hospital bed that day and travelled from Victoria, said to me that she had thought she was coming to parliament to hear just another diatribe, a lot of words and the delivery of non-meaningful speeches by politicians; but she said that it was well worth leaving her hospital bed and travelling to Canberra to hear the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She said she could go to her grave happy now that that apology had been delivered.
The royal commission has been extended by the coalition government, acknowledging that the previous government instituted it, but there is much more work to be done. We will continue to fight. As I keep saying to the forgotten Australians and the child migrants, including those from Malta and the UK: never give in.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:38): I am happy to second the motion. I commend the member for Swan for moving this motion and I thank him for his great contribution. I too remember Monday, 16 November 2009, when Prime Minister Rudd delivered the apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants. I also acknowledge the member for Blaxland and the many other people who were involved in making sure it happened.
I too remember being in the Great Hall of the people. There are three apologies that I have heard in the parliament, including on my very first day at work, when Prime Minister Rudd delivered the apology to the stolen generations. Like this one in the Great Hall, it was poignant and heart rending, as was the forced adoptions apology by Prime Minister Gillard, a process in which I was involved. Prime Minister Rudd said:
… we come together today to offer our nation’s apology.
To say to you, the forgotten Australians, and those who were sent to our shores as children without your consent, that we are sorry.
Sorry that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused.
Sorry for the physical suffering, the emotional starvation and the cold absence of love, of tenderness, of care.
They were incredible words, delivered particularly well. I remember the member for Swan's first speech—we were elected at the same time, in the 42nd Parliament—and that is when I became particularly aware of this story. There are so many stories: 500,000 Australians who have had a similar experience during the last century—quite late into the last century, in fact. They were placed in care for a variety of reasons—either because they were orphaned, because they were born to a single mother or because their families were dislocated due to domestic violence, divorce, separation or that most cruel of conditions, poverty and the parents' inability to cope with the children, often as a result of hardship. There were people that were made wards of the state because they were uncontrollable—perhaps it could be treated now—or they were neglected or in moral danger.
Obviously, in all of those circumstances, the strong story that came through five years ago today was that it was not the fault of the children. They were placed in those institutions—the orphanages, the homes, the training schools and the industrial schools. Whether they were administered by the state, by religious bodies or by charities or welfare groups, it was not the fault of the children that they were placed in these situations. As we are seeing now, the royal commission instigated by Prime Minister Gillard—the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, headed by Justice Peter McClellan—is revealing time and time again through these stories, by shedding a light, that these children sometimes were treated appropriately but all too often they suffered harm and heartache.
As the member for Swan touched on in telling that story five years ago today and as my wife, who works in this area, says, too often these people have carried the burden of silence. This apology five years ago told some uncomfortable truths and put a spotlight where it should be shone, because the truth, sadly, is not always the best thing for people when they discover what went wrong, but it is never the wrong thing to tell these stories. I commend Justice Peter McClellan and all of the other commissioners for the great work that they are doing.
Today, whilst many of us will also be acknowledging that it is World AIDS Day, here I am wearing a badge which is the wattle with the fifth anniversary symbol. The wattle, the spirit of Australia, is a national symbol and a beautiful flower, as we know, but also a particularly hardy flower from a hardy tree—resilient. As farmers know, often to their chagrin, the wattle will endure. From so many of those stories that we heard, both five years ago and since then in the royal commission, we know that—despite the darker days and the burdens that many of these people have had to carry and will carry to their graves, sadly—like the wattle, they will endure. So I commend them for their resilience and I urge them to come forward through that royal commission process to make sure that their stories are heard and that we never, ever again have such a horror visited upon young people. As the member for Swan said, we shall not forget.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (10:43): In supporting this motion also, I note too large shifts and trends in public awareness. The first is a fall in trust in institutions, and the second is identifying now, for the first time, the importance of providing every possible level of support, safety and nurturing for children. These two come together in this motion today. There were very, very good people in this place as recently as two decades ago, when many of these injustices occurred—and, to be honest, I confess that there probably are still injustices occurring around Australia, hopefully far fewer than we have witnessed in prior decades. I also note that internationally this issue of looking after children and high levels of institutionalisation are endemic around the world. In a large number of nations, the rates of institutionalisation are far higher than in Australia. Eastern European nations, for one, probably lead in that invidious ranking. We do need to identify for the first time, as I have said, the important role of nurturing zero-to-fives and, of course, helping parents who are right on the margins of being able to cope to do that.
Of course, Australia has changed in that time. My colleague the member for Swan was pointing out how few supports were available to young families a generation ago. We do now have far more generous family payments and supports for struggling parents than we probably did in those days.
But still, as the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull said, 'We believe you.' The stories that are told in institutions cannot simply stop at the institutions' walls. The institutions need to be open and permeable. We need to make sure that those concerns are heard—fully ventilated and fully explored—and, where we can, to act.
There is a bigger picture here, of course, and that is: just how much can the state do to step in to the lives of families and turn them around for the better? In many cases, I need to admit the fallibility of government—that we can only do so much. Government will never be able to kick in doors, walk down corridors and look into bedrooms and living rooms across the nation. We will, in the end, have to rely on higher levels of awareness, higher levels of reporting and more communication.
I note that last week there was White Ribbon Day, looking at violence perpetrated predominantly against women and children but recognising that anyone can be the victim of violence. It is simply not good enough to tolerate it, not good enough to brook it—not good enough to hear a cry and ignore it. For so long now there has been the sense that what happens in your own home is your own business, and, very slowly, that is being broken down because we are realising that the costs—the pain that is caused by this kind of behaviour and conduct—have massive implications, both for the individual and, self-evidently, for the state. One broken child will cost over $3½ million over a lifetime in welfare payments. It is unsustainable to simply think that that is the cost of running a nation—that that is the cost of doing business.
About five per cent of children are born vulnerable. By the time they reach school, that has increased to 27 per cent. I have asked this question in here before: what are we doing with our zero-to-fives to see that five per cent become 27 per cent on the day they enter school, many of them not knowing which end of a pencil to hold?
We must do better by pulling down those siloed structures in the zero-to-fives. Government was invented long before we realised just how important it was to look after these children, so we do not have a genuine holistic focus in the zero-to-fives. But slowly nations will come to the realisation that we need to refocus.
I accept that there are no spare dollars in education for those under the age of five. The previous government took really important steps with a biosocial and physical check for children 3½ to four years of age, but that is still 3½ years too late. We must move earlier, and that means more awareness and better reporting.
We simply cannot continue to expand child protection services; it is already a massive department. And to expect them to micromanage and intensively case-follow all of these dysfunctional families is simply a step too far for the state. So we rely on better reporting; we rely on better awareness. We need to make sure that one in five poor families can afford to get their children into structured early education, because only with those small snapshots can we see how those children are faring—can we hear the voices of families who are most crying out.
As a general practitioner, one might immunise a child at 18 months of age but then not see them again until the age of five; that is unacceptable. We are popping in when they have a sniffle, and, apart from that, not evaluating their benchmarks and their milestones and their ability to enter school. Improving these will help in this area. I commend this motion to the House.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:48): I begin by commending the member for Swan for bringing this motion to the House, and I full well remember his very important speech five years ago to this chamber. So I would like to begin by acknowledging that it has been five years since the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, delivered a national apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants. Around half a million people were affected by this terrible chapter of Australian history—people who, as children, were separated from their families, raised in institutions and deprived of love, of basic health care, of educational opportunities, and of a sense of security and self worth. So many of them suffered much worse than deprivation; they were physically, sexually and emotionally abused. The national apology did not and never could completely heal the deep and longstanding wounds of the forgotten Australians, but hopefully it began a slow process of ensuring that they would no longer be forgotten.
I want to acknowledge both Kevin Rudd and my colleague Jenny Macklin as minister for family and community services for initiating and delivering this important apology. In so doing, they not only validated the hurt suffered by forgotten Australians but also helped to ensure that the thousands of heartbreaking stories could be told publicly and understood just a little better. They were told on television, in newspapers, in museums and travelling exhibitions, in community halls, within families and neighbourhoods and to service providers who help make current lives possible and more bearable.
One of these thousands of stories belongs to a very special lady who lives in my electorate: Wendy Dyckhoff. I have mentioned Wendy in this place before, because she has worked enormously hard to deal with the impact of her childhood trauma and focus on helping others in the community. Wendy, along with her friends, Karen Barrett, who also lives in Broadmeadows, and Gabi Rose from Queensland, are constantly active in fighting for the rights of other forgotten Australians. As well as furthering her own education, for which she has won several awards, Wendy devotes her energies to advocating: educating political representatives, service providers, teachers and others about the realities of the daily life struggles of forgotten Australians. However, she is constantly frustrated by the regular confusion between the stolen generations and the forgotten Australians, and is vigilant in educating people about the difference. Deputy Speaker, you will know Kangan TAFE very well. The library staff at Kangan TAFE very quickly discovered their mistake when Wendy found a video about forgotten Australians shelved in the 'Indigenous history' section. Of course, many Indigenous children were also forgotten Australians, but many forgotten Australians are not Indigenous Australians.
'What happened to the stolen children and their families is terrible, but it is another chapter in Australian history—we have our own terrible and important chapter and we also need to be understood,' Wendy says time and time again. Wendy supports people in very practical ways by helping to find family records and contacting long-lost relatives. She has told her own story many times—to parliamentary inquiries, the royal commission, the National Museum of Australia and public meetings. She encourages and supports others to do the same, as she knows that sharing these life stories, however painful, is vital if the broader community is to understand our forgotten Australian history and its ongoing impact.
Wendy works with a range of local service providers to make sure they understand the special needs of forgotten Australians. Their experiences can affect their ability to locate identity documents and to deal with officials and agencies in the first place. While Wendy herself is now used to telling her story repeatedly, she knows the anguish it can bring to have to explain such painful details again and again to different service providers. Her work with some of the excellent local staff of the Department of Human Services has resulted in a more sensitive approach to forgotten Australian clients.
I am grateful to Wendy Dyckhoff for giving me an insight into the lives and struggles of the forgotten Australians living in my electorate. I know that Wendy has many friends and colleagues in her networks throughout the country who are similarly engaged in this important advocacy work. These networks were strengthened by the national apology in 2009.
There are some who might dismiss such prime ministerial statements as tokenistic and abstract, but I would say to those people that a formal acknowledgement of injustice and an apology are very real and practical steps towards healing and reconciliation not just for those who suffered but for the health and coherence of our whole nation. I commend this motion to the House.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:53): I rise in support of the motion before the House and also to mark the fifth anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations. I would like to thank my colleague the member for Swan for bringing this most important matter before us all today. In the words of the Prime Minister in regard to our Indigenous brothers and sisters, 'There is still so much more that must be done.'
I come from the electorate of Lindsay. Lindsay sits on the freshwater plain nestled behind the sapphire misted mountains. For thousands of years our Aboriginal brothers and sisters made these fertile banks of the Nepean River their home. On the escarpments they raised their families and their crops. They hunted and traded with the clans of so many other nations. Dharug nation was also the home to Yarramundi, the Aboriginal leader who met with Governor Arthur Phillip. Today Lindsay is still home to one of the largest Aboriginal populations in our country. Almost 5,000 Aboriginal people call Lindsay their home.
For me, the bittersweet irony is that within Lindsay and the Dharug nation actually sits five Macquarie towns: Richmond, Windsor, Castlereagh, Wilberforce and Pitt Town. How can you think of Wilberforce and not think of what Wilberforce achieved in becoming the father that ended slavery, and then to have the Dharug nation home to in the towns of Wilberforce, Pitt Town and Castlereagh.
Lindsay is one of the youngest electorates in our country. That is why education is so important. When we look at the nexus of social disadvantage there is no one silver bullet. But if there is a silver bullet, it would be education. I am so proud to have a school like the Chifley College Dunheved Campus within the electorate of Lindsay and a group of passionate teachers. Chifley College is a wonderful example of how to work closely with Indigenous communities and to close the gap. The school has an enrolment of 292 students of which 66 identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Working with the local elders, Aunty Edna Watson and Uncle Wes Marne, the school's rich curriculum engages with students in celebration of Aboriginal cultures, traditions and histories. Personalised learning pathways, created in consultation with families, form the basis of planning for Aboriginal students.
The school teaches Aboriginal studies to all students in stages 4, years 7 and 8. Further, the Dharug elders work with the school to develop short courses in Dharug language. The subject is available through a Dharug tutor. This program has also resulted in the publication of a Dharug dictionary for children titled Dharug for little fellas, which is being used very widely in primary schools right across Western Sydney. Other programs specific to Aboriginal students include the University of Western Sydney's Indigenous School Student Mentoring Program—norta norta in class tuition, the sister-speak mentoring program; a bush tucker garden; an extensive work experience and TAFE link program; and strengthening culture and transitioning youth programs, aligned to the New South Wales OCHRE strategy. Mr Jones, principal of the Chifley College, says: 'These programs ensure learning support for Aboriginal students is strategic, planned and multifaceted to meet Aboriginal student educational needs at an individual level. There is sound evidence Aboriginal students demonstrate a deep respect for their school as an important part of their community life.'
Lindsay is also home to the organisation Muru Mittigar, an Indigenous organisation that also works to close the gap, working to teach the Aboriginal knowledge and the history under the one gunya, or roof. Both Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people work together for a common social and environmental cause. Muru Mittigar has proven to closing the gap in Western Sydney and has a vision of sharing this model with other groups across Australia.
Another wonderful community organisation is the Penrith neighbourhood centre, run by the very passionate Joy Impiombato. Joy says: 'Education is what is going to make a difference. I agree with the government's emphasis through the IES education employment.' She works very hard to close the gap for Aboriginal people.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:58): At the beginning of 2007, as the preselected Labor candidate for Corio, I received a call from Leonie Sheedy, a woman who lived in Sydney but had grown up in Geelong at the St Catherine's Orphanage. She along with Joanna Penglase have been the driving force behind Care Leavers Australia Network, an organisation established to advocate on behalf of those who have grown up orphanages. She told me her story and the thousands like her, and told me this was an issue that I needed to give my attention to, an issue to be sure about child abuse but an issue about the absence of parental love. We now know how important that is in the development of a child; that children should only be removed from their parents in the most dire of circumstances and certainly not simply because people were too poor. And, once removed, to then place children in institutions where there were hundreds of kids was the most inappropriate place to put them where that family love could never be replicated. But such is the story of 500,000 of our fellow Australians.
Leonie Sheedy rang me, because Geelong was the home to more orphanages than any other city outside a capital. I suppose that means there are more forgotten Australians in the electorate of Corio than in any other electorate in the country. She said that I had an obligation. So I, along with Jason Clare, her local member, and Steve Irons—himself a forgotten Australian—began to participate in campaigning, along with the forgotten Australians, to have an apology made to them by the then Rudd government.
Today I want to acknowledge Jenny Macklin, the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Without her, this apology would never have taken place. I also want to acknowledge the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, who said wonderful words on that day. And, of course, I want to acknowledge then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who gave the apology and made the decision to do so. It was a remarkable day—a day of joy, a day of tears and a day of healing, as stories were told for the first time and believed. It was a day of resilience in this journey, meeting hundreds of forgotten Australians. These are among the toughest and strongest people I have ever met, a characteristic which binds them—people from my own electorate, such as Leonie Sheedy, who has her connection; Vlad Selakovic; and who could forget Peter Hicks and his hugging Malcolm Turnbull on that day? We learnt a lot about the forgotten Australians then, of their needs in adult life, particularly as they grow older, and of how, tragically, too many of forgotten Australians die too early.
With us on that day was also Leonie's brother, Anthony Sheedy. His story is heart wrenching. At the age of two he was put into an orphanage and we are not sure why. He grew up believing that he was an actual orphan, that he had no parents, until his parents arrived at the orphanage to introduce themselves when he was 12. But this was no happy homecoming. At the end of that day, they left and Anthony stayed. At the age of 15, in handcuffs, he was taken to a boy's home in Bendigo where, for the next four years, he worked hard for very little reward. By the time he was 19 he had had an appalling childhood, with a body which had been both physically and sexually abused. As we think about how the cards of life are dealt, how could Anthony possibly have played that hand? Not surprisingly, he lived his life after that on the edge, between boarding houses and the streets, a life soaked in alcohol. It was not until the age of 60, when Leonie found him, at the Sisters of Charity, in Fitzroy, washing dishes. There, his life took a turn for the better, as Leonie took him to Geelong. He started living there and, for the first time in his 60s, he began to experience joy on this planet. He used to volunteer in my office. Anthony was cheeky and fun loving. He loved the Geelong Football Club and loved Frank Sinatra. He would talk about him incessantly, when we let him! It was wonderful that he was able to be here on the day of the apology. Very sadly, within two years of that day, he passed away. Among my most cherished memories is the fact that I stood with him and spoke to him on that day. Today Leonie keeps fighting for compensation, something which must be given, and for services. She keeps listening to forgotten Australians. Leonie Sheedy is a national treasure. To her, I say: thank you.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:03): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this motion. I congratulate the member for Swan on his work in this area. The motion reminds us that it was five years ago, on 16 November, that we had one of the truly greatest days ever in the Australian parliament. It shows that, at times, despite our differences we can all come together in this parliament and do something that is very good. That day, back in 2009, when former Prime Minister Rudd gave that apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants, was one of the finest days of this parliament.
To his great credit, then Prime Minister Rudd actually gave one of his best speeches on that particular day. I would like to note not only the apology but the words that he used. I would like to quote from his speech:
To say to you, the forgotten Australians, and those who were sent to our shores as children without your consent, that we are sorry.
Sorry, that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused.
The message from this should be that, in the vast majority of cases, government institutions are no substitute for family and no substitute for community.
Following on from that apology, in March 2013, then Prime Minister Gillard gave an apology on forced adoptions. Again, I think that was one of Prime Minister Gillard's finest speeches. I would like to quote from it. She said:
… by speaking truth to power, brought about the Apology we offer today.
This story had its beginnings in a wrongful belief that women could be separated from their babies and it would all be for the best. Instead, these churches and charities, families, medical staff and bureaucrats struck at the most primal and sacred bond there is: the bond between a mother and her baby.
The then Prime Minister continued:
We can promise you all that no generation of Australians will suffer the same pain and trauma that you did …
The spirit of this motion brings me to a recent inquiry in Queensland, undertaken by Tim Carmody, into their child protection system. Although it was a Queensland inquiry, I am sure it is a proxy—there could be an inquiry held in every other state and the factors would be very similar. When commencing the inquiry, the commissioner said:
Removing a child at any age from a loved environment—even if it is inadequate or even risky—can give long term problems to that child.
He then asked a rhetorical question:
If the answer is taking that child away from a loved parent, even if it's a violent home, and putting them with someone they don't know in someone else's home, how is that the right answer?
In his final report he concluded:
… the Commission is convinced by the argument (backed up by evidence) that wherever possible it is better for the child to stay at home – better for the child, better for the family and better for society as a whole.
The evidence from that inquiry is that sometimes our government agencies are engaging in overreach. Rather than actually removing a child from the home, surely it would be better to be supporting that home, to be supporting that family, to be putting our resources there.
That brings me to a most disturbing report that came out last week, by our National Child Commissioner, Megan Mitchell. She noted that here in Australia today one child dies from suicide each week, and 50 to 60 more are hospitalised after trying to kill themselves. This is our country today. The study also noted that one in 15 teenagers in foster care had required medical treatment for attempted suicide in the past year. We need to learn from these mistakes of the past. Governments are limited in what we can do. Yes, we must look after our children. But ultimately that responsibility falls back on the parents. And rather than removing children from their parents, we are far better as a society to give support to those parents first. I commend this motion, and I congratulate the member for Swan.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (11:08): I thank my friend Steve Irons for bringing this motion before the House. The apology to the forgotten Australians five years ago was a very important moment in Australia's history. Finally, after so long, Australia opened its eyes and opened its arms to half a million Australians who had been ignored, neglected, let down and, too often, terribly abused. Perhaps most hurtful of all was that for so long they were not believed. These are the half a million Australians who grew up in orphanages, children's homes and other institutions in the 20th century. These were supposed to be places where people were looked after, but that was not the case. Slowly, over the past few decades, the truth has emerged, stories that would make you shudder: terrifying violence, awful depravity, extraordinary brutality.
Here is just one, from Mark, who grew up in a boys' home in Toowoomba and gave this evidence:
Oddly enough … In a place so full of brutality, sexual abuse did not rank as high as the other forms of abuse—such as mental and emotional torture, lack of adequate clothing, shortage of food, and the strings of punishment that never seemed to end … That sexual abuse was the least of our worries should tell you how bad things really were.
All of this, for too long, was a secret. Anyone who went to the police wasn't believed. They were called bloody liars and told to go away.
This is why the apology five years ago was important. Finally, there was some recognition that what happened to these young people was real—that it happened, and that is important in and of itself.
My strongest memory of the day is of a woman who came up to me and thanked me for helping to organise the apology. She told me that she had been married to the same man for 30 years but had told him only a couple of days previously, when she heard of the apology, that she grew up in an orphanage. She told me that ever since then the nightmares had stopped. In the seven years that I have had the privilege of being a member of this place, this is the most important thing that I have done—the work I did with Steve Irons and my friend Richard Marles to urge our parties to come together to make that day happen; the work we did with the incredible Jenny Macklin; and the work we have done with the unbelievable Leonie Sheedy, Joanna Penglase and the whole team at CLAN. The apology would not have happened without them.
Five years on, that apology is still important, but it is not enough. There is more we have to do. There are still Forgotten Australians who need help but are not getting it. There are still forgotten Australians who may never get the justice they deserve in court against the criminals who did them so much harm, unless changes are made to the law. And there are still thousands and thousands of forgotten Australians still waiting for the financial compensation they deserve from the institutions that did them so much harm. My hope is that the royal commission will fix this. Set up by Julia Gillard and headed by Justice McClellan, it has already gathered enough evidence to justify a public inquiry into more than 1,000 different institutions. In January the royal commission will release a discussion paper about compensation or redress, and in June it will release its recommendations. Those recommendations will be very important to many people.
One of those people is Frances. Frances is going to see the royal commission in January and is going to tell them what happened to her when she was a little girl—the neglect she suffered, best typified by a visit to a doctor years after she left the orphanage. The doctor asked her, 'Didn't you have milk or cheese as a child?' She said no; she did not even know what cheese was when she was a child. And she is going to tell the royal commission about the abuse—being forced to sleep on wet mattress, the beltings, the bruising, the caning, the blood all over her dress, and worse. Next month, Frances turns 93. Time has not erased those terrible memories, and tears still well in her eyes as she remembers them. Frances deserved that apology five years ago. And she deserves justice and redress now, and so do the thousands and thousands of other forgotten Australians. They deserved it a long time ago.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Trade Training Centres
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:13): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the critical role that Trade Training Centres (TTCs) play in introducing young people to vocational education at school and assisting them to achieve vocational education and training (VET) qualifications;
(2) acknowledges that TTCs have enabled schools to provide greater and more diverse opportunities for students completing secondary school;
(3) accepts the important role that TTCs play in ensuring that young people get the vocational skills they require and in conjunction, are able to achieve a secondary school certificate that otherwise may not have been possible;
(4) supports the industry partnerships between registered training organisations, schools and VET providers that have prospered through the introduction of TTCs;
(5) condemns the Government’s $950 million cut to the TTC program; and
(6) urges the Government to honour its commitment to support existing TTCs.
I rise today on this incredibly important motion looking at the critical role that trade training centres play in our school communities. I have had the privilege of visiting a number recently during the break from sittings and have been able to see firsthand just how important these trade training centres are in terms of the opportunities they are giving to young people in our high schools.
I visited Doonside Technical High School, where I was able to see young people working on industry standard machinery and getting vocational education and training skills. I heard from the teachers and from all the young people involved in this training about the jobs it was resulting in. I visited a number of other places where I have seen the good work that has been done as a result of the Trade Training Centre program that Labor put in place. This is providing great vocational education for young people in our schools. It is embedded in our curriculum to ensure that young people who have aptitude for hands-on skills are getting to learn them at school. There are also many who are achieving a VET qualification and going on to TAFE or into a job. I think it is incredibly important to recognise that.
Unfortunately, though, not all schools are going to benefit from the Trade Training Centre program. Despite Tony Abbott saying before the election that there would be no cuts to education—one of the many promises he made—$950 million has been cut from the Trade Training Centre program. Many schools that were planning to apply, that have been working hard to look at what their students and their communities need, have now lost the opportunity to apply for those funds. I have spoken to a number of school principals who are incredibly upset because they had a plan, they had an idea, and now they will not get those funds. In some of the places I visited in Tasmania, there was frustration that the school down the road had the opportunity to get those funds but the school in the next suburb would not have that opportunity.
We have heard often from those opposite about how much they appreciate the trade training centres in their local communities. I hope that members opposite who speak today will reinforce that. I hope the member for Forde will back the nine schools in his electorate that missed out on the opportunity for trade training centres. I hope the member for Mitchell will back the 16 schools in his electorate that will never get the opportunity under the Abbott government to apply for a trade training centre. I hope the member for Herbert will back his 11 schools that will no longer get the opportunity to apply for a trade training centre. And I hope the member for Banks will back the 10 schools in his electorate and argue for them to get the trade training centres they deserve. We will see whether government members will have the guts to stand up for their schools, knowing the great work that has been done at the schools that have been able to get trade training centres. If they do not, then I hope they will stand up in their communities and say to the schools that have never had the opportunity to apply for these trades training centres: 'I agree with the Prime Minister that you should never have the opportunity to apply for these trade training centres.'
The numbers are quite significant. In Western Australia there are 173 schools that will never get the opportunity; New South Wales, 496 schools; South Australia, 83 schools; Victoria, 354 schools; and Queensland, 292 schools. That is very disappointing when you see what great work has been done. So it is time for the government to reconsider this policy. They need to not only reconsider their broken promise of no cuts to education—$950 million is a big cut—but look at the future of our young people. We are seeing unemployment figures rising under their watch. It is time for them to stop cutting programs and funds that were actually making a difference, that were connecting young people with skills and, importantly, ensuring there was a connection with industry as well. So it is time for those on the opposite side, those on the backbench, to stand up for their local communities and demand that the Prime Minister reverse this nasty cut.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Owens: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:19): This is another contribution that is heavy on style but of little substance. It is worth reflecting on Labor's record on trade training centres over the last six or seven years. There was neglect, under-delivery, over-promising and a whole range of issues that this government now has to clean up. Let's go through a list. In 2007 the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said Labor would build trade training centres in every one of Australia's 2,650 secondary schools at a cost of $2.5 billion. Yet only 304 centres were in operation when the government changed in September 2013. Those opposite, when they were in government, could never have delivered a trade training centre in every secondary school in Australia.
I thank the member for Kingston for bringing this motion to the House because it allows us to properly reflect on what this government is doing in the vocational education and training sector. Those opposite, when they were in government, never provided the funding to provide all of those 2650-odd training centres. Much like many other things that the previous government did not do, an Australian National Audit Office report found in 2011 that the program was riddled with delays. For example, it took 240 days between a school receiving an in-principle agreement to build a trade training centre and a contract being signed. Furthermore, documents obtained by the coalition through FOI show that Labor's trade training centres were a spectacular failure: program evaluators could not tell who had received training; trade training centres failed to address skills shortages; trade training centres were skewed towards providing low-level qualifications; and more than half of the trade training centre students failed to find a job and only 20 per cent of job seekers found work in an area relevant to their training. In addition, industry raised many concerns about inconsistencies in the quality of training, qualifications and equipment offered from one trade training centre to the next, along with feedback that students do not graduate with the skills employers need.
Let us contrast that with what we are seeking to do in government, and I agree with member for Kingston: we should look to provide support to those students at school who do not want to follow a tertiary path. In fact, I think it is important to reflect that we do need to lift the communities view of the importance and quality of a trade. Some 50 per cent of Australia's millionaires today started off as tradespeople, so trade is an enormous benefit and qualification.
But there is another reason we need to focus on trades and building our skills capacity: the average age of a tradesman today is 51. Many of those people are going to retire in the next 10, 15 or 20 years and we are going to have a tremendous skill shortage. So it is entirely consistent with our government's view that we need a first-rate VET in school system that is valued as equally as a university pathway is valued. We need to elevate the status of trades and training, because we believe apprenticeships and traineeships must be seen as a first-class education and career choice for young Australians. It should never be considered a second-best option. That is why the coalition government are so focused on ensuring that we are strengthening vocational education and training in schools, and we see it as a vital component to our plan for a stronger Australia.
Look at the success of a body like the Australian Industry Trade College—and we are discussing putting in a new campus at Beenleigh in my electorate of Forde. Ninety seven per cent of the students that go through that school graduate with a job and the qualifications to work in the industry that they have been working in for the past two years. That is the model. That is the solution, and that is what this government is seeking to achieve for the students in Australia.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (11:24): An extraordinary contribution by the member for Forde. He tells us: 'Trade training in schools and vocational education in schools is really important, and so we have cut the funding. We have taken $950 million out of the forward estimates because we believe this is so important, and we might be thinking of building one facility in one campus somewhere in South Australia.' What an extraordinary nonsense.
We all understand, and I think it is widely accepted across both sides of the chamber, that we do need to re-engage with that trades culture, and certainly this has been the language of federal government for quite some time. We do need to redevelop and restrengthen that culture of the trades, and that is precisely why the Labor government put in place this funded program to develop state-of-the-art facilities in schools. I have to say that in Western Australia we have 37 of these facilities that have been built in the past five years. I think that is actually a very good outcome and a very good rate of progress. And of course it does not just apply to the 37 schools on which those facilities are built. For example, at Morley Senior High School, which has now got a fantastic automotive centre, there are students that come from five different schools to do their trade training and their pre-apprenticeship programs. At John Forrest Secondary College in our electorate, where the school has set up their trade training centre in conjunction with the Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Association of WA, they have students coming from 22 schools to do their trade training and pre-apprenticeship program.
It is incredibly vital that we have a systematic approach, not just a bit of random pork-barrelling—to the member for Forde—but that we have a concerted program. I look at the places across Western Australia that have got them, and students come from the north of the state and from right down as far away as Denmark in the southern part of the state. They are spread evenly throughout the state and they have been a great boon. It is really important that the kids who are now staying at school until they are 17 are introduced in year 10, at the very least, to a variety of trades. They get a taste of a variety of different trades, and then, over their years 11 and 12, develop a real understanding. It makes them more effective for employers. Employers are obviously going to benefit if they get kids with three years of real exposure to those trade skills before they enter their apprenticeships. They are going to be a much more effective product. They are going to know that this is the trade that they want to do, and they are going to be more effective for their employer.
We know there are special skills in dealing with adolescents and in training adolescent students. The attrition rate in the TAFE-developed products is far greater than it is in these school-based projects. They provide a more supported environment that 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds need in order to stay focused and embrace this training. I think this has been an incredibly successful program, and it is one that, if we have any belief that we need to have proper vocational education and trade training in our schools, we must commit to.
There has been no alternative proposal put in place by the federal government. Under the Howard government, we had the proposal where we had these UFOs that were just randomly located across a few places. That was not a comprehensive program. We have to work with our high schools to deliver vocational education in a proper and systematic way, and all of the evidence that I have seen to date tells me that these trade training centres in Western Australia have been an absolute success.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:29): I thank the member for Kingston for the opportunity to speak on this matter because this is another example of Labor's failure in government, when they attempted to do too much, too quickly in a way that was not well considered or planned out. When you look at the whole federal government's record over a long period of time, this was a very ideological moment when it came to office. The Gillard government wanted to wipe Howard government technical colleges even though they were very successful, and they were successful because they partnered with industry.
It was not just as the member for Kingston said: 'also' you have got to talk about industry. Industry was at the front and centre of the Australian Technical Colleges because it was about getting young people jobs—getting young people work. There is no point giving people skills if they cannot get work. There is no point giving people skills if they cannot find work in the field they are looking in. Of course, we know half have failed to find work under this model. We know that only 20 per cent have achieved work in their relevant field.
Those stats are damning. They are damning because this was an overambitious program—yet another one from the Gillard-Rudd government—which has not achieved what it was supposed to achieve. That is because they tried to put a technical college into 2,650 schools. How many were achieved? Only 260, and 250 underway, when we took office. Of course, it was massive, epic failure because government tried to do too much. Industry tells us that if you do not concentrate skills and work in partnership with the sectors you will not achieve work for these young people, and that is exactly what is happening. So the government is perfectly within its rights to say what is working and, more importantly, what is not working—what is failing young people.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: It is not just a question of spending money, money that you do not earn, money that you do not have, member for Kingston, money that you are borrowing off foreigners—money that you are borrowing and paying interest on in our future. You are mortgaging our future. That is the money you are borrowing. You do not have the money, and if you do not have it you need to spend it very wisely. If you look at the technical colleges, they were so successful because they partnered with people like the master builders, the master plumbers, the master painters, the National Electrical and Communications Association, restaurants and catering.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: If you speak to industry, if you get out into the real world, member for Kingston, and speak to industry, they will tell you the technical college model worked precisely because of that partnership. It took kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, it gave them the skills, it partnered them with the work, and they got the jobs. There was one just down the road from me in the electorate of Greenway at Blacktown, the Anglican Technical College. If you spoke to the master plumbers there—which I do not imagine the member for Kingston has because she has not been out consulting with the industry—and if you consult with the industry they will tell you there is no point. Kids were getting certificate IIIs in bricklaying but they could not lay a brick. That is what they will tell you. Those poor young people could not go back into the training system because they have already had their certificate III. They were qualified. They could not get a job because they did not do the work. That is what the master builders will tell you.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: That is what they will tell you, member for Kingston. You can laugh all you want. But it is not your money you are throwing down the drain. It is not your young people that you are seeing that cannot get a job. That is the reality of this failed program. The government needs to now make the best of a bad situation. It does not even make a lot of sense that you can put a school system that is not geared at skills and work—this technical skills and technical knowledge—into a higher education system.
Two thousand six hundred and fifty is too ambitious. You are never going to achieve it, and that was the reality of what happened. There was no money attached. There was no funding on an ongoing basis. Of course, let's establish 2,650. They thought the press release was the work. This was the Gillard government at work. You issue a press release and that is the job done. You have accomplished 2,650 new technical colleges—in every school in the country—because it is written down on a piece of paper released from the Prime Minister's office. The reality is there was no money attached to fund these trade training centres. There was no money attached on an initial basis because only a few hundred were established and there was no ongoing funding.
It makes more sense to concentrate what you are doing. It makes more sense to have technical colleges where there is expertise concentrated, and you cannot do every single school in the country. No government ever will. You will never have a government that does it, and we will not be able to achieve it either. You need to concentrate the skills, spend the money wisely and make sure you are 100 per cent focused on working with industry to get young people jobs. That should be at the centre of the policy, not an adjunct, not something you say in the last second of your speech: and we are going to work with industry. Industry is what it is all about. Getting people jobs is what it is all about. There is no point having the skills if you cannot get a job, and this government is going to make sure this money is well spent and we get those young people jobs.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:34): That kind of professional spin—the lecture from the previous speaker about getting out in the real world—from people who have only worked in electoral offices, whether it is for David Clarke MLC or the member for Parramatta, is the kind of politics that was rejected at the weekend in Victoria. The real world was branch stacking for the Liberal Party with David Clarke for a number of years. He says that the situation here is too ambitious, it is too costly et cetera. So their solution to an ambitious program is to totally abolish it and do nothing, and we have got a situation here where a program of $2.5 billion up till 2018 has been abandoned and $950 million has been slashed from it, coincidentally in the same week that they destroyed the South Australian automobile industry.
They say that we can get some statistics that indicate a significant number of people who have gone through trade training colleges did not receive employment in the sector that they tried to go into. That kind of statistic, that people seek in life to go down a particular road and the availability of jobs in that particular occupation is not there, can be produced about virtually every program and scheme. But let's not run away from the crucial factor as to why people might not be getting employment. If John Howard is emulated by the current Prime Minister in many fashions, it has not been too successful. But in regards to unemployment, the current Prime Minister has been very successful because he has lifted youth unemployment to around 14 per cent—figures not seen for quite some time.
If you look at these suburbs in my electorate such as Claymore, Minto, Casula and Ingleburn, they are quite distant from the CBD. They are lacking in cross-city transport. They would have higher unemployment, both general and youth unemployment, than the rest of Sydney. Rather than an outcome such as Mount Carmel in my electorate, where the former minister before the elections went out there and opened a facility which is in the catering sector with new kitchens which has employment dealings with the Campbelltown Catholic Club which has a career path for people who do not want to go to university, rather than have the celebration by the student body, the teachers and the parents about that future, what they have decided is to scrap the whole scheme. A significant number of schools in my electorate such as Casula High School, Lurnea, Robert Townson, Sarah Redfern, Sule College et cetera, which are in areas of high unemployment, worsened by the current government's performance, will not have that future.
This is part of a broader pattern, of course. We recently had the NATSEM figures produced with regard to overall budget changes in this country. I would remind you that the current Prime Minister has said that NATSEM is highly reliable. It is credible; it can be believed. NATSEM made the point that the Werriwa electorate, where we are talking about scrapping these trade training schemes, had a 0.859 correlation with regard to how the budget was negatively affecting the electorate. I would remind you that there are only seven electorates out of 150 in the whole country with ratings over 0.7, and we are at 0.859, the third worst in the country.
We have a situation where the overall budget hurts my electorate. We have a situation where they have changed the rules on Newstart and other schemes for young unemployed people. We have a situation where Youth Connections has been abolished—partnership brokers are basically out the door—and the national careers advisory committee has also been scrapped. This meant the abolition of a scheme that they said was too ambitious, which was trying too hard. They were saying that, basically, it was not going to be accomplished. Their policy is to force unemployed young people onto no payments for six-month periods to make it more difficult for people in my electorate to get to university. They are giving a free-for-all to the private sector for universities to increase the fees to levels not heretofore seen, in a way which will undermine regional universities such as the University of Western Sydney.
Before the last election 510 announcements had been made, where half the schools were already operating and the others were in either the design or the construction phase. So this is a scheme that should not have been condemned. It should not have been put on the altar of 'budgetary reform', as they put it. In this situation, people in my electorate are going to be denied options to complete these courses in high school to give themselves a future career. I condemn very strongly the measures of the government.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (11:39): 'By 1990 no Australian child will be will live in poverty.' 'Climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time.' 'Every child in an Australian school will receive a computer.' 'We are going to build 2,650 trades training centres in every high school in the country.' Labor love an announcement, but they were unable to follow through. Australian children in 1990 were still living in poverty. Labor walked away from climate change. My kids are still waiting for their computer. And they built 250 trades training centres.
The member for Kingston and I are both on the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment. We have both been through the TAFE inquiry. We both understand the challenges in relation to VET. We both understand the challenges about the efficient use of resources—that TAFE and VET, especially trades training centres, are very capital intensive in the way we use these things. We must make sure that those resources are being used efficiently. So, when we are rolling these things out, we must make sure that they are not locked up for 10 weeks over Christmas and that they are not locked up for two weeks here, two weeks there and another week here. These things have to be used day and night.
The trades training centre model, as far as I was concerned, and every time I look at it, was flawed. What did work were the Australian technical colleges. They were tied up as separate organisations where kids could finish off years 11 and 12 and come out ahead on their apprenticeships. What I hated most about when Labor came to power was not only that they took out the practical challenge of delivering 2,650 trades training centres and did not deliver on any of them but also that they went out of their way to philosophically destroy what John Howard had put in place with these technical colleges. The Australian technical college at Townsville was one of the fantastic ones and is still operating today, but what Labor did—what Kevin Rudd did—was to make them spend $50,000 changing their logo, their name, all their letterheads and everything, and then to pull all funding from them, leaving them stranded. That to me, more than anything to do with the promise of 2,650 and the delivery of 250, was the sin here. That is the mortal sin.
What we must do as a country is make the most of our resources. What we must do is to make sure that TAFE, VET and schools training centres are delivering what we need to do. If you are going to spend a lot of money and work really hard in this area then you have to make sure that those resources are being used to their maximum, and they are not.
We had the member for Perth in here recently speaking on this motion. We were over in Perth talking about vocational education and training, and TAFE in particular. She got the people from the trades training centre to come in. The thing does not work. The model does not work. They spent an awful lot of money on this thing, and it does not deliver the results. We have kids coming through these things who are being passed through without having to be responsible for what they are actually trying to do here. We have kids getting through these things, and they are turning up at jobs without any skills whatsoever. That is the problem we have here, and that is what you cannot walk away from. The Australian technical college model, where they go in and actually sign up for an apprenticeship with an employer, get their higher school certificate and get delivered through the thing, is the model which actually works. So what we have to do—
Ms Rishworth: For a hundred students!
Mr EWEN JONES: Gee, I could have sworn you had your go on this one. Maybe you should move for extra time. Whilst we are at it, the member for Werriwa was having a go at the member for Mitchell. No-one could accuse the member for Werriwa of trying too hard. He said to the member for Mitchell that he has just been involved in politics. How long has Laurie been involved? How long has the member for Werriwa actually been involved in the game, in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and here? For about 30 years. So please do not stand over there and lecture us on what we have to do here. That is just a little bit rich.
So it is about the efficient use of resources and it is about delivering those things.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr EWEN JONES: He would never branch-stack! He cannot get anyone to sign up for him, mate! He has to have central command come with him just to protect him. That is what has to happen in this space. Everybody else can get people to sign up for membership because they like us or they like what we want to do. Poor old Laurie, the member for Werriwa, is sitting over there saying, 'Someone please protect me.'
So what we have to do is make sure that we get efficient use of resources. As for the trades training centre model, Labor did not even believe in it themselves; otherwise they would have delivered more. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I am enjoying the robust debate. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:44): I thank the member for Kingston for bringing this matter forward. It is a critical matter and I know many of those opposite have made light of it, but, in a period of rising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, I would have thought that trade training centres should have pre-eminence in discussion in this parliament. I find it very interesting that those opposite want to try to belittle this project and tell us all of its shortcomings. For those of us who have been in this parliament for more than one term, let me tell you that the line-up of those opposite when there was a photo opportunity at the opening of another trade training centre in their electorates was just astounding. It was like playing Where's Wally?—you had these people just popping up. They wanted to be part of the action. As a matter of fact, in the last term of government, so many people from the Liberal and National side lobbied so heavily on behalf of their schools and local business communities that it was extraordinary. A lot of trade training centres were opened in their electorates. Now they want to stand here and say that they do not work. They say that because they are part of a government that has cut up to $40 billion from health and education. In vocational education—training and skills education—they have taken $2 billion out of the system, including the $950 million out of trade training centres.
I do not know about those opposite, but I am very proud of the electorate I represent. I represent the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia, bar none. The diversity and vibrancy are something to be proud of, but one of the things I am not so proud of is the fact that we have high unemployment, including high youth unemployment. For my part, I will go out every day and lobby to see if we can do something about providing for vocational education and training, to help young people transition from school into employment. I notice there are a lot of young people in the gallery today. I would like to think that we can stand here, look these young people in the eye and say, 'We are going to give you a future,' not simply argue about dollars and cents and why you want to cut the program.
Bear in mind, we were not the party who came to this parliament, saying, 'We will not cut education.'
Mr Pasin: We want to create an economy that gets them a job.
Mr HAYES: Those sitting opposite—Tony, you are one of them—are part of a regime that said, 'No cuts to education.' As soon as you got on the government benches, what did you do? You cut education; you cut health; you have consistently cut into young people's futures.
This is one of the astounding things about trade training centres. Sure, I agree: it was a Labor initiative—and we are proud of it. As I said earlier, there was not an occasion when those Liberals and Nationals opposite did not flock to a photo opportunity when we were opening a new trade training centre in a local school in their electorates. These trade training centres were the product of a partnership—certainly a partnership of government but also a partnership of local businesses and schools. They did not work without that partnership. The process started with an assessment of local employment opportunities and the needs that had to be met in local communities. What you are turning your back on is that partnership.
You are punishing young unemployed people in areas like mine that have a high unemployment rate. While you are punishing them by knocking off these types of opportunities, you are trying to forcefully remove young people, under 25-year-olds, from Newstart. You want to take them off the dole and put them onto a youth allowance. For young unemployed people, that is $2,500 a year that they will be worse off under your regime. Do not come here and protest that this is all about delivering efficient service. These services have been in place and your side has been lobbying to make sure that they were established in schools in conservative-held electorates, and they have been established in Liberal and National party electorates. They are a government with no vision. They went to the election, they said one thing and, after the election, they did the exact opposite.
This is about honouring a partnership for the benefit of young people, giving them a choice, helping them become more job ready and helping them to transition from school into gainful employment. This is an investment in our future. What they are proposing here is absolutely bad policy. It is bad for young people; it is bad for their future outlook. This is bad policy because it does not put the interests of our nation first. We need to make sure that we have young people job ready in a way that we can participate in a constructive— (Time expired)
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:49): Labor's record in this area is particularly bad. We need to go back to 2007 and that era of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd walking around carrying laptops and talking about working families and so on. What he said then was that 2,650 trade training centres would be opened across the nation, one in every high school. In order for the program to work, three things need to happen. Firstly, the program needs to be funded, secondly, the centres need to open and, thirdly, they need to teach people in an effective manner.
There were problems in all areas because the first thing that happened was that the total number actually built over six years was 11 per cent of the high schools in Australia. So about 300 of the 2,650 trade training centres were built over six years—11 per cent of what was promised in 2007. The next problem was that the first 250 of these centres cost $1.1 billion. The entire program, covering 2,650 schools, was supposed to cost $2.5 billion. The first 250, less than 10 per cent of the total proposed, cost $1.1 billion, and that suggests that the other 2,300 or so remaining would cost a whole lot more than $1.4 billion were they in fact ever to be built, which, of course, they were not. The other big problem was that the academic results of these centres were mediocre to say the least. We have a situation where, according to documents obtained under freedom of information, only 20 per cent of people who attended one of these trade training centres actually obtained a job in the area for which they trained. Only 20 per cent of people actually got a job in the area that they were supposedly trained in.
What does an incoming government do? Does an incoming government continue with a flawed project or does an incoming government say, 'Let's make a more constructive contribution to the very important area of trades training'?
That is by working with industry, recalibrating the program to make sure it is focused on the needs of industry so that people get jobs at the end of it. It is very hard for those opposite to sit there and argue that a program is a success when it led to 20 per cent of people trained in a particular area getting a job. That is a very low threshold for success.
The Labor Party has a low threshold for success in many areas. This is only one of them. It is another example of appalling budget management. I do note that those opposite made some appalling statements about what they would deliver in budget management and they failed, time and time again. The member for Kingston, who so helpfully raised this motion today, was an enthusiastic advocate of the previous government's policies on budgetary matters.
In May 2010 the member for Kingston put out a press release. It said: 'This budget builds on that strength to deliver for the people in our community while getting the budget back to surplus three years early—which is in the extraordinary achievement.' If it had happened it would have been an achievement of some kind, but it obviously did not happen. She pressed on with this theme. In May 2011, in an appearance on the ABC—we have been very exhaustive in our research here—she said:
What we’ve also said is that we are committed, as the economy grows, we will return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. That’s what we’ve committed to do. … That’s why Penny Wong, Wayne Swan and a whole range of ministers including the Prime Minister have been working very hard on this, but we will commit to getting the budget to surplus in 2012-13.
In May 2012 she said it was an incredibly responsible budget. She said:
This budget puts us on track for a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13. We are returning the budget to surplus, as I said, on time and as promised … We are doing it ahead of every single advanced major economy. I think this is very, very important …
What is important is getting things done for the Australian people. In this area of trades training, as in so many others, we are cleaning up the problems that were left behind. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:54): Member for Banks, there is a problem with your time machine. You need to crank it back a little bit further. It is not good enough to just go to '07 and look at what happened there. The genesis of the trade training centres was to clean up the mess left by the Howard government when, as part of this broader strategy dealing with federation, it refused to properly fund key areas where agreements were held with the states and territories.
One of them was education and, within education, vocational training. We had the Howard government hell-bent on reproducing the TAFE system. They refused to properly fund it. They created a separate stream, the ATC stream, that would have set up individual TAFEs to rival TAFE. It is because the Howard government did not want to fund the states and territories.
In that circumstance that we saw the failure of that system and decided to scoop those ATCs up and bring them within schools and provide trades. In my part of Western Sydney, where manufacturing—particularly for the Chifley electorate—generates 10,000 jobs, you know very quickly that the priority is to develop people with trade skills, and the best way to do it is within schools.
What you are seeing now is a movement within schools to bring together universities and vocational training within schools much earlier on, to make the transition smoother. In our area, where we have a high demand for manufacturing and trade skills, you would argue that anything that helped strengthen the availability of quality tradespeople would be something welcomed by all and not turned into a football by some. It was incredibly stupid for the coalition government to make a decision that would rip the heart out of the trade-training centres program—nearly $1 billion stripped out by Treasurer Hockey. That would have funded 650 trade-training centres in schools through 2018. It is an absolute travesty, because the trade-training centres in our area are chalking up impressive results.
Let us talk about Loyola Senior High at Mount Druitt. Its Trade Training Centre director, Tammy Prestage, proudly boasts that the trade-training program at the school level has a 97 per cent success rate with students undertaking courses. That is 97 per cent against a national failure rate of around 50 per cent for first-year apprentices outside the school system. That is remarkable. Loyala began with seven courses in 2010-11. So successful has been that it has now expanded to 13 courses, attracting 200 students for next year. Their program includes child care, beauty and hospitality; importantly, it is integrated with local industry that advises on the skills required.
They have had many success stories. These include Darryl Martinez, who last year won the Prime Minister's Award for Electrotechnology. Congratulations to Darryl. It also includes Alexandra Vassallo, who took out the Western Sydney category in the School Based Apprentice of the Year awards. There are similar success stories from other schools in the area. For example, at Evans High and Doonside Technology High the shadow assistant minister visited, which I was very happy about, and was able to walk through and see the work there. Some of the students were so keen that they were there in the trade training centre in their lunch break, building up their skills and working on projects. They were very excited about their own futures.
These young students want a trade. The corporate sector is not on their radar. They see that they can provide great benefit by applying their skills, energy and enthusiasm through trades training. The longer-term goal should be to encourage more of those students in there. One of the tragedies of the Hockey budget is that it stopped the evolution of these centres. Ideally, it would have been used to identify and help in other skills-shortage areas. For example, in the ICT sector there are massive skill shortages. We could have seen trade-training centres move into that space, but now that has been cruelly denied.
Trade training in schools works. It removes distraction, provides greater focus and ensures that in Western Sydney we get the skills we need. What we have now is high youth unemployment, funding cuts to various programs and being set back even further because of the trade-training centre scheme being gutted by the Abbott-Hockey government.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014
Australian War Memorial Amendment Bill 2014
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (12:00): Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Lazarus has been discharged from the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and Senator Wang has been appointed a member of the committee.
Public Works Committee
Report
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:01): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the following reports 7 of 2014—Referrals made September 2014, and Parliamentary delegation to Indonesia and Thailand by members of the Public Works Committee, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mrs ANDREWS: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 7th report of 2014 addressing referrals made in September 2014. I also present a delegation report which I will speak to later.
Firstly, Report 7 of 2014 considers two referrals received by the committee from the Department of Defence in September. The total estimated cost of these referrals is $87.7 million, excluding GST. The first referral was for the proposed Project JP3029 Phase 2—Defence Space Surveillance Telescope Facilities Project. The estimated cost of the project is $63.0 million. The Department of Defence sought approval from the committee to provide facilities and supporting infrastructure for a new space surveillance telescope to be located at the Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station near Exmouth in Western Australia. The space surveillance telescope will enable the Australian Defence Force to develop a space surveillance capability. This will enhance global surveillance capability and will provide an increased ability to track space debris.
The facilities that are proposed to accommodate the telescope will comprise the dome enclosure structure—the observatory; an operations support centre connecting to the dome structure; and multiple equipment structures for supporting services. The dome structure is designed to exacting standards that ensure the stability of the telescope. In the closed position, the enclosure protects the telescope and its instruments against adverse weather conditions. In the open position, the enclosure allows the telescope a free field of view. The enclosure is connected directly to the support building. Due to the requirement to minimise vibration, the connected dome and support building requires significant foundation and concrete slab works.
The committee made an inspection of the proposed site and observed the remoteness of the Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station and the rocky terrain that limits access to the site. The committee held public and confidential hearings on the project at the communications station. The committee heard that there is likely to be a positive economic benefit to the Exmouth community during the construction phase of the project. Defence assured the committee that there should be minimal impact on local roads during the construction.
The committee was satisfied that, during construction, Defence will follow the appropriate state government requirements for managing and escorting large oversized loads, particularly associated with the delivery of the telescope, through community areas. Subject to parliamentary approval, works on the facilities for the telescope will commence in mid-2015 and be completed by late 2016. The telescope is expected to be operational in Australia by September 2017. The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that the project proceed.
The second referral was for the proposed Project JP154 Phase 1—Defence Counter Improvised Explosive Device Capability Facilities and Infrastructure Project. The estimated cost of the project is $24.6 million, excluding GST. The Department of Defence sought approval from the committee to provide the facilities and supporting infrastructure necessary to support its counter improvised explosive device capability. Defence informed the committee that the use of IEDs by insurgents continues to represent a major threat to Australian Defence Force personnel and equipment deployed on operations around the world.
The proposed works will allow Defence to address operational and capability deficiencies and provide the ability to fully and effectively introduce and support the capability into the Australian Defence Force. In brief, the proposed works at Nurrungar, near Woomera in South Australia, include a bitumen test track; a test recording building; a workshop; a new unsealed, all-weather access road; and engineering services. The committee visited the site of the proposed works at Nurrungar in South Australia and held public and private hearings in Woomera.
Nurrungar was selected as the preferred site because investigations showed that the site is a very electronically quiet area, meeting the strict radio frequency shielding requirements. It also has the added benefit of being located in close proximity to existing Defence infrastructure at Woomera. However, consultation between Defence and aboriginal traditional owners in early 2011 resulted in parts of Nurrungar being identified as previously undiscovered sacred sites. The traditional owners indicated that any modification to the identified area would result in significant impacts to Indigenous ceremonial values and sites. In Woomera, the Kokatha Aboriginal elders told the committee that the area around Nurrungar valley is a very important cultural landscape to all Kokatha people.
In 2011, Defence engaged an archaeologist and an anthropologist to conduct an Indigenous heritage assessment of the whole Nurrungar area and to undertake consultation with the traditional owners. In February 2013, the assessment culminated in an Aboriginal heritage management plan. Engagement with the Aboriginal traditional owners over several years determined the most suitable location for the proposed works in order to minimise impacts on culturally sensitive locations. The committee commends the traditional owners and Defence for working closely together to reach an agreed outcome. Committee members thank the traditional owners for welcoming us to Nurrungar. It is beautiful country, and we acknowledge it is important to the Kokatha people. The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost, and recommends that the project proceed.
I take this opportunity today to bid farewell to Brigadier Darren Naumann, the Director-General, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure, Defence Support and Reform Group, Department of Defence. For about the last four years Brigadier Naumann has been the lead witness for Defence projects that have been referred to the public works committee. He is very well regarded by the committee for the work that he has done, and we wish him all the best for the future.
The second report I table today is the report on the Public Works Committee delegation visit to Indonesia and Thailand. In July this year, four members of the committee travelled to Jakarta and Bangkok. The purpose of the visit was to review progress on construction of new, purpose-built Australian embassies in both locations. The committee had previously considered these projects, reporting to the House on the Jakarta embassy project, in 2009, and the Bangkok embassy project, in 2012. The justification provided to the committee for the new embassies was the need to enhance security for overseas missions. At a combined cost of around $600 million these projects are a major investment, and signify Australia's commitment to developing stronger strategic partnerships in the region.
The visit to Jakarta and Bangkok was a unique and valuable opportunity for the Public Works Committee. When reviewing proposals for capital works projects in Australia, the committee usually undertakes an inspection and site visit. However, for overseas projects the committee relies on plans and models and on oral and written presentations and evidence to assess need, suitability and value for money. The delegation gained an appreciation of the limitations with the existing embassy facilities in Jakarta and Bangkok. In particular, it was clear that neither could be made fully compliant with the new enhanced security provisions. Visits to the sites for the new premises allowed the delegation to view progress of construction undertaken to date. Discussion with in-country project managers highlighted the practical challenges of building in each location, including access to building materials, the availability of a skilled workforce and managing local building and planning requirements.
On the whole, the delegation was reassured by what it saw in Jakarta and Bangkok. Construction on both embassies was progressing well. The delegation was told that the projects would both be delivered on time and within budget. However, during the site visit it became apparent that the plans for the new embassy in Bangkok were quite different to those that had been submitted to the committee in 2011. As a matter of course, the committee expects to be notified if there are significant changes to projects it has previously approved. The committee was not notified in this case. As a result, the committee is reviewing its advice when approving projects to ensure that all agencies are made fully aware of its expectations and of their reporting obligations.
In concluding today, I would like to thank members and senators for their work on the above inquiries and also for their committee work throughout the year. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Deputy Chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, who is in the chamber today.
In 2014, the committee tabled seven reports covering thirteen referrals with a total value of approximately $2.353 billion. These referrals took committee members to locations right around the country, from Melbourne to Darwin, from Townsville to Exmouth, and to many places in between. Along the way, the committee identified opportunities to work with referring agencies to save the Commonwealth in excess of $42 million. As always, it has been a busy year for the public works committee. I would of course like to thank the secretariat for all the work that they have done in supporting that committee throughout the year. I commend the reports to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:11): I just wanted to add a few words to the very thorough presentation from the chair on those reports. I particularly commend her work when it comes to finding savings for the Commonwealth, as detailed. With nearly $2.5 billion of projects on foot, to find savings of approaching $50 million will, I am sure, see the Treasurer recognising that in his Christmas gifts in the lead up to Christmas.
I also wanted to acknowledge the great work at the Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station, which we visited on Melbourne Cup Day—we actually missed out on seeing the Melbourne Cup, which is above and beyond the call of duty for any politician, I would suggest—and also the project at Nurrungar, near Woomera. It was great to be able to see the salt plains out at Pimba and see that project take shape. Hopefully it will save the lives of Australian soldiers.
I particularly want to thank Brigadier Darren Naumann and wish him all the best in his future endeavours. He has been a model presenter when it comes to Defence projects. In the last project, at Woomera, his dealing with the Kokatha people I think would raise the bar and set the standard in terms of the way Commonwealth department deal with traditional owners. I thank the secretariat for their great support, whether it be in the hot desert near Woomera, or in the challenging environment of Bangkok or Djakarta. Thank you.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (12:13):
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which passed the Senate on 26 November. The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001.
The amendments to the Criminal Code will allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to individuals of security concern not currently captured by that regime.
The amendments to the Intelligence Services Act will facilitate the Australian Secret Intelligence Service assisting the Australian Defence Force in support of military operations, and will enhance the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to Intelligence Services Act agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions.
The bill also implements outstanding matters from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into an earlier bill—the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014.
The Attorney-General has commented about the nature of the security threats we all face and the necessity of this legislation.
The bill has had the benefit of being reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, under the chairmanship of the member for Wannon, Mr Dan Tehan MP, who has again done an exemplary job as the chairman of that committee.
The committee recommended that the parliament pass the bill, subject to the implementation of 15 recommendations, which focus on improving statutory and operational or administrative safeguards to the proposed measures, including independent oversight.
The government accepts or accepts in-principle each of these recommendations and thanks the committee for its detailed consideration of the bill.
Minor amendments were made to the bill in the Senate to implement 11 recommendations to improve the accountability and clarity of certain provisions in the bill and ensure the powers provided for in the bill are subject to appropriate review.
Further inclusions in the explanatory memorandum address two of the recommendations.
The other recommendations are being implemented outside the parliamentary process.
Against this background, the bill enhances the capability of our security agencies and strengthens Australia's already robust counter-terrorism laws in several key areas.
Schedule 1— Control Order Measures
Broadening the grounds for making a control order
The bill will enable the AFP to request, and an issuing court to make, a control order on a broader range of individuals of security concern.
These amendments respond to advice from law enforcement agencies that there are individuals of potentially very serious security concern who are not covered by the existing provisions for making a control order.
From a public safety perspective, the threat posed by these individuals—who have provided support or facilitated Australians either to engage in terrorism offences in Australia or to travel to conflict zones and return to Australia with capabilities acquired from fighting or training with proscribed terrorist groups—is as great as the risk posed by those engaging in terrorist acts or foreign incursions.
Using the control order regime to impose targeted obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on these individuals will help the Australian Federal Police disrupt their support and facilitation activities, thereby preventing acts of terrorism in Australia and hostile activities overseas.
Increasing the time for seeking AG consent from four hours to eight hours
The bill extends the period before which the senior AFP member must seek the Attorney-General's consent after obtaining an urgent interim control order from an issuing court from four hours to eight hours.
This is appropriate and necessary to avoid an interim control order made by an issuing court in urgent circumstances lapsing merely because the Attorney-General is unavailable to provide consent—for example, because the Attorney-General is in transit.
The decision to increase the period to eight hours rather than 12 hours (as originally proposed in the bill) reflects the fact that, even if the Attorney-General is in transit between the east and west coasts of Australia, eight hours should be sufficient to seek consent. Where the Attorney-General is absent for longer periods, such as during overseas travel, it should be possible to seek the consent of the minister acting in the Attorney-General's portfolio.
Schedule 2—Intelligence Services Act m easures
As I have said, the bill will make targeted recommendations to the Intelligence Services Actto improve the ability of ASIS to provide timely assistance to the Australian Defence Force in support of military operations, and to streamline the statutory authorisation process to enable the IS Act agencies to collect intelligence on Australian persons overseas, in emergency circumstances. (These agencies are ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate.)
There is an urgent need to make these amendments to ensure that intelligence agencies can undertake relevant activities in support of the ADF's operations in Iraq against the ISIL terrorist organisation.
These activities are anticipated to include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australians who are known or suspected participants in hostilities, and particularly those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the ISIL terrorist organisation. Such intelligence is likely to prove instrumental to these operations, including in protecting ADF personnel, members of other defence forces, and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of the conflict.
The proposed amendments are directed to two key areas.
ASIS activities in support of, and in cooperation with, the ADF
The primary purpose of the amendments is to better facilitate ASIS providing timely assistance to the ADF in support of military operations, and its cooperation with the ADF on intelligence matters. The proposed amendments make explicit that such support and cooperation is a function of ASIS, consistent with explicit functions to this effect conferred upon the two other IS Act agencies, ASD and AGO.
These measures also make a small number of amendments to facilitate the timely performance by ASIS of this function. These concern the provision of ministerial authorisation by the minister responsible for ASIS in relation to a class of Australians, and enabling the Attorney-General as the minister responsible for ASIO to provide agreement to an authorisation in respect of individuals falling within a specified class of Australian persons. All of the existing safeguards in the Intelligence Services Act will apply to the performance of the new function. These include the statutory thresholds for the granting of authorisations, ministerial reporting requirements, and the independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Emergency ministerial authorisations
Secondly, the proposed amendments also remedy practical limitations identified in the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations which apply to ASIS, ASD and AGO.
The amendments make provision for the contingency that the relevant ministers may be temporarily uncontactable when there is an urgent, previously unforeseen need to collect vital intelligence. Presently, there is no legal basis on which agencies can undertake activities in these circumstances, meaning that critical intelligence collection opportunities may be missed. The amendments will address this by enabling an agency head to grant a limited emergency authorisation, subject to rigorous and extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms.
These authorisations are strictly limited to 48 hours maximum and cannot be renewed. Additional issuing criteria apply to authorisations by agency heads, including express consideration of whether the relevant minister would have been likely to grant the authorisation, on the basis of the existing statutory criteria. Further, to ensure that it is only available in an extreme emergency, the agency head must also be satisfied that, if the activity was not authorised, security would be seriously prejudiced or there would be a serious risk to a person's safety. The minister must be notified within eight hours, and is under a positive obligation to make a decision about whether it should continue within the 48 hour maximum, or be cancelled or replaced with a ministerial authorisation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must also be notified as soon as practicable within three days. In addition, the Inspector-General is required to conduct oversight of the agency head's compliance with legislative requirements and provide a report to the relevant responsible minister within 30 days. The Inspector-General must also provide a copy of the conclusions in that report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within 30 days.
The amendments also provide for contingency arrangements in the event that the Attorney-General is not readily available or contactable to provide his or her agreement to the making of an emergency ministerial authorisation, where such agreement is required because the authorisation concerns the undertaking of activities in relation to an Australian person who is, or who is likely to be, engaged in activities that are, or are likely to be, a threat to security. Identical requirements for ministerial notification and IGIS and parliamentary joint committee oversight apply to these amendments as to emergency ministerial authorisations as I have just outlined.
The amendments also address an unintended limitation in the ability of ministers to issue emergency authorisations. Presently, no provision is made for ministers to issue these authorisations orally, with a written record to be made of that decision. This is incompatible with the circumstances of urgency in which emergency authorisations are designed to operate, and with the longstanding approach to other forms of emergency authorisation—such as search warrants, telecommunications interception warrants and surveillance devices warrants. The proposed amendments bring the emergency ministerial authorisation process in the ISA into line with this approach.
While not wishing to go through each amendment to the revised explanatory memorandum which implements the parliamentary joint committee's recommendations, I do wish to note that the government has also implemented a suggestion from that committee that was not the subject of a recommendation. This is that the explanatory memorandum include details of why the IS Act already operates to prohibit ASIS from engaging in conduct constituting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The revised explanatory memorandum includes this explanation, which the government notes was the subject of some inaccurate comments in the Senate and in the 16th report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, of 25 November. We trust that the revised explanatory memorandum will ensure that any further debate on this issue is informed by an accurate legal analysis.
Concluding remarks
The Australian government is committed to fulfilling its most important responsibility—protecting Australia, its people and its interests—and will do so while instilling confidence that our national security and counter-terrorism laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way.
This bill is an important step in the government's continuing efforts to strengthen Australia's robust national security laws to proactively and effectively address the threat posed by returning foreign fighters. I therefore commend the bill to the house.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:27): This is now the third time that I have spoken to national security legislation in this term of the parliament. My approach, and Labor's approach, has been consistent on each occasion.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said many times now, Labor believes that our security agencies and national institutions should have the powers and resources they need to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism, and we will support the government in providing those powers and resources. This is what Labor did in government and this is what we have been doing in opposition.
Our record on this is clear. Labor supported the government's first national security bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1), which passed the parliament on 25 September. That bill arose out of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report commissioned by the former Labor government. The bill updated and adjusted in a general way, unconnected with any particular threat, the architecture of our national security organisations so that they will be able to better meet the demands on them well into the future.
Labor also supported the government's second bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill, which passed the parliament on 29 October. As I said when speaking to that legislation, the foreign fighters bill was of a different character to the first bill. The foreign fighters bill directly addressed the threats to Australian security which have arisen out of present circumstances in Iraq and Syria. Where the first bill focused on the structure of our national security institutions in the long view, the foreign fighters bill focused on the discrete powers most relevant to addressing the immediate threat arising from Australians travelling to fight with overseas terrorist organisations and potentially returning to Australia.
In neither of these cases was our support for the government's objective—protecting Australia against genuine security threats—in any sense a blank cheque of support for the particular measures the government proposed to deal with these threats. In each case we insisted that the government's legislation be closely scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, through this process, subject to consideration by legal experts, community groups and the wider public.
In each case the committee recommended a number of significant improvements to the legislation, which we insisted the government implement. In the case of the foreign fighters bill, the concerns that Labor members expressed in the committee process were not addressed by the government and Labor moved amendments in the Senate, which the government opposed. This is constructive bipartisanship. Although we share the commitment of the government to taking the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the community, our own Labor values inform the approach we are taking to fulfil this commitment. We have taken that same approach with the bill I am speaking to today, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014.
Although this is the third national security bill that the government has introduced into this parliament, it is essentially ancillary to the second bill, the foreign fighters bill. This bill, introduced into the parliament on the same day the foreign fighters bill was passed, 29 October, contains one measure recommended by the PJCIS in its report on the foreign fighters bill but which was not able to be legislated in that bill, due to a need to consult with the states and territories.
The bill also contains three new measures: further changes to the control order scheme, streamlining the process for the Australian Federal Police to apply to the Attorney-General for consent to seek a control order from an issuing court and expanding control orders to apply to persons involved in supporting or facilitating terrorist activities; provision for emergency ministerial authorisation for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate activities; and provision for cooperation between ASIS and the Australian Defence Force on military operations.
The three new measures were developed in response to operational needs identified by Australia's anti-terror agencies after the foreign fighters bill was introduced into the parliament. The government sought to include these three measures in that bill without first revealing these measures to the Australian people and without full scrutiny by the PJCIS.
As I have said, it is Labor's consistent position that all national security legislation should be rigorously examined to make sure not only that it will be effective in protecting our nation but also that it does not unduly infringe on important rights and freedoms. In keeping with that position, Labor insisted that the government introduce these three new measures in a separate bill and that they be subject to public scrutiny and a full intelligence committee inquiry.
Accordingly, this bill was introduced in the Senate, on 29 October, and immediately referred to the PJCIS. The PJCIS sought submissions, held brief hearings and tabled its report, out of session, on 20 November. In its report the intelligence committee recommended that the bill be passed and made 15 substantive recommendations. Significant recommendations include: amendment of the bill to require the Australian Federal Police to provide the Attorney-General with a summary of facts when seeking consent to apply to the court for an interim control order, including any facts indicating why such an order should not be made; retention of the requirement for the AFP to explain to the issuing court the reasons justifying each condition in a draft control order. The bill as introduced would have effectively reduced judicial oversight by only requiring the AFP to justify the control order as a whole and would also have shortened periods for notification of the relevant minister where agencies issue emergency authorisations. A further significant recommendation was that the government urgently appoint a new independent National Security Legislation Monitor and task the monitor with reviewing whether recommendations for safeguards on the control order regime, recommended by the 2013 COAG review, should be implemented, as well as a range of additional oversight measures.
Importantly, the recommendations will improve the accountability and transparency of decision making by national security agencies. The recommendations will also ensure that control order applications are closely and appropriately scrutinised. With the government's agreement to implement all of the committee's recommendations, Labor is willing to support this bill. As amended, this bill makes some sensible changes to our national security laws. It is one that a responsible opposition—and ours is a responsible opposition—should and does support. As I have said, this is now the third national security bill proposed by the government and supported, with amendment, by the Labor opposition. That is, three bills in around 4½ months. Although each was, as I said, given due scrutiny at Labor's insistence, each has been dealt with in an expedited manner.
We should be very clear, though, that the security threat posed to Australia by recent events in Iraq and Syria will not and cannot be wholly solved by legislation.
In the counter-terrorism white paper, released in 2010, the former Labor government set out the four key elements of Australia's counter-terror strategy:
Analysis: an intelligence-led response to terrorism, driven by a properly connected and properly informed national security community.
Protection: taking all necessary and practical action to protect Australia and Australians from terrorism at home and abroad.
Response: providing an immediate and targeted response to specific terrorist threats and terrorist attacks should they occur.
Resilience: building a strong and resilient Australian community to resist the development of any form of violent extremism and terrorism on the home front.
New and stronger laws can support the first three of these elements. But legislation alone will not support the fourth. More pages in the statute books will not make ours a more resilient community. It is worth quoting the white paper's explanation of that concept—resilience:
Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.
Building this sort of resilience must, in the context of the foreign-fighter threat, be an even higher priority now than it was in 2010, when the white paper was written. This is a threat that we fear will emerge from among our own. Already some young men and women in our community have become ensnared in the violence and the chaos occurring in Iraq and Syria. There is clearly a risk that more young men and women will be similarly ensnared. And there is a risk that some of those who participate in terrorist activities overseas will return to Australia with an intent to do harm here.
We must of course have the powers necessary to investigate, prosecute and convict those members of our community who become radicalised and who participate in terrorist acts or planning. We should, as this bill ensures, have the powers necessary to restrain those who would participate in or support terrorist activity from threatening our society. Of course, we all agree on this. But Australia will be far safer still if we do not ever need to apply extraordinary legal powers to our own. We will be safer if we can inoculate our young men and women against radicalism, extremism and violence in the first place. We will be safer if we can prevent disaffection and make sure all members of our community feel part of the open, democratic society we want our country to be.
This task—building resilience—requires concerted government action. In response to the white paper in 2010 the Labor government set up a range of programs under the Countering Violent Extremism initiative. Those programs included the Building Community Resilience Program, which delivered grants to community groups across Australia to fund a range of programs designed to encourage people to resist or disengage from intolerant and radical ideologies. This program recognised that local communities are key in fighting radicalisation. Often it is local communities who first become aware that individuals are at risk of falling into radicalism. And it is local communities who are able, with proper support and resources, to bring those people back into the fold. The Building Community Resilience Program funded initiatives such as the Bachar Houli Cup, which provides an AFL program for Islamic young people and encourages engagement with mainstream community groups. It funded a range of programs, sometimes working through sport, as with the Bachar Houli Cup; sometimes through internet based programs; and sometimes through mentoring or counselling programs. A diverse range of programs were funded, and that was one of the strengths of the Building Community Resilience Program.
Countering violent extremism is sensitive, nuanced work. It is important that this work be innovative and adaptive, working through different programs to see what works best and to improve programs in response to our experience. In a horribly short-sighted decision, the Abbott government cut all funding to the Building Community Resilience Program in its budget earlier this year. No thought was put into this decision. No alternative way of carrying on the work of countering violent extremism was proposed. I am happy to say that the government revisited its decision as the present crisis in Iraq and Syria unfolded. On 26 August the Attorney-General announced that the Abbott government would return to the good Labor government policy work in countering violent extremism and would fund $13 million of Building Community Resilience programs. We welcome the government's reversal in this area. But I must say that it has now been more than three months since this change of policy was announced, and to date there is little indication that the government has made much progress on getting the Building Community Resilience programs back into operation. We do not yet have any detail on exactly what the government will be doing with that $13 million. The government should explain to the parliament and to the Australian people exactly what it is doing in this area.
This is, as I say, sensitive work. It is in some senses a new approach to counter-terrorism work, although there are precedents overseas—for example, in work done with white supremacists in the United States and in work with right-wing extremists in Germany. Wresting young men and women in our community away from violent jihadist ideology is a new challenge. It is one that comparable nations, such as the United Kingdom, are also trying to address through programs of this kind. It is important work that recognises the nexus between our national security and our social cohesion. The government should clearly explain what it proposes to do. And just as Labor has engaged constructively with the government in developing and passing new counter-terrorism laws, Labor will engage constructively to assist the government in implementing this more subtle side of our nation's fight against terrorism.
Of course, building resilience requires more than just programs and funding, although that is certainly important. It requires some of the more intangible products of government, too. If we are to build resilience in our community we must have leadership from our government and those who serve in it. The words they use, the values they profess and the approach they take to dealing with the community are just as important as any program. They are in fact probably even more important. When the Prime Minister stood up at a press conference in Canberra on 5 August with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General to announce the government's response to the terrorist threat arising out of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, the Prime Minister said:
When it comes to counter-terrorism, everyone needs to be part of Team Australia. And I have to say that the government's proposals to change 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act have become a complication in that respect. I don't want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time, and so those proposals are now off the table.
The Prime Minister said that the decision to shelve Senator Brandis's attack on the Racial Discrimination Act was a leadership call that he had made.
He went on to talk about what political leadership meant. He said:
and this is important—
In the end, leadership is about preserving national unity on the essentials ...
I have said this before, and I will repeat it: I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister on the importance of leadership in this context, on the importance of senior political leaders in fostering community cohesion and harmony. Unfortunately, the government has not lived up to this standard. The government has not shown the leadership we should expect.
In the last few months I have spoken with a number of representatives of the Muslim community across different parts of Australia. They are anxious to assist in combatting the threat of terrorism. Of course they are—these are their communities! No community wants its young men to travel abroad to be put in harm's way, to be exposed to the horrors of war, to be further radicalised and battle-hardened and, if they survive, to return to endanger their own communities and the broader Australian community. The government should be working with those communities. It should be standing alongside the Muslim community in this country.
I applaud the government for abandoning its attack on the Racial Discrimination Act. To its credit, the government recognised that this ill-conceived policy jeopardised community harmony at a time when harmony is what we need more than ever. But why won't the government take a firm stand on those in its ranks who continue to prosecute this attack? Government backbench Senators Bernardi and Smith have reopened this divisive issue with their own bill to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. We have seen the organisational wing of the Queensland Liberal National Party officially endorse a renewed attack on the Racial Discrimination Act. When will the Prime Minister admonish his colleagues? When will he take responsibility for what his own party says and does?
The Prime Minister has also failed to show leadership on the debate about the burqa, so irresponsibly opened up by Liberal backbenchers including the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and the usual suspect, Senator Bernardi. At a time when Muslim women feel, because of their dress, particularly conspicuous and vulnerable to attack and to discrimination, these two Liberals have done their best to exacerbate that fear. Appallingly, they have used the megaphones that they hold as federal politicians to single out Australian Muslim women as different and even dangerous. When the issue was put to the Prime Minister, the best he could manage was:
... I find it a fairly confronting form of attire. Frankly, I wish it was not worn.
The Prime Minister said, 'We can all have an opinion on the issue.' We certainly can, but the Prime Minister, I hasten to remind him, is not just a private citizen. He is not just a political operator for the conservative cause. He is supposed to be a national leader. He occupies the highest public office in Australia. His leadership role is particularly important with respect to Australian Muslims. The Muslim community is more intimately affected than any other community in our country by the problems emanating from the strife in Iraq and Syria. The broader Australian community and the Australian government must work together with the Muslim community to resolve those problems.
It is understandable that the government's new national security laws have caused some agitation in the Muslim community. In no small part this is because Senator Bernardi and the member for Dawson, and others like them, have done their best to sow division and distrust between Muslim Australians and the broader community. It is no surprise that some Australian Muslims feel targeted or singled out when our public debate stoops to this sort of low. But this agitation is also caused by a failure of government to clearly explain its new national security laws. As I have said, Labor has supported each of those laws, with appropriate amendments. But I must say I am disappointed with the way the government has failed to make the case for those laws. Those who watched this bill pass the Senate last week would have seen the Attorney-General flatly refuse to answer questions from the cross-bench about the substance of this bill. It fell to the Labor opposition to put on record the purpose and effect of the government's own amendments, arising out of the PJCIS report, which we supported. It fell to the Labor opposition to explain why further amendments proposed by the cross-bench were unnecessary or undesirable.
Labor is very happy to explain its position on this and other national security issues. But it is the role of the government to lead the debate. If the government does its job properly, Australians should feel reassured that the parliament, the government and the security agencies can be trusted to serve the national interest without trampling on individual liberties. If the government does its job properly, public debate should be sufficiently well-informed that wildly exaggerated claims about the effect of new national security measures can be calmly and logically dismissed.
As we have said consistently throughout recent months, Labor approaches national security legislation as a responsible opposition should. Having carefully considered the bill but forward by the government, and having ensured a number of significant improvements to that bill through the intelligence committee inquiry process, Labor has agreed to support the measures being proposed to bolster our national security laws. Here, as previously, Labor has insisted on proper scrutiny. Here, as previously, Labor has worked constructively as an opposition to assist the government in getting this bill right. Here, as previously, Labor is willing to support changes to our national security laws that are necessary and proportionate to meet the changing threats that our nation faces.
But I want to reiterate that we require more than legislation such as this to address the threat of terrorism. We require a coherent strategy from our political leaders to build a more cohesive community. We need to be intervening among disaffected and marginalised youth well before control orders and other extraordinary measures are required. I call on the government to explain what it will do on this crucial part of counter-terror policy.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (12:51): I welcome much of what the member for Isaacs said—in particular, the bipartisan support for this bill which I have personally experienced as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. But let me just correct one inaccurate component of his speech where he spoke about engagement with the Muslim community. I can assure the House and those listening that the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and other members of the coalition such as Senator Fierravanti-Wells have regularly engaged with senior Muslim leaders across Australia.
Let me commence by providing some context as to why this particular bill is important. In September 1991, I led a United Nations mobile team in South Lebanon called Team Zulu. My partner and I one day, in about the middle of September 1991, were working east of the main United Nations base at Naqoura, and we were called up and directed by radio to move very quickly, as quickly as we could, to the site of a major incident that had occurred just north of the Israeli border at a crossing point called Rosh HaNikra.
What had happened was: three heavily armed Palestinian terrorists had landed on the beach. They had come via the sea from the Mediterranean, and the Israeli Defence Force and South Lebanese Army personnel had quickly responded to that threat. The terrorists, in response, took some UN personnel hostage at gunpoint, and they retreated into a small shed, very close to where their boat had landed on the beach. The UN personnel had simply been running up and down the beach. There was a road linking the UN camp with the crossing point at Rosh HaNikra, and they were running along for fitness before they were taken hostage at gunpoint and became human shields. Very quickly, an Israeli gunboat had cut off the terrorists on the sea side and Israeli Defence Force personnel and South Lebanese Army personnel cut them off on the land side, so there was no escape, and it was a very tense situation.
Soon after that, my Irish partner and I arrived on the scene with an Arabic speaking interpreter, and our intent was of course to try to negotiate the release of those UN personnel that had been taken captive. The situation escalated very quickly when one of the gunmen came out of the shed and commenced firing, which initiated a broader escalation of gunfire from both sides. One of our UN colleagues, a Swedish soldier of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was killed, as was one of the terrorists. Five Swedish and French UN troops and one further terrorist were wounded, and the third terrorist was captured by the Israeli Defence Force.
As I reported on my radio what had happened, we were quickly diverted to another incident site, this time inside the UN camp, because, unknown to us, another small motorised boat, a Zodiac, had landed with three more terrorists on the UN beach. They had been overpowered and taken captive by the UNIFIL patrol in the area, and my Irish partner and I were then further tasked to question those terrorists and produce a report for the United Nations chain of command.
All these years later I reflect on what an insight that gave me into the psyche of some of the people that this bill is meant to respond to. The three men that I questioned belonged to the Al Fatah wing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and their boat was crammed with AK-47s, many filled magazines, hand grenades, knives, explosives and RPG-7s, or rocket-propelled grades.
Their mission was to land on the Israeli side of the border, near a beautiful coastal town called Nahariya, and they were going there to, in their words, kill as many Jews as they could before they themselves were killed. I had a particular interest in that beautiful coastal town of Nahariya because, when I was not working in South Lebanon, that is where I lived with my family—my wife and two young daughters who were one and two at that stage—about a street away from that beach, which we often frequented. I asked the terrorist cell leader: how would he distinguish between the Jews and visiting Christians from Australia? His response was that his God would guide their bullets.
Their mission, in essence, was irrational, mindless, indiscriminate killing of innocent people. I can still recall, when things settled a day or two later and I had a moment for reflection, thinking how lucky we were in Australia not to have people like that in our country. Those days are gone. Those people are here. They are in England, Canada, the United States and in other western countries just like ours—people who are similarly and inexplicably motivated to engage in the mindless, indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.
Fusilier Lee Rigby was run down and publicly butchered in East London. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered in Ottawa while guarding Canada's war memorial. A week before Corporal Cirillo's death, two soldiers were run down in Quebec by a radicalised individual. Here in Australia, way back in 2005, we had the Operation Pendennis arrests, now almost a decade ago, uncovering terrorist cells in Melbourne and Sydney that were amassing guns, ammunition and bomb-making equipment.
A decade later, Australia's terrorism alert level has been lifted to high, 60 to70 of our citizens are in Iraq and Syria committing terrorist acts and learning the sorts of skills that we do not want to be exported back to our country. We have seen the police raids during Operation Appleby, foiling a plot to commit violent acts in Australia, including a plan to snatch a random member of the public, to drape them in a terrorist flag, to behead them, to tape it and to upload that video to the internet.
So when our intelligence, defence and law-enforcement agencies tell us that they need more measures to respond in an agile and adaptive way to an agile and adaptive enemy, we must take them seriously. We must acknowledge that their starting point is a desire to keep us safer.
I am pleased to say, as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, that there is the sort of bipartisanship that the member for Isaacs mentioned during his speech—an acknowledgement of how serious our current and anticipated security environment is into the foreseeable future. I believe, as the member for Isaacs does, that our committee has found a sensible bipartisan path between those necessary changes and the civil liberties of all Australians. Importantly, the government has either accepted or accepted in principle all of our committee's recommendations in respect of this bill.
I would like to touch briefly on just why the contents of this bill are so critical. The resurgence of terrorism—of Daesh—in Israel, in Iraq, in Syria and more broadly in the Middle East, is a direct threat to our way of life and no nation is immune.
To reject the measures in this bill is to deny that compelling fact and to lend de facto support to the emerging terror networks.
In the main, the measures in this bill are already being used, albeit in lesser ways, by security agencies and police forces in Australia and around the world. It is important to note that these measures pose no threat whatsoever to peaceful, law-abiding Australian citizens. Indeed, these measures improve the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to addressing urgent operational needs and to apply the lessons that have been learned subsequent to the introduction of the previous two tranches of legislation. They include lessons learned from our troop deployments to Iraq and the exploitation of information from recent operations like Operation Appleby, which disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney.
Make no mistake, the terrorist threat is agile and adaptive. We must therefore help our intelligence, security and legal agencies cycle through their decision and response options more quickly than that agile adversary. This parliament owes the Australian people nothing less.
Singly and in unison, the measures in this bill represent a major step on the road to making all Australians safer. I know, from the public hearings undertaken by our committee, that some may think elements of this bill are excessive. But, set against the backdrop just presented, the government rightly considers them to be both necessary and essential to protecting our precious liberty and way of life.
The essential bottom line is threefold. Firstly, the enhanced control order regime in this bill allows the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process. This is focused particularly on the enablers—the recruiters, the urgers, the funders of terror—who are just as bad, if not worse, than those they coerce or mislead to wanton acts of aggression. Secondly, the bill facilitates heightened interagency support and cooperation, most notably between ASIS and the ADF, including on military operations.
The following points are noteworthy in relation to this enhanced measure. Contrary to some wild claims from the Greens and others, these amendments do not enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. There is no change to the existing limitation ASIS operates under in subsection 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act. What we are doing is enhancing ASIS's ability to contribute to the Australian Defence Force's intelligence collection efforts in places like Iraq. But, importantly, in using any ASIS provided intelligence, the ADF is bound by its own rules of engagement, which are developed in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department to ensure compliance with our domestic law and our obligations under international law. Without that intelligence cooperation, the force protection of our troops is potentially put at risk. As a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as the father of a daughter who has undertaken two tours of Afghanistan, let me say what a welcome outbreak of common sense this measure is. Thirdly, we enhance arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions. Together, all this means that law-abiding Australian citizens, who enjoy the relative tolerance and freedoms of our unique civil society, need not fear any of these changes.
By the range of steps and measures in this bill, the government does six things. Firstly, we support and protect our sovereign national borders. Secondly, we support our security agencies, including, not least, our Commonwealth and state police forces. Thirdly, we identify, at the very earliest opportunity, possible domestic terrorist threats to Australia, including individuals and terror groups or cells. Fourthly, we prevent, detain, or, at least, constrain the movement and transit of would-be foreign fighters. Fifthly, we reinforce the need for heightened national vigilance by all Australians, in response to the clear risks confronting our otherwise peace-loving communities. Lastly, we support and position our nation's relevant counter-terrorist bodies and agencies to work in closest collaboration with those of our allies, partners, and other legitimate governments of the world, the intent being to help restore civil normalcy at home and abroad, or, at the very least, to contain and limit the ongoing threat posed by transnational terrorism.
Both sides of the debate so far have talked about some of the important safeguards and protection measures that are implicit in this bill, including the existing control order regime requiring both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order, which will continue to apply. The bill includes implementation of the PJCIS recommendations, requiring the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control order regime, particularly safeguards. All of the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 continue to apply, including in relation to the amendments to better facilitate ASIS assistance to the ADF. These include the statutory thresholds for the granting of authorisations, ministerial reporting requirements and the independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Strong oversight mechanisms will also apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations. Ministers will have to be notified within eight hours where an agency head has granted an emergency authorisation, in the event that no relevant ministers are readily available or contactable to consider or issue an authorisation. Where a minister has provided oral emergency authorisation, a written record of this decision must be made. As the member for Isaacs said, the IGIS will provide close oversight of these emergency authorisations, as will the committee that we both belong to, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will also be notified of all emergency authorisations.
As I have said before in this House, the resurgent barbarity of transnational terrorism and the direct threat it poses to Australia and our region means that doing nothing is not an option. While our troops are helping degrade Daesh forces whenever they concentrate in the field in Iraq, we need to support that effort domestically and legislatively with policies designed to safeguard homeland Australia. We must harness the abhorrence that all Australians—Christian and Muslim alike—hold for this perverted creed of wanton terror. I ask the House to endorse the government's domestic counterterror initiatives with understanding and conviction and to give them widespread bipartisan support. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:07): Everyone in this parliament, no matter where you sit—whether in the government, the opposition, or on the crossbenchers—wants to keep this country safe. There is absolutely no dispute about that. Likewise, I agree with the previous speaker. I think everyone here in this parliament would look upon the acts of terrorism and horror that are being perpetrated around the world with disgust. And we want to do everything we possibly can to ensure that they are not visited on our shores. But, if we are to have a serious debate about how we stop terrorism from finding its way to Australia then, presumably, we would have serious discussions here about why people within this country, who are sometimes born and bred in this country, decide that they no longer have an attachment to this country and want to do us harm. We need to ask some serious questions about why that is happening and what we can do to stop it. We need to ask serious questions about whether sending Australia to war is, in fact, going to make the country less safe. We need to ask serious questions about whether getting Australia involved in a war—a conflict—that is not ours potentially increases the risk of an attack here on home soil, or an attack on an Australian citizen somewhere else. These are the questions we need to be asking.
One other truism is that as well as everyone wanting to keep Australia safe—no matter which political perspective you come from—we also, presumably, value Australia being a democracy. We value those things that for many others, according to the government and according to the opposition, are the reasons that people want to attack us—namely, individual liberties. The fact is that we have a strong tradition in Australia. It is part of our common law tradition that the government does not have the right to take you, as an individual, and lock you up when you are not suspected of having done something wrong, if you are not on your way to being charged or put through a judicial process. What distinguishes us from other countries is that the government is not allowed to pick someone off the street and hold them without a claim that they have broken an Australian law, and without a trial then ensuing. That is what, in part, defines us. That is what we have to defend.
What that means is that whenever there is a suggestion that Australia, or Australians, are at risk, we need to make an assessment about whether that justifies giving up some of those rights and if so, for how long. The difficulty is that we know that security agencies will always want more power. That should come as no surprise. It is the same with every government department. Ask them if they would like a greater remit and they will say, 'Yes; where do I sign?' That is why it is absolutely critical that, in times when emotions and fear are running higher than they otherwise would, we in this place have to make sober judgements and sober assessments.
Whilst I do not doubt the intentions and bona fides of the experience of the previous speaker, I was distressed to hear him say at the end that we must harness the hatred people feel towards the likes of ISIS in order to pass this bill. That is the wrong approach. That approach is saying that, because something terrible is happening elsewhere—something that Australia might have contributed to by going over and destabilising that region for the last decade or so—people automatically should be prepared to give up rights and liberties that they have enjoyed for a very long time, and which, once given up, they will probably never get back.
And this is happening in an environment where we do not have an independent national security legislation monitor to oversee what the government is doing. The reason that is so important is that in the past the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has spoken out against exactly these kinds of measures. That is important to note, because while some in the government and elsewhere may say that you would expect critics to always make these points, when the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor says, 'Hang on; what you are about to do with a proposal like control orders is to enable someone in a government agency or a security agency to impose limitations on you and your freedom,' we should listen. When the Independent National Security Monitor—not just the Greens, civil libertarians and the law bodies in their states—says, 'That is not a good idea,' we should listen.
Instead, the government, with the opposition's acquiescence, is saying, 'We are not going to appoint a national security legislation monitor, who might come before the parliament and tell you exactly these things; we are going to rush this bill through now.' It comes as no surprise that a coalition government wants to take away individual rights and liberties. They gave away the 'liberalism' in their name long ago. What does come as a bit of a surprise is that an opposition, willing to be a small target, is so quick to sign up to these proposals.
What do we know about this bill? We know that the control-order regime in this bill allows the imposition of controls on an individual, limiting their freedom without needing to follow the normal and long-established criminal law processes of arrest, charge, prosecution and determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence. We know that a control order under this legislation can impose a number of obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on the person who is the subject of the order. These include where a person must stay and when; preventing a person from going to certain places; preventing a person from talking to or associating with certain people; preventing a person from leaving Australia; requiring a person to wear a tracking device; prohibiting access to, or use of, specific types of telecommunications, including the internet and telephones; preventing a person from possessing or using specified articles or substances; and preventing a person carrying out specific activities, including in respect of their work or their occupation—their livelihood. Critically, these control orders can be applied to people who have not been charged with a criminal offence—you do not have to have been charged with anything to have these apply to you—and even to people suspected of harbouring a criminal intent.
It is because they are so broad and go well beyond what might be argued to be a legitimate narrow need to target terrorism, for example, that there has been substantial criticism from across the political spectrum and from civil liberties and legal groups of these provisions. This bill would make it possible to get a control order if a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it would prevent the provision of support for or facilitation of a terrorist act or hostile activity overseas and dilute the existing safeguard that requires the court to consider whether each obligation, prohibition or restriction contained in the control order is proportionate and necessary. It would also make other procedural changes to make control orders easier to get. In that respect, it is no wonder that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has been critical of these provisions.
The Greens have moved some amendments in the Senate to try to address this, and some other provisions have been amended in the Senate, but the guts of this bill still remains. It is at exactly these kinds of moments, when people are, rightly, fearful for their safety and that of others whom they know here and overseas, that we need to step back and not make a decision informed by fear but actually ask a fundamental question: are we giving up those things that we think define us as a society? When others from across the political spectrum and the experts in the area say, 'These kinds of control orders are not an essential or helpful part of Australia's comprehensive response to terrorism,' we should listen. But the reason we have not listened here is that there is a committee, which is a club of the two old parties, who walk in lockstep on this issue, that has been quite happy to say, 'If the security agencies have asked for it, we'll give it to them.' Because of that, in this parliament, either in this chamber or as a legislature, we have not paid sufficient attention to those who have been saying, 'No, you'll be giving up something that is actually quite fundamental. You're giving up individual liberty and you are extending to our security agencies more extensive power than they have had before—and you are doing it in a situation where there is no Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and where the only supposed oversight is a committee that is a club of the two old parties, who agree on all of this anyway.'
It is for that reason that those parts of this bill cannot be supported and should not be supported. We should not be using conflict in Iraq and Syria that we helped start as an excuse for passing these laws and taking away individual rights and liberties, because that is what will be done if this legislation passes here. If we were serious about stopping terrorism, we would have a searing examination of Australia's role, together with others, in not only creating the instability in Iraq and Syria that helped the likes of Daesh gain a foothold but, actually, in some instances being part of coalitions that provide arms to groups that then find their way into the hands of the likes of ISIS. We would be asking: is more war and more intervention in the Middle East going to solve it? Or might that just keep it going for a bit longer so that we find ourselves back here in another five or 10 years facing similar conflicts and similar threats, with the government saying, 'We want you to give up more of your civil liberties because, clearly, you did not give up enough last time'? If we keep going down that road, then, slowly but surely, we will lose what defines Australia as a free and democratic country. We cannot keep giving up our rights and our freedoms to deal with this threat. We have to attack this threat at the source and we have to ask the honest questions about whether Australia's involvement is actually making this country less safe and whether continuing to go and wage wars in other parts of the world creates exactly the kind of instability that allows these kinds of lunatics in the likes of Daesh to gain a foothold and to be seen as somehow an attractive option. That is the direction that we are going in.
The Greens will be steadfast in saying, 'The safety of Australia should not come at the expense of giving up our rights and the things that define us.' If we want to make Australia safe, which we all do, let's be serious about it. Let's be serious about it and not participate in wars that give these terrorists the opportunity to gain a foothold and, in some instances, legitimacy—because that is exactly what is happening. Let us stop fuelling this instability and terror on the other side of the world and let us ask whether or not we have in fact helped arm some of these mobs. That is exactly what many independent reports are saying—that the forces that have gone in, supposedly with good intentions, have in fact helped make this threat worse. If we were serious about combating terrorism and making Australia safe, that is what we would do. We would not use it as a pretext to take away people's liberties.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:21): I rise to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, but, before I do, I must say that I sat listening intently to the contribution from the member for Melbourne. In effect, he is advocating a position of soft diplomacy with respect to the threat of terrorism across the globe.
With respect to the member for Melbourne's contribution, the do-nothing option is simply not an option. To sit here and listen to that undermines the very good and collaborative bipartisan work that has been undertaken in this place, on this legislation and other things, regarding the threat of terrorism across the world.
This bill will enhance the ability of Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take timely action in relation to Australian persons who are—or indeed are suspected of being—involved in terrorism related activity. These are persons who are enabling or supporting terrorist activity and persons who are suspected of fighting terrorist organisations in foreign conflicts. This bill will address urgent legislative limitations identified in the context of present or recent operational activities, including counter-terrorism investigations and the activities of the Australian Defence Force against Daish.
The first duty of any national government is the protection of its citizenry and its territorial integrity. The sad reality is that we live in an age where both are under threat, and it is appropriate that we take steps to ensure that those charged with providing our national security have all the tools necessary to do their tasks. It was interesting to listen to the contribution of the member for Melbourne. He is someone who purports to point to expert analysis on very many other topics but is rejecting the expert analysis being provided to this government by security agencies across the spectrum.
Nation-states face a multitude of threats that are unprecedented, both in number and form. At one end of the spectrum we face the rise of Daish—that heinous death cult that brings to mind the worst excesses of totalitarianism and seeks to expand its sick and twisted ideology as far as it can. It has the vast economic resources of a national government, the military capacity of an army and the mindset of a fanatic. This body poses an existential threat to our country and to our national interests in the region. It is a breeding ground for terrorism and seeks to recruit people not only by coercive force in territories they have seized but also in seducing people in our own country—either to strengthen their hand over there, or for those people to return to our shores and wreak havoc upon our own population.
This leads me to the other end of the spectrum of threat: individuals acting without specific command-and control-structures being able to execute acts of terror to generate fear and force us to change our way of life. Sadly, we have seen an example of this in Australia, with the recent attack in Victoria of two police officers. We have also seen the tragedy in Canada where their national parliament was subject to an attack.
These types of so-called 'lone-wolf' attacks are extremely dangerous, because they require many more resources and planning than, say, the 9/11 style terror operation. Describing these threats as lone-wolf attacks is misleading, because even if a terrorist does not enjoy direct operational assistance relating to a specific attack they often have assistance through financial support, advice, training, non-specific planning assistance, housing communications and various other means, which enable them to carry out their evil deeds.
In order to reduce the threat of Daish, our Defence Force is currently engaged in combat operations against it. I want to take the opportunity to say this to the Australian troops: you enjoy my wholehearted support for what you are doing and I will do everything in my capacity to give you the support you need. Accordingly, I support this legislation, which seeks to help dismantle the support structures for those who would perpetrate terror and who are engaged in attacks against ADF personnel.
The measures in the bill have been included as a result of instances of operational need, identified by relevant agencies, subsequent to the introduction of the previous two tranches of legislation. In the case of the proposed Intelligence Services Act amendments, the need for amendment is urgent. This is as a result of recent developments in the security environment—primarily due to the government's decision to authorise the ADF to undertake operations against the Daish terrorist organisation in Iraq.
There is urgent need to make amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to ensure that intelligence services can undertake relevant activities in support of the ADF operations in Iraq against the Daish organisation. These activities are anticipated to include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australian persons who are known or suspected participants in hostilities and particularly of those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the Daish terrorist organisation.
Such intelligence is likely to prove instrumental to these operations. This includes the protection of ADF personnel, members of other defence forces and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of this conflict. The proposed amendments are directed in two key areas. Firstly, the primary purpose of the amendments is to better facilitate ASIS in providing timely assistance to the Australian Defence Force in support of military operations in its cooperation with the ADF on intelligence matters.
The proposed amendments make explicit that such support and cooperation is a function of ASIS, consistent with explicit functions to this effect inferred upon the other two intelligence-service agencies: the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD, and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, AGO. These measures also make a small number of amendments to facilitate the timely performance by ASIS of this function. These concern the provision of ministerial authorisation by the minister responsible for ASIS, in relation to a class of Australian persons, and enabling the Attorney-General, as the minister responsible for ASIO, to provide agreement to an authorisation in respect of individuals falling within a specific class of Australian person.
All of the existing safeguards in the Intelligence Security Act will apply to the pool of performance of the new function. These include the statutory threshold for granting of authorisations, ministerial-reporting requirements and independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS.
Secondly, the proposed amendments also remedy practical limitations identified in the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisation, which apply to ACIS, ASD and AGO. The amendments make provision for the contingency that the relevant minister may be temporarily uncontactable when there is an urgent previously unforeseen need to collect vital intelligence.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Asylum Seekers: Children
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:30): There are currently 435 children in immigration detention in Australia: 327 on the mainland and 108 on Christmas Island and Cocos Keeling Island. There are also 167 children in detention on Nauru. The reports from immigration detention centres show an environment of distress and despair, where mental health issues are rife. Children who have fled circumstances of fear and trauma now witness adults at the end of their wits, at the end of hope, who practice self-harm or attempt suicide. It is no surprise, but it should be shocking to know that children in our care are repeating those behaviours.
Immigration detention is inflicting immeasurable harm on people who will be Australian residents and citizens—on our future teachers, nurses, sports-people and business owners. In their most formative years, we are showing these children cruelty instead of kindness. We are deliberately denying them opportunity where we should be fostering their growth in keeping with our core values. Our approach to children in detention is unacceptable. I wholeheartedly endorse both the Love Makes a Way campaign and the new campaign by a number of prominent Australians called We're Better Than This.
The truth is we are better than keeping children in detention. We should be doing everything in our power to reduce the suffering of children who have escaped danger and persecution, not making it worse. There are sensible, credible, compassionate alternatives, and we are creative and resourceful enough to find and apply those alternatives. I believe that this cruel and inhumane policy needs to end as a matter of urgency and I support all efforts that will help make this happen.
Capricornia Electorate: My First Speech Competition
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:31): I am delighted to inform the House that Chay Conaglen from Rockhampton State High School, in Capricornia, has won the Australian parliament's My First Speech competition. The 17-year-old was one of 150 entries from years 10 to 12 students from around the country. Chay will be in Canberra this week to present his speech in the Parliament House precinct, hosted by our wonderful Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Chay is a terrific young man and this competition represents an amazing achievement. His achievement highlights just how talented our country youth are in Capricornia and that you can achieve amazing things if you put your mind to it. Recently, I introduced Chay to the Prime Minister during a trip to Rockhampton. In the My First Speech competition, entrants were asked to imagine themselves as a newly elected MP and to write a three-minute speech. Chay's speech included topics such as Australia's economic policy and our relationships with China and India. Congratulations, Chay, and we look forward to seeing you in Canberra this week to present your winning speech.
Rankin Electorate: Cricket
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:32): Yesterday I had the privilege of hosting, with my great mate here, the member for Moreton, a cricket game with players from the Muslim communities in our electorates. The game was played in the spirit of cohesion and respect, and that was the whole point of the day. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that the Rankin team was victorious, albeit by just one run after 20 overs each, and this victory was despite, rather than because of, the player that is their local member! I did manage to knock over the member for Moreton at one stage, which was very satisfying.
On a more serious note, the game began with a minute's silent tribute to Phil Hughes and we all wore a black armband. We were honoured to be joined by one of the finest batsman in Australia, Usman Khawaja. What a class act Usman is, mingling with the players for some time and signing bats. I want to thank him for showing up and I acknowledge his efforts. I also want to thank all of the players and supporters, including Ahsan Assadi who helped organise the mighty Rankin team; the very patient umpires; Queensland Cricket for donating the gear and being helpful in so many ways; Duncan Pegg and Peter Russo for scoring the game; Runcorn High for the use of the fields; and the member for Moreton for coming up with the idea in the first place, and also for the ill-advised shot selection that allowed me to bowl someone for the first time since probably the late 1990s! It was a great day and hopefully we can try to do it again.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:34): Last week there were some funding announcements with relation to the ABC. I just want to reiterate that, over the next five years, there will still be $5.2 billion flowing to the ABC, which is still a substantial amount of money. What I want to talk about today is that I am going to write to both the Minister for Communications and the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott. In those letters I want to reiterate two points to both of them. To the Minister for Communications, we need to potentially look at changing the act and/or the charter of the ABC to ensure that it is obligatory that we have a member on the board of the ABC that is from regional and rural Australia. That would ensure that there is a designated voice from regional and rural Australia that will always be represented.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOGAN: I can hear the other side is happy with this. They are agreeing with me, which is great, that there is going to be a designated voice if this gets through, a voice for regional and rural Australia. I will be writing to the managing director too. He is opening up some regional divisions within the way the ABC operates. The letter will be talking about guaranteeing that there is not a focus on big cities with this and that things like content proportions and physical footprints are maintained. (Time expired)
Moreton Electorate: Cricket
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:35): I too rise to acknowledge the great game of cricket that we had in the electorate of Moreton yesterday, where the Muslim community from Moreton took on the Muslim community from Rankin. For the day, Jim Chalmers and I were honorary cricketers and also, I guess, honorary Muslims. I want to put on the record that the member for Rankins' team did win by one run. I will acknowledge that. It was a day played in great spirit. I do want to correct the record. The member for Rankin did say that he got me out. However, it was on a free hit so, consequently, technically, whilst he did knock over my stumps, he did not get me out and I managed to get a few runs. It was great.
I would particularly like to acknowledge Ali Kadri from the Holland Park mosque who organised the players from Moreton. We went to many mosques and schools in my electorate. Next year I hope to repeat the effort and maybe get a victory, but I would also like to go to the other mosques, including the Bosnian mosque, the Indonesian mosque and the Kuraby mosque. Not that the Bosnians and Indonesians are world famous for their cricket, but I am sure they will contribute. It was also great to have Usman Khawaja, the first Muslim Australian cricketer, come along and have some great support.
Economy
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (13:37): I was watching the Australian Story on Bob Hawke. Barry Cassidy said 'Bob Hawke was elected to bring the nation together.' Indeed he was. But he was also elected to provide income tax cuts, increase unemployment benefits, and raise pensions. He did none of them.
I have a list: Labor floating the dollar; Labor introducing HECS; Labor introducing the PBS co-payment; the coalition's response to the Asian financial crisis; the coalition's response to the collapse of HIH; Labor's rolling back of border protection policy; Labor's attack on private health insurance; Labor's alcopops tax, Labor's response to the GFC; Labor's axing of the chronic disease dental scheme; Labor's attack on the single parent pension; the MSPT and the MRRT. None of these things were taken to an election. They were economic responses to changes in circumstances The carbon tax, however, was a political decision and its sudden implementation had nothing to do with our economy. That is why it was so central to the previous government being tossed from office.
Both sides of this parliament agree with the proposition that the budget should be balanced, yet there is only one side prepared to do the lifting. We were elected to fix the budget mess. We inherited a broken budget and an economy that needed severe repairs. The only way to fix it is with hard work and spending less than we earn. When circumstances change, we adapt and correct. It was what we were elected to do. To keep digging holes is simply not an option. I thank the House.
Workplace Safety
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (13:38): I rise today, sadly, to draw attention to two terrible and tragic workplace deaths that have occurred recently in the electorate of Adelaide. Just recently we saw 21-year-old Jacob Porter tragically killed while he was working as a landscaper at the new Costco shopping centre development at Kilburn. We know that the loss of someone so young is always deeply shocking and saddening, and I wanted to take the opportunity to send our respects and sympathies to his friends and family.
I would also like to pay tribute to 54-year-old Mr Jorge Castillo-Riffo, who died in hospital over recent days as a result of injuries he suffered at the worksite of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Jorge died in hospital on Friday, also taken far too young.
Both of these men were killed this year in Adelaide in tragic circumstances whilst they were quite literally building the great city that we love. I know that the whole parliament will join in offering heartfelt condolences to both Jorge's and Jacob's family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.
We know that it is the right of Australians at work to be safe. These tragedies are a terrible reminder, for business and for all workers across the country, that no matter how difficult the task, no matter how tight the timeframe and no matter how many times we have done something before, safety should always be the most important consideration.
East West Link
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:40): I rise to acknowledge Victoria's election result on the weekend, and in particular the Premier-elects untenable position on the East West Link. I would urge Dan Andrews to think long and hard about the future of the East West Link project. As I have said many times before in this place, the East West Link is a crucial piece of infrastructure for Deakin residents, reducing travel times by up to 3 hours a week. It will also create 6,700 jobs during the construction phase. As the federal member for Deakin, my electorate covers an important part of Melbourne's eastern suburbs, and indeed voters in Melbourne's east made clear their desire for the completion of the East West Link project this week.
While votes are still being counted, it is clear that all of the state electorates that fall within the Deakin electorate have emphatically returned their Liberal MPs, with the East West Link featuring prominently in voters' minds. It therefore remains abundantly clear that people living in Melbourne's eastern suburbs strongly support the East West Link and want the incoming Labor state government to honour the contracts to build this critical piece of infrastructure.
If Dan Andrews follows through on his pre-election threat to tear up the contracts for this project, he and the Labor Party will once again be abandoning the people of Melbourne's east. I therefore call on Dan Andrews and Bill Shorten not to turn their backs on the people of Melbourne's east and put at risk thousands of jobs, and instead support this vital project.
Lalor Electorate: Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:42): I rise, like the member for Deakin, to celebrate an event that occurred in Victoria on the weekend. On Saturday I did an impromptu tour of schools in the electorate of Lalor and I was absolutely thrilled, as I visited schools, to hear the public talking about how great our schools look and how good those BER projects were. I was there assisting my state colleagues in handing out material for the election. I want to stand up to say that we are very pleased in Victoria to have returned a Labor government and to remind the member for Deakin that the Prime Minister called the state election in Victoria a referendum on the East West Link. That being the case, I hereby declare the referendum determined. It was also a referendum, I believe, on the Metro. I look forward to the development of the Melbourne Metro and some funding going into public transport, because Victoria voted for public transport. They voted for the Western Distributor. Those in the west in my electorate are very pleased that we will be turning soil on the Western Distributor shortly. I also wanted to note that the majority of candidates elected in the western suburbs of Melbourne are women, and that 47 per cent of the Labor caucus in the Victorian parliament will be women. I think that is something that everyone in this House—particularly on this side—would celebrate. So congratulations to Daniel Andrews.
Durack Electorate: Youth
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:43): Following their visit to Parliament House, I asked year 6 students from Strathalbyn Christian College in Geraldton what they would do if they were Prime Minister for a day. Here are some of their responses:
I would reinforce the law of no more racism so more children would have a role model to stop them being racist—Asham T
I would stop culling sharks—Seamus F
I would donate $1,000,000 to help stop Ebola and give all the homeless people $1,000 to buy food and water—Daniel J
I would aim to have a power plant that used, and made clean and healthy energy for Australia—Seamus H
I would buy houses for poor people and help all the homeless dudes out there by buying food and giving them a swag each—Tristan J
I would give money for medicine for unfortunate people—Reuben V
I would make every Monday a public holiday. I would also have short school days and longer weekends—Ryan S
If I was Prime Minister for the day, I would make every house, rental or home have a worm farm or some sort of pollution-saving thing—Jayden H
I would increase the amount of school work in schools—Patrick V
Way to go, Patrick.
I would give everyone a pony, and make one day in every year for people to go the shops and get a free roast chicken, free bread and free drinks—Charli L
I would give $100 to every school and charity. I would do everything in my power to reduce the amount of bullying and racism, and halve the amount of homework—Destiny B.
Thanks, kids. Well received—that is good advice.
National Broadband Network
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:45): Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce share a political message: 'If you don't vote for us, the kid gets it!' Just as the Nationals could not support SPC in Shepparton—because they did not vote National in Shepparton—the Minister for Communications has endorsed removing the suburbs of Bassendean, Beechboro, Eden Hill, Kiara, Lockridge, Morley and Ashfield from the NBN's rollout plan; presumably, because they voted Labor, their NBN gets it!
These suburbs were scheduled to have the NBN rolled out to their homes and businesses in 2014—a real commitment. The work to upgrade the Bassendean exchange, as a necessary part of this project, has been completed at the cost of some of millions of dollars. On any analysis, these suburbs are those that must rank most highly: not only has the precursor work been done, but all but one of those areas has been ranked as having the lowest download and upload speeds in the country; with the remaining one ranked second-lowest. The press release talks about transparency in the construction timetable—but there is nothing transparent about how these selections have been made. It looks a lot like the old, low-tech whiteboard has been wheeled out, there in the office of the Minister for Communications—and perhaps that is appropriate, given the dumbed-down technology that is going to be delivered in any event. (Time expired)
Parliamentary Friends of Motoring
Hughes Electorate: Hughes Charity Car Show
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:46): Tomorrow, Senators Muir and Lundy, along with the hardworking and most effective member for Lindsay, will as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Motoring be hosting a car show on the lawns of parliament. I congratulate those members and senators for their work in organising this event.
I would also like to take the opportunity to remind the House that next year I will be once again hosting the Hughes Charity Car Show in my electorate. In our very first year, we had some 209 cars on display and we raised more than $5,000 for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. In 2015, we will be taking advantage of the warmer weather in summer, and the Hughes Charity Car Show will be back—bigger and better than ever—on 22 February 2015. I am excited that next year we will be raising much-needed funds for the important work done by the Kids With Cancer Foundation. I can report to the House that many of the great attractions that we had at last year's show will return, along with a whole host of new amusements that will be a hit with the entire family—and I can confirm, Deputy Speaker, that we will be having the Batmobile. I am also pleased to report that the major sponsors are back on board, including Bankstown City Council, Torch Publishing Company, Shannon's insurance, and Panania Diggers. More information is available at www.hughescarshow.com where people can find entry forms, along with a list of categories for the 'show and shine' competition. I look forward to seeing all of my electorate, and of course anyone else from across Sydney, New South Wales or Australia, for a great family day at Kelso Park on 22 February next year.
Indi Electorate: Wodonga
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:48): Today I would like to pay tribute to the largest city in my electorate, Wodonga, and to the role of private sector investment in making Wodonga on the one of the fastest-growing regional centres in Victoria. Over the past decade, Wodonga has been experiencing unprecedented substantive private sector growth in investment. It gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the House four people who have played key roles in this development—Ralph and Wilga Clark, and Bill and Marita Perry—and to acknowledge and thank you for your commitment to our region.
Some of the examples of this private sector investment include: the Huon Hill pub and Quest Apartments development—over $20 million; the Wodonga Homemaker Centre—over $23 million; the $91 million Woolworths Distribution Centre at Logic, employing over 450 people; the development of a fully integrated, $15 million major truck stop, trailer interchange and fatigue management centre, also at Logic in Wodonga; the $20 million-plus, state-of-the-art Wodonga Livestock Exchange; and the soon to be started $60 million-Mann Central Shopping Centre. All this investment has led to substantial direct employment of well over 1,000 jobs with a significant multiplier impact on the Wodonga region. For successful investment on this scale, it takes leadership—and Wodonga has been blessed by strong, persistent and courageous leadership. (Time expired)
Barker Electorate: Small Business
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:50): I rise today to report on the exceptional Shop Small campaign, which promoted small businesses across Australia and particularly in my electorate of Barker. Shop Small, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, is a nationwide, grassroots movement that brings together businesses, community, governments and consumers to support small businesses. After a successful launch in 2013, Shop Small returned this year in November and ran for the entire month. I enjoyed taking the time out of my busy schedule in November to urge residents throughout my electorate to support the campaign by shopping at the small shops and businesses that strengthen our community—not just during the campaign time of November but also in every month of every year.
As those opposite know, small businesses and their owners are at the heart of our community, from family businesses to start-ups and independents. Local businesses give our neighbourhoods character, colour, and convenience, and we are committed to their long-term prosperity. By shopping small, we are supporting small businesses. In turn, thriving local shops create thriving local communities, which drive jobs growth. That is good for everyone—a genuine win-win. I am delighted that businesses such as Tania Long's The Birch House in Murray Bridge Marketplace, Sharon Tuffnell's Bare Necessities Lingerie in Mount Gambier, and Jan Linke's Linke's Bakery & Tearoom on Murray Street in Nuriootpa, jumped on board the campaign to raise the profile of this campaign and to highlight the importance of the small business sector in Barker. Businesses such as these demonstrate that local businesses thrive when their local communities embrace them.
Indigenous Affairs
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:51): I rise today to alert the House to some concerning results of recent reports into Indigenous disadvantage in Australia. The 2014 Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage report by the Productivity Commission shows incredibly disturbing trends in the areas of justice and mental health. The report reveals a startling increase in the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander imprisonment, with Indigenous youth imprisoned at 24 times the rate of non-Indigenous young people, as well as a 74 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous women going to jail since 2000. Overall, there has been a 57 per cent increase in Indigenous incarceration over the last 13 years.
The report also highlighted an alarming increase in high levels of psychological distress and hospitalisation for intentional self-harm. The Law Council of Australia says it is now a national crisis which requires urgent action. I agree. The Social Justice and Native Title Report 2014 from the social justice commissioner Mick Gooda, tabled in parliament just last week, reaffirmed this view. We need to revisit the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and assess how we are going against them. Twenty-two years down the track, the recommendations are still as relevant today as they were then. I urge the government to revise its current position on targets, as part of the Close the Gap initiative, to include holistic justice targets aimed at promoting safer communities as recommended by Mr Gooda. (Time expired)
King, Ms Judy, OAM
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (13:53): There are people on this earth who are born with a passion to help others, and Judy King OAM from Smithton in my electorate of Braddon was one such person. Sadly, Judy passed away recently after a long, extended battle with cancer. She was determined to face her battle with courage and had a commitment for many years to blaze a trail to make it easier for others. In 2008, Judy organised the region's first-ever Relay for Life rally. She ran the Cancer Council's transport2treatment bus, a transport service for patients who face difficulty getting to and from cancer treatment. Judy also formed the infamous Circular Head Bosom Buddies, a support network to help those locals diagnosed with the disease and to fundraise for the National Breast Cancer Foundation. In 2013, Judy was recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia for her services to the Circular Head community. She also made an appearance on the front cover of the 2013-14 North-West Tasmania White Pages as part of the Keeping Our Communities Healthy theme. Judy did more for her community than we will ever know. She has left behind a legacy of care and will be remembered for her love of family and life, together with her desire to offer hope to others.
I would like to pass on the sympathies of a grateful electorate to Judy's husband Ian, her children and grandchildren Leesa, Andrew, Cyrus and Nadia Kay, and Jaci, Paul and Alexandra Jones, and the wider Smithton community. Judy was a darling of our community and, sadly, she has left us. But as a beautiful respected Christian woman, she left with a hope of a better future. (Time expired)
Greste, Mr Peter
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:54): Today is Peter Greste's 49th birthday. Instead of celebrating it with the people he loves, he will mark this day as he has the last 337 days—in an Egyptian jail cell. Our first thoughts today are with Peter and his family. His parents, Juris and Lois, and his brothers, Mike and Andrew, have won millions of admirers for their optimism and character throughout this ordeal. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I wrote to Peter in June, and we were touched to receive a reply from Peter, from his Cairo prison cell, thanking parliament, the press and the Australian people for their overwhelming support. The imprisonment of Peter Greste is a grievous injustice. As Peter himself put it, it is an affront to the freedom of expression. No journalist, no servant of the free press, should be put in jail for doing their job. Until Peter Greste and more than 200 other journalists around the world who languish in jail are free, the freedom of all of us is diminished. Let us all rededicate ourselves to the persistent and consistent diplomacy that will deliver Peter Greste's freedom. Let us all resolve that Peter Greste will spend his 50th birthday as a free man.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:56): on indulgence—I join with the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party in expressing our deep concern about the treatment that has been handed out to Peter Greste. As I said to Michael and Andrew when I met with them last week, the Australian government, with the support of the opposition, will do what we can to have him home as soon as possible. We have raised his case at the highest levels of the Egyptian government before the election and after the election. Our Prime Minister has spoken directly to the President. I have spoken to Foreign Minister Shukri on numerous occasions. We did see a glimmer of hope recently when the President made a statement in an interview that there was consideration of a presidential pardon or clemency. We certainly welcome that. It is not what we have been told in either official or unofficial channels, but we have been urging the Egyptian government to consider releasing him now. His appeal against the sentence is listed for 1 January 2015, and up until now we have been informed that the legal process has to run its full course. If there is any opportunity for the Egyptian government to find its way clear to release Peter Greste now, so that he can come home to his family and friends, we will certainly do all we can to achieve that. I want to pay tribute, as the Greste family have done, to our diplomats in Cairo, who have been working tirelessly to make representations to every level within the Egyptian government. Might I also say that a number of our friends and allies and partners have also made representations, because the jailing of journalists for doing their job is an affront to all countries that embrace freedom, and freedom of speech particularly.
Defence Personnel
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:58): I rise to speak on an issue I have been campaigning on for the past six weeks—the government's unfair and insulting ADF pay and conditions offer. Today the Prime Minister backtracked on parts of the unfair offer, and while Labor welcomes this backdown the Prime Minister has not gone far enough. He is still cutting the real pay of our service men and women, he is still cutting the real pay of the people who defend Australia and our national interests, who we put in harm's way. This unfair pay offer has caused outrage in ADF ranks, and among their families and the wider community. There has been a flood of complaints on social media, a rally in Townsville and a petition presented to the Leader of the Opposition today—all opposing this outrageous offer. In fact, the petition was created by Tony Daggett, the father of a serving ADF member, who sits here in the chamber today. The petition has attracted more than 60,000 signatures, and Tony is hoping that figure will eventually reach a quarter of a million. I would also like to acknowledge Ray Martin, who also joins us in the chamber, for his work in organising the Townsville rally; Sarah Lowe, the spouse of an ADF member; and Cameron Daggett, Tony's son. Thank you, Tony and Ray, for your work in standing up for the nation's 57,000 service men and women. ADF members do not have a voice in their pay and conditions negotiations. They cannot vote and they cannot take industrial action. That is why Labor has, and will continue to, stand up for our ADF personnel. Australia, show your support for a fair deal for our service men and women. Sign up to Tony Daggett's petition.
Corangamite Electorate: Broadband
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:59): I rise to celebrate the great news that some 34,000 premises across Corangamite will receive fixed-line NBN more cheaply and quickly under out 18-month rollout plan announced today. I was very pleased with the announcement.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Hughes, Mr Phillip Joel
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): Death is the certain end to every life but it never loses its power to shock and dismay, as we have all found since the passing of Phillip Hughes last week. He was a great cricketer. He was grand company. He was the best of sons and the best of brothers. His death has so affected people because it happened in the midst of life, at its most exuberant. He was 63 not out, on his way to a century and a return to the test team. People are not supposed to die playing our national game. Sport is supposed to engender pride, not grief. Phillip Hughes's passing is a reminder that life is both precious and fragile.
We mourn with his family, Greg, Virginia, Jason and Megan. We grieve with his team mates, particularly Michael Clarke, who has shown such leadership over the past few days. We feel for Sean Abbott, whose life can never be quite the same again. Above all, we honour a young man who has left us too soon but who filled every moment of his 26 years 'With sixty seconds' worth of distance run'.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): On the weekend, at the grounds around our country, the Australian cricket family wore black armbands to mourn the loss of one of their own. From the manicured wickets of the first grade to the local synthetic, from young Kanga cricketers just beginning their love affair with the game to wily old veterans putting their bat through one last test of optimism, everyone paused to remember Phillip Hughes.
In our suburban streets and country towns, tens of thousands of Australians put their bats out to remember the piercing cut shot, the fantastic cheeky grin and the fighting qualities of a country boy who loved playing for his country. In Sharja, New Zealand and Pakistan took a day off from their test, and when they resumed they played in a very different way. The players did not celebrate their personal victories; their thoughts were with Phillip's family and friends. That was what was most important, not the test match. At Twickenham, the Wallabies and English fans celebrated Phillip's life with a minute of applause. In the A-league game between Adelaide United and Melbourne Victory, the crowd rose as one at the 63rd minute.
What was it about Phillip Hughes, his career and his passing that captured world-wide attention? I spoke with Dave O'Neill, the President of the Western Suburbs Cricket Club. He was president at the time Phillip joined as a boy from the bush, chasing his dream. He paid tribute to Phillip's brilliance and his potential, the records he holds and the records he would have set. Dave also told me something of Phillip's qualities and his values and the wonderful family that gave them to him and to whom we offer our heartfelt condolences. Phillip Hughes had courage, resilience and an extraordinary work ethic—dropped four times from the Australian side but bouncing back and piling on the runs in the Shield competition. A fantastic team man—a quality obvious from the universal reaction of his devastated team mates. And perhaps unusual in the ultra-competitive world of ultra-professional sport, Phillip was deeply admired and respected by his opponents.
I think in remembering Phillip Hughes the Australian and, indeed, the world cricket family has been at its best. But perhaps for Australian Captain, Michael Clarke, this has been his finest hour in a very distinguished career. He found the words to describe our sadness, to speak of Phillip's family for his team mates and his country. We commend Michael for the way he reached out on behalf of all Australians to Sean Abbott, offering to pad up and face the first ball that Sean bowels on his return.
Our nation will remember Phillip Hughes not for how he died but for how he lived and for what he loved. Perhaps today all of us should remember to tell the people whom we care for how much we love them. Life is bigger, more precious and more fickle than any game. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: I ask members to stand as a mark of respect on the passing for Phillip Hughes.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:05): by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the death of Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes, on 27 November 2014, be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Victoria State Election
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. The member for Gippsland said about the Victorian election result:
… the tough measures in our Federal Budget certainly had an impact.
You would have to be delusional not to recognise that the Victorian result sent a message to the Coalition at both states and federal levels …
Prime Minister, have you got the message?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:06): Obviously, there has been a change of government in Victoria. I spoke to the new Premier this morning. We had quite a good conversation about the East West Link and what might happen to it, the royal commission into union corruption and criminality and the support that the Victorian government will continue to give to that, and the view that each level of government should do its best to do its job as well as it possibly can and to effectively manage the boundary between their responsibilities. It was a good conversation. I am sure it will be the start of what should be a constructive and collegial relationship. I have a constructive and collegial relationship with all of the premiers, including the Labor premiers, and that is exactly what I would expect to have with the incoming Premier of Victoria.
Economy
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House actions the government has taken in 2014 to strengthen the economy and deliver real benefits for families and small businesses in my electorate?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:07): I do thank the member for Barton for his question. This has been a year of delivery for the Australian people.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: It has! The carbon tax has gone; the mining tax has gone; the boats are stopping; the roads are being built; and the budget is being repaired. We are repairing the budget, and members opposite are sabotaging it. That is the simple truth.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga.
Mr ABBOTT: This has been a year of achievement and it is already benefiting families and small businesses, because when the carbon tax went that delivered a $550-a-year benefit to every Australian household, which members opposite want to put back. They want to put the $550-a-year carbon tax back on the households of Australia. We delivered the biggest cut in power prices in history and members opposite want to put those power prices right back up again. That is what they want to do—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: By stopping the boats, what this government has done is to have stopped the deaths. That is what we have done: by stopping the boats, we have stopped the deaths at sea, which were the inevitable—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: I am talking about the deaths at sea. I would have thought that the interjector across the table would be very conscious of the importance of stopping the boats and stopping the deaths. The mining tax has gone and so investment can continue and jobs can be created. A $50-billion infrastructure program is underway, including major projects in every state and, yes, through asset recycling there is money available for public transport projects—should state governments wish to pursue them. Trade means jobs and so we have turbocharged our trade agenda. We have concluded the free trade agreements, which members opposite procrastinated about for six years, and these mean more exports, more jobs and lower prices. Major projects worth over $1 trillion have been given environmental approval by this government.
We know that fixing the budget is hard. We did not create the budget mess but we are prepared to take on responsibility for fixing it. I just wish members opposite would take on the responsibility for having created it in the first place. We are repairing the budget; Labor is sabotaging it. What we are doing is what we were elected to do, which is to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
Economy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. The former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett has said: 'There's more than barnacles they are going to have to clean up before Christmas. Their domestic policies are a shambles.' Does the buck stop with the Prime Minister when it comes to his domestic policy shambles?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:11): The carbon tax has gone; the mining tax has gone; free trade agreements have been delivered; red-tape reductions—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: Annual red-tape reductions have been delivered. One trillion dollars of environmental approvals have been granted; $550 worth of benefits to every Australian household. This is a government which is delivering for the people of Australia and, above all else, we are not shirking the task of budget repair, but while we are repairing the budget, members opposite are sabotaging it. There are $28 billion worth of budget savings which Labor is opposing, including about $15 billion worth of savings, which it supported in government. This is an opposition which was incompetent in government and it is a wrecker in opposition—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: This is a government which has absolutely demonstrated that what we do for the people of Australia is deliver.
Economy
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of putting in place policies that will lay the foundation for Australia's future prosperity?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his question. As a former assistant Treasurer, he knows how important it is to make the difficult but lasting decisions that help to fix up a mess left by Labor. Our economic action strategy is laying down the foundations for stronger economic growth right across Australia. As a result of our initiatives to strengthen the Australian economy, over this 12-month period, job creation in Australia has been running at twice the speed that it was under this Leader of the Opposition just last year. Twice as many jobs have been created every month in Australia under the coalition than under Labor last year.
Secondly, for the first time ever, we have seen record falls in electricity prices. How important that is for Australian manufacturers, for those who rely on logistics, for Australian businesses and, most of all, for Australian households. Thirdly, we have now seen consumer confidence rise to levels that are the highest average since 1990—contrary to the bunkum pushed around by the Leader of the Opposition, who rarely gets his facts right. Consumer confidence is now at long-term average levels. According to Dun and Bradstreet, business-sales expectations have increased to 14-year highs. I say again: business-sales expectations are at 14-year highs. And who is the greatest advocate for that? Stephen Koukoulas, the chosen economic adviser to the Labor Party. But, of course, there is more to be done.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: As Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics said, the government are the only team in politics that has a plan to strengthen the Australian economy and strengthen the budget, we are the only ones with a plan to deal with the mess that was left behind by Labor and we have a steely determination to do it. That is because under Labor's plan every single Australian in a decade's time would have $25,000 of government debt against their name. Every child born in 10 year's time under Labor would be born with an immediate debt to the government of $25,000.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: The complete indifference of the Labor Party to that is appalling and it just goes to show that the only people you can trust with the economy are the coalition.
Victoria State Election
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments in today's Geelong Advertiser from a local Liberal party official. I quote: 'Tony Abbott was a poison. He was absolutely toxic throughout the campaign. What with talk about the GST, cuts to the ABC and the petrol tax—petrol for Godsakes—it is something that hits every mum and dad out there.' Will the Prime Minister now admit that Victorians and all Australians have comprehensively rejected his unfair budget?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): Members opposite can certainly reprosecute the Victorian election campaign if they wish, but I am determined to deliver on the commitments that I made to the Australian people.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence from my left, including from the member for Hotham.
Mr ABBOTT: Let's go through it: the carbon tax repeal was delivered, the mining tax repeal was delivered, border security was delivered, free-trade agreements were delivered, a one-stop shop for environmental approvals was delivered, massive reductions in red tape costs were delivered and the budget repair is absolutely underway. This is a government that is determined to deliver for the people of Australia. That is what we are doing, that is what they expected of us and that is what we are delivering upon.
Trade
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's free-trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China will benefit the Australian economy and particularly my electorate of Calare?
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:17): I thank my friend and colleague, the member for Calare, for the question. Since taking office, we have been determined to replace debt fuelled government spending with private sector activity to drive sustainable growth in our economy. It is why we are determined to live within our means. It is also why we aggressively pursued three free-trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China. These transformational agreements account for 61 per cent of our goods exports and 19 per cent of our services trade. They send a signal to the region and to the world that Australia is open for business.
When the Abbott government came to office, these negotiations had run into the sand, despite years of talk. This was not good enough, especially when competitors were already capturing our market share. The free-trade agreement with Korea, for instance, will see 99.8 per cent of Korea's tariffs eliminated on full implementation. It is outstanding agreement. Independent modelling shows that agricultural exports to Korea will be 73 per cent higher after 15 years and manufacturing exports will be 53 per cent higher after 15 years. That will create jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Our FTA with Japan is the first Japan has signed with any major agricultural exporter, giving more than 97 per cent of our exports duty-free or preferential entry into the world's third largest economy. Australian consumers will enjoy cheaper imports, notably of cars, household goods and electronic consumer goods. Australian service providers will gain significant access to finance, education, telecommunications and legal services.
Under the historic China free-trade agreement, more than 95 per cent of Australia's good and exports will enter China duty-free. On services, we have secured unrivalled access to China, unlike any country in the world. In fact, in the years and decades ahead, much of the growth that will come about as a result of this China free-trade agreement will be because of this extraordinary service offering.
But the job is not done. A trade deal with India is the next objective. They are massive market of 1.2 billion people. We are also pushing hard to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Again, they are agreements that will deliver greater prosperity and millions of jobs over the decades ahead. These are all groundbreaking deals that will give Australian business a winning edge in major markets, drive growth and create jobs for generations to come.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Hunter and the member for Kennedy will get the next question.
SPC Ardmona
Victoria State Election
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the minister's comments that the responsibility for the future of SPC's fruit cannery lay fair and square with the Liberal Party. Given that the Victorian Nationals have lost the seat of Shepparton after 47 years and will lose their party's status, does the minister accept personal responsibility for the loss of this seat?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:21): It is interesting to note that there is actually a package for SPC. It was delivered by the National Party and it was delivered by Jeanette Powell. They actually did get a package. One of the big reasons they got a package is because Victoria has something that the federal government does not have: Victoria has a surplus. They actually have a government in Victoria that can deliver a surplus. What we were left with was the car crash that is the Labor Party's financial position. The Labor Party's financial position is the reason why there is so much that has to be turned around.
Of course, this creates concern. Of course, this creates the reasoning behind us having to tighten our belts. If these people on the other side had been half the economic wit that we have with our Treasurer, then we would not be in this position.
All the time we are trying to sweep up after your mess. All the time we have the same old story—the Labor Party creates the pigsty, we have to clean it up and they complain about the noise of the vacuum cleaner. It happens all the time, no matter where we go. We are trying to turn around the financial position of this nation that your government left us in. Your government is still there, represented by the member for Lilley and represented by the member for McMahon. They are still there. Everything that we have to do is a result of your fiasco of financial management.
Water
Infrastructure
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:23): Prime Minister, 80 per cent of Australia has only 80 million megalitres of water; North Queensland has 200. Current irrigation proposals include the Chinese entrepreneurial Ord to Gilbert. Ethanol, sugar, electricity and cattle feed from Mackay Sugar and GHDQ2's upper Burdekin scheme would create $1.5 billion a year and 5,000 jobs in Mackay, Charters Towers and Townsville. It has the powerful support of the excellent member for Dawson and the humble and innocuous member for Kennedy. Will the government initiate this—Australia's first irrigation scheme in 30 years?
The SPEAKER: I presume that question is to the honourable the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:23): I do thank the member for Kennedy for his question. Humble and innocuous, he says, but his voice has been heard in the land as, indeed, has the member for Dawson's voice—as it should be. I am more than happy to consider the irrigation scheme that the member refers me to. As is well known, this is a government that, before the election, committed to ending the dam phobia which has afflicted our polity for the best part of 30 years. We do believe that we need more water storages because not only are water storages a marvellous source of wealth to our farmers and a source of sustainability to our cities but they are also a source of energy to consumers, because they can be used for clean, green hydro power. There is an abundance of reasons for wanting to look again at major irrigation projects and major water storage projects. That is, in significant measure, what the Northern Australia white paper will be considering. That is, in significant measure, what the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, under the chairmanship of the member for Leichhardt, has been looking at. I commend that committee for its work, and, certainly, this is one of the projects which the government is looking at.
Asylum Seekers
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the success of Operation Sovereign Borders and any recent actions to prevent illegal boat arrivals from reaching Australia.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:25): I thank the member for Grey for his question and commend him, and the rest of the class of 2007, on completing seven years of service in this House. It has been 127 days since there was a successful venture to Australia. That is almost as long as it has been since the member for Corio has asked me a question. I can report to the House that there was a further venture which was disrupted over the last couple of weeks, concluding over the course of the weekend, from Sri Lanka. A venture was turned back in accordance with the policy of Operation Sovereign Borders. These ventures are very few and far between, but I can assure the House that Operation Sovereign Borders remains at absolute full strength to stop people smuggling to Australia.
Thirty-seven of the 38 persons on that vessel were returned after the rigorous and robust screening process that was conducted to ensure that Australia's non-refoulement obligations were not violated. One person has been transferred to offshore processing. All of this means one thing: we again sent a strong signal that, because of the turn-back policy of this government, the way to Australia for people smugglers remains closed. People on this side of the House understand that. Even the people smugglers understand it. Turn-backs are critical to stopping people smugglers.
There is one person who still does not get it. That is the Leader of the Opposition, who still thinks that turn-backs do not work, despite the evidence that is in front of his face. Not only does he not get it but he would not do turn-backs if his party were ever to sit on this side again. What we have is a Leader of the Opposition and a Labor Party that will not turn back the boats but bring back the boats if they are ever given the chance of protecting our borders again. The Leader of the Opposition likes to think of himself as a small target when it comes to policy. But I can assure him that he is a very, very large target when it comes to border protection. This is not a small target on border protection; he is just small and weak when it comes to border protection. We have seen this in his absolute denial of the success of the policies that are stopping the boats.
If you want someone to photo-bomb someone else's election victory, then invite the Leader of the Opposition. If you want someone to stop the boats and protect the borders, then look this way. This is the team that has got it done. On the weekend, it was not just on boats. On the weekend, we had the second-largest drug detection in our nation's history and the single largest detection of ice—that is 10 million tablets that are not going to find their way onto the streets this summer because of the strong border protection policies of this government in backing the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, backing the Australian Federal Police, backing the New South Wales police and the New South Wales and the Australian crime commissions. We are stopping the drugs and we are stopping the boats. (Time expired)
Road Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:28): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's threats to Victorians to withdraw the $3 billion of Commonwealth funding for infrastructure if they did not vote Liberal on Saturday.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right!
Mr ALBANESE: Can the Prime Minister assure the people of Victoria that they will always get their fair share of Commonwealth infrastructure funding?
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Prime Minister, the honourable Treasurer will stop his interjection across the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:29): I certainly can assure the people of Victoria that they will get their fair share of projects. I can assure them of that. But I do hope that the incoming Premier of Victoria does reconsider his misguided commitment to tear up the East West Link contract. I do hope that he will reconsider that commitment because it is pretty clear that the people of Victoria do want the East West Link. Even the Leader of the Opposition—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left.
Mr ABBOTT: wants the East West Link, because the Leader of the Opposition was the author of two submissions—not one, but two submissions—in favour of the East West Link.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will put down her prop.
Mr ABBOTT: So this government is in favour of the East West Link. The Leader of the Opposition, once upon a time, at least, was in favour of the East West Link. And we are only too happy to continue to deliver $3 billion to the government of Victoria, provided it goes ahead with building the East West Link that it is contractually obligated to build.
Infrastructure
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (14:30): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's plans to build the infrastructure of the 21st century? What are the economy-wide benefits of this plan?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for Forrest for her question. We announced in the budget the biggest infrastructure package Australia has ever had—an infrastructure package that actually builds new roads and new airports, and facilitates investment in public transport and a range of other initiatives that are going to help to create jobs because we believe the best way to build prosperity in Australia and the best way to build prosperity for families is that you have good jobs, well-paid jobs, that enhance the wealth of individuals. We increased infrastructure expenditure by $16.4 billion in comparison with what the Labor Party would have had over the same period of time.
Those projects are about creating jobs immediately, because, as we know, the mining construction boom has been coming off as mining has been going into a production phase. That is why we struck deals with individual state governments to roll out infrastructure that creates jobs now. One of those infrastructure projects was the East West Link, which now employs 250 people—right now.
The member for McMahon and the Leader of the Opposition said that they do not tear up contracts: 'Labor does not tear up contracts.' Well, we will wait and see, because Dan Andrews says he is going to tear up the contract. Dan Andrews says he is going to sack 7,000 people. Dan Andrews says he is going to have to pay a billion dollars of compensation to a building company that has not built a road. I would say to the Labor Party: either you honour contracts or you tear them up.
But whatever it is, you can be sure of this: you can never trust Labor on infrastructure and you can never trust Labor on jobs, because, as we stand today, Australians would not have cheaper electricity if Labor were re-elected. Australians would have a mining tax and a handbrake on the mining industry if Labor were re-elected. Australians would not have the biggest infrastructure program in Australia's history if Labor were re-elected. Australians would not have a government that is starting to get the budget under control, to address the legacy of debt and deficit left behind by Labor; that would certainly not be the case if Labor were re-elected. There would be no free trade agreements. There would be no deregulation agenda. There would be no fast approvals for major projects. Those are the sorts of initiatives that deliver the jobs and the prosperity that the Australian people expect and want.
Infrastructure
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the answer just given by the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister's previous answer relating to the East West Link. Is the Prime Minister seriously asking the Victorian government to break an election commitment the Monday after the election?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:34): We are asking the Victorian government to heed the advice that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for McMahon gave it—that Labor honours contracts. That is what we are asking. Even the Leader of the Opposition believes that the East West Link should be built because he has written not one but two submissions saying that the East West Link should be built, and this government believes and the Leader of the Opposition believes that all of those clogged arteries of the city of Melbourne should be unclogged. That is what we are saying to the incoming Victorian government: honour the contracts that were duly entered into by the legitimate government of Victoria; do what your federal colleagues advise you to do; do what the Leader of the Opposition thinks is the right thing to do—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: collect the $3 billion that the federal government is offering you, and get on with building the East West Link.
Higher Education
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister explain how the government's higher education reforms are important to students in universities, both in my electorate of Page and around the country? And, Minister, what is the alternative to reform?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:36): I thank the honourable member for Page for his question, and he is absolutely right: the higher education reforms are vitally important to Australia—to universities, so that they can be internationally competitive, and to students, so that we can spread more opportunity to more students from low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds and to first-generation university goers, to ensure that they get the same opportunities to go to university that many other people in this chamber have had. This week is the vital week, member for Page and Madam Speaker; this week is the week that the government will put these bills to the Senate for a vote. And many across the university sector are calling for these reforms to be amended and passed. Universities Australia said today, in fact:
Our message to all Senators this week is not to defer decisions and ignore the unique opportunity they have to shape a new, fairer higher education package this year.
In other words, we have united the universities sector. Universities Australia represents all the universities in the country. Universities Australia is calling on the Senate not to defer consideration of this matter but to pass the bill, admittedly with amendments.
Already we have shown our preparedness to be flexible. Already we have announced that we will not impose a 10-year government bond rate on the Higher Education Contribution Scheme debt. We will accept the amendment moved by Senator Day. We have already said that we will have a HECS pause for mums and dads who leave the workforce in order to have a baby after they have graduated from university, as moved by Senator Madigan. There may well be other negotiating aspects of this reform that will bring about a fairer reform for students and for universities.
The member for Page asked me about the alternative. Unfortunately, the alternative is Labor's alternative, which is $6.6 billion of cuts over the six years that they were in government. They took $6.6 billion out of the university sector. They gave universities no opportunity to have the flexibility they needed to gain revenue from elsewhere. That has led to stagnation in the higher education sector, and continuing stagnation is the alternative under Labor.
Under Labor our students will see the quality of their education slip further and further—and we are no longer competing just within Australia for jobs. Mums and dads across Australia know that their young children need to be able to compete internationally for the best jobs in the world. They therefore need to have the best university degrees in the world. These reforms will give our universities the opportunity to be the best in the world and will give our students opportunities they need to be the best citizens of the world.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister take so long to discover that his cuts to Defence allowances were unfair? Given that funding for a real wage increase was included in the budget, will the Prime Minister now commit to providing a fair pay deal for our Defence men and women?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:39): I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has noticed that we have restored the allowances that were removed as part of the deal in question. No-one dislikes more than I do the fact that we have to have restraint at these times in questions of pay. No-one likes the necessity for restraint, particularly when it comes to Defence pay. But what is possible with $20 billion surpluses is not possible with $50 billion deficits.
I know that members of our armed forces would prefer to have a three per cent or above pay increase, but members of our armed forces are citizens as well as Defence Force personnel. They understand that the government does have to live within its means after six years of debt and deficit disaster from members opposite. They know that if Labor had not run the budget into such massive debt and deficit it would be much easier to pay them more than it currently does.
The other thing that members of the Defence forces well understand is that members opposite, when they were in government, cut $16 billion from Defence spending. Members opposite, when they were in government, reduced Defence spending as a percentage of GDP to the lowest since 1938. Members of the Defence forces know that Labor's cuts led to 119 Defence projects being delayed, 43 Defence projects being reduced in scale and eight projects being cancelled altogether.
So I think that members of our Defence forces think that the Leader of the Opposition has a bit of a hide asking questions like this. Members of our Defence forces know that, in terms of defending our country, it is very important that we get the economic defences right as well as the physical defences. That is what this government is doing. This government is giving us the economic strength which is necessary to ensure our country's defence strength and defence security as well.
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's answer I seek leave to table the document showing that a real wage increase was budgeted for in the budget.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The member for Robertson has the call.
Budget
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:42): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the efforts the government is making to target Labor's legacy of debt and deficit? How does this legacy affect the whole economy?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for Robertson for her question and recognise that, despite some of the challenges we have had in the budget, we have been able to set up an Australian Taxation Office in Gosford with up to 600 employees. That is hugely important for the Central Coast of New South Wales, which has very high unemployment. It is important that we actually focus on dealing with the legacy of debt and deficit left behind by Labor—$667 billion of debt, without any action, in 10 years time. As I said before, that equates to $25,000 for every man, woman and child in 10 years time.
It is only the coalition that has a plan to fix the mess that has been left behind by Labor. As Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics said this morning:
Yet May’s Budget is the only roadmap to structural fiscal repair Australia has—the Opposition and minor parties washed their hands of setting out detailed alternatives, preferring populist posturing.
Preferring populist posturing—that is the Labor Party way. We know that. In fact, for some odd reason, I had a grand choice on the TV just before question time of Clive Palmer or Bill Shorten. I was channel surfing, looking for some sport or anything else, but I could not help but listen to the Leader of the Opposition, who said before question time words to the effect, 'If you want to fix the budget, get rid of the savings that are in the budget.' I thought: 'Hang on; how does that work?' He says, 'Dump the Medicare co-payment, dump the fuel excise and dump all the things that actually save money.' And do you know what? He reckons the budget would actually be in better shape. I have heard that before—when the Leader of the Opposition was out there, saying, 'Great news, Australia; we've delivered a budget surplus,' or when our old mate, up there in the back stall, the member for Lilley—you can look up now, Swanny, thank you—said at this dispatch box, 'The four surpluses I announce tonight'—
Ms Hall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to remind the Treasurer to refer to members by the name of their electorates.
Mr HOCKEY: I tell you what: the member for Lilley is in great shape when he has to be rescued by the member for Shortland! You are in great shape. You are at the peak of your career right now. As a former minister, you stood at this dispatch box and said to the Australian people that you were going to deliver surpluses. Labor never delivered surpluses and Labor will never deliver surpluses. The only people with a plan for a stronger Australia are the coalition.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will desist!
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will desist!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: We will have silence before the Leader of the Opposition is invited to have the call—and that includes those on my right.
Minister for Defence
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Defence pay debacle, will Senator Johnston still be the defence minister next February or does the buck stop with you?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the Prime Minister.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:46): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table 60,000 objections of ordinary Australians objecting to your pathetic pay deal for the defence forces.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry but, unless I missed something, did the honourable the Prime Minister answer? Then the Leader of the Opposition is quite out of order in attempting to—
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, he cannot. The honourable the Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:47): Madam Speaker, I should indicate that the government will give the Leader of the Opposition leave to table the petition that he forgot about in his question. All of us would like to pay defence personnel more. We really, really would. But it is impossible to do with a $50 billion deficit what was possible with a $20 billion surplus. I give this commitment: no public sector worker will be paid at a higher rate of increase than our defence forces. Our defence forces will be given the respect that they deserve from this government by being paid at the very top of what is possible at these times. But our defence forces need to know why we are in this predicament. We are in this predicament because members opposite gave us debt and deficit, stretching out as far as the eye can see. That is why it is not possible to pay defence force personnel as much as we would like, because members opposite left us with debt and deficit stretching out as far as the eye can see. Because Defence Force personnel are smart people, because they understand that in order to have a strong defence you have got to have a strong economy, I am confident that they will appreciate exactly what this government is doing.
The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition to deal with his position.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): Madam Speaker, in the light of the Prime Minister's offers, I seek leave to table 60,000 objections to the government's pathetic ADF pay deal.
The SPEAKER: The government has given leave. The petition is tabled.
Regional Development Australia Fund
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (14:49): My question is addressed to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the findings of the recently released Australian National Audit Office report into the management of the Regional Development Australia Fund?
Government members interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left and right!
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:49): Can I thank the member for Parkes for what is a very important question. Last Thursday afternoon, in the midst of unimaginable sadness, with the news about Phillip Hughes, there was an Auditor-General's report tabled in this parliament, which was startling in its nature. It revealed a Labor Party in government which, knowingly, went out of their way to abuse taxpayers' money for their own political benefit. It was probably the worst ANAO report that many of the officials in my department have seen. It is a report that highlights just how desperate the former government got in their dying days. It was a government that created a process. Former minister Simon Crean, who is a good man, created a process. He appointed a committee and the former Labor member for McMillan, Christian Zara, to head that committee. They asked the committee to make recommendations about which projects under the RDAF rounds 3 and 4 should be funded and then they completely ignored it. They overturned nearly all of the decisions. In fact, out of 42 decisions that were made, 34 of them were overturned by the minister.
Ms Collins: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: on relevance. Two-thirds of those projects were in non-Labor-held seats.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order; please resume your seat. The member for Franklin knows that a point of order is not to stand and debate the question. If you wish to debate it, do it in some other form of the House.
Mr BRIGGS: Out of 42 recommendations made by her own hand-picked committee, she overturned 34 of them. Of those that the former minister overturned, 80 per cent of them were in coalition seats and 60 per cent were in Labor seats. This is a total and utter abuse of taxpayers' money in a desperate attempt to hold up Labor seats. It was a king's ransom for the Labor Party. And it was not the usual suspects. It was not the member for Grayndler, it was not the member for Sydney; it was the member for Ballarat, who has been totally and utterly silent—
Ms Collins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin will desist.
Mr BRIGGS: since this report was released—totally and utterly silent. Unlike the member for Grayndler, who puts out a press release when he turns up to parliament, the member for Ballarat has not said a word. She has not apologised, she has not explained herself, and she should. And if this Leader of the Opposition had any heart he would tell her to apologise. He would tell her to explain. He would tell her to tell the Australian people why it was that the former government, under the Prime Minister he used to support, Julia Gillard, did this to Australian taxpayers' money. It was a rort, it is a shame, and you should be disgusted with your own former minister's behaviour. She should apologise.
Sinodinos, Senator Arthur
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. Under what circumstances will Senator Sinodinos return as Assistant Treasurer? Will the Prime Minister reappoint the Assistant Treasurer if ICAC makes a finding that the senator is not corrupt but merely incompetent?
The SPEAKER: The member may rephrase his question, leaving the latter part out, as it is a hypothetical. He must rephrase the question; otherwise, I will rule it out of order.
Mr DREYFUS: Under what circumstances will Senator Sinodinos return as Assistant Treasurer?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:54): They would be very happy circumstances indeed, wouldn't they, to get Senator Sinodinos back into the ministry? As I have indicated on many previous occasions, it is my hope to have Senator Sinodinos back in the ministry.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide!
Mr ABBOTT: But obviously the senator is subject to an inquiry in New South Wales, and it is important that we see the results of that inquiry.
Child Care
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (14:54): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on the government's action to restore affordability, flexibility and accessibility to the childcare sector?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:54): I thank the member for Wright for his question—a real-world person delivering real-world results for the people of South-East Queensland. Our election commitment was to restore affordability, flexibility and accessibility in the childcare and early-learning sector in Australia, and we are well on the way to doing just that. We have had to work our way through a litany of Labor failures, and I should probably highlight just some of them. Labor's biggest failure was that childcare fees rose 53 per cent in six years under Labor. Our response: a once-in-a-generation Productivity Commission inquiry, the first review of the system since the 1980s—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will desist.
Ms LEY: an inquiry, I should add, that members opposite did not support, because obviously they thought the system was working perfectly well when in fact it was not. Labor's other big failure: the Early Years Quality Fund, their dodgy union slush fund, which gave this promised short-term pay rise. It was actually just a bribe to sign up union memberships. Our response: the biggest-ever professional development fund for childcare educators—a $200 million investment. Labor's failure: 1,000 pages of new red tape and regulation, which the national regulator said would add $140,000 in costs in administration only—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith!
Ms LEY: to a 75-place childcare centre. Our response: working with state and territory ministers to get rid of that over-regulation. Labor's other failure in the rural and regional sector: to abolish child care in occasional care services. Our response: to bring it back, which we have done. Labor's failure was, again, to preside over a 30 per cent reduction in compliance checks, leading to an explosion in cheating and rorting. We have established a dedicated compliance task force, which has already taken action and recovered taxpayers' money. Labor's failure: failure to allocate a single cent to universal access to preschool beyond the end of 2014. Ours: to restore it for 2015.
The member for Wright, like other members of the Liberal and Nationals parties, brings to this parliament the lived experiences of families who are struggling, managing the childcare juggle—homework, commute, before-school care, after-school care, the work-family balance on which so much depends. We have a plan. We are building a better system, we are working to fix Labor's mess.
Budget
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:57): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm whether his mini-budget will include revenue from the GP tax even though it has no chance of passing the Senate?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:58): I think the Australian people deserve an apology from you for the contempt you have shown for taxpayers' money.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, two points of order: on being directly relevant, which it clearly is not, and on addressing his remarks through the chair.
The SPEAKER: I will remind the honourable Treasurer to address members by their proper terms.
Mr HOCKEY: The member for Ballarat rorted the Australian taxpayer and should apologise now.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will pay attention to the question as asked.
Mr HOCKEY: I will pay attention to the question, because I am going to do it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Well, I am sorry, but there is an audit report that says that the member for Ballarat rorted Australian taxpayers.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, a point of order: this is a wilful disregard of the standing orders; it is grossly disorderly and—
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Treasurer will direct his remarks to the question.
Mr HOCKEY: It goes to health, and I am happy to say that; it is the health of the budget that we are focused on. But I would say to the honourable member for Ballarat, who never seems to get her facts right—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the comment that was made earlier, with respect to 'wilful', must be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary.
The SPEAKER: This is not the time for argument. Resume your seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr HOCKEY: The honourable member for Ballarat—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will address his remarks to the question or resume his seat.
Mr Hockey: I am trying to do that.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will desist.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw. You cannot make an accusation such as that against another member of parliament without a substantive motion. I would ask him, for the dignity of the House, to simply withdraw and then he can go on to answer the question. It cannot be left to stand.
The SPEAKER: The member would assist the chair if he would tell me precisely what he wishes to have withdrawn. The noise is so great that I cannot hear.
Mr Albanese: The term 'wilful', very clearly.
The SPEAKER: Wilful what?
Mr Albanese: You are aware of what it is and he knows full well. He has shown a sense of decency from time to time and I would ask him to do it here now.
The SPEAKER: If the Treasurer did use an unparliamentary term, I would ask him to assist the House. But if he says he has not—I have not heard an unparliamentary term.
Mr HOCKEY: I have not, Madam Speaker. The honourable member for Grayndler used to talk about 'regional rorts' all the time. So 'rort' is not an unparliamentary term—only when it applies to Labor, of course, but that is so common now.
The SPEAKER: The term 'rort' is not an unparliamentary term; you are quite right.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to page 515 of Practice. It says:
… all imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members are considered to be highly disorderly.
The reason we referred to the word 'wilful' is that it goes to claiming an improper motive.
The SPEAKER: I do not think the term 'wilful' does. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr HOCKEY: To go to the member for Ballarat's question, how about this: Labor kept the private health insurance rebate means test in the budget for six budget updates. It was first proposed in the 2009 budget—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon and the member for Sydney will desist!
Mr HOCKEY: The measure was rejected by the Senate for the first time on 9 September.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned!
Mr HOCKEY: Then they put it into MYEFO, even though it had been rejected by the Senate, and then it was rejected by the Senate a second time. But Labor, undeterred, kept putting it in the budget—in 2010, in the 2010 economic statement, in the 2010 MYEFO, in the 2011 budget and in the 2011 MYEFO—and, at the end of the day, it actually went through the Senate. So Labor actually are accusing us of doing things that they never did! The hypocrisy of the Labor Party is extraordinary. We know you have an insipidly weak leader. We know that the Labor Party cannot hold a principle from midnight to dawn. But for the Labor Party to accuse us of rorting processes, after the behaviour of the member for Ballarat, cut me a break!
Superclinics
WYATT ROY (Longman) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the empty paddock in my electorate where the Caboolture GP superclinic should be. I thought perhaps he could update the House on the progress of Labor's GP superclinic program.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:04): I thank the member for Longman for his question. It is not appropriate to use props in question time, so let me describe this picture that I have for the benefit of the House and those listening. It has a sign out the front that says 'Caboolture GP superclinic' and talks about the extended hours of the GP superclinic.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned!
Mr DUTTON: If you look beyond the temporary fencing which is just in front of the sign—I am hoping you are picturing this—there is no entrance into a building, there is no car park for doctors' cars, there is no ambulance bay; there is just a vacant paddock with dirt and a truck and a tractor in the background. I just want to update the Labor Party that patients cannot be seen in that sort of a setting; patients cannot be seen by construction workers driving a backhoe or a bobcat or a truck; they cannot see patients in those unhygienic circumstances. I think it is important for the Labor Party to understand that. They are cocky at the moment and they believe they are going to be returned at the next election. I think it is important for people to understand that they did make considerable mistakes when they were last in government and they have learnt nothing since. They are all full of confidence at the moment. We have seen it demonstrated today by the assistant minister for infrastructure and by the shadow Treasurer as well. They were a bad government. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years were bad for this country; they were a bad government.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Mr DUTTON: When you go through them one by one—the member for Ballarat, the member for Sydney, the member for Grayndler and the Leader of the Opposition—they were all trained by Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. It was demonstrated when they were ministers in those years, and it will be demonstrated if they are re-elected at the next election. It is a very important message for the Australian public to hear.
When you look at the ANAO reports, there was a very important one that demonstrated that my shadow opposite, the member for Ballarat, misappropriated, it seems—on the advice of the Auditor-General—money that was in the portfolio responsibility that she had at the time.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr DUTTON: She should apologise for it, of course.
Mr Albanese: Sit down!
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler does not give instructions here, I do! The member for Grayndler on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: And you do it well, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Yes, I do.
Mr Albanese: I would ask you to instruct the member to withdraw that unparliamentary statement.
The SPEAKER: If the minister has misappropriation statements to make, it has to be in a different form, not here.
Mr DUTTON: If the minister is offended, I am happy to withdraw. There was an ANAO report, many into the previous governments, where billions of dollars were wasted on programs that were not justified, and I am having a look at the ANAO report. It said that the report into the GP Super Clinics Program of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years provided a damning report with less than 10 per cent of clinic promised in round 1 open on time. That makes the former health minister, the member for Sydney, an overachiever in the Rudd government. Let us say eight per cent, but round it up to 10. That makes her a much greater achiever than many who wasted billions of dollars and who sit beside her. They all should hang their heads in shame. The member for Ballarat in particular should apologise.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (15:08): Earlier in question time, we did have a parliamentary delegation from the Kenyan parliament. They were on a study visit and the delegates are members of the Joint Parliamentary Broadcasting and Library Committee, and were accompanied by the high commissioner from the Republic of Kenya. They did leave the chamber somewhat earlier than anticipated, but we would have made them most welcome, and I hope their study tour goes well whilst they are here.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Budget
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:09): I wish to add to an answer. The total permanent force of the Australian Defence Force is increasing by 735 over the next four years. This is why the budget for salaries has gone up. In addition there are 775 extra reserves, and that is why the budget for salaries has gone up. I table the page from the budget papers—do not look so bemused, this is actually in the budget papers—and that is an indication of it. Secondly, for the edification of the member for McMahon, the ANZ-Roy Morgan Australian consumer confidence data says that last week it was at 114.3. The monthly average since 1990 is 112.8, which shows that Australian consumer confidence is above the long-term average. Again, I table that for the sake of someone who is sloppy.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:10): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:10): Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms KING: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms KING: The Treasurer today claimed that I had wilfully rorted public funding and the Minister for Health claimed that I had misappropriated public funding. The facts are these: the Audit Office report confirms that two-thirds of the project funded across rounds 3 and 4 the of RDAF were in seats not held by Labor. Seventy eight of the 121 projects were funded in coalition, Independent or other seats. Just 43, or 35 per cent, of the projects were in Labor held seats. Every single one of these projects was recommended by Regional Development Australia committees and then went through a panel process as well as a value-for-money assessment by the department of regional Australia. If I was rorting or misappropriating, clearly I did not do a very good job by funding all of the projects or two-thirds of them in your seats.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The first part of her personal explanation was in order. The last part was not.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (15:12): Previously, when I was speaking in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 I was indicating that the second important limb of this legislation is the emergency ministerial authorisations. Presently, there is no legal basis on which agencies can undertake activities in these circumstances—that is, in circumstances where a relevant minister may be temporarily uncontactable and when there is an urgent, previously unforeseen need to collect vital intelligence; meaning, in those circumstances, that critical intelligence collection opportunities may have been missed. The amendments will address this by enabling an agency head to grant a limited emergency authorisation, subject to rigorous and extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms. These authorisations are strictly limited, as they ought to be, to a 48-hour maximum period and cannot be renewed.
Additional issuing criteria apply to authorisations by agency heads, including express consideration of whether the relevant minister would have been likely to grant the authorisation on the basis of the existing statutory criteria. Further, to ensure it is only available in an extreme emergency, the agency head must also be satisfied that, if the activity was not authorised, security would be seriously prejudiced or there would be a serious risk to a person's safety. The minister must be notified as soon as practicable within the 48-hour period and is under a positive obligation to make a decision about whether it should continue within that 48-hour maximum period, or be cancelled or replaced with a ministerial authorisation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must also be notified as soon as practicable within three days.
The amendments also provide for contingency arrangements in the event that the Attorney-General is not readily available or contactable to provide his or her agreement to the making of an emergency ministerial authorisation, where such agreement is required because the authorisation concerns the undertaking of activities in relation to Australian persons who are or who are likely to be engaged in activities that are or are likely to be a threat to security. The amendments address an unintended limitation in the ability of ministers to issue emergency authorisations. Presently, no provision is made for ministers to issue these authorisations orally, with a written record to be made of that decision. This is incompatible with the circumstances of urgency in which emergency authorisations are designed to operate and with the longstanding approach to other forms of emergency authorisation, including search warrants, telecommunications interception warrants, surveillance devices warrants et cetera. The proposed amendments bring the emergency ministerial authorisation processes within the Intelligence Services Act into line with other approaches.
The amendments to the Criminal Code will further strengthen the control order regime and enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies to protect the public from terrorist acts. The amendments will allow the Australian Federal Police to request an issuing court to make a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. Although such individuals may not directly participate in terrorist acts, their conduct in supporting and facilitating terrorism through the provision of funds and equipment, or by recruiting vulnerable young people to champion their cause—and even to die for it—is instrumental to carrying out terrorist conduct. The expansion of the control order regime to cover such individuals will help disrupt terrorism at an early stage, keeping Australia and Australians safe and secure. The amendments to the control order regime will also streamline the application process by reducing the volume of material that must be provided to the Attorney-General when seeking consent to request an interim control order and will extend the time for obtaining the Attorney-General's consent when making an urgent request to an issuing court without first obtaining the Attorney-General's consent.
Finally, the implementation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's recommendation will require the Attorney-General to advise the committee before amending a regulation that lists a terror organisation by adding an alias or removing a former name and to allow the committee to review any proposed change during the disallowable period. I believe, as do other members of the government, that this legislation is necessary to keep us safe and to provide our troops on the ground with the resources they need to do the job they have been tasked with. As such, I indicate my full support for it and I commend it to the House.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:17): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This bill makes urgent amendments to the counter-terrorism and intelligence legislation to address limitations that have been identified in the course of the current recent military operations by the ADF. This bill will enhance the ability of Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take timely action against Australians who are suspected of becoming involved in counter-terrorism and terrorist related activity. On 24 September 2014, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution requiring all 193 United Nations member states to (a) prosecute and penalise people who travel or attempt to travel abroad for terrorism training or who help finance such efforts, (b) deny entry to anyone they have reasonable grounds to believe could be supporting or participating in terror related activities, and (c) share airline passenger information records and other personal details with international databases to help track and prevent movement of suspected foreign fighters.
Where I really suffer with this legislation—and where I suffer in the whole terrorism debate where we get radicalised Australians going across there—is, basically, getting my head around how this could happen in our country. This is the issue for me, and I do not know what happens to someone who can be just so normal a person—or so apparently normal a person—and then suddenly has the idea to go across to Syria or Iraq or Iran or these places and go around cutting people's heads off and committing these acts of terrorism and blowing themselves up. It is just so strange and so anti-Australian—so completely the opposite of what we think we are as a nation. That is why I think a lot of people in this debate really struggle with where we are. They really struggle to try and get their heads around it, to the point where it becomes a blanket generalisation about an entire religion. I think that is where we have to be very careful in this debate.
I can hear a young child up in the gallery, so I see I have a chorus of people who are interested in this debate up there. Congratulations! My son is now 12 years old. When he was in grade 1 NAPLAN, one of his best friends was Guruji, a young Aboriginal boy. If you put the two boys together, they looked very much alike. When they were filling out their NAPLAN tests, Andrew looked across and Guruji put down that he identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Andrew did not know what it meant so he ticked it as well. So that is what it is to be a boy in this country.
There is the old joke about the Protestants and Catholics where there is a little Catholic girl on the beach and a little Protestant boy on the beach. Of course, they are naked, and the little Catholic girl says to the Protestant boy, 'I never realised there was that much difference between Protestants and Catholics.' I think when you get it all down to these things, you understand where we are coming from in this country. I am so proud to be Australian because we are such a great multicultural society.
I grew up in a very small country town in south-western Queensland by the name of Texas. We had tobacco growers. We had the Greek guy that owned the fish and chips shop, and we used to say horrible things about him. In the early- and mid-sixties the war was not that long ago, and if you had a German in there you made nasty references to their heritage. But, all the way through, I think we always took the individual as they came.
I was in high school with Hussan Isaac, a mate of mine who was a very dark Indian guy. He had all sorts of trouble fitting in, but we figured out that it was not the colour of his skin, it was his attitude, and once he changed his attitude he was okay. I think that is why we are a great country. That is why I think that this country really struggles with the fact that normal, born and bred Australians—second and third generation—can be radicalised in this space, and that is why this legislation is so important.
We have to be in this space. We have to make sure that we are doing what we can to prevent these people going overseas and participating in these crimes and actions. We know that, of the people who went to Afghanistan, a large number who came back have since been convicted of serious and terrorist related crimes. Those are the sorts of things we have to avoid. We cannot just say that those people are not allowed back into Australia, because they are Australian citizens, and one thing that Australia will never do is tell other people to take care of our problems. Those people have to come back, but we have to make sure that when they do come back we are able to grab hold of them and make sure that they do not affect other people. We have to make sure that you are not sitting down at a game of football one day and find that someone has taken a sword to your throat. These sorts of things can happen in our society.
I also want to make sure that, with these bills, our relationship with trading partners is not affected. We have a lot at stake in the world at the moment. We are opening up our economy. Andrew Robb has done a fantastic job with the three major free trade agreements—with Korea, Japan and China. There is more to come. We export more fresh food today to the UAE than we do to China. We are a services based economy. Eighty per cent to 85 per cent of our economy is services, yet only 15 per cent of our services are exported as tradeable commodities. We have to make sure that we are able to move into these places. But we have to make sure that our attitude as a nation is not so blinded by their predominant religion or by what is happening in their neighbouring countries that it affects our trading reputation.
To say that this is a modern phenomenon is a fallacy. My great-grandfather was plain Tom Jones. He arrived in this country in 1902. He was a qualified civil servant in Wales, but he could not get a job in the Australian civil service because he was a Catholic. He changed his religion to Church of England, and he was able to get a job in the civil service. He ended up having a very successful career as a civil servant in Australia. So, when it comes to these things I think we have to take a broad view. This sort of legislation is necessary.
I do take seriously—I have been approached by a number of people in my electorate about this—the view that we are winding back the freedoms in our society. I do accept that when you bring in regulations like this there is a natural proclivity to believe that we are looking at more things and that the government and its agencies are encroaching on our basic personal liberties, but I always say that if you do not do anything wrong, nothing much is going to happen to you. There will be mistakes made, and I suppose there always have been. We want to make sure that those things are minimised. But, I do not want be the person that has to ring someone up to say that their school has been attacked and that we knew all about it but we did not want to infringe upon civil liberties.
So I understand that there is a line that we have to tread here, that it is very serious that we have to move along that line, and that there are consequences for our actions. Newton's law of physics says that for every action there is an equal reaction. The angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Those are the sorts of things that we must keep in our minds all the way through.
Law enforcement agencies have advised that there are a number of individuals who are serious security concerns, who are not covered by the current, existing grounds for taking control. We know that some of these people are not directly involved in terrorism, but instead provide support for terrorism and foreign fighters. Placing control orders on these persons will assist the AFP to disrupt their activities. However, there are, of course, some who may need to return to areas the government sees as terrorist danger zones. Those who have family, for example, may need to return. Residents now have to provide a reasonable excuse for travelling to those locations. Religious, study and business purposes may not be good enough reasons to travel to a very dangerous zone.
This bill will enhance the control-order regime in the Criminal Code Act 1995 to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concerns—namely, those who support or facilitate terrorists and foreign fighters. This has to enhance our agencies' ability to track financial records of suspected foreign fighters.
While I have your attention, I just want to say to people signing up against halal certification—all the stuff that goes on about that—that this is not about the halal certification. Halal certification on vegemite, chocolate and dairy is about opening up new markets. If a company like Cadbury—we have 23 million people in Australia and 245 million people and Indonesia—want to open up new markets and get people over there hooked on our chocolate, and it means putting a little label on their chocolate wrappers, then more power to them. I will back them 100 per cent.
This legislation provides for a lower threshold for arrest without warrant for terrorism offences so that we can disrupt terrorist activities earlier. We will cancel social welfare payments to cut off funds used for terrorism. The Intelligence Services Act covers the need to collect intelligence on persons who are fighting with or alongside terrorist organisations. This amendment legislation will enhance the ability of ASIS to assist the ADF in support of military operations.
All the way through this we have to make sure we are trying to do the right thing by the Australian people. With our leadership group—foreign minister Julie Bishop, Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott—involved in these negotiations, and by working with the AFP and all our agencies, we are in that space and we are trying to do the right thing. I think that this is one area where no-one really wants to have the discussion, but it is something that we do have to talk about. It is something that we have to understand as Australians in this space. I stand with the government on this. I understand the threats posed by Daesh and the organisations there. I understand the threats of people going over there to join in this fighting and the glamour they espouse, but I do not want these people coming back and living in my community, not without our agencies knowing exactly who they are and what they are doing at all times. I want to make sure that we are doing whatever we can to limit these things and to stop people going overseas, working in these places, fighting in these places and killing people. To me, that is the abhorrent thing here—that these people are Australians who have benefited from our education system, have benefited from our social infrastructure and are part of our nation and yet they can turn around and do these things. Sometimes I think it is more like a drug addiction or an addiction of some sort that they find themselves weighing into these things.
In conclusion, I support the government. I wish it was not so. I wish we lived in a place where these sorts of things did not happen. But you can wish for whatever you want; the facts remain that we are living in a very, very dangerous world and a very global world—and some of the things that the AFP and our other agencies have uncovered show that we are in a very dangerous part of the world as well. I want to make sure that Australians are very safe and that our personnel are very safe.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (15:31): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. There is a very good reason that this bill is before the House. Most Australians are acutely aware of the threat posed on the national landscape and Australia's involvement in that threat. I take the House's mind back to the al-Qaeda Afghanistan-Pakistan period in the 1990s and 2000s, when Australians were involved in terrorism related activities. I commend the Australian Defence Force and the Australian intelligence services, including ASIO, along with all of our law enforcement authorities and border protection authorities, who worked collaboratively to bring this information to light in conjunction with international intelligence-gathering organisations. ASIO discovered that, in that period of 1990 to 2010, no fewer than 30 Australians travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan and trained in extremist camps and/or fought with extremist organisations. Twenty five of those personnel returned to Australia.
These people were not soldiers when they left; these were just average, everyday Australians who went overseas in that period and fought. Of the 25 who returned, 19 were engaged in activities of security concern after their return to Australia. Eight of those were later convicted of terrorism related offences, with five still serving prison sentences. With these individuals, their behaviour after their return to Australia emerged over an extended period—in some cases, their crimes were not committed until more than five years after their return.
The scale of the Australians' involvement in the current conflict in Syria and Iraq outstrips any of the previous data that I just raised in the House. We are currently concerned that there are up to 70 Australians fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. There are over 100 more in Australia who are providing support to those 70, by financing, providing flights or providing travel. That is a large contingent, far larger than we saw before, when you consider the multiplier effect of the potential damage in what we have seen historically. Of those 100 people, more than 20 have returned to Australia from fighting in that conflict. Further, very few Australians who have travelled to previous conflicts were involved in violence on the scale that we have seen in Syria and Iraq.
The amendments before us in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill seek to strengthen Australia's resolve when it comes to security measures. The bill offers a greater layer of protection for our families. The bill reflects 16 recommendations, which predominantly relate to control measures. I will not laboriously go through each of those with the House, but I would like to make the point that it is imperative that we understand what two or three of the control measures in the bill seek to do, assure the Australian public that there is not overreach and acknowledge the calibre of the personnel who put forward these recommendations for consideration by this parliament and the energy they put into the process.
These recommendations were crafted with the direct intent of keeping all Australians, including those in my electorate of Wright, safe from the evil acts of terrorism that we have witnessed far too often overseas. The previous speaker in the debate spoke of beheadings. It is unheard of—very rarely has this been seen before—but those beheadings have included some involvement by an Australian child, holding severed heads as some type of war trophy. A child well before they have come of age should not be seen in a war zone. We saw the incident where guards outside the Canadian parliament were gunned down and run down. UK servicemen have been massacred in the street, not to mention the endless suicide bombers.
I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for these proposed amendments. They are part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat environment, both internationally and here at home. In particular, the recommendations will work to address the threats posed by the Australians participating and supporting foreign conflicts or undertaking training with extremist groups. They will improve the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond adequately to these threats. These recommendations will aid the deployment of the ADF to undertake military operations against ISIL terrorist organisations in Iraq and the recent Operation Appleby, which disrupted an illegal terrorist attack in Sydney.
It saddens me that those 400 dawn raids were criticised by the ABC'S Q&A. It somehow brings into question the integrity of our law-enforcement authorities—that those raids were only being conducted for some kind of political gain and that it was political theatre. Those commentators today—with the information I have—should hang their heads in shame for suggesting that our personnel were engaged in political theatre. It is utterly irresponsible.
Amongst the key recommendations proffered by the parliamentary committee is the requirement of Australian Federal Police personnel to provide a statement of facts when seeking the Attorney-General's consent to request an interim control order. This will ensure there are clear and accountable provisions to ensure against wrongful use of these powers. The government is clear that it wants to neutralise threats as they rise against innocent Australians. It also wants to ensure that these matters are dealt with fairly and in accordance with the law. This recommendation will go a long way to doing that.
Also recommended is the Attorney-General's consent for urgent control orders to be obtained within eight hours. This reflects the view of the committee that eight hours is sufficient even if the Attorney-General is travelling and temporarily unavailable for the purpose of the control order, because we must have transparency and oversight of these procedures.
Another important recommendation is that the relevant court must examine and be satisfied that each obligation, prohibition or restriction is reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving one of the purposes of the control-order regime. For the safety of all, these recommendations will enhance the control-order regime to allow AFP personnel to seek control orders in relation to the broader range of individuals of security concerns and to streamline this application process. If we know someone could be a threat to our community, if we know someone could be a threat to our neighbours, our children or our colleagues, the nation's best security professionals should be able to act as swiftly as possible to neutralise that threat.
The recommendation will also facilitate cooperation and support between the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Australian Defence Force. Communication is more important than ever to ensure that security threats are apprehended and neutralised as quickly as possible. We would all agree that these amendments are vital to the safety of all Australians. The measures in the bill have been included as a result of instances of operational needs identified by law-enforcement agencies, subsequent to the introduction of the previous two tranches of legislation, following the recent Operation Appleby that disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney.
The amendments will also allow the Australian federal police to request a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. This is an important part of the legislation. With those startling numbers still fresh in the memories of everyone of this gallery, it is vital that we crack down on the so-called hate preachers, those who incite young Australians, those who muster those young, innocent minds and convert them to a place that they can never return from. This legislation reaches and captures those people who seek to corrupt the children of our nation.
Although such individuals may not necessarily participate in terrorist acts, their conduct in supporting and facilitating terrorism through the provision of funds and equipment or by recruiting vulnerable young people to champion their cause and even to die for it is instrumental in carrying out terrorism. The expansion of the control-order regime to cover such individuals will disrupt terrorism at an earlier stage and help to keep Australia safe.
Contrary to some inaccurate media reporting, the amendments will not enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. There is no change to the existing limitation under subsection 6(4) of the IS Act, which states that ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve paramilitary activities or violence against a person or the use of weapons other than in accordance with the act by staff members or agents of ASIS.
The role of ASIS is to provide intelligence support to the ADF. The ADF is providing military support to Iraq in the fight against terrorist organisations. In using any intelligence provided by ASIS, the ADF is bound by its rules of engagement, which are developed in consultation with the Office of International Law and the Attorney-General's Department to ensure compliance with Australia's international law obligations. Clearly, these recommendations are absolutely vital to our intelligence agencies.
Without intelligence, such as that provided by ASIS, the ADF is not only hindered but also potentially put in danger. The government must ensure the ADF is in the best position to protect its personnel, and this measure helps achieve this objective. For those in the public who have concerns of overreach, the existing control-order regime is already subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including through the need to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order, which will continue to apply. It means these departments cannot go out on a whim to obtain these.
The bill, including implementation of the PJCIS recommendations, will improve operational and administrative safeguards and require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control-order regime, with specific reference to safeguards. All of the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply, including in relation to the amendments to better facilitate Australian Secret Intelligence Service assistance to the ADF.
In conclusion, I suggest that both sides of the House support the current legislation before the House and they support it because we are united as a House on the defence of our realm. Neither side of this House wants to see our children leave this country to get engaged in a fight on the other side of the world knowing that they can potentially never return to a normal life. Our law enforcement agencies must have every strength, both legislatively and through a support mechanism from the Australian public, to be able to go about their business in a professional, courteous and accurate manner so that Australians we can put their heads on their pillows each night and know that they live in a safe country. The current security threat created by ISIL in Iraq cannot be defeated just by legislation. This legislation alone will not defeat our enemy, but united, with strong regulation, strong legislation, a committed Defence Force and a strong coalition partner globally, we will be victorious in our fight against terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (15:45): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. Every year, this parliament passes many pieces of legislation to improve the lives of every Australian. We achieve this by implementing measures that support our most vulnerable—measures that ensure every person has access to education and medical services, regardless of age, culture or affluence; measures that foster and promote enterprise so that businesses can grow; and measures that ensure that the government of the day can work collaboratively with our international allies on all fronts.
Whilst members in this place may design and implement these measures and many others, we do so as representatives of the Australian people and their values. People expect nothing less of us and nor should they. While the implementation of each of these policy measures may be expected, one expectation from the community will always stand above the rest. It holds no political discrimination based on which political party has formed government at any given time, and that is the protection of every Australian. There may be different ideas about how we can achieve this and how it should be achieved, but the fundamental concept of ensuring that our nation and its people are protected from acts of violence within our own communities and on the international front via threats from abroad remains a unifiable concept. To date we have seen unification in this place between what the Australian people may regard as the unlikeliest of allies, and for that I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the Leader of the Opposition, but I also take a moment to highlight those who have used the very real threat that Australia currently faces from barbaric acts of terrorism to play politics and put their own personal vanity of seeing their name in media headlines before the protection of this country, its assets and its people. As I have said before in this place, and I will say it again to those people: shame on you for putting your self-interest above that of the nation.
Australia cannot afford to ignore the heinous acts of terrorism that we have seen in Syria and Iraq or the intent of so-called home-grown terrorists to commit those acts on our soil, which thankfully our law enforcement agencies have to date foiled. As representatives of the Australian people, members of this place have the responsibility to ensure that the Australian people are protected, and to achieve this our law enforcement agencies must have the powers they need to investigate, arrest and thwart those who seek to harm us. The government is committed to responding to the threat of terrorism on home soil and abroad and, in the case of the Islamic State, it is the view of the government that there cannot be one response mechanism without the other.
As Australians, we live in a Western country with Western values and, in the eyes of this barbaric terrorist group, that is enough to make them not only hate us but also want to destroy our lives and break our spirit. If they all stop at nothing to kill their own people in their own country, I ask the members who have questioned the government's need to bolster our security messages what they think will stop these people from taking advantage of any opportunity to maim or kill us. The answer is nothing. They will stop at nothing. The only way we can be sure we have done everything in our power as a government to protect our people is to ensure that our law enforcement agencies and relevant ministers have the appropriate and necessary powers they need to respond to these threats. Nobody wants to wake up one day and ask the question: could we have done more? What we risk if we face that day is immeasurable: the loss of people's lives and the security of this nation.
Australia has responded to the threat of terrorism abroad in Iraq and Syria by joining with our international allies to provide humanitarian, advisory and military assistance to the Iraqi government. The goal of the international coalition is clear: to stop the poisonous spread of the Islamic State in its tracks and to stop this evil from being able to continue committing some of the most heinous acts against fellow human beings this world has seen since Nazi Germany. Every day men, women and children across Syria and Iraq are being slaughtered, three western journalists have been beheaded to directly strike at Western countries' values, and plans are being made every minute of every day by the Islamic State to increase the number and depth of atrocities they commit. US aid worker Peter Kassig is the most recent victim of the Islamic State's inhumanity, their evil and their depravity to bring death and destruction to all those who dare oppose them.
To date, the government has committed Australian Defence Force personnel to perform a series of humanitarian airdrops in Iraq and Syria, has provided 600 Australian Defence Force personnel to act in an advisory role to the Iraqi government and their defence forces, and has provided eight super hornets and two heavy support planes to conduct strategic air strikes against Islamic State insurgents. While our Defence Force personnel work with our allies abroad, key national security measures are also being rolled out across Australia as part of the government's additional commitment of $630 million over four years to counter-terrorism measures. This includes biometric screening, an increased number of border force personnel at international airports, and bolstering our national security laws by introducing three tranches of legislation in this place to help protect Australians at our borders and in our communities.
On 30 September, the House took its first step in implementing these important reform measures by passing the government's first tranche of legislation in this place to strengthen Australia's national security by ensuring that our security agencies have the resources and authority they need to investigate suspected terrorist operations and the reasonable means to prevent acts of terrorism on home soil.
The government also introduced its second tranche of legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014, which was subsequently passed by both houses on 30 October. This bill specifically aimed to strengthen the ability of Australia's intelligence agencies to prevent and disrupt domestic terrorist threats, including creating new offences for 'advocating terrorism' and for entering or remaining in a 'declared zone'.
As I mentioned earlier, in recent months two terrorist plots have already been thwarted by our security agencies, including on 18 September, when Australia's largest ever counter-terrorism operation took place in Sydney and Brisbane to prevent a plot to behead Australians in a public place and post these acts on social media. At the time, 15 people were detained and one person was charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack. Further raids occurred on 30 September as part of a separate counter-terrorism operation in Melbourne, resulting in 23-year-old Hassan El Sabsabi being charged with terrorist financing.
The government's national security bills have been subject to much debate in this place, in the community and in the media. This is a debate the government welcomes to ensure that all views are represented and key stakeholders are consulted. It is because of this debate that we now have the current bill before the House, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014.
The bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the government's first tranche of legislation, in recognition of a number of recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its advisory report on the government's original first tranche of legislation, which was tabled in this place on 20 November. The bill also addresses two outstanding recommendations made by the committee in its advisory report on the government's second tranche of legislation—the foreign fighters bill.
Lastly, the bill will make further amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 to correct four oversights in the drafting of this original bill and the now legislated foreign fighters act. I also highlight that at the time of the debate the bill endorsed the parliamentary committee's 37 bipartisan recommendations, which were presented to the Attorney-General on 17 October. Each of the proposed amendments directly responds to the committee's 16 recommendations, which, as was the case with the foreign fighters legislation, the government has again accepted, or accepted in principle.
The focus of these recommendations is to respond to the concerns raised about the amount and extent of safeguards that are in place for key provisions, particularly with regard to interim control orders, and to increase the level of independent oversight and reporting requirements for such orders. Specifically, the amendments address three key areas, including: enhancing the control order regime with regard to its application processes and requirements for a control order to be granted to the Australian Federal Police; and interactions between the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the ADF. As I am sure members are aware, a control order, if imposed, may restrict a person from: being in specified areas or places; associating or communicating with specified individuals; accessing or using specified forms of telecommunications or other technology, including the internet; and remaining at specified premises between specified times each day or on a specified day.
In order to strengthen the legislative safeguards for seeking a control order from the Attorney-General and by a court, the bill before the House proposes to amend the requirements from including a draft of the interim order; information, if any, that the member has about the person's age; and a summary of the grounds on which the order should be made. Further, it proposes to amend the requirements to require the senior AFP members to provide the Attorney-General with a statement of facts relating to why the order should be made; and, if the member is aware of any facts relating to why the order should not be made, a statement of those facts.
This amendment will strengthen safeguards by requiring the AFP to explain, and the Attorney-General and issuing court to consider, each obligation, prohibition or restriction being sought by the control order, rather than the current requirement, which requires consideration of these points as a whole. This provision will also require the explanation to prove that the control order is reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate.
This bill in its original form also responded to the concerns from our intelligence agencies that, in those instances when an urgent interim control order is granted by an issuing court, the current four-hour time period to gain consent from the Attorney-General is not long enough for those unavoidable instances such as the Attorney-General being in transit at that time. The original bill proposed to extend this time period to 12 hours. However, on the committee's recommendation, the bill before the House will amend this to eight hours to reflect the committee's belief that this time frame is sufficient to seek consent. An additional safeguard is, however, in place for those instances when the Attorney-General may not be available within this timeframe, such as during overseas travel. If this were to occur, the bill proposes that consent may instead be granted by the minister acting in the Attorney-General's position.
The bill before the House also seeks to make a number of amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001, as also recommended by the committee. The first proposed amendment to the act will directly implement the committee's 15th recommendation to limit all references to the 'responsible minister' in the bill to only be the relevant senior portfolio minister. The term 'responsible minister' was perceived by the committee to be ambiguous, and that it could potentially be interpreted as including junior portfolio ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
Further amendments are also proposed for the IS Act in relation to emergency authorisations by agency heads. These proposed amendments will implement the government's response to recommendations 9 to 11 of the committee's advisory report to strengthen ministerial control and oversight of emergency authorisations by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, or IGIS, and by the parliament. Under the proposed amendments, an agency head who has issued an emergency authorisation will be required to notify the relevant responsible minister in relation to the agency within eight hours of giving that authorisation. This provision will be in addition to current requirements for the agency head to provide all relevant documents to the minister within 48 hours of giving authorisation, and the IGIS be provided with this same documentation within three days. The IGIS will then be required to consider whether the agency head complied with the requirements of the emergency authorisation, and provide the relevant responsible minister for the agency with a report on the IGIS's views of the extent of the compliance, within 30 days. A copy of the conclusions in that report must also then be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The intention of this government is that the emergency authorisations are only to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances.
The last key amendment proposed in the bill before the House will complete the implementation of recommendations 13 and 21 of the committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014. These provisions propose to amend the IS Act for the committee to review the following provisions by 7 March 2018: the police stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act 1914; the control order regime; the preventive detention order regime; and the declared areas offence and the related provision authorising the making of declarations, which are all outlined in the Criminal Code.
In addition to these key amendments, the government has also circulated an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to respond to recommendations 2 and 7 of the committee's advisory report. Recommendation 2 of this report is in relation to the use of the terms 'supports' and 'facilitates' in the bill, and the committee's concerns that the existing language is not consistent with that of the Criminal Code. To respond to this recommendation, the government has amended the explanatory memorandum to provide additional information about the use of these terms.
As mentioned, the bill before the House also seeks to accept and implement recommendation 7 in relation to ministerial authorisations, ASIS assistance to the ADF and classes of Australian persons.
I commend this bill to the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (16:01): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. Certainly this is a very important piece of legislation. The Labor opposition acknowledges that; the coalition recognises that; it is a shame that the member for Melbourne does not. Whilst I appreciate the fact that he made some good points as to our need to safeguard Australia and some accurate points in saying that the acts that we have seen recently in Syria and Iraq have been abhorrent, the fact that he continually goes on the public record and says that our actions in the Middle East are making Australia unsafe and the fact that he talks about it being a conflict in the Middle East that is not ours are troubling. I do hope we do not see what we normally see at the end of these sorts of debates: a try-on, a stunt, a series of amendments holding up the parliament in this important last week of 2014, backed by the member for Denison, who is just suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome. So I do hope that they get on board and that they help the coalition—indeed, help the opposition—to pass this important bill.
The measures in this bill will ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capability to operate effectively in the contemporary security environment; in particular, following the rise of IS—call it 'ISIL' or call it 'ISIS'—in the Middle East. The acronym obviously stands for 'Islamic State'; it is not a state, however. A state has a government which looks after its people—governs for the people on behalf of the people by the people. A state does not tear down. A state does not treat some of its citizens to the dreadful acts of barbarism, the death and torture that we have seen all too frequently in recent times coming out of the Middle East. A state builds things. A state looks after infrastructure like hospitals, and health—those sorts of things that are important and that we acknowledge and know are so crucial to a better future. And we, in this chamber, all want a better future for Australia.
We, in this chamber, all want a better future for the Middle East. I was there in August. I went there with the Liberal South Australian Senator Sean Edwards, as well as the member for McEwen and the member for Batman, the shadow parliamentary secretary. We learned from our wonderful men and women of the Australian Defence Force just how important it was to have not just a presence camped there and in other important strategic places in the Middle East—not least Afghanistan, though, obviously, we are getting our troops out of there—but certainly to have an ongoing presence in the Middle East, because to have a friend you need to be a friend; that is what the head of defence operations there, Craig Orme, continually said. He should know; he has been there on a number of deployments. He is a person who we all admired before he went there, but certainly we respected him even more from having met him and having been there on engagement in that area and having gone to Afghanistan with him on a Hercules; we saw the respect in which he is held by the American generals and the absolute admiration and respect in which he is held by our own people over there—Army, Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Navy. And to see the job that they are doing is truly a great thing.
In relation to the counter-terrorism legislation amendment bill we have before the House, these operational needs have been further identified by our intelligence, defence, border protection and law enforcement agencies following the foreign fighters bill which was passed with support from both sides of the House on 31 October, and amendments to the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill which occurred on 2 October. The bill now before the House will also implement further recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security following the parliament passing the foreign fighters bill as referred to previously.
The further amendments proposed through this bill are part of the government's comprehensive response to heightened security threats and hostility, both at home and internationally—in particular, to those posed by Australians participating in and supporting extremist groups and foreign conflicts, as we have seen in the Middle East all too often lately.
This country is proud of its diverse, multicultural heritage, and there is no region as diverse as Griffith in my electorate of Riverina. I actually call it the cradle of multiculturalism. People get on well there.
Ms Rowland: Hear, hear!
Mr McCORMACK: I hear 'Hear, hear,' from the member opposite. I appreciate that her electorate in the western suburbs of Sydney is very multicultural and I know the work that she does to engage and to enhance that multicultural aspect, as all good members of parliament should. We will stop at nothing to protect the great diversity in cultures, the great multiculturalism and to ensure the safety of Australian people. We will do that at all costs, as we should. The Australian government will not tolerate any conflict or acts of terrorism which threaten this country's future as a free, fair and multicultural society.
The legislative measures provided for within this bill address three key areas which will see amendments made to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code 1995. This bill will strengthen the ability of Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take the necessary and timely actions regarding those Australians who are suspected of being involved in and engaging in terrorism-related activity.
This bill will address current legislative limitations which have been identified in the context of recent operations, both domestically and through the ADF's current engagement and activity against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995 this bill will enhance the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police—what a fine organisation—to seek control orders in relation to individuals who may pose security concerns, particularly those who are assisting and facilitating terrorists and foreign fighters.
Changes to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will allow the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to better assist the ADF in support of current and future military operations. Certainly Major General Orme, as he was farewelling one of the contingents who were getting on a Hercules and flying home, told them to recharge, refresh and prepare for the next combat action.
We would all love to live in a peaceful world in which Australians were not required to be constantly at the ready to meet our defence obligations and the expectations of other countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom. But we need to be ever vigilant. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, in your former ministerial role, you would absolutely have known the relevance and meaning of that. The government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure the safety of the Australian people and the nation. This is, indeed, our highest core value. Our highest fundamental need is to support the safety of our citizens.
The current conflicts in Syria and Iraq due to terrorism have vastly changed the threat environment for Australia and the region, and we have seen Australians recently being influenced by extreme terrorist ideologies. I cannot understand, as the member for Melbourne quite rightly also cannot understand, why Australians, particularly young Australians, some of whom are teenagers, feel the need to take on board these terrorist ideologies. I appreciate the fact that the member for Melbourne, the only Greens member in the House of Representatives, pointed that out in his speech. I commend him for pointing that out but I do not commend the Greens for their constant chatter which does not support our ADF's efforts to rid the world of this nuisance, this scourge. I feel as though at times it undermines respect for the ADF among the wider public. It is not necessary, and I would encourage him to think beyond the Greens ideology and appreciate the fact that our ADF are playing a very difficult role.
They are, indeed, doing their job because we demand it of them. They are doing their job because we, as members of parliament, send them there to do it. We send them into harm's way. I never fully appreciated that until I became a member of parliament. I always had the absolute highest regard and respect for our military people, because I was born and raised in Wagga Wagga. It is the city of the home of the soldier. There is the Army Recruit Training Centre at the Blamey Barracks at Kapooka. Wagga Wagga is home to the Forest Hill Royal Australian Air Force base, where they do a lot of training—indeed, every Air Force man and woman will always spend part of their career at Wagga Wagga doing important training. And even though Wagga Wagga is a long, long way from the nearest drop of seawater, the Royal Australian Navy has a highly appropriate presence in our city at the Forest Hill RAAF base.
It is deeply concerning, as the member for Melbourne quite rightly pointed out, that we have seen Australians influenced by extreme terrorist ideologies. It is a terrible thing. Because of this it is necessary for the government to respond accordingly to address further radicalisation and potential involvement of Australians committing and supporting terrorist activities. The need to combat the threat posed by foreign fighters, including, unbelievably, some 60 Australians—that is a very high number; one is too a high number but 60 is a terrible, terrible indictment—who have joined ISIL and other terrorist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria, is one of the government's highest national security priorities.
The rise of IS has created a humanitarian crisis for the people of Iraq and Syria, and that is why it is important to respond accordingly—if not for a defence reason or to make the world a better place, then out of the sheer humanitarian need for those people who did not ask for IS to begin tearing down their nation and who obviously did not want many of their loved ones, their relatives, their family members and their friends to be beheaded, crucified, raped and tortured.
The previous foreign fighters bill provided our law enforcement, and security and intelligence agencies, with the ability to disrupt terrorist activities occurring on our own soil, to help prevent the recruitment of individuals to fight overseas and to hamper the ability of terrorist organisations raising revenue, because that is something they need to keep their dreadful acts going.
This bill and associated urgent amendments—and they are urgent—go further, to provide greater enhancement for agencies to respond to posed threats and to address the limitations identified in recent operations. These operations include not only the recent deployment of the Defence Force to Iraq to undertake military operations against the IS but also following the disruption of the alleged terrorist attack in Sydney.
Thousands of misguided people from around the world are joining terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. We have heard how many are coming from Canada to do just that. I have just said that up to 60, if not more, Australians are involved because they claim Islam is under threat and because they are excited by the prospect of battle. What a terrible shame that is. This is not about a religion; it is about a death cult, as the Prime Minister has pointed out on any number of occasions.
The Australian government is determined to prevent the rise of radicalisation in Australian society. It is important for Australia and for the world that IS is defeated and, with that, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (16:15): I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which I regard as being particularly important and timely. It is a bill that contains a series of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Intelligence Services Act.
In his second reading speech, the Attorney advised us that these amendments would address three key areas:
… facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) supporting and cooperating with the Australian
Defence Force (ADF) on military operations;
enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency Ministerial authorisations to IS Act agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions; and
enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process.
This legislation has been the subject of consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It reported in the report entitled Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. It made 16 unanimous recommendations including, importantly, that this bill be passed.
The government has accepted the 16 recommendations. Thirteen of them will result in minor amendments to the bill and the explanatory memorandum. Two other recommendations will result in small changes to administrative arrangements and the final recommendation was that the bill be passed and the government has supported that. That is why we are discussing the bill at this time. It is, in my view, urgent legislation. It is, in my view, one of a number of measures that are urgent and we await a package of further amendments. But I stress the difficulty in drafting them and that readying them for us ought not to delay the further passage of them. I think the legislation in relation to metadata, which we are yet to see, is absolutely important to conclude the range of measures that are very necessary to deal with the difficult circumstances that we face.
Let me just take the opportunity, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, to put these matters in perspective. I well remember 9/11, when planes were flown into those buildings in New York. They were terrorist acts, planned by people who had gone to the United States to deliberately hijack planes and to fly them into those buildings. I remember the tragic events in Bali, in which so many young Australians died. I do not think these are matters that we can ignore. I find it extraordinary that I have to come into this parliament and hear legislation like this questioned in the way in which it has been by the member for Melbourne. Fortunately, he is alone in those criticisms. But he seems to suggest that all we have to do is to sit back, leave all these tragic events that have been occurring abroad, focus on young people here in Australia and deal with counter-radicalisation. I think counter-radicalisation has a role. I note that the government is pursuing that in the work that it is undertaking with a variety of organisations in the Australian community to identify people of potential concern. But I tell you: there is no way that governments in Australia would walk away from the criminal law and the responsibility to identify people who may have committed criminal offences, to investigate them and charge them and, if guilty, convict and sentence them. They would not walk away from it and say, 'All we need to have is a program of countercriminalisation.' That was the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard, that you should ignore the fundamental problem and simply focus on this idea that you can convince people that this is something terrible and that you should not be involved in it—and that he would have us believe that!
I heard a second argument today, which absolutely appalled me. I have just come back from the Middle East and I have seen something of the tragedy that is occurring there. I have seen the loss of life, I have seen young children left without parents and without any education or any future because of what is happening in Syria today. The member for Melbourne had the audacity to say that because of our involvement we are, in some way, responsible for the tragedy that is occurring in Syria today. Look, it may have just been an extension, that because we were involved in Afghanistan at some other point in time then maybe people in Syria should have felt that for that reason we should be to blame. But really, to argue that we were in some way responsible for the conflict in Syria was absolutely appalling. He seems to have a view that if you put your head down and hope that nothing will happen then it may all go away, or perhaps if we leave it to others they may be able to deal with it. I have never heard such irresponsible comments from any member of parliament when I hear those sorts of observations.
I want to deal with a couple of other points that the honourable member made before I lose all my time. The member made some observations about whether or not there should be a monitor in relation to security issues and drew the inference that because there is nobody in that role at the moment then we should be feeling that this legislation should not proceed. Let me make it very clear: the relevant parliamentary committee has been of a view that there should be a parliamentary monitor. The committee in fact, in its earlier reports, recommended to the government that it should finalise the appointment of an independent national security legislation monitor, and the government has made it clear that it will do so. The committee said it should happen reasonably quickly, and the minister responding to the committee's report has said:
The government firmly supports independent oversight of national security and counter-terrorism legislation. The Government has decided to retain the office of the Independent National Security Monitor and will announce a new Monitor shortly.
So, this suggestion that there will be no monitor and that that should be a serious reason for not proceeding with this legislation has no substance at all.
I must say, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, and having had previous ministerial oversight of it, that it has been I think one of the most thorough-going reviewing committees of this parliament. It is one of great credibility. It is led by my colleague the member for Wannon with great distinction. The member for Holt has previously had that role and is the deputy chair of it. The committee includes senior members from both sides of the parliament, and I think it has had an outstanding role. It has made recommendations, which the government has accepted, that have improved the legislation. And that is always the way in which this committee has worked. I congratulate the government on the way in which it has responded so positively. But I might say that it is not a committee that can always work as openly as other parliamentary committees might. When you are dealing with security issues and intelligence questions there are times at which the committees are taken into a degree of confidence in consideration of matters that have to be dealt with. And the committee has to absolutely handle with discretion how that sort of evidence is received and dealt with, because, quite frankly, you cannot afford to put people's lives at risk or to undermine the credibility of the work that is being done by intelligence agencies to deal with some of the risks we face.
But I want to take the opportunity in this debate to put into context why we are dealing with these issues at this time. And I want to use some observations made by people outside of Australia. I read recently the comments of Theresa May, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. She took up her post in 2010 and she said at the time that the threat to the West from al-Qaeda appeared to be waning and that they thought national security was coming under control. But, 4½ years later, the challenge of terrorism has become more acute .It was only a few days ago that she set out the scale of the ISIS challenge in a speech she made. In the United Kingdom the numbers involved are far greater than they are here. I think we have had some 70 young Australians who it is believed may have gone to Syria and Iraq. In the United Kingdom, more than 500 have done so. And she makes the point that they are engaging in a brutality that they may one day inflict at home. She revealed that some 40 different terror plots had been foiled by UK security services. Most strikingly, she declared that the terror threat to the United Kingdom was greater than ever.
I just want to read to the House some of the other observations she made:
But in the case of ISIL the danger is clear. They have already murdered British and American citizens in the most brutal and cowardly manner possible. They have attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters, including thousands of Europeans, Americans, Australians and British nationals. One of their terrorists has already struck in Europe, when he murdered four innocent civilians outside the Jewish Museum in Brussels earlier this year. And they have made clear that they want to go on attacking Western targets …
If ISIL succeed in firmly consolidating their grip on the land they occupy in Syria and Iraq, we will see the world’s first truly terrorist state established … We will see terrorists given the space to plot attacks against us, train their men and women, and devise new methods to kill indiscriminately … And the lesson of history tells us that when our enemies say they want to attack us, they mean it.
She also said:
The threat we face from ISIL is made even greater by the fact that there are at least 500 British nationals who have gone to Syria and Iraq, many of them to fight. Where they have dual nationality, I have the power to deprive them of their British citizenship and keep them out of our country.
She said that the first thing they had to do was stop young Britons travelling to Syria. She made the further point that they are working with other European countries to disrupt and prevent travel and, when they know that people are planning to travel, to strip them of their passports.
I make these points because it is not an Australian minister saying this. This is what is being said elsewhere by those who are well-informed and have the background and experience to be able to understand it. The risks they face are the risks we face. This legislation is to ensure that our law and intelligence agencies are in a position to act in a timely way to protect Australia's interests when we believe people may be involved in terrorism related activity. Giving our agencies the capacity to deal with these questions ought to be urgent, ought to be progressed as quickly as possible. I strongly support the legislation. I commend the government for bringing it forward and I commend the opposition for supporting it. But let me also say that I condemn the Greens for the way in which they have criticised these measures that are so widely supported and so essential to protecting this nation and its people.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (16:30): It is a privilege to follow the member for Berowra, who has previously served as minister responsible for this area. I think it is very salient that the member for Berowra, with all his years of service, has stated that he has never heard a more ridiculous argument pertaining to intelligence and security than that made by the member for Melbourne. I heard the member for Melbourne's contribution. Given the subject matter of the bill before us today, I think it is unwise for the member for Melbourne to prattle on incessantly about freedoms and rights. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the right to use force, specifically to protect us from terrorists and criminals. That exclusive monopoly is something that we voluntarily grant to our police, our intelligence agencies and our defence forces for the specific purpose of keeping our society safe. So it is fundamental misunderstanding by the member for Melbourne to question the whole purpose of having such legislation and the whole purpose of having frameworks around that exclusive monopoly on the right to use force. We have to have a framework. All the government is doing—supported by the opposition in a unanimous and bipartisan way—is framing, recasting and updating the legislation to ensure that our intelligence services can keep pace, in a fast-moving world, with people who do not respect the rule of law, with organisations who have no regard for our rights and liberties. The member for Melbourne might pause and reflect on the fact that these organisations and these people have no regard for the rule of law, or the rights and liberties of other human beings, regardless of their description. If the member for Melbourne really thought about it, he might understand that this legislation is not just necessary; it is a vital to protecting Australia and its people, our rule of law, our human rights and our right to liberty. His argument is completely false, completely negative and completely destructive of the whole framework of our society. It could be that he is signing up to become an anarchist as well as a Green!
The government, with this bill, is making some minor amendments, in a package of amendments, to the Intelligence Services Act and to the Criminal Code. They are amendments I strongly support. They are sensible. They have been the subject of a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and have received unanimous endorsement by the committee. The committee has made 16 recommendations, including, importantly, that the whole bill be passed. The reason we have members of the calibre of the member for Wannon and the member for Holt, who are from different political parties and have different points of view on matters of national debate, as Chair and Deputy Chair of a committee of this importance is that we need a constructive working relationship with a view to improving the quality of the legislation—and that is exactly what has happened; the government has adopted all of the 16 unanimous recommendations of the committee.
This legislation has the support of all representatives of the Australian people—149 out of 150—except for the member for Melbourne. Given that the member for Melbourne represents a major metropolitan area which could one day be the subject of an attempted attack, he should seriously revisit his view on this bill. He should read each of the recommendations carefully, think about the purpose of this legislation and come back in here and reconsider his view—which I am sure he will not do.
There are some concerns out there more generally about counter-terrorism legislation, although broadly speaking this bill has the endorsement of almost all of us in Australia. Having recently seen Operation Appleby in Sydney—I come from Sydney myself—we understand from the experience of disrupting that alleged terrorist attack in Sydney that further measures are needed that will allow the Federal Police to request, and the court to issue, a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. Specifically, we would be moving with the experience of these operational requirements identified by the law enforcement agencies themselves as they pursue these people on our behalf.
It is important to ensure that everybody who examines these matters understands that the existing safeguards and oversights will remain in these bills. In my view, and in the view of the bipartisan and unanimous committee, these mechanisms are very strong. The strong oversight mechanisms are also going to apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations—calming, I think, many of the fears and unwarranted criticisms that have been received in relation to this legislation. We know that ministers have to be notified within eight hours where an agency head has granted an emergency authorisation. Where a minister has provided an oral emergency authorisation, a written record of this decision must be made within 48 hours. The Inspector-General, of course, will provide close oversight of all the emergency authorisations. It is important that members of this House understand that the parliamentary joint committee will be notified of all emergency authorisations. Given that it is a bipartisan committee and has serious-calibre members of parliament on it, you can be absolutely confident that these safeguards and oversights are completely appropriate and current.
Given the circumstances that have been highlighted by so many members—the development of terrorism; the emergence of the evil movement ISIS, or Daesh; the absolutely disturbing reports that have come from our law enforcement agencies, including the successful prosecution of people for terrorism offences; and more alleged terrorism offences by people in our own community—it is completely appropriate that these amendments come before us today. It is good they have the support of 149 members of the House of Representatives, and hopefully on reflection the member for Melbourne and the Greens can understand that it is the role of parliament and the function of the government to provide security as its absolute core in the protection of our rights and liberties, and these amendment bills enhance and strengthen the government's role in protecting our community.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:37): I rise today to support the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which contains a suite of amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001. I am of the belief that the most important role of government is to maintain its nation's sovereignty and protect its people. Measures contained within this bill address the urgent operational needs that have been identified by our intelligence, defence and law enforcement agencies. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak in the House about the importance of Australian citizenship and the necessary role we must play in enhancing and enshrining its significance in the face of a rapidly changing global environment.
This bill forms another part of the government's comprehensive response to security threats both at home and abroad. In particular, it responds to the threat posed by Australians participating in and supporting foreign conflicts or undertaking training with extremist groups. The terrifying new reality of home-grown terrorism strikes at the heart of government's most solemn duty. We as a parliament and as a proud nation must be prepared. During my recent contribution to the Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, I stated:
We are now facing challenges from those who wish to do us harm and from the terrifying concept of home-grown terror. The enemy within—who was born and raised in this great nation, who benefited from our education system, who may have been part of a local sporting team, who has now turned their back on the freedoms and privileges afforded to citizens of this great nation—is now prepared to promote extremism and bring harm to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen, probably the same men and women who they grew up with and went to school with.
This bill will assist the government to improve the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to threats through necessary and urgent amendments to national security legislation, which will address limitations identified in the course of recent operations.
In the decade following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Western world, we have seen terrorism undergo rapid evolution. When faced with the threat of terrorism, governments must act swiftly and with purpose. As a government, we are steadfast in our resolution to uphold and defend democracy and the rights and freedoms of the democratic world. Australia faces serious and ongoing terrorist threats as evidenced by the amount of Australians who are currently participating in foreign conflicts and undertaking training with overseas extremist groups. This is why the government are playing its role in the global fight against terrorism, including the deployment of Australian Defence Force personnel to undertake military operations against the ISIS terrorist organisation in Iraq.
We must remember that more than a million Iraqis have been driven from their homes by an extremist death cult, determined to commit genocide to eradicate a particular group of people from the world. The shocking images of beheadings, including innocent Westerners, crucifixions and mass executions will scar our memories for the remainder of time, and our thoughts are with the families of victims of these barbaric acts of atrocity. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said of this enemy:
I refuse to call this hideous movement an 'Islamic state' because it is not a state; it is a death cult. In good conscience, Australia cannot leave the Iraqi people to face this horror, this pure evil, alone—or ask others to do in the name of human decency what we won't do ourselves.
For many Australians, this threat may seem a world away; however, we must not forget the recent success of Operation Appleby that prevented planned terrorist attacks in Sydney. Australia is certainly a lucky country and our democracy was not born from bloodshed, civil uprising or war. To this end, the concept of people wanting to do harm to our people remains a foreign one; however, those who hate our freedoms and our way of life cannot be reasoned with, and they fail to respect the defence of democracy around the world.
The Bali bombings were an attack against Australians, Australia, democracy and the Free World. Eighty eight innocent Australians needlessly lost their lives in this atrocious act of terrorism. In the aftermath, the then Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP said:
What happened was barbaric, brutal mass murder without justification … It is a terrible reminder that terrorism can strike anyone anywhere at any time. Nobody anywhere in the world is immune from terrorism. It is a reminder that, in this time of a borderless world, with a particularly mobile young population, Australia can scarcely imagine that it can be in any way immune from such horrible attacks.
Twelve years on, we must never forget this face of evil and continue to sharpen and strengthen our resolve.
The amendments within this bill address three key areas. They enhance the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals who present security concerns and to streamline the application process. This bill facilitates the Australian Secret Intelligence Service supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations. There is an urgent need to make amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to ensure that intelligence agencies can undertake relevant activities in support of the Australian Defence Force's operation in Iraq against the Islamic death cult terrorist organisation. And this bill enhances the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory function.
Matters of national security should rise above the political divide. As such, the government has accepted or accepted in principle all of the recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee tabled its advisory report on this bill on 20 November 2014. Furthermore, the committee recommended that parliament pass the bill subject to the implementation of 15 recommendations, which focus on improvements to operational and administrative safeguards to the proposed measures. These include the independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The measures in this bill have been proposed as a result of instances of operational requirements identified by law enforcement agencies subsequent to the introduction of previous legislation. These changes are a result of actual activities, including Operation Appleby, which successfully intercepted and prevented a planned terrorist attack in Sydney. These are necessary reforms that must be supported by this parliament.
Amendments proposed within this bill will allow the Australian Federal Police to request, and an issuing court to make, a control order in relation to those who 'enable' and those who 'recruit'. Such powers are absolutely necessary if we are to defeat home-grown terrorism. This bill, if passed, will enhance the control order regime provisions under the Criminal Code Act 1995, to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern. Not all sympathisers of the ISIL death cult will leave our shores to physically lift a gun and fire a bullet. Some will have a terrifying role to conduct from the comfort of the Australian suburbs. This includes supporting and facilitating terrorism through the provision of funds and equipment, or by recruiting vulnerable young people to champion their cause—and even to die for it—and, more alarmingly, to conduct acts of barbaric terrorism here on Australia shores. This bill provides our law enforcement agencies with the appropriate powers to identify and prevent such threats. The extension of the control order regime to cover individuals supporting terrorist activities will disrupt terrorism at an earlier stage, and will help to keep Australia safe.
The role of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service is to provide intelligence support to the Australian Defence Force. Currently we have members of the Australian Defence Force deployed overseas in Iraq, fighting against a ruthless, destructive and inhumane terrorist organisation. They are doing so to prevent the spread of people throughout the Western world, and to protect Australia and its people. I would like to take this opportunity to again commend to the House the men and women in our Australian Defence Force for their unwavering commitment and for their service to our nation. On behalf of all Australians, I thank them. Without intelligence such as that provided by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Defence Force is not only hindered but could potentially be placed in danger. The government must ensure the Australian Defence Force is in the best position to protect its personnel. Measures proposed within this bill will help achieve this objective.
I opened my contribution to this debate by stating that the most important role of government is to maintain its nation's sovereignty and to protect its people. In doing so, we must ensure that we operate within an adequate framework, which enforces relevant safeguards and oversights. The existing control order regime is already subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including the need to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order, and this will continue to apply. This bill, including implementation of recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, will improve operational and administrative safeguards, and will require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control order regime with specific references to safeguards. All of the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply, including in relation to the amendments to better facilitate the Australian Secret Intelligence Service assistance to the Australian Defence Force. Included are the statutory thresholds for the granting of authorisations; ministerial reporting requirements; and the independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Furthermore, oversight mechanisms will also apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations. These amendments make provision for the contingency that 'relevant ministers be temporarily contactable when there is an urgent, previously unforeseen, need to collect vital intelligence'. As it stands, there is no legal basis on which agencies can undertake activities in these circumstances. As a result, critical intelligence collection opportunities may be missed. The amendments contained in this bill will enable an agency head to grant a limited emergency authorisation. These authorisations are strictly limited to 48 hours maximum and cannot be renewed. It is important to note such measures, as they demonstrate the diligent and necessary approach taken by this government in order to address terrorism threats and to protect our nation. In his second reading speech on this bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, Senator the Hon. George Brandis summarised by saying that the measures in the bill 'will be of particular utility in circumstances of urgency presented by the activities of Australians who participate in foreign conflicts, including fighting with, or otherwise supporting the violent activities of, terrorist organisations.'
As a government and as a nation, failure is simply not an option. We must continue to demonstrate our resolve and to defend our freedom. This legislation continues this government's determination to defeat the evils that wish to do us harm. We owe it to our Defence Force personnel who are currently abroad, resolutely carrying out their duties to keep us safe; we owe it to the Australians who have lost their lives as a result of the senseless and barbaric acts of terrorist organisations; and we owe it to current and future Australians who deserve to enjoy a safe and prosperous Australia, free from the threat and danger of ideological extremists. Simply put, this is the greatest challenge a government can face. History will remember how we rose to the challenge. This bill will ensure that we are as prepared as possible to defend our freedoms and our great nation.
I commend this bill to the House.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:51): I also rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This bill has been brought forward as a result one of the more unsavoury but absolutely imperative tasks of the government—and that is to protect Australia and Australians from those who would seek to do us harm. Recent images of brutal killings in Syria have shocked us all. Almost as unsettling has been the revelation that Australian citizens are among the foreign fighters being marshalled by forces of evil intent. Hundreds of Westerners are fighting with extremist groups such as ISIL, including dozens of Australians in Syria and Iraq and possibly more than 100 organisers and facilitators on the ground here in Australia. The reality is that, at this very moment, the threat of home-grown terrorism has become even starker. So there is a clear and present need for action to counter radicalisation. This bill is part of the government's comprehensive response. It especially addresses the threat posed by Australians participating in, and supporting, foreign conflicts or undertaking training with extremist groups.
This legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to these threats through amendments to the national security legislation that will remove limitations that have hampered the course of recent operations. These operations include the deployment of the Australian Defence Force on military operations against the ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq and Operation Appleby, which recently disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney. The amendments address three key areas. Firstly, they bolster the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern, and to streamline the application process. Secondly, they create the facility for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, to support and cooperate with the Australian Defence Force on military operations. Thirdly, they improve arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisation to intelligence agencies in order to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions.
The government has responded to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security advisory report on this important bill. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the chair of the committee, Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon. He has been an excellent chair of a committee in incredibly difficult times and has provided very substantial and useful recommendations to both the government and the opposition. The PJCIS recommended that the parliament pass the bill subject to the implementation of 15 other recommendations, with focus on improvements to operational and administrative safeguards to the proposed measures, including independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The government accepts, or accepts in principle, all of these recommendations, and I reiterate that the PJCIS's final recommendation is that the bill be passed.
As I have mentioned, behind the measures in this bill are operational needs identified by law enforcement agencies, including factors that arose out of the recent Operation Appleby. The amendments will allow the Australian Federal Police to request, and an issuing court to make, a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. Although these individuals may not directly participate in terrorist acts, their support or facilitation of terrorism by providing funds and equipment or by recruiting vulnerable young people to promote their cause—and even to go so far as to die for it—is tantamount to terrorist conduct. Expanding the control order regime to cover such individuals will help to disrupt terrorism at an earlier juncture and to keep Australians safe. The amendments to the control order regime will also streamline the application process.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that these amendments, despite some commentary to the contrary, will not enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. There is to be absolutely no change to existing legislation restrictions under the Intelligence Services Act, which means that ASIS:
… must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve:
(a) paramilitary activities; or
(b) violence against the person; or
(c) the use of weapons;—
other than in accordance with the act—
by staff members or agents of ASIS.
ASIS provides intelligence support to the ADF, and the ADF is providing military support to Iraq in the fight against terrorist organisations. In the utilisation of any intelligence from ASIS the ADF is bound by its rules of engagement, which are developed in consultation with the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department to ensure Australia's international law obligations are fully satisfied. Without the support of intelligence from ASIS the ADF is potentially compromised and endangered. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the ADF and its personnel are always operating from the utmost position of strength.
The government takes seriously its obligation towards oversight on matters of national security. The current control order regime is already subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including the necessity to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order. These steps will continue to apply. This bill, which implements the PJCIS recommendations, will improve operational and administrative safeguards and require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control order regime, with specific reference to safeguards. All of the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply, including those regarding amendments to better facilitate ASIS assistance to the ADF. These include the statutory thresholds for the granting of authorisations, ministerial reporting requirements and the independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Strong oversight mechanisms will also apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations. In the event that no relevant minister is readily available or contactable to consider or issue an authorisation, ministers must be notified within eight hours where an agency head has granted an emergency authorisation. Where a minister has provided a verbal emergency authorisation, the decision must be established as a written record within 48 hours. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have close oversight of overall emergency authorisations and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will also be notified of all emergency authorisations.
The government and the opposition stand together against threats to our nation. As I have stated in this place before, our combined defiance sends the most staunch message that Australians will not cave in to fear. We will continue to go about our lives as a decent, fair and values-laden people. The freedoms that we espouse, including freedom of religion, are a threat only to those who wish to advance their intolerance and retribution for not adhering to their prescriptive ways.
These amended laws will help keep Australians safe and preserve our nation as one of peace, hope and opportunity. They will lower the terrorist threat at home and abroad. And, concurrently, we will develop programs to help us understand and deal with home-grown radicalisation. Young Australians at risk will undoubtedly benefit from youth diversion activities, mentoring, employment opportunities, educational pathways and counselling—and we are working hard to bring them that critical support.
The government acknowledges and welcomes the backing by local religious leaders for action against radicalisation and extremism in all its forms. Our antiterrorism measures are not targeted against any particular community or religion; they are aimed squarely at terrorists and potential terrorists. We will continue to consult with communities throughout this delicate but crucial process to ensure that the government continues to keep Australians safe both here and abroad. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (17:01): In an ideal world we would not need the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. In an ideal world no-one wants this bill, but this bill is vital to the safety of all Australians—innocent Australians, and Australians who are a threat to themselves and others.
The foreign minister recently informed the House that there are about 80 nations around the world who count foreign fighters among their citizens. This is an alarming situation. I know some will say: 'Let them go. Let them fight in a war that is not their own—just don't let them come back.' But, if we allow this, if we allow extremists to gain skills and experience in actual warfare, they will make contacts and connections and pass this on to others, and so the cycle of grooming new recruits will continue. Regardless of this, it is a breach of our international obligations. For the safety of Australians and the rest of the world, we have a duty to control would-be foreign fighters leaving our country.
Australia is home to people of diverse cultural backgrounds. People come to Australia to make a better life for themselves. Whether they are fleeing war or seeking warmer weather, whether they believe in God, Allah or Buddha or no-one at all, whether they cover or bare their skin, they all choose to call Australia home. It does not matter why people choose to come here. As the Prime Minister often says, 'Those who were born in this country have won the lottery of life.' We understand why others choose to come here. This is why it is so troubling that Australians choose to fight in a war that goes against everything Australians believe in. Unfortunately, what we need to do now is have strict procedures in place for those who do not respect our country and do not respect their fellow citizens. We need to have these measures in place so those who decide to fight against the country they were either born in or were perhaps welcomed to realise that we will not tolerate it, that this attitude and behaviour is not welcome.
We know that the horror coming from Daesh is not about religion; it is about power. Along with all of the terror and horror that is IS wrongly comes an unconscious suspicion of all Muslims. This is not fair. We as Australians have a history of accepting people from all walks of life, regardless of their beliefs. We stand up to bullies. We will not be intimidated. We cannot be frightened. We need to stand up for the wider Muslim community also. They do not want any part of this death cult and, indeed, in many cases that is why they travelled half way around the world to come to Australia—to escape what was happening in their own country.
IS is pretending to operate under the guise of religion. This could not be further from the truth. We as a country that is home to so many different cultures, as a country that celebrates so many ways of life, need to be strong in the face of this threat. With at least 70 Australians believed to be on the ground and more than100 suspected of funding or facilitating Daesh, now is the time to stop them in their tracks. This bill will mean Australians are safer. It is that simple. These terrorists operate as a group. Being part of a group is what attracts people to IS. Delayed notification on search warrants means there is no chance to alert the group and allow other members to hide or destroy evidence. If people are involved in activities that will harm Australians, it is important that the Australian Federal Police get information as quickly as possible.
Amending the threshold for arrest is equally important as it means these terrorists will be arrested swiftly, giving police more time to find their accomplices and minimising potential harm to innocent citizens. Now I know there is concern that some people may be wrongly arrested, but if you are indeed innocent you have nothing to worry about. These measures are designed to increase capabilities of Australia's law enforcement, and in times like these there is nothing more important. As the Prime Minister said, we have a duty to protect our citizens. Those people who are concerned about rights of terrorists or people who cause trouble in our community need to think about the consequences if we do not make hard decisions. We have already seen examples of how this death cult operates, how they treat journalists, aid workers, soldiers and police. The actions of a 'lone wolf' in the past couple of months show just how insidious this cult can be.
We are already investing heavily in protecting the safety of Australians. Now we need to pass this bill so that our defences against these terrorists are effective. We need to keep our community safe. Seeing the face of a 17-year-old Australian boy inciting terrorist ideologies is a shock for us all. It shows just how far this death cult will go. IS or Daesh call everyone who does not agree with them their enemy. If we stand by and do nothing, they will not just go away and leave us alone. As Edmund Burke said, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' They are already infiltrating our country and brainwashing our youth. Daesh want to crush our Western morals and values. It is our duty to play a part in stopping IS before it is too late—too late to defend our values, our democracy and our country. At the end of the day, we need to do all we can to make sure there is no chance of attacks against Australians on Australian soil. While some people may call these amendments harsh or too freedom-limiting, I believe it is better than the alternative in hindsight—wishing we had done more, when it is then all too late. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (17:07): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I would like to start by congratulating the member for Ryan for that wonderful speech and I would like to associate myself with every single syllable of that speech. I would also like to make a few comments on some of the contributions by other members to this debate, and I would like to start with the member for Isaacs. I did notice on the speaking list that he was the only member of the opposition listed to speak on this bill. It really makes me wonder if the opposition's heart is really in this. I do note that the member for Melbourne Ports is in the chamber. I congratulate him for also speaking on this particular bill.
The member for Isaacs complained about the coalition's spending cuts in the area of community work. I do not see how any member of the opposition can walk into this chamber with a straight face and talk about the job this coalition government has done on spending cuts. We did not inherit a blank piece of paper. When we came to the Treasury benches we inherited six years of Labor debt and deficit. For six years they simply ran the country at a loss. Every year they spent more money than they have raised in taxes—not because there was a lack of taxation revenue. The problem was their spending, their waste, their mismanagement, the dysfunction—reckless spending on a wasteful scale. We inherited an obligation to pay the interest on that debt. That interest is $13.5 billion every single year. We simply have to find those savings of $13.5 billion, not because we want to, but because we have to. That is an interest bill which this nation has to pay on those six years of Labor debt.
Secondly, we also have a budget that is at least 10 per cent in deficit. The budget we inherited is spending 10 per cent more money than we raise in taxation. When you hear organisations like the ABC complaining and squealing about a 4.6 per cent cut to the funding, when the budget is 10 per cent in deficit, it defies logic. It is a belief in Magic Pudding economics. If the opposition wants to come in here and complain about our cuts, they should at least be honest with the Australian people and admit there is an obligation we have to make cuts to try to balance the budget. If they object to the cuts, they cannot do so without suggesting an alternative cut.
Another thing I would like to raise from the member for Isaacs' speech is that he impugned the motives of some of the members of the coalition on the basis of free speech. There is an argument in favour of free speech that the best way to free up speech—to get away from some of those restrictive covenants in the antidiscrimination acts—and that is the best way to defeat bigotry and racism. Shine a torch on it; let it come out from under the mat; defeat it with arguments and logic; and ridicule those who make these arguments in favour of bigotry and racism. That is the best way. The alternative way to try to suppress the discussion is through government legislation, which simply drives it underground and lets it fester. That has sown the seeds of division in our community. It is a legitimate argument and it is an argument that we will have in the years to come.
The other member who spoke in this to debate was the member from Melbourne in what must truly be one of the most bizarre contributions seen in this chamber in many a day. The member the Melbourne actually put forward the proposition that we are responsible for the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. If we had just let Saddam Hussein carry on in his own merry way and with his own devices and had not taken the steps the Coalition of the Willing did, then somehow Iraq would be this land of milk and honey. It is all the fault of the West. He also insisted that we were somehow responsible for the conflict in Syria. It is probably one of the most bizarre accusations I think I have ever heard in this parliament. He also went on to criticise our current involvement in Iraq. We need to make it very clear: the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people requested our help in Iraq. The reason is that innocent Iraqis, mainly the minority groups, are being subjected to murder, rape and beheadings. The member for Melbourne comes in here and suggests that we should simply turn our backs and ignore the pleas of the Iraqi people, as though it is not our problem. That is not the Australian way and it has never been the Australian way—and I hope it never is. That is because we have known throughout our history that the best way to guarantee the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in this country and that we enjoy here is to extend those to people who do not enjoy those same freedoms and liberties. That is why we have troops today serving in Iraq.
Back to the substantive sections of legislation. Firstly, we need to realise that the terror threat that we face is real. In my electorate, one of the railway stations that I get to go to and hand out things in the morning is called Holsworthy railway station. It is one of the busiest railway stations in south-west Sydney. I must admit, I find one of the enjoyable jobs, as member of parliament, to go to a railway station, wish people good morning on their way to work and hand them a piece of literature, whether it is about a community event or one of the coalition's policies. That is because several thousand of those commuters head into the city every day, head back at the end of a day's work and head off to their homes in south-west Sydney.
But in 2009, some of the people who travel from Sydney city to get off at Holsworthy railway station actually did so—next door is the Holsworthy Army Barracks—and they were not going back to their homes or their families. They were actually staking out the base to see what the access points were. Their plan was to take automatic weapons onto that base and to kill as many Australian citizens as they possibly could. It would not have necessarily only been soldiers. That base is frequented by many local people; families go there to visit their loved ones and contractors go there. Builders, plumbers, tilers and landscapers are all there. They all would have been subject to this terror attack that was thankfully thwarted by our intelligence agencies.
I think the words of the trial judge were most enlightening. It was Justice Betty King. She said this upon sentencing these people:
The fact that Australia welcomed all of you and nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame, that this was the way you planned to show your thanks.
This goes sadly to the idea that somehow you can rationalise with these people and that you can somehow talk them out of it. When they become radicalised, there is simply no turning back. It is simply a death sentence for those people and we need to give our anti-terrorism organisations here and our security agencies every single thing that they ask for, because we know this threat is real.
We have seen this threat recently with the attacks on the Canadian parliament and the attacks in the UK. We saw the recent arrests here in south-west Sydney, in parts of the electorate that I represent, where the plan was to kidnap an innocent citizen off the streets at random and behead them. This is what we have to deal with in our society. This is why legislation such as this that we have before us today is so important. When our security agencies and our intelligence agencies come to us and they say they need these extra provisions and they need this extra laws, we as members of parliament—whose first and foremost job is to protect Australian citizens and to protect our country—must listen to them. That is what the coalition government has done and that is why we have this legislation before us today.
To the specifics of the bill, there are three main areas that the amendments address: firstly, enhancing the controlling order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broad range of individuals who are of security concerns and to streamline the application process; secondly, facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, in supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force military operations; and, thirdly, enhancing the arrangements for the provisions of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory duties.
This is most important legislation. There are some arguments about what the safeguards are. That is correct; we need to make sure that we are balancing the rights of citizens against their rights for protections. I believe that in this bill we get it right. We keep the existing control regime, which is subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including the need to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order. Those applications will still apply. The bill will improve the operational administrative safeguards and still require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control-order regime specific to the reference to safeguards. All the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply, including in relation to amendments to better facilitate ASIS assistance to the Australian Defence Force.
In conclusion, the measures in this bill will ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the necessary capability to operate effectively in the contemporary security environment that we face. We must admit that it is a challenging environment. We wish our security agencies the best and we know they have a difficult job ahead of them in the years to come. We wish them success. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (17:21): From the moment one enters this place, representing 100,000 constituents and their families, a sense of responsibility rests on one's shoulders. It is the gravity that in this place the decisions we make directly affect the security and safety of those who entrusted us to be here. Parliament has a responsibility to do all it can to maintain Australia's record of preventing a successful terrorist attack on mainland Australia and to prevent Australians from, and if necessary punishing Australians for, committing terrorist attacks overseas.
Last month, the Foreign Fighters Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, who subsequently released 15 recommendations on the bill. I must commend many of the people, including the member for Hughes, who just spoke, and the members for Isaacs, Berowra and Holt, who pointed out that the joint committee had suggested the amendment of the bill to require: the AFP to provide the Attorney-General with a summary of the facts when seeking consent to apply to the court for an interim court order, including any facts indicating why such an order should not be made; the retention of the requirement for the AFP to explain to the issuing court the reasons for each condition in a draft control order, as the bill, as introduced, would have effectively reduced judicial oversight by not requiring the AFP to justify the control order as a whole; the shortening of the period for notification of the relevant minister where agencies issue emergency authorisations; and the government urgently to appoint a new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. These are the sensible recommendations of people on the intelligence committee from all sides of parliament working maturely in the interests of their constituents. They are not those who seek to make political gain against the corporate wellbeing of their fellow Australian citizens.
My colleague Mark Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General and member for Isaacs, said earlier today in this chamber:
… the recommendations will improve the accountability and transparency of decision making by national security agencies. The recommendations will also ensure that control order applications are closely and appropriately scrutinised.
Again, these are the mature actions of mainstream political parties—an issue I want to come back to when I refer to the contribution of the member for Melbourne.
It is a sad reality that a handful of Australians born, raised and educated—indeed, shaped—in Australia, as one of our speakers said, have taken it upon themselves to travel to Syria and Iraq to join a group that beheads captured enemies and slaughters men, women and children with any group that does not fit in with its perverse and perverted world view. It enslaves women and children for sexual gratification. It trades these victims with each other. Daesh kills people arrested for smoking or for playing music. They are systematically destroying millennia of Muslim antiquities across the Middle East, including recently blowing up the tomb of Jonah in Mosul—a tomb that has existed for more than 1,000 years. It is truly the march of the barbarians.
Tens of thousands of foreign fighters have gone to Syria to fight and to kill. Deluded, they imagine they are soldiers. They are not. They have none of the professionalism and code of conduct strictly and proudly maintained by the men and women in Australian uniforms. These people think they are fighting war for Islam. They are a disgrace to the names of the great soldiers of Islam, like Saladin and Kemal Ataturk, whose honour and honourable treatment of the enemies was praised even by their opponents. Daesh does not face much resistance when they come up against unarmed Christians, Yazidis and Shi'ites. They are slaughtered. Its shameful conduct and its victims are then boasted about on Facebook. Now, they are coming up against the US and Australian air forces and local fighters like the Kurdish Peshmerga, who are advised by our special forces. Nearly all MPs will wish the men and women of the ADF every success in suppressing these IS fighters, regardless of where they come from, including the cursed figures from this country who hold up the heads of locals they have killed and, even worse, who encourage their poor children to do the same.
The ADF has been the recipient of information from Australian intelligence services for years. This helps it do its job. The law, as currently rendered and which this legislation seeks to change, needlessly forces ASIS to jump through hoops to provide information to the ADF. The signals directorate and the DIO, which fall under the Defence minister's responsibility, do not have to jump through these hoops. But ASIS, which falls under the foreign minister's responsibility, does. All these organisations are on the same side. We in this parliament should be making it easier for them to do their job. As the member for Isaacs pointed out in his address today:
Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida—
and Daesh. He also said:
More pages in the statute books will not make ours a more resilient community.
We know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject the ideologies that promote violence no matter where they arise or what purpose they aspire to. I praise in particular some courageous members of the Sydney Muslim community who have been at the forefront of this resilience project. Building this sort of resilience in the context of the foreign fighter threat is an even higher priority that when the white paper was written. This is a threat which is clearly increasing, as we have some 250 Australians, according to The Economist magazine, who wanted to participate either from this country or who are already over there. We have seen the damage that these kinds of people can do, as the member for Berowra pointed out, when one of the torturers from Daesh in Lebanon returned to Belgium and murdered four citizens in the capital of that country.
Remember why we are doing this. There were 88 Australians killed in the 2002 Bali bombing; 10 killed in the September 11 attacks; three killed in the 2009 Jakarta bombings; one killed and nine injured in the 2005 London bombings; two murdered by terrorists in the Mumbai terror attack; and one Australian, Malki Roth, killed in Jerusalem in 2001. Let us remember the report of the Council of Australia Governments, released in 2013, that said 35 Australians had been charged for terrorism offences, 26 of whom had been convicted. So we have a real problem overseas and a real problem with Australians who have already been affected by this.
Thank heavens, because of the work of this parliament, our security services and our military, we have not had a successful attack on mainland Australia. It is our responsibility as legislators on both sides of this great parliament to see that that continues, by passing legislation that will enable the ADF, ASIS and other people to work together to prevent that happening. This is not Hollywood. We are not basing our analysis, as the member for Melbourne seems to think, on the series Homeland. The proposed changes do not seek to change the ADF's rules of engagement.
The shadow Attorney-General and opposition have worked diligently to shape this and previous legislation that enhance the ability of our security services to work effectively and efficiently to stop these terrorists before they go there or to gather evidence about their activities while they are there. That way, when people return from the battlefield claiming they were in Syria for humanitarian reasons, they can be punished to the full extent of Australian law, and they ought to be. The necessity for acting on this problem arises from all of the reasons I have just set out. It includes the number of Australians who have already been killed in some of the terrible incidents, the number of people that are going over there to fight and the success of our laws—as the member for Berowra pointed out—in taking so many of those people who would seek to do these kinds of things in this country and under a system of law and arresting, charging and trying them and then having them convicted.
I want to end with this discordant note. It is not surprising to see the Greens political party lead the charge against this proposed legislation. In my view, the Greens seem to have an automatic Pavlovian kind of reaction to undermining the intelligence capabilities of our country. People like the Greens political party's Senator Ludlam have publicly supported self-appointed protectors of privacy and trust—stalwarts of moral standing like Julian Assange. Of course, the Greens' backing of Julian Assange and his ideological stablemate Edward Snowden has not exposed a single piece of evidence of the abuse of privacy or citizens' rights in authoritarian countries like Russia. Mr. Assange, the Greens' hero, used to host a program on the Russian disinformation network RT. To give you a flavour for his content and his policies, his first interview gave an armchair ride to Hezbollah's feared terrorist leader, Sheikh Hussein Nasrallah.
Indeed, it is delicious irony that the Greens' other hero, Edward Snowden, preaches excessive oversight and accountability but chooses to reside in Russia, of all places. He destroyed his credibility when popping up on Russian TV a few months ago to give another soft-serve Dorothy Dixer to the new Russian tsar, Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the Greens believe Russia is actually a bastion of human rights. Certainly, Senator Rhiannon used to believe that. I am honoured with the fact that Senator Ludlum has put a fatwa on the Greens speaking to me because I pointed out Senator Rhiannon's political similarity to the wife of the Romanian dictator, Elena Ceausescu. But the main point I make about her is she has never dissociated herself from her membership and participation in the pro-Soviet Communist political party in Australia. It was a seamless transition to the Greens.
Of course, the serious people in this parliament can smirk about Snowden's choice of patrons and about Assange's presence on RT. But it is hard to believe that here, in this House, we have parliamentarians that oppose legislation and seek to foil the efforts of our Defence forces and cooperation with our security services overseas. It occurs to me that the Greens political party ought to be more concerned about people losing their heads than about the people holding the swords. We had the appeasers in the 1930s. Eighty years later we have the Greens.
I have asked in this parliament a number of times why Mr Snowden and why the Greens support the release of material about how the Five Eyes, the Western intelligence services, intercepted telecommunications in northern Iraq prior to Daesh's conquering of that area. This is completely inimical to the safety of Western civilians. It has nothing to do with privacy. These questions have been raised by reputable publications like The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post. I fear that Daesh was able to change the pattern of its telecommunications as a result of the Snowden revelations in order to evade monitoring by security services like Australia's, like the American security services and like the British security services. Therefore, the pattern of murder and mayhem that they have wrought across northern Iraq has, in fact, been facilitated by the Snowden revelations, which were completely unnecessarily made about how we have intercepted telecommunications of terrorist organisations in northern Iraq.
This is a place to have serious debates about serious matters. Matters such as increasing the security services' capability do need scrutiny. They have had scrutiny at the intelligence committee by serious people who have come back to this parliament and made their recommendations. I congratulate the government and the opposition for our practical and judicious approach, including the shadow Attorney-General for his cooperation with the Attorney-General in the framing of these laws and the recommendations of the intelligence committee. These are matters too serious to be left to the mouthpieces of Assange, Snowden and the Greens who, once again, have proven their wish to continue their irresponsible approach to national security. When we use grandiose words like 'national security', what do we mean? We mean the safety of innocent Australian citizens—our constituents who we are duty bound to care for and to seek measures to protect from any incident happening here in Australia, as has happened to them overseas.
These are measured steps to see that the human rights, above all the right to security, of all Australians are enhanced in this additional piece of legislation. I commend it to the House. I commend the government and many of the speakers who have been on this side, as well as the opposition, for considering the safety and security of Australians above all and, in a measured way, taking into consideration matters of civil liberties and privacy which were done by the intelligence committee in a very responsible way.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (17:36): I rise to speak on the Counter-terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, and I would like to thank the member for Melbourne Ports for a fine contribution on what is a quite difficult subject, it must be said. I also thank him for stating his support for the moderate Muslim leaders in Australia who have come out and condemned IS or Daesh and for the opposition's support of these bills. It is to be welcomed.
The bills were introduced by the Attorney-General into the Senate on 24 September and referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review. The committee unanimously recommended 16 fairly minor amendments, which the government has agreed to. I will come to that in a little while.
It would be fair to say that Australia has been shocked by the rise of Islamic State. Perhaps we thought that, after a number of successes by our security forces, the terrorist threat in Australia had been largely seen off. But it is worth remembering that on 11 September 2001, which is widely known around the world now as 9/11, 11 Australians died and, in total, 2,996 died in the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York. In Bali on 12 October 2002, 202 people died, 88 of them Australians. In Bali in 2005, in the attacks in Jimbaran Beach and Kuta, 20 were killed—four Australians. All of these attacks had many, many more injured. Some people to this day are still trying to deal with those injuries.
Those attacks and others, like the subway bombing in Britain and the railway bombing in Madrid, have led to a complete change in the way the free world does business worldwide. Let me dwell a little while on the subway attacks in Britain as so many Australians spend their time in London. I was so impressed with the way that the British nation stood up to this attack and said, 'We won't be bowed.' The next day, they pretty much got on with business as usual. They upped their security, as they had to do, and as we have all done all the way around the world. In fact, it would be fair to say that these attacks on our western democracies, on the free world, have changed the way that we live and have greatly increased the costs of the way that we live. The security arrangements that we now go through, and that we would not have even dreamed of 15 years ago, are a significant and ongoing cost to us all. But, it does not matter what it costs, we will meet the challenge and we will overcome.
We have been involved since that time in action in Afghanistan, and we have had to give up a lot of freedoms we took as reasonable. At airports we have to deal with scanners, longer queues, slower boarding times and higher costs. The bombings have placed that huge financial burden on us. The considerable ramp up by our security agents who have kept us largely safe for the last 10 years—that is, at least, up until now.
ASIO, the Federal Police and the state bodies apprehended Abdul Nacer Benbrika in 2005 for plotting to blow up a football match. Eleven others were also convicted at that time. Benbrika was jailed for 15 years. In 2009, four were arrested for plans to attack an army base. ASIO, the Federal Police and the state police have all done well, but the world is a changing place and we are forced to change with it.
Australians have been appalled by the rise of the bloodthirsty death cult Islamic State and the atrocities it has committed in Syria and Iraq. That is bad enough, but that conflict now—the recruitment and enactment—has come to our shores here in Australia. There has been the ghastly pictures of Khaled Sharrouf with his children holding up the severed heads of Syrian fighters—or perhaps they were not fighters; perhaps they were Syrian civilians. Mohamed Elomar was recruiting from Syria via the internet and advocating terrorist attacks on Australia. Four brothers from one family, who told their family they were going to Thailand for a holiday have ended up as supporters and fighters, we believe, in Syria. They have left their bewildered parents behind, it would seem. What a shock to that family! It shows that this kind of madness can infiltrate almost anywhere.
There have been at least two Australian suicide bombers who were teenagers, and another teenager used for propaganda purposes. There was an unprovoked attack by a young man on two policemen in Melbourne, resulting in one policeman narrowly avoiding losing his life and the teenager losing his life. This is absolute madness and we must stand prepared to do whatever it takes to protect our Australian public.
It is estimated there are 70 Australians fighting in Syria and Iraq, and probably in excess of 150 people in Australia who would like to either join them or support them. The world has changed and Islamic State and others have named the UK, the US, France, Germany and Australia, in particular, as prime targets. We must change as the world has changed, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has recommended 16 amendments. We have seen this legislation before; I will come to the amendments in a moment.
In effect, these bills allow for the creation of new offences of advocating terrorism and of entering or remaining in a declared zone. That has certainly raised some interest in the Australian public. The bill broadens the criteria and streamlines the process for listing terrorist organisations. The legislation extends instances in which control orders may be sought, extending the sun-setting provisions and the prevention detention order and the control-order regimes, and includes a sunset clause for the declared zone offences. It provides certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts. It limits the means of travel for foreign fighting and for support for foreign fighters, and it strengthens the protections at Australian borders.
As I said, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has met and considered this legislation and has come up with 16 different recommendations. I will not go through them all. I had a look, and there are four that stand out to me as making a difference. I congratulate that committee for putting in the elbow grease to get to this point. In particular, recommendation 1, is about the appointment of an independent national security legislation monitor and consideration of additional safeguards. I think this is important because none of us likes to give up any of our freedoms and think that Big Brother may be looking over our shoulder or whatever. We understand that certain things have to be done, but we should have an independent cop on the watch, if you like. This is a good move and probably reassures the Australian public.
Recommendation No. 4 is that the Attorney-General's consent for urgent control orders be obtained within eight hours. That is linked, I think, with recommendation No. 3, the requirement for the Australian Federal Police to provide a statement of facts when seeking the Attorney-General's consent to request an interim control order. These together make sure, once again, that this process does not get out of control. It is very, very important for Australia's long-term future and for our safety that measures such as these do not become anywhere near a political tool but are properly managed for the purpose for which they are designed.
Recommendation No. 6 requires the AFP to explain each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions. No. 7 concerns ministerial authorisations and allows for ASIS to more adequately and more easily assist the ADF. Of course, the ADF is at the very pointy end of making a contribution to this issue in Iraq at the moment. It makes sense that our defence forces should be talking most closely with our intelligence services, and that is why these recommendations and the legislation are composed in this way.
On balance, I am absolutely certain that the Australian government is taking the right steps here. We have an absolute obligation to protect our people in Australia and do the best we possibly can to protect them wherever they are in the world. As I said when I opened my remarks, I welcome the support from the opposition and thank them for it.
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (17:46): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I will restrict my remarks to the reason for the bill in the wider strategic sense of government policy rather than go through the details of the clauses of the bill. I will leave that to the lawyers amongst us and the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, such as my friends the member for Bass, the member for Berowra and the member for Wannon. I already raised some issues that I want to address in a short speech in the Federation Chamber last week. As I said then, I want to speak from the wider perspective of someone who has had a career across the public and private sectors, has had a senior job working in the Defence portfolio and has also represented the Australian business community. I also want to simply speak as a person who represents in this place 100,000 New South Wales voters and some 140,000 residents in all, who are alarmed and extremely concerned about recent events here in Australia and overseas in places as diverse as Iraq, Syria, Canada and the United States.
The principal message I wanted to deliver in that previous speech relates to these wider perspectives. We need to boost our counterterrorism effectiveness because of a very specific threat. This issue has been brought home to us because of the actions of Islamic extremists. We now face a continuing threat. As the Prime Minister and senior ministers have informed us, there are at least 70 Australians that we know of currently fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and at least 100 Australians who are supporting them. For Great Britain, it is more than 500, and our French ally is immensely concerned that there are over 1,000 French citizens or recent French residents who have joined the Islamic extremists. I will have a bit more to say about that soon.
We are now facing an enemy that calls itself, variously: the Islamic State—IS; the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—ISIL; and the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham—ISIS. As I have previously noted, many in Arabic countries do not use any of those terms. They instead use the word Daesh, which is an acronym in the Arabic tongue of ISIS but also has a sarcastic negative undertone as it is similar to the Arabic word 'daes', which means 'one who crushes something underfoot'.
As I said in previous speeches, I have lived and worked in the Middle East in the gulf state of Bahrain myself. I was there with my wife, daughter and son. The Bahrainis are warm and hospitable people. I am proud of the fact that Bahrain has joined the coalition to help fight Islamic State. It is a significant development that a number of strongly Islamic countries like Bahrain are joining in the fight.
People should be very careful about how they express themselves so as not to create unnecessary divisions when we need to all work together in facing the current challenges. We need to talk in calm terms. Equally, I think we cannot simply ignore the fact that these extremist events have been done in the name of Islam, even if the mainstream Islamic community opposes what is being done. We need to work with the Islamic community, both here and abroad, to deal with this cancer that is damaging peaceful coexistence. Domestically, the Building Community Resilience grants program is a welcome part of the government's response to terrorism.
As I have previously said, there may be very dark days ahead. Let us hope this conflict with the Islamic terrorists is not protracted. Unfortunately, I think it very well could be. That is a daunting prospect. However, from what we can see now and for the short future over the horizon, we need to stay the course and commit our best effort to this ugly necessity.
Mentioning Bahrain, can I quote from the English language newspaper that I used to read every day when I lived there. It is the Gulf Daily News. It has more information on what Islamic State or ISIL has to say than what I have read in newspapers in this country. The belligerent words of ISIL are breathtaking in their viciousness. For example, the Gulf Daily News dated 17 November, only two weeks ago, reported Islamic State spokesmen making the following statements:
"To Obama, the dog of Rome, today we are slaughtering the soldiers of Bashar and tomorrow we will be slaughtering your soldiers," a masked militant says, predicting Washington would send more troops to the region to fight Islamic State.
"And with Allah's permission … the IS will soon … begin to slaughter your people in your streets."
The article went on to say:
An IS supporter in Syria said: "The message is very clear. This is what the West understands.
"They think they can scare us with their planes and their bombs.
"No, not us. We are out to impose the religion of God and, by his will, we will."
This is what we are dealing with.
As I have said before, what we are facing now, with Islamic extremism, is a new variation of terrorism. It is in some ways new because of who they are fighting and, of course, that 'who' is us—that is to say, the Western world and its civilisation based on human rights: most importantly, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. They are the beautiful children of classical liberalism we should all be proud of.
The new thing compared with past centuries is that the target of terrorism has changed. In the past, it may have been against certain established groups dominating societies, based on previous martial successes. Now it is against basic humanity. I think that there is a difference, and we cannot bow in the face of it. I was reminded recently of a statement by the famous left-wing author Gore Vidal, from 2002, when he stated that we cannot fight 'perpetual war for perpetual peace'. It is a nice-sounding bon mot. However, it is not an acceptable government strategy for the defence and security of the nation.
Instead, the classic phrase by General George Marshall, former US Army Chief of Staff and US Secretary of State, is a much more sensible guide for action. He popularised the phrase, 'The price of peace is eternal vigilance.' That should be our guiding strategy. This is not a case where one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, as some leftists would have you believe. In this war, we are the fighters for freedom; there can be no doubt about that.
As a Christian I am particularly alarmed at the attacks by Islamic State on Christian targets and other religious minorities in the Iraq and Syrian communities. In fact, you will recall that the event that manifestly brought the issue before the world community was the genocidal attack on the Iraq-Syria border region.
I will quote at length from an email that one of my constituents, Mr Flynn, wrote to me at the time in anguish about what was going on. He wrote:
I am writing to you as my Federal member on an urgent matter.
I write to draw your attention to the unfolding crisis in Iraq, a country where too many of our troops died to defend democracy.
Muslim extremists who make up the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in Iraq (ISIS) have recently taken over Sinjar, a Kurdish-controlled town with a large population of Yazidi, a Kurdish-speaking group that follows a pre-Islamic religion.
The advancing Muslim militants killed many of the Yazidi who remained in the town, part of a pattern by extremists of stamping out non-Islamic religious observation.
The Yazidi are one of Iraq's oldest minorities and, even as I write, thousands of these people (UN agencies estimate somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000) are stranded on Mount Sinjar as ISIS surround them and cut them off from all food and water.
These people are dying.
Estimates given to the Iraqi parliament are that 500 Yazidi including 40 children have been killed in the past week.
Hundreds more are dying of thirst and starvation.
The brutal fact is that the Yazidi are being slaughtered by the extremist leaders of the ISIS because they don't conform to their Muslim religious beliefs.
A report to the Iraqi parliament says that Yazidi women and girls are being taken as slaves by the ISIS and sold in the slave markets.
This is barbarism—a campaign of genocide against the Yazidi.
To put it bluntly, they are being exterminated off the face of the earth.
As well the ISIS has launched a pogrom against Christians in areas now under its control.
Recently Christians from the town of Qaraqosh fled after it was taken by fighters from the ISIS.
Qaraqosh is a Christian village of 50,000 people and it has been cut off from water and electricity ever since the fighters of the ISIS took Mosul.
The most recent news out of Qaragosh is alarming.
On Wednesday night, overwhelmed Kurdish Peshmerga forces left their posts.
As a result, the town, as well as a string of neighbouring Christian villages, fell to the ISIS.
What is deeply concerning is that under the rule of the ISIS, Christians face a stark choice: convert to Islam or die.
In the last month, every Iraqi Christian has left Mosul, which was once home to a Christian population of 60,000.
Peter, I write today to express my alarm and deep concern about these events and to implore you to please raise your voice, the voice of the good people of the electorate of Eden Monaro, to urge your parliamentary colleagues in the government to take a stand against the pogrom being waged against Christian communities and the slaughter of the Yazidi in that blighted country.
My constituent Mr Flynn went on to write:
Peter I can't accept that the Australian Government should do nothing about these matters.
I don't believe it is morally justifiable for Australia to stand mute on the sidelines while this sickening series of atrocities is being waged against persecuted minorities in Iraq.
After all Iraq is a country where our servicemen died defending the principles of democracy and freedom.
To do nothing now is to say our servicemen died in vain; that their sacrifice is meaningless.
Since Mr Flynn wrote that letter we have acted.
We have joined a coalition of scores of countries to fight this evil. We have sent troops to Iraq, including our very best special forces, and RAAF fighter planes and ancillary crew. The Prime Minister, foreign minister and the entire government have been acting. Unfortunately, we are a long way from resolution. The bill we are discussing today on counter-terrorism matters is part of that response. It is a vital part of that response.
As I said earlier, there are as many as 170 potential Australians fighting for IS and its groups. The French government said that more than 1,000 of their nationals or residents are involved. As the Gulf Daily News reported, on 13 September this year:
The top US intelligence agency has sharply raised its estimate of the number of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria to between 20,000 and 31,500, from its estimate in June of about 10,000.
A CIA spokesman said the new assessment reflected stronger recruitment by the radical Islamist group since June "following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate".
I will state again: this is a major national security threat.
We cannot take our eye off the ball. If we are to deal with these matters we must have legislation like this. We must put resources into the fight in the Middle East, and we are doing that. However, as a matter of utmost priority, we also need to work with the Islamic community so that these young men and women are not recruited to these causes in the name of Islam. I thank the House and commend this bill.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (17:59): On reflecting on my comments on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 before us, I must say I have mixed emotions. In one sense, I applaud the responsible ministers, the Prime Minister, the government and of course everybody in this House who is supporting the bill, because it does something very important. Practically, it helps our counter-terrorism agencies in this country and it also sends a very strong message to those who would do us harm—that we have the resolve to do what we need to do to protect Australian citizens. Mixed with that feeling is also a feeling of sadness—that, in a liberal democracy like Australia, it is incumbent upon the parliament to continually be vigilant to the risks that, quite frankly, are home-grown in this country. So it is with a mix of emotion that I rise today to speak in support of this bill.
Ultimately, in a broader sense, this bill ensures that our counter-terrorism agencies, whether they be ASIS, ASIO or our defence forces, have everything that they need to do their job in protecting the Australian public. We know that those who would do us harm live by no rules, no code, no ethics and no morals whatsoever. It is always very difficult to combat an opponent who acts in the most unpredictable ways. That is why I commend this legislation, because it ensures that our counter-terrorism agencies have the flexibility that they need to evolve with the growing threats as they evolve. That is the practical aspect, in a broad sense, of this bill.
The broader signal it sends to our counter-terrorism agencies, the Australian public and, most importantly, our enemies is that we have the resolve and the spine to do whatever we need to do to stop enemies from hurting Australian citizens. That is a crucially important message to send to the enemies of our liberal democracy in Australia. The people who would do us harm, the home-grown terrorists who unfortunately walk in our midst, only understand one thing and that is strength. You cannot reason with them. They understand strength. That is why I was not surprised but absolutely dismayed with the contribution by the member for Melbourne. In similar terms are the lamentable comments of Senator Whish-Wilson, where he said that we should not call ISIL a terrorist organisation or a death cult but should sit around an open fire, sing Kumbaya and see if we can just work out our differences. That was really what I heard being echoed through the comments by the member for Melbourne. I am very disappointed that only 149 members of this House will support the bill. I think that 149 is a fantastic outcome, but I was dismayed that we have somebody sitting in this parliament who criticised this bill in the way that he did. Ignoring that lamentable contribution by the member for Melbourne, I say again: the message we are sending our counter-terrorism agencies is that we will do whatever we have to do to allow them to protect us. That is a very strong message.
This year has surprised many of us when we thought we probably could not be surprised anymore. I was a relatively young man when September 11 occurred. I suspect that, like many people, that was when my naivety and innocence ended as far as global politics and the fascist movement that shrouds itself in Islam throughout the world are concerned. But we have been surprised. This year—and the member for Eden-Monaro spoke very strongly on this point—we have seen throughout Syria and Iraq the most ancient form of barbarism. Things that we have not seen since probably the Middle Ages have re-emerged in our world and it is shocking. For that reason, I will always support absolutely anything that we need to do to give our counter-terrorism agencies the powers that they need to stop those people.
Moving to the substantive aspects of the bill, the bill seeks to enhance the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals and to streamline the application of those orders. The amendments will enable the AFP to request a court to provide a control order for those who have been identified as enabling and recruiting to terrorist organisations. The second dominant aspect of the bill is that it will allow for greater facilitation of cooperation between the Australian Security and Intelligence Service, ASIS, which I referred to earlier, and the Australian Defence Force on military operations. This will allow ASIS to provide greater and more enhanced intelligence support to the ADF. The bill does not seek to change existing limitations on ASIS. That makes complete sense. Given that we have made a contribution to the efforts in the Middle East, certainly as far as training Iraqi soldiers is concerned, we should not have any barriers between our agencies.
Often, other forms of government—less, shall we say, important forms of government—are criticised for being quite siloed in their approach and for not sharing information fully. There is no more important area than our counter-terrorism agencies, and that they share absolutely everything and not try to fight the enemy with one hand tied behind their backs. I think enabling ASIS to share information fully with the ADF is a no-brainer and an absolute step in the right direction.
The bill also enhances the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to security agencies to undertake necessary intelligence duties. Again, we want to make it possible for our security forces to be right 100 per cent of the time and to be able to conduct the activities necessary to ensure this.
I also want to add that the changes proposed in this bill come from the work undertaken by Dan Tehan and his joint committee. They have done an outstanding job in ensuring that we get the balance right between protecting our citizens and all of the other rights and freedoms that we hold dear. Getting the balance right is always a pertinent question with these forms of legislation. My particular brand of politics is that we should always err on the side of protecting our citizens, because, as the Prime Minister rightly said, the greatest right our citizens have is the right to walk down the street feeling safe. The greatest right—or the most dominant right—that our citizens have is to be able to board a train or a bus and not be at real risk from the danger that somebody who would wish to do them harm is able to do so. Those rights in my view trump some other rights, but it is still very important that where possible we give balance to our objectives of freedom of movement and a right to privacy. But, ultimately, I think they have to be subordinate to the safety of our citizens. As a government, as a parliament, our greatest duty to Australian citizens is ensuring their safety and ensuring their protection.
Given the unprecedented and disgusting things that we are seeing from the Middle East, and the enlivening of Australian citizens, unfortunately, who want to follow that evil ideology, we, as a parliament, have to adapt. This legislation is one in a suite of changes that indicates to the Australian people that we are ever vigilant as a government and we are adapting as the threats emerge. We will ensure that our counter-terrorism agencies have what they need to protect you.
There will always be the raving loonies, like the member for Melbourne, out there on the fringes complaining about counter-terrorism legislation of the kind we are discussing today, but I will always ignore the disgraceful contributions of the member for Melbourne and put the safety of the Australian public and the citizens of my electorate of Deakin ahead of those petty and wildly ideological arguments.
I commend this bill to the House. I commend the Prime Minister, and I also commend Dan Tehan and his committee for doing a great job in ensuring these changes have found their way into this bill.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (18:11): I am not sure if it is a pleasure or not to rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I think for many of us in this place it is a real challenge. It is a challenge to understand why we are in a situation where we need to be contemplating changes and measures that allow our security, police and defence forces to be able to take such actions. But, nevertheless, this is a real threat and this is the time and the place that we live in. One must believe that there are better times ahead, because if we do not, you really wonder what it is all about.
This is the third bill to be introduced since the middle of 2014 in a series of reforms to national security and counter-terrorism laws. The scope of this bill is a little narrower than the previous two, but the measures are significant. Amendments come in two specific circumstances: experience with the control order regime in recent domestic counter-terrorism operations; and as a result of the deployment of the Defence Force to Iraq to undertake operations against ISIL—the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
I come from a peaceful state, but I feel compelled to make a contribution to this bill, because I have had many constituents raising their concerns with me. In the main, they have maybe not always been instinctively supportive of the party of which I am a member, but have nevertheless been willing to strongly commend the government on the work they are doing in this space. So I feel it behoves me to make a contribution today. I would also like to associate myself with a number of the contributions that have been made by other members: the member for Ryan, in particular, and the member for Hughes. The member for Eden Monaro brought a different context to this, as did the member for Deakin. And the member for Melbourne Ports, as well—acknowledging the interest that he has in the whole area around human rights and so forth.
In preparing for this contribution, I thought it would be best if I first tried to summarise in my own words, in very much a layperson's terms, the measures that we are trying to address through this legislation. I may go into it in a bit more detail later in my contribution, but those people who read this at a later date should be able to get, in a short time, an understanding and a summary of this as it stands.
This bill gives the Australian Federal Police and other agencies a greater capacity to adapt, based on advice that is received from time to time—in essence, as I saw it, to be agile; to be able to respond in a way that is consistent with the enemy that we are dealing with. It is about cooperation between agencies—in particular, ASIS, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the Australian Defence Force. Indeed, as I mentioned in the preamble, this is about, ultimately, protecting our troops through cooperation between the security and intelligence forces and our defence forces. Thirdly, the bill authorises arrangements for the minister to act in cases of emergency, which arrangements apply to, as I mentioned, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Signals Directorate, and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation.
Domestically, this bill is about protecting our national borders. It is about supporting our security agencies to better do their job. These agencies very rarely, if ever, ask for additional support. They have far-reaching powers—make no mistake—but they do not ask for provisions unless those provisions are needed. And this is one such moment in history.
This bill is about identifying early indicators to domestic threats, to improve the capacity to identify networks of those who would do us harm, and, indeed, those lone wolf attacks that understandably are more difficult to identify and so are more difficult to protect against in advance of an action occurring. For the man or woman in the street, it is those sorts of acts that are probably as chilling as any we have seen. They really probably substantiate much of this initiative and much of the justification for these additional powers. The bill allows the capacity to detain, and to constrain the movement of, individuals identified as a threat. It makes sense. It is important because it is a challenge—it is a challenge for me; it is a challenge, I think, for most Australians—to raise public awareness, and also to understand that nobody is immune from such threats, notwithstanding the fact that I hope I come from one of the most peaceful places in the world.
Finally, the bill is about collaboration with other countries, our allies, that are all grappling with the same issues. As other speakers have mentioned and as we have heard, there are over 15,000 foreign nationals now ensconced in Iraq and Syria fighting with Daesh, or the Islamic State, as they prefer to be known—residents of Canada, residents of France, citizens of the United Kingdom and citizens of the United States, as well as of Australia. As I mentioned, I felt compelled to make a contribution—and it will be a brief contribution—because, as I say, many Australians have been shocked by the plans, and plans that have been in many cases quite sophisticated, to attack people in this country who they are living side by side with.
May I also just acknowledge this. I did not get to see Q&A on the Monday night when the Attorney-General was single-handedly tasked with appearing on the program, but I managed to see the Attorney-General's contribution a few days later, and I was moved enough to call the Attorney-General just to acknowledge the way that I thought he handled such terribly sensitive and difficult questions. He was respectful at all times to the audience, but there were questions posed by the audience that, if I had been in his shoes, I would have found difficult. I just want to put on the record the very competent, compassionate and considered way in which the Attorney-General conducted himself in that forum.
I am not going to go through the detail of the bill anymore; I have used up a bit more time than I thought. But I will just say, following on from the member for Deakin, that there are things that, as a federal government, are fundamental for us to contemplate. First of all, it is to keep Australians safe. That is the very first thing that we must contemplate every day that we are in this place. It is the fundamental role that we have.
These measures—and I think the Prime Minister has been very much at pains to point this out—are not an attack on any particular religion. These measures are designed to defend Australians, and our Defence forces operating overseas and domestically, against truly evil people that hide behind a cloak of religion in the form of Islam. We should always remember that. Finally, it is so important that the best way that we can respond as Australians is to absolutely go about our business as normal.
I also commend the work of the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, and his committee. I also should acknowledge my colleague from Tasmania, the member for Bass, and the experience that he brings to this place in respect of his service within the Defence Force and his knowledge of counter-terrorism and intelligence. I thank him for walking me through and discussing with me some of the aspects of the bill that are before the House today. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (18:24): I rise to commend the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 to the House, because it is an important part of how the coalition government is helping to keep Australia safe. The Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis QC, has been a tireless advocate in this important policy area, and I thank the Attorney sincerely, and also the Prime Minister, for their leadership in this very important area.
One of the central commitments that this coalition government made to the people of Australia in the lead-up to the last election was to deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. This is the commitment that we took to the people of Australia at the last election, and it is certainly what I promised the people of Robertson in my electorate on the Central Coast. I know that they also identified national security and the need to feel safe in their homes and in their community as some of their primary key concerns that they shared with me.
We are determined to keep those commitments that we made. This bill is part of our delivery of those commitments, and I note that even the opposition recognises how crucial this bill is for our country. Sadly, the member for Melbourne in his contribution clearly does not understand this so much, and I join with the member for Berowra and others on this side of the House in rejecting some of his remarks. In saying this, I also wish that the member for Melbourne, the Greens and indeed the Labor opposition would actually recognise how important our national security priorities are. This government is carrying out its responsibility to keep Australia safe but also to make our nation a place with a strong, prosperous economy that enables us to deliver the sort of hope, reward and opportunity that Australians voted for.
These objectives are all part of the coalition's economic action strategy, and we are working to deliver all of our commitments because we know that only a stronger economy will generate more jobs, lift living standards and give our country a better future.
It is worth going briefly through some of the steps that we have taken in this strategy in 2014, because this year has genuinely been one of achievement. To start with, Labor's jobs-destroying carbon tax is gone, saving the average household around $550 a year—particularly the average household on the Central Coast. We have delivered the biggest cut in electricity prices on record. For a family saving for Christmas on the Central Coast, this is good news.
The mining tax is gone, so this vital sector can help create more jobs. We also took on the responsibility of fixing Labor's budget mess and we are getting spending under control. We have passed our Direct Action Plan which will make a practical difference to the environment without slugging families with a carbon tax. Our $12 billion infrastructure program is already underway to save people time and money, including on major projects like NorthConnex, which will benefit people in my electorate on the Central Coast. The M1-M2 missing link will save around 15 minutes each way for the 40,000 commuters who leave early in the morning and return home late at night to their families, because their job opportunities are in Sydney. The missing link will generate around 8,700 full-time equivalent jobs every year during construction, scheduled to start next year.
We are cutting red tape, with $2 billion in red tape savings already identified. We are turbocharging trade with our neighbours by delivering free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, which means more exports, more jobs and lower prices for families. And we are working with businesses to ensure we are taking advantage of these opportunities. In fact, just last week—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Is the member for Robertson going to start to get towards somewhere near the bill?
Mrs WICKS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do so. Crucially, we are keeping Australia safe. More than 50,000 illegal boat people arrived on Labor's watch, creating an $11.6 billion blow-out in border protection costs. Now we have all but stopped the boats, which many claimed was impossible and, as we see in this bill now before the House, we have responded to the threat of extremism with new counter-terrorism measures.
This government will do everything possible to keep people safe; our security measures at home and abroad are directed against terrorism, not religion; and Australians should always live normally, because terrorists' goal is to scare people. These are three important principles that this government has enunciated.
This government is putting these messages into action in a number of ways. This includes providing an additional $630 million to give our police, intelligence and security services the resources they need. There are now stronger measures at international airports and many public buildings to deter extremists, and we are also urgently updating counter-terrorism legislation. The foreign fighters bill, which was assented to by this parliament on 3 November, fills the most pressing gaps and will tailor many of our existing powers and defences to address the new threat of home-grown terrorism.
The terrorists' methods have changed, so our legislation needs to change too. We are facing a new kind of terrorist, different to the 9/11 generation. Of course we will never forget those attacks. It is also 12 years since we were rocked by the tragedy of the Bali bombings, which were a shocking attack on Australians. As a nation we are aware of the long-term damage that this can have.
But we also face a new threat from a new generation of evil. We are battling the threat of home-grown, lone wolf attackers. These terrorists, often teenagers inspired and directed by ISIL and other groups reaching out from afar, are becoming self-radicalised on-line. They are not planning—and often do not have the ability or knowledge—the sorts of attacks that we witnessed in horror on the World Trade Center. We are now faced with the threat of simple, low-technology attacks which require little preparation, training or capability.
So by understanding that terrorists are changing the way they act, it is up to Australia to adapt by updating our counter-terrorism legislation. In short, we must have strong laws to deal with this threat, which the Prime Minister has aptly described as a 'death cult.' And that is what we are doing in this bill. We need to act.
We are seeking to address urgent needs that have been identified by our intelligence, defence and law enforcement agencies. This includes the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to undertake military operations against the ISIL death cult in Iraq. And it includes the recent Operation Appleby, which disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney.
We have also been working to improve this legislation. These measures are not targeted at any religion or any community. In fact, as the member for Ryan said earlier in this place, 'In an ideal world we would not even need this bill.' But as this government and most Australians know we must be prepared and responsible in these serious matters.
So I take this opportunity to commend the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee made 16 unanimous recommendations including, most importantly, that the bill be passed. And I am pleased to confirm, again, to the House that following consultation with all relevant agencies, the government has decided to accept in principle all of the recommendations in the report. Importantly, the final recommendation of the PJCIS is that the bill be passed.
I would like to touch on some of these recommendations today that underline just how important it is that we respond to our rapidly changing global environment. One of the recommendations we are endorsing is the requirement for the Australian Federal Police to provide a statement of facts when seeking an interim control order from the Attorney-General. That is recommendation 3 from the committee, from schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 amendments. The bill currently requires the Australian Federal Police to provide the Attorney-General with a draft of the interim control order to be requested, information about the person's age and a summary of the grounds on which the order should be made.
The bill will be amended so that the Australian Federal Police must now also provide a statement of facts about why the order should or should not be made. At this point, I would also like to commend the Australian Federal Police. The arrest of six men in Sydney on the weekend for drug importation was the second largest drug seizure in Australia's history.
The Joint Organised Crime Group, including the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the State Crime Commission and the Australian Crime Commission stopped almost 2.8 tonnes of MDMA and methamphetamine, with a street value in excess of $1.5 billion. It has put a major dent in the operations of organised crime in Australia and, importantly, has made sure these drugs do not reach our streets.
Thousands of lives have potentially been saved, including those of people in my electorate, as a result of this excellent work. Only last week, the Salvation Army highlighted the increased use of the drug ice on the Central Coast. And I am pleased to have this opportunity, just for a moment, to thank our law enforcement agencies for their work in getting these drugs out of the hands of dealers and traffickers. When we hear about these seizures, it brings threats close to home.
Importantly, this bill that we are speaking on today enhances and improves the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to threats through necessary and urgent amendments to national security legislation. This bill underlines how we are serious about enhancing the control of the Australian Federal Police and streamlining the application process. Under this bill we are facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service when it is supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations. And we are enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities.
I would like to touch on another recommendation that will help keep Australia safe, by lowering the terror threat at home and abroad. Recommendation 2 of schedule 1 describes how the terms 'supports' and 'facilitates' should be based on language in the existing Criminal Code. The Criminal Code uses these terms but does not define them. That is, the terms have their ordinary meaning and are appropriately left for the courts to determine. That is exactly how the terms are treated in the bill.
Recommendation 6 will also assist in this package of amendments to help keep Australia safe. As part of this bill, it will allow the Australian Federal Police to request and issue a court to make a control order in relation to those who 'enable' and those who 'recruit'. Although these individuals may not directly participate in terrorist acts, by providing funds and equipment or by recruiting vulnerable young people to champion their cause and, sadly, even to die for it, is instrumental to carrying out acts of terror.
Contrary to some inaccurate reporting, these amendments will not enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. Their role is to provide intelligence support to the ADF. In short, the government must ensure the Australian Federal Police is in the best position to protect its personnel and this measure helps achieve this objective.
I am pleased to be advised that all of the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply and I understand that strong oversight mechanisms will also apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations.
I thank the committee for its exhaustive time in going through each recommendation in such detail. Finally, I would also like to highlight recommendation 1, which is the appointment of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The government will also task the newly appointed monitor to consider whether the additional safeguards recommended in the 2013 Council of Australian Governments review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation should be introduced. The government firmly supports independent oversight of national security and counter-terrorism legislation and accepts the urgency to appoint this monitor.
In conclusion, this is a bill that is part of our commitment to build a safe and secure Australia. It is our obligation and duty to keep Australia as safe as humanly possible and, in times like these, when we need to make tough, important decisions for our future, it is an honour to commend this bill to the House.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (18:37): I take no pleasure in the necessity of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, but I do have immense pride in the ability of this government to act swiftly and comprehensively. Indeed, the mark of maturity is accepting that one is not always right, and by virtue of this debate the Abbott administration is demonstrating measure and maturity. The Australian people expect no more and accept no less, for the legitimacy of this government or any government flows from parties acknowledging and upholding the modern democratic social contract.
Our coalition government put a simple proposition to the people at the last election: elect the coalition government to office and get safety and security as watchwords of everything we do. This has been the case in every hour of every day since 7 September 2013. Our mandate—an overwhelming win at the polls—was built upon the specific platform of action called Our Plan. Our Plan enshrines and emphasises safety and security in its every promise. The budget repair measures introduced in May are the first part of building that strong, prosperous economy. As an aside, I am pleased to inform the house that WA small businesses are the most optimistic in the country, according to Westpac's Small Business Index with the Melbourne Institute. In WA 95 per cent of firms are small businesses, with 209,000 companies.
A strong, prosperous economy is a fundamental that underpins everything we do with respect to safety and security. Safety and security means stopping the boats. Safety and security means securing the future of Medicare. Safety and security means securing our economic success and standard of living by cutting red tape and building the roads for the 21st century. However, above all the aforementioned is rule No. 1: the prima facie deal maker and breaker of the modern state is to protect all the citizens of the state. When Hobbes wrote of a most basic social contract in Leviathan, his only ask of the ruler was to protect the lives of the ruled—not to improve them but just to keep them alive. Thankfully, our modern concepts of a state's obligations have evolved far beyond just protecting lives that were 'nasty, brutish and short'. From that time in 16th century England and right up through the centuries, every significant thinker has understood that the overriding obligation of government is to protect the citizenry. A government has no right to rule if it cannot do that most basic task.
And so it is with this bill. The swift action of the Abbott government demonstrates to all that national security is the important issue. National security rates above any partisan divide. For, in truth, an attack on one Australian is an attack on all Australians. In this nation of many threads, our rich and colourful patchwork is maintained and sustained by a sense of mutual obligation and mateship. I welcome the constructive comments and amendments to the counter-terrorism bill. In the first instance, I knew instinctively of the importance of sunset clauses in the legislation. At all times, when we legislate we must be cognisant of the legislation's immediate effect on civil liberties. But also we must consider what would happen in the worst-case scenario: what would happen if the new law were to be misused or manipulated? These considerations must be fair and reasonable, not hyperbolic or hysterical.
I would like to acknowledge the industry of the Attorney- General and also the reasonableness and vision of the man. By this I refer to the amendments put up in the other place by the Australian Greens and specifically Senator Penny Wright. Changing the time for detention powers from 12 hours to eight hours may not seem like a big deal, and it is not. The big deal is getting this bill passed and giving our law enforcement and security agencies the powers they have asked for. That is the crux of this debate. The thing pivots on giving the people who protect us the power they need to do just that. The amendments tabled by the Greens and subsequently incorporated into this bill specify Australia's obligations under the convention against torture.
I would remind my colleagues that we are at war with a murderous death cult. War of the kind being waged by non-state actors, such as has been seen in recent times, is not subject to international agreements, rules or protocols. I am not advocating a fire-with-fire or an eye-for-an-eye approach. That is neither moral nor sensible in the short or long term. I am simply invoking a consideration of the changing nature of the threat our nation faces. It is war, but not as we know it. It is asymmetric, it is brutal, and it is everywhere. So, as I welcome and applaud the Team Australia approach adopted by the Labor Party, I would also counsel that others heed what former US President Thomas Jefferson said:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
When the current media interest dies away, we as legislators must still be vigilant. As I stated earlier, I see the incorporation of the final recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as a sign of good and responsive government. This bill is critically important to protecting and supporting the operations of the ADF in current operations against IS in Iraq. This bill enables the intelligence services to collect information on Australians they suspect may be aiding and abetting the enemy. In practical terms, that is persons who are suspected of training with or attempting to travel to areas of conflict to assist IS militants.
This bill is exceptionally useful and urgent—the proposed enactment of a statutory basis for ASIS to provide assistance to the ADF in support of overseas military operations. Support of this nature has previously been provided only in an ad hoc way, without clear parliamentary authority. The amendments make provision for the contingency that the relevant ministers may be temporarily uncontactable when there is an urgent, previously unforeseen need to collect vital intelligence. Opportunities are being missed because agency heads do not have the power to exercise emergency ministerial authorisations, thus limiting control and search capability. The amendments will address this by enabling an agency head to grant a limited emergency authorisation subject to rigorous and extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms. These authorisations are strictly limited to a maximum of 48 hours maximum and cannot be renewed. This is simply a recognition of the changing nature of the threat, but it is also reflective of our modern world. Things move quickly. A golden opportunity does not come twice. The safeguard is that the IGIS must also be notified as soon as practicable within three days. The amendments to the Criminal Code will further strengthen the control order regime and enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies to protect the public from terrorist acts. The amendments will allow the AFP to request, and an issuing court to make, a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. The expansion of the control order regime to cover such individuals will help disrupt terrorism at an earlier stage, keeping Australia and Australians safe and secure.
I am disappointed that Senator Leyonhjelm, in the other place, would use this bill to engage in political point-scoring along with Labor and the Greens. It is sad when someone with eminently sensible principles and beliefs can be led along the garden path by economic vandals and hollow, myopic careerists. The good senator engaged in histrionics when he claimed that there is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility in extending emergency ministerial authorisations to heads of intelligence agencies. In truth, the only abrogation of duty would be if the minister did not put in place such a provision. The minister is bound by oath to plan for every situation, and always for a worst-case scenario. The argument coming out of the other place, of the minister looking to pass the buck to the heads of agencies, is superficially a little bit attractive. It is perhaps a bit like a drag queen, or a pig with lipstick—or anything out of Labor. But distance is the thing; when one comes a little bit closer, the truth comes out. Any number or series of serious and unfortunate events could befall the Attorney-General when he is acting in his other role as the Minister for the Arts—think of poor old Lincoln! If the intelligence agencies had a major tip-off, what would the good senator want done then? Wait until the morning? Wait until the next phone call? Keep waiting? I know what I would prefer for myself and my children. I would want to know that, when I go to bed at night, there is always going to be someone watching and ready to act. That is the safety and security the coalition was elected to provide—and I am proud to be a part of that coalition. When Senator Leyonhjelm rises to speak against the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 in the other place and says he is 'sick of it', is he sick of safety and security? Is he sick of peace, prosperity and progress? I know what the Australian people are sick of—do-nothing windbags and their histrionics, hyperventilating about this or that, all the while preventing our security professionals from getting the tools they need. Confected indignation is not a plan.
What we are debating is a tripartite bill that has been requested by our intelligence services to enable them to do the job we have tasked them with. The three parts of the bill are control orders; emergency ministerial authorisations; and sharing and co-operation between ASIS and the ADF on military operations such as against IS in Iraq. Let there be no doubt about it, IS is bringing a new age of darkness. So crawl into the cave or stand up and get out as the blanket of death falls. The coalition will stand up.
It is always concerning and bewildering that so many on the Left are fundamentally suspicious of the motives of the intelligence and security services. Senator Wright, in the other place, invoked the PJCIS to give seeming credibility to outlandish accusations and hyperbole that somehow these technical amendments to facilitate greater active cooperation between ASIS and the ADF on a mission 'may lead to ASIS being involved in the targeted killings of Australian citizens'. This is a sick, dark fantasy that plays into the hands of the terrorist killers. Every decent, upstanding Australian knows this to be a fantasy beneath contempt.
This bill builds a solid foundation for increased hope, reward and opportunity. In the final analysis, our country would be wise to head the words of former US President Ronald Reagan:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same.
In short, freedom is not free; someone, somewhere, always pays a price.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (18:51): I rise this evening in support of the government's Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This legislation is about the protection of our nation. The Prime Minister is correct in saying that protecting our people is the first duty of government—and it is for this that I rise in support of the legislation. The people of Australia have been rightly alarmed by the activities of terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State. The visions on our TVs, newspapers, and online have been nothing short of abhorrent and evil—from mass killings to horrific beheadings and crucifixions at the hands of these extremists of hate. Nothing can justify the beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions, ethnic cleansing, rape, sexual slavery and the genocide that have taken place.
It is a responsibility of the government to equip our security agencies to protect our people from those who wish to harm us. As an international community we must work together to stamp out the evil threat of terrorism. We must further stand united to not only see that our own homeland is safe but also see that our youth are no longer corrupted by these toxic and poisonous terrorist organisations.
Therefore, on 24 September, the United Nations Security Council sought, through resolution 2178, to condemn violent extremism and decided that member states shall prevent the recruiting, organising, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning of or participation in terrorist acts. Further, the Security Council expressed concern over the establishment of international terrorist networks. The council underscored the particular and urgent need to prevent the travel and support of foreign terrorist fighters.
Australia does face a serious and ongoing terrorist threat from Australians who have participated, fought or trained in foreign conflicts. These amendments will further strengthen and enhance the operation of the control order regime in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and will aid the response of our law enforcement agencies in operational issues following these counterterrorism raids that we saw earlier in the year.
On 1 October, I rose in this place to record the sentiment of many residents from Lindsay. Today I will repeat their voices. James Collins from South Penrith said, 'I applaud the government for securing Australia borders and introducing legislation giving the police, national security and ASIO additional powers to cope with the current terrorist situation in Australia.' Tania Cook from Orchard Hills said: 'Why allow anyone who is going overseas to fight with IS back in Australia? Why not let them stay there and live in a place that has no safety or peace?' Barry Sufflingfrom Penrith said, 'People proposing to emigrate to Australia must swear to never bring their home countries' tribal conflicts or wars to this country.' Wendy Johnson of Emu Plains said, '… keeping Australia secure and safe for us, our children and future generations.' Mr and Mrs Richard Last of Oxley Park said simply, 'Stop the terrorists.'
I rise tonight in support of my local community that has asked for increased protections to keep them and their families safe. This is not about an ethnicity or a religious group; this is about the actions of a small minority: a death cult. The foundations of our local community, particularly in Western Sydney, are built on multiculturalism, inclusion, peace and an overwhelming fusion of many cultures.
This legislation contains a package of amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001. This bill is part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat both internationally and at home, and in particular to that posed by Australians participating in and supporting foreign conflicts or undertaking training with extremist groups. It will enhance the ability of Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take timely action in relation to Australian persons who are, or are suspected of being, involved in terrorism related activities. This includes a person who is enabling or supporting terrorist activities or who is suspected of fighting with terrorist organisations or in foreign conflicts.
This bill addresses pressing legislative limitations identified in the context of present or recent operational activities such as domestic and counter-terrorism investigations and Australian Defence Force activity against the ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq. The bill will enhance the control order regime in the Criminal Code Act 1995 to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern—namely, those who support or facilitate terrorists and foreign fighters.
Amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will enhance the ability of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to assist the Australian Defence Force in support of military operations. Following consultation with relevant agencies, the government has decided to accept or accept in principle all of the recommendations in the report. Thirteen of the recommendations will result in minor amendments to the bill and explanatory memorandum.
These amendments also address practical limitations identified in the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations, which apply to all three ISA agencies: ASIS, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation.
ASIS provided essential support for the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan. The support ranged from force protection reporting at the tactical level through to strategic level reporting on the Taliban leadership. ASIS reporting was instrumental in saving the lives of Australian soldiers and civilians, including victims of kidnapping, and enabling operations conducted by Australian special forces. However, differences in circumstances in Iraq mean that reliance on existing provisions of the ISA in relation to the functions of ASIS, which are not specific to the provision of assistance to the Australian Defence Force, is likely to limit ASIS's ability to provide such assistance in a timely way.
Experience in responding to urgent requirements for ministerial authorisations has identified that the existing emergency authorisation arrangements under section 9A of the ISA do not sufficiently address the need for ASIS, ASD or AGO to be able to obtain a ministerial authorisation in an extreme emergency. The proposed amendments will address limitations identified in this provision. The bill will amend the way in which senior Australian Federal Police force members can apply for control orders. No longer will the Australian Federal Police be burdened by having to explain, in their application, why each of the obligations and restrictions should be imposed. Instead, senior Australian Federal Police members would only be required to justify these as a whole.
The underlying purposes of a control orders regime will be expanded under the proposed bill, as opposed to previous legislation that merely increased the grounds for an application to be made. The expansion of the rationale and purposes of the control orders regime is being introduced in order to redress operational issues for the Australian Federal Police and security and intelligence personnel, especially when conducting raids. The changes to the regime are being proposed following those previous well documented and publicised raids earlier in the year. By extending the rationale and purposes for the control orders regime, the bill will parallel the extension of the reach of terrorism and foreign incursions offence regimes, previously amended, ensuring continuity and a streamlined process and approach to counter-terrorism. Allowing the departmental heads of ASIO, ASD and the AGO to authorise counter-terrorism activities in place of ministers in emergency circumstances will allow a quicker and more dynamic response to such situations as they may arise.
The bill also provides a situation where ASIS intelligence can be shared with the Australian Defence Force. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, ASIS is currently being severely limited in providing such assistance under current legislation. The introduction of authorisations by ministers in relation to the classes of Australian persons will facilitate a timely performance in the operational security and intelligence gathering by ASIS which, in turn, will support the Australian Defence Force and its military operations. This provision of the bill, therefore, is not just about safety but is also about ensuring that the bill as a whole functions effectively and the process of gathering intelligence and using that intelligence is smooth, particularly in time sensitive situations where such flow of data is necessary.
Australia is a very great nation. Together, the entire parliament must strive to protect and support our local communities for a better future and a better life. The brutality and confronting imagery that we have seen internationally reminds us that this terrorist threat is on our doorstep and of the fragility of the democracy that we enjoy here in Australia. For the terrorists to succeed they must strike at the hearts and the minds of innocent people. The evil that is ISIS must not succeed. We must all stay strong to protect the Australian life that we all so love and cherish. To quote the Prime Minister:
… it's a sign that hope is stronger than fear and that decency can prevail over brute force.
Australia should remain a country where people trust each other, welcome newcomers and are justifiably confident that, in most respects, our future will be even better than our past. Our country must remain a beacon of hope and optimism that shines around the world. We should remain a country where people trust each other. We will fight to protect these values. Together, we should hope to protect Australia's way of life and outlaw extremist behaviour. All in all, this legislation is about keeping all Australians safe. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (19:04): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This is the third bill introduced since mid-2014 that is part of a series of reforms that this government has brought to our national security framework and counter-terrorism laws. These have emanated from a number of threats and the things that we have seen overseas in Syria and Iraq with ISIL. A number of other speakers have touched on those well, so I shall not recount those any further. The end result of all of that is that it has ultimately led to a raising of the National Terrorism Public Alert level to high. This level of threat assessment communicates the fact that we now view that it is likely that there could be an attack on Australian soil. I think, in that context, it is the right context to consider these bills, as well as the others that have passed this House.
As I said at the outset, this is largely as a result of the events in the Middle East that have activated people here at home who support the extremism propagated by the ISIL militants in Iraq and Syria. It has been reported that there are at least 70 Australians currently in Iraq and Syria fighting with these terrorist organisations. When this is combined with supporters who assist through activities such as recruitment and funding, this number jumped to about 150 in June, earlier this year, and to about 185 today. The House would be well aware that we have already passed legislation designed to stop Australians fighting in overseas conflicts, to make it easier for the government to cancel passports and to allow authorities to declare some conflicts as no-go zones for Australian travellers. What we now seek to do with this legislation is address the urgent operational needs identified by our intelligence, Defence and law enforcement agencies.
I think it is worthwhile to provide some context to our reforms, so I thought I would recap some of the events that have led us to where we are today.
On the morning of 18 September 2014 police carried out one of the biggest counter-terrorist operations in the nation's history, with over 800 heavily armed officers targeting households in the cities of Sydney and Brisbane. Twenty-five homes were raided after the interception of a phone call, 15 people were detained, and one person was charged with terrorism offences.
One of the homes was located in my electorate of Forde in the suburb of Boronia Heights. I pay due credit to my community, which has some 215 different cultures, for the way it handled this news and, equally, I pay credit for the way the Australian Federal Police and the Queensland Police Service have handled this sensitive matter so professionally. It is instructive to note that a few days later, on 24 September, TheCourier-Mail reported that the gentleman arrested at Boronia Heights had a plan—an alleged plan—to seek to behead a government official. The man has, ultimately, been charged with preparations for incursions into foreign states with the intention of engaging in hostile activities, and with recruiting persons to join organisations engaged in those hostile activities.
We should not forget the attack on the police officers in Victoria. To date our police and intelligence services have been very proactive in ensuring they deal with these threats before any actual harm occurs. As the previous speaker has rightly pointed out, it is incumbent upon governments and upon us as members of parliament to work with our law enforcement agencies to ensure, where possible, this does not occur. Therefore, it is important that we stay vigilant and calm and allow the security agencies and police to do their jobs, and assist them when weaknesses are identified in the system.
We know how random these attacks can be, having witnessed the horrific random attack in Victoria and, equally, in the Canadian parliament and on Canadian soldiers. It certainly felt very close to home when we heard the devastating news of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Canadian soldier on ceremonial sentry duty at the Canadian War Memorial, being fatally shot on 22 October this year. There was vision of the gunman running through the parliament of Canada in a shootout whilst members were barricading themselves inside the chamber. Thankfully, any attempts to claim further human life during this attack were unsuccessful. There was another incident outside of the parliament, when a soldier was killed in a hit-and-run accident.
All of this serves to remind us of the necessity to be vigilant and the necessity to ensure that the laws and frameworks we have in this country are adequate for what our law enforcement agencies are required to do to protect the Australian community. The incident in Canada obviously promoted a renewed focus on the security in Parliament House here, and I would like to thank those involved for adopting the appropriate measures to seek to prevent an attack on this Parliament House.
I would like to reflect more broadly in this debate by addressing some of the comments made by Canadian academic, Salim Mansur, who wrote about the issues that we are talking about today in quite a bit of detail. More broadly, he touched on what we are facing globally with the Islamic threat. In an article on the Gatestone Institute website on 29 September, Mr Mansur stated:
Broadly speaking … the struggle within Islam is between Muslims who embrace the values of the modern world in terms of freedom, individual rights, gender equality and democracy on the one side, and Muslims opposing these values and insisting on a Sharia-based legal system on the other … any Muslim who even questions this version of Islam they refer to as a heretic or, worse, an apostate to be killed.
I am sad to say that we have seen that graphically portrayed through the social media avenues that the ISIL terrorists have used. Mansur went on to state:
For Muslims who embrace modernity, Islam is a matter of personal belief, not a political system …a reformed Islam … greatly desired and sought after by swelling numbers of Muslims … cannot succeed without the support of non-Muslims.
That is why we all need to work together to support the Muslims in our community who want to see a brighter, better future for their children.
These counter-terrorism laws, in part, are designed to do that. They are designed, in conjunction with the other bills that have passed this House, to ensure that we have the capacity through our law enforcement agencies to identify those who would seek to radicalise young Muslim men, in particular. This bill forms part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat, both internationally and at home. It particularly responds to the threat posed by Australians participating in, and supporting, foreign conflicts, or undertaking training with extremist groups. It will improve the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to these threats through necessary amendments to national security legislation to address limitations identified in the course of recent operations.
These operations include the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to undertake military operations against the ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq and the recent Operation Appleby, which disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney. The amendments address three key areas by (1) enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process; (2) facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations; and (3) enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions.
Contrary to some inaccurate media reporting, the amendments will not—I say again: they will not—enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. There is no change to the existing limitation under section 6(4) of the IS Act, which states that ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve paramilitary activities or violence against the person or the use of weapons other than in accordance with the act by staff members or agents of ASIS. The role of ASIS is to provide intelligence support to the ADF. The ADF is providing military support in Iraq at the request and behest of the Iraqi government. Its role is to train the Iraqi military in their fight against terrorist organisations, but the ADF does require the intelligence that can be provided by ASIS to ensure, still bound by its rules of engagement, that it has the intelligence necessary to conduct operations in an efficient and effective manner. This has been developed in consultation with the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department to ensure compliance with Australia's international law obligations.
As I have touched on, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure that we provide a framework in which our law enforcement agencies can carry out their duties of protecting this great country. I think we should be very proud of what we have achieved in Australia and that the multitude of cultures represented in our community today live peacefully and in harmony with each other and add to the rich tapestry that is this great country.
In conclusion, the security and safety of all Australians is paramount. We as a government will continue to work with our intelligence and security agencies to ensure that it continues to be. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (19:17): As the previous speaker, the member for Forde, mentioned, keeping Australians safe is a priority for this government. There is no more pressing matter of national or international security than reducing the threat of terrorism, and that is what we see with the bill before the House this evening, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. We are all aware of the threat from ISIL, or Daesh, al-Nusra Front and other forms of al-Qaeda affiliated groups. We know that they are more dangerous, more global, more organised perhaps and more diversified than previously. We know as well that terrorists are younger. They are more violent and often more interconnected. We have seen the interconnected nature of social media and the internet. They are extremely violent, as we have seen. They are, clearly, very easily recruited and very tech savvy. They also have been subject to incitement by others, and we have seen communication of such propaganda and violence through disaffected young people.
Australia has been working with the Iraqi government, the United States and many other partners to attack and degrade ISIL overseas and to assist in taking back Iraqi territory. We have also taken significant steps at home. This bill is just the next stage of that. The government has cancelled the passports of more than 70 Australians suspected of planning to commit a terrorist act or engage in a form of politically motivated violence overseas. We have seen the Minister for Foreign Affairs freeze the assets of two Australians who were recruiting for ISIL online. We have introduced new foreign terrorist fighter laws to help to disrupt the organisation, the financing and the facilitation of foreign fighters by enhancing our ability to track the financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorist fighters, by lowering the threshold of arrest without warrant for terrorist and terrorism offences, which really helps our agencies to disrupt terrorist activity at an earlier stage, and by cancelling social welfare payments to cut off the diversion of such funds for terrorism. The minister has also taken steps allowing the Australian government to suspend as well as cancel a person's Australian passport. We have enhanced screening and security measures at international airports, including through the collection and matching of biometric data.
Each one of these successive laws that the government has introduced enhances our ability to investigate and prosecute foreign fighters. That has been done by: introducing a new, broader offence for advocating terrorism; introducing a new offence for entering or remaining without a legitimate reason in designated areas overseas where terrorist organisations are fighting; amending the terrorism organisation listing provision to include the promotion and encouragement of terrorist acts; requiring that the prosecution must prove that a person intended to engage in a hostile activity in any foreign country, rather than a particular foreign country; allowing courts greater flexibility in determining whether to admit as evidence material obtained from overseas in terrorism related proceedings—a significant development that will rely on good information sharing; and requiring telecommunications companies to retain metadata, enhancing Australia's capacity to track, to investigate and to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters and supporters of terrorism. The government has introduced law after law to enable our police to more easily seek control orders on returning foreign terrorist fighters and broaden the grounds on which such control orders can be sought.
The government is also working with Interpol to deliver training in our region in the use of technology by terrorists and how electronic evidence is gathered and managed. We are building targeted early intervention and counter-radicalisation programs. The work has been very active, also involving women and girls. The government has worked with the ICT sector to reduce the risk posed by terrorists and extremist groups online through education, by promoting alternative messages and removing extremist content.
When you look at a terrorist act—and they are abhorred both here and around the world—it is an act or threat to act that intends to coerce or influence the public, or any government, by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. It can cause death, serious harm or danger to a person, serious damage to property, serious risk to the health and safety of the public, and serious interference with and disruption to or destruction of critical infrastructures, such as telecommunications or electricity networks.
Advocating, protesting, dissenting or taking industrial action are not terrorist acts if the person engaged in the activity does not intend to cause serious harm to a person or serious risk to public safety. Anyone guilty of committing a terrorist act could face up to life imprisonment.
The bill before the House today contains a package of amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code 1995. The amendments facilitate Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, in supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations, enhance the arrangement for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to IS Act agencies, to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions, and enhance the control-order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders on a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process.
The measures in the bill identified by relevant agencies, subsequent to the introduction of two previous tranches of legislation, have been included as a result of instances of operational need. In the case of the proposed IS Act amendments, the government has authorised the ADF to undertake operations against the Islamic State terrorist organisation in Iraq. As a result, the need for this amendment is urgent.
These operational activities will include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australian persons who are known or suspected participants in the hostilities and particularly in relation to those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the IS terrorist organisation. Such intelligence will assist in protecting ADF personnel, members of other defence forces and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of the conflict.
The proposed amendments are directed to two key areas. First, the primary purpose of the amendment is to better facilitate ASIS provide timely assistance to the ADF in support of military operations and its cooperation with the ADF on intelligence matters. Secondly, the proposed amendments make provision for the contingency that the relevant ministers may be temporarily uncontactable when there is an urgent previously unforeseen need to act on vital intelligence.
Presently, there is no legal basis on which agencies can undertake activities in these circumstances, which means that critical intelligence collection opportunities may be missed. The amendments will address this by enabling an agency head to grant a limited emergency authorisation, subject to rigorous and extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms. The minister must be notified, as soon as is practicable, within 48 hours and is under a positive obligation to make a decision about whether it should continue within the 48-hour maximum or be cancelled or replaced with a ministerial authorisation.
The amendments also provide for contingency arrangements in the event that the Attorney-General is not readily available or contactable to provide his or her agreement to the making of an emergency ministerial authorisation, where such an agreement is required because the authorisation concerns the undertaking of activities in relation to an Australian person who is or is likely to be engaged in activities that are or are likely to be a threat to security. The amendments to the Criminal Code will further strengthen the control-order regime and enhance the capacity of law-enforcement agencies to protect the public from terrorist acts.
The amendments will allow the AFP to request an issuing, and an issuing court to make, a control order in relation to those who 'enable' and those who 'recruit'. The amendments to the control-order regime will also streamline the application process by reducing the volume of material that must be provided to the Attorney-General, when seeking consent to request an interim control order, and extend the time for obtaining the Attorney-General's consent when making an urgent request to an issuing court without first obtaining the Attorney-General's consent.
As we see from this bill, the government is very directly concerned about the issues surrounding terrorism and will do everything it can within its power to protect Australians, both here and overseas. Making sure that Australians are secure and safe is a very important role for this government. The $400,000 to support INTERPOL's foreign fighter initiatives, over and above our ongoing annual membership contribution, is very important. There is $20 million to boost AUSTRAC's ability to stop cash being funnelled to terrorists and to crack down on money laundering. These are very practical ways of assisting management of these issues. The additional resourcing to the Australian Federal Police at airports, the counter-terrorism office in Turkey and the recent passage of crimes legislation dealing with psychoactive substances are all part of a very direct focus on all forms of safety and security of Australians.
I also note the recent and very important drug seizures. I saw that HMAS Toowoomba intercepted and seized 388 kilos of heroin off the coast of Africa. In September, the ship's company seized more than 5.6 tonnes of cannabis resin onboard a dhow off the east coast of Africa. This involved 267 bags of resin, with a street value of around A$280 million.
We recently saw the arrest of six men in Sydney for drug importation. We saw that the Joint Organised Crime Group, comprising the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Australian Crime Commission seized almost 2.8 tonnes of MDMA and methamphetamine, with a street value in excess of $1.5 billion. Potentially thousands of Australians' lives have been saved as a result of the work done by our police and law enforcement agencies. I commend them for their work. This particular effort would have taken countless hours and commitment by all of those agencies. I commend all of the officers and people engaged in that particular seizure.
We cannot underestimate the effect of drugs in society. I note that the number and weight of amphetamine type stimulants detected at the Australian border increased in 2012-13 to the highest on record. Australia is clearly a market for individuals seeking to import all of these forms of drugs. I also saw that there were a record number of cannabis detections at the Australian border in 2012-13 and an increase in the number and weight of heroin detections as well. It was the highest on record—513.8 kilograms in 2012-13. This tells you that there is a lot of work for our law enforcement agencies, the Australian Federal Police and the Customs service. It is never-ending. We saw that the amount of cocaine detected at the Australian border halved in 2012-13. The number of detections, however, more than doubled and is the highest on record.
The other thing that concerns me greatly is that the number of performance and image enhancing drugs detected at the border increased by 751.6 per cent, the highest number on record. I have said previously that the number of people who pursue this particular source are also often engaged in trying to source drugs online, with no idea of what they are actually buying and what is contained within the drugs. They are taking a major risk with their health, as well as it being illegal.
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (19:32): We know that the threat from ISIL and other terrorists is more dangerous, more global and more diversified than ever before. We have seen attacks in Canada, England and on our own streets. We have seen attacks on numerous individuals, including the beheading of journalists and welfare workers. We have seen Australia's terrorist alert level being raised to high in recent months. We have seen Australian citizens and dual nationals fighting overseas in Iraq, Syria and other conflicts, committing unspeakable atrocities and honing their terrorist skills. We have seen young Australians leave home to fight with a terrorist group and preach the philosophies of evil. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs told member countries of the UN in an address to the United Nations Security Council in New York, there is no more pressing matter of national and international security for Australia than reducing the threat of terrorism.
The young, modern-day terrorist is a terrifying picture. Terrorists are younger, more violent, more innovative and highly connected. They can strike at short notice with a knife or a gun, with ruthless execution. We have heard these warnings from our security forces and police agencies in recent months. They are masters of social media to terrorise and to recruit, and they are tech-savvy. They incite each other. They communicate their propaganda and violence directly into our homes to recruit disaffected young men and women. This is a challenge our society faces. Many of these violent terrorists will attempt to return home. We must take the necessary steps to keep Australia safe.
This is why we have committed troops and support, including conducting airstrikes against ISIL and providing special forces to help build the capabilities of Iraqi security forces and others fighting ISIL. However, the local threat is still there and growing. To combat terrorism at home and to prevent Australians committing terrorist acts abroad, our counter-terrorism agencies must be properly resourced and have legislative powers to respond to technological change and evolving threats. The government, as we know, is introducing a range of counter-terrorism measures to give security agencies the resources and legislative powers needed to combat home-grown terrorism and Australians who participate in terrorist activities overseas. We are taking the necessary action. We have cancelled the passports of more than 70 Australians suspected of planning to commit a terrorist act or engage in politically motivated violence overseas. Importantly, we have made additional commitments, such as $630 million over four years to counter-terrorism measures, which means more resources for the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and others.
We are introducing legislation to help disrupt the organisation, financing and facilitation of foreign terrorist fighters by enhancing our ability to track the financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorist fighters and by lowering the threshold for arrest without warrant for terrorism offences, which will enable our agencies to disrupt terrorist activity at an earlier stage. This is so important.
Today I would like to especially recognise the importance of the Australian Federal Police and the Customs and Border Protection Service to our antiterrorism measures. In the seat of Hindmarsh, which has Adelaide Airport at its centre, we have close to eight million passenger movements in a 12-month period, so it is vitally important to our state's and the nation's economy and to our tourism sector. Adelaide Airport is also home to the Australian Federal Police and the Customs and Border Protection Service, who play a crucial role. I was pleased to have the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, join me recently at Adelaide Airport. We visited the Customs and Border Protection facilities at the airport and spoke with a number of staff, including the regional commander who gave us a really interesting briefing on their activities. We also had a chance to talk to many other staff, including those from the Counter-Terrorism Unit. It was great to see their commitment, their interest in what they are doing and their passion. This unit had been recently formed and was given good resources by the government. They were doing what they wanted to do and they were totally committed to their objective of helping to fight terrorism around Australia and internationally. So I must commend them on their commitment and professionalism, and it was great to hear a bit more about what they do in this important role they have.
Importantly, the government will work closely with the states and territories with these legislative measures, and also other measures, in monitoring our national security. We heard earlier from the member for Forde about how a raid had taken place in his electorate. We have seen, in recent months, raids across Australia: in Sydney, Brisbane and also that terrifying act by the young man in Melbourne, where local police agencies needed to work closely with Federal Police and other security forces. Importantly, these powers will, however, be balanced with proper oversight to protect the individual rights of Australians, including the right to privacy. To ensure this, the government will increase the resources of the independent office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
We can only effectively combat the threat posed by terrorists and extremists if we first know who they are and what they are planning. These measures underline our commitment to a safe and secure Australia. Every country has an obligation to prevent terrorism. Every country has an obligation not to export terrorist capabilities. Each one has a responsibility to degrade the resources of terrorist organisations and to prevent the spread of their evil propaganda. We must starve terrorist organisations of fighters, funding and legitimacy. We must act decisively and together. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (19:38): As a former police officer, and also one who worked in the Victoria Police counter-terrorism unit, this is obvious is something very close to my heart.
First of all, I want to pass on my best wishes to the two police officers, one from Victoria Police and the other from the AFP, who were stabbed in September this year. They would still be recovering from physical injuries, but the emotional trauma will also have a huge impact on them for the rest of their lives, and also on their family members. The police force is a brotherhood and a sisterhood, and I always liked that because it means they look after each other. That incident affected police not only in Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police, but right across Australia and right across the world. We have seen awful incidents also occur in France and the UK, where police have been deliberately targeted. They target them—they describe them as the 'people in blue'. And you have the military in green.
At the same time, I pass my condolences onto Numan Haider's family and friends. The sad thing about terrorism is young people are manipulated to believe they are fighting a good and just cause, which is sadly not the case at all. And they are prepared to basically waste their own lives in pursuit of committing terrorist acts.
I recently held a function with my local Afghan community, and I thank the ambassador very much for his attendance. The Afghan community is a fantastic community. It is a very peaceful community. Many of them have escaped from awful atrocities in Afghanistan, and they want to leave the Taliban and all the bad things that occurred to them and their families back home. They are really trying to engage with the community. I have let the Afghan community know that they have my full support.
But sadly, too, a number of Australians have travelled overseas to fight in Syria and Iraq. We have had at least 60 Australians travel there and a number have been killed. A number have been involved in suicide bombings and paid the ultimate price for following a cause that results in their death or the deaths of innocent people. We have also had at least seventy passports seized in Australia from people travelling over to Iraq and Syria to get involved in this so-called fight.
The government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 earlier this year. It is part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat environment, both internationally and at home. In particular, it is a response to the threat posed by Australians participating in, and supporting, foreign conflicts, or undertaking training with extremist groups. The Abbott government—and I also acknowledge the bipartisan support—is trying to stop people travelling overseas to get involved in conflicts. Some people, even in my own electorate, say, 'Why not just let them go and let them get killed?' There are a few issues. They are Australian citizens, and we need to protect them from themselves. Secondly, the big danger is that if they do go over there, as we saw with Afghanistan previously, when they come back home they will have been trained in military tactics and a lot of them are so badly converted they are prepared to commit terrorist attacks on home soil. I believe, from memory, that at least one quarter of the people who travelled overseas in these circumstances and returned were subsequently charged with terrorism-related offences.
The amendments address three key areas. Firstly, enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern, and to streamline the application process. That is so important in law enforcement. Quite often, here in parliament, we try to put safeguards in place and they become unworkable. We always want to protect the rights of an individual, but in this case we also must ensure the police have the necessary tools to protect Australians. Secondly, facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, to support and cooperate with the Australian Defence Force, the ADF, on military operations. Thirdly, enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions.
Regarding the control orders, the measures in the bills have been included as a result of instances of operational need identified by law enforcement agencies, subject to the introduction of the previous two tranches of this legislation, including from the recent Operation Appleby, which disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney.
The amendments will allow the Australian Federal Police to request an issuing court to make a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. Although such individuals may not be directly participating in terrorist acts, they are supporting and facilitating terrorism through the provision of funds and equipment or by recruiting vulnerable young people to champion their cause—and again, that is what they do: they go over to Indonesia, where you have Abu Bakar Bashir and those so-called spiritual leaders, and they have one purpose and that is to encourage young people to take up arms against the infidels—westerners; we are the infidels. And they have only one motive, and that is to attack and kill us.
There also have been some false media reports. There is no change to the existing limitation under subsection 6(4) of the IS Act which states that ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve paramilitary activities or violence against the person or the use of weapons other than in accordance with the act by staff members or agents of ASIS. The role of ASIS is to provide intelligence support to the ADF in the ADF's role in providing military support to Iraq in the fight against terrorist organisations.
There are a number of safeguards. The existing control order regime is already subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including through the need to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order, which will continue to apply. The bill, including implementation of the PJCIS recommendations, will improve operational and administrative safeguards and require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control order regime, with specific reference to safeguards.
So, overall, I very much support the legislation. But I also want to raise my concerns on what is known as preventative detention. For those who do not know, preventative detention orders came in under the Howard government, and they are, in some ways, supposed to be a strong order but, to me, they are actually quite weak. Preventative detention orders can be made, according to the Criminal Code Act 1995, to:
… prevent an imminent terrorist act occurring—
when an attack is about to take place; or to—
preserve evidence of, or relating to, a recent terrorist act.
That does not so much concern me, but the imminent attack does greatly concern me. That means that someone is about to commit a terrorist attack. Further on in the act we read:
The person in relation to whom the preventative detention order is applied for, or made, is the subject for the purposes of this section.
(4) A person meets the requirements of this subsection if the person—
the person making the order—
is satisfied that:
(a) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject—
the person who the order is being made against—
(i) will engage in a terrorist act …
So we are not talking about shoplifting; we are not talking about committing a burglary; we are talking about committing a terrorist attack in Australia.
There are safeguards, too. A preventative detention order cannot be made against a person under the age of 16 years. Also, the issuing authority must be a judge, and I believe must be a judge with more than five years experience.
The great concern I have is: police and law enforcement are not allowed, under this act, to interview the person who is under preventative detention. Subsection 105.26 says:
Note: A person may be released, for example, so that the person may be arrested and otherwise dealt with under the provisions of Division 4 of Part IAA, and Part IC, of the Crimes Act 1914.
That basically means: the person has been taken into preventative detention; police think, 'There is probably enough evidence; interview them now.' Then they release them to be arrested. So you look at the suspect in custody; they have already been held under preventative detention; they get released and they get arrested to be interviewed—a cumbersome process. It is the same again if ASIO want to speak to that person; they have not got that ability. And it says here, under 105.42:
Questioning of person prohibited while person is detained
(1) A police officer must not question a person while the person is being detained under a preventative detention order except for the purposes of:
(a) determining whether the person is the person specified in the order—
and there are a few other reasons. But, again, I have great concerns that the police cannot interview that person—in actual fact, they commit an offence.
Why is this so important? The simple reason is: if it is good enough to have the person detained in custody to prevent them or others from committing a terrorist attack on Australian soil, it should be good enough for the police to ask that person some questions. The big potential danger that I see is: when police detain a person and put them under preventative detention believing they may have knowledge about a planned terrorist attack—in police terms, they put them on ice; they just have them sitting there—that person may have knowledge of others who are about to commit a terrorist attack on home soil. If the police speak to the person in preventative detention, he may never mention that. However, as a police officer, I have found that most times people in custody do talk—and that could be the difference between protecting Australian citizens and allowing a terrorist attack on home soil. I have raised these concerns before, under the Howard government.
I also note that, in the AFP's submission to the COAG Review of Counter-Terrorism of October 2012, they also, in their conclusions, in talking about preventative detention, say:
If questioning during detention was permitted, it could elicit important information which could better direct police resources in preventing a terrorist attack, or could assist police to determine whether the continued detention of the person is necessary …
Those are very strong words. Also other submissions, such as the one from Jack Dempsey, then Minister for Police and Community Safety in Queensland, raise the issue that, when they did a practical exercise, when a person was released and rearrested, it was a cumbersome process, and, again, you basically have the situation where police are mucking around releasing people and arresting people without actually getting to the truth of the matter in hand.
At the recent hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on 3 October 2014, the Assistant Commissioner and National Manager Counter Terrorism, Australian Federal Police, Mr Neil Gaughan, during his evidence, was asked a number of questions about preventive detention. He referred to evidence that he had been given earlier where he was concerned about constitutional reasons why our police could not actually use preventive detention to interview someone. He said:
Obviously as law enforcement officers it would be much more beneficial if we could question people in relation to PDOs or any type of detention. But I get the limitations and the safeguards that currently exist around not just the legislation but the Constitution.
Also, in information received from the Parliamentary Library, I have not found anyone to give me any constitutional reason why.
The good news is, we are still in discussions. The Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, other members and I are concerned about this. I still find it absolutely amazing that you could have a shoplifter in Victoria interviewed by police, not requiring to go before a judge but, if you have a person planning to commit a terrorist act, the police do not have the right interview that person. For me that is something that we need to change as a matter of urgency.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (19:53): I am delighted to speak after my friend and colleague, the member for La Trobe. I think he makes some very, very strong points that I certainly concur with in his speech. I also rise today to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This is an important piece of legislation with bipartisan support, responding to the heightened security threat here in Australia and around the world.
The British Prime Minister, the Right Honourable David Cameron MP, made clear in his recent address to our parliament that this security threat is a global concern. With the proposals he announced here, he highlighted that we are not alone in having to put in place measures to protect our freedoms from those who choose the path of terrorism.
With the growth in the recruitment techniques of terrorist groups such as ISIL, we are seeing many Australian citizens go and fight in both Iraq and Syria. They are fighting for terrorist groups that are virulently opposed to our democratic and free way of life. These people in these groups execute people. They have a policy of torture, rape and murder to achieve their ends, and they present a real and present danger to those of us back home because they prepare to bring this virulent extremism inside our national borders.
Currently, there are approximately 70 Australians who are fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, with over 100 more Australians providing support by way of financing operations and facilitating travel. The return of such people represents a threat to our safety.
There is evidence that many Australians who trained with al-Qaeda or affiliates in Afghanistan or Pakistan in the 1990s and 2000s were involved with terrorism-related activities on their return, with ASIO conducting investigations into 30 Australians who travelled to Afghanistan and/or Pakistan between 1990 and 2010 to train at extremist camps and/or fight with extremists. Eight of these Australians were later convicted of terrorism-related offences with five still serving prison sentences.
For these individuals, their behaviour after their return to Australia emerged over an extended period—in some cases it was not seen until more than five years after their return. This demonstrates the need for our security and law enforcement agencies to consider those involved in the Syria-Iraq conflict as a serious and long-term problem.
In this current climate, we cannot rely on existing legislation to be able to tackle the terrorist threat posed by ISIL and its ilk. This bill complements the government's wider response to tackling this heightened security threat. Together with the National Security Legislation Amendment Act and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act, this bill will make Australia safer. It will put the government and its agencies in a stronger position to defeat terrorists.
This bill will enhance the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take timely action in relation to Australians who are suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activity. This bill takes into consideration the recommendations made in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report, which was tabled last month after the committee held many public and private hearings with evidence presented from a range of key stakeholders, including security agencies, a number of civil liberties groups, members of the legal profession and members of the community. This report included 16 unanimous recommendations, which have all been accepted by the government.
The measures in the bill also respond directly to recommendations made in independent reviews of Australia's national security legislation over the last few years. The amendments included in this bill address three key areas: enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process; facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations; and enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in performance of their statutory functions.
Schedule 1 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to enable the expansion of the control order regime. Currently, a control order is only able to be made to protect the public from a terrorist act. This will also enable a control order to be issued by the Australian Federal Police to prevent the provision of support for, or facilitation of, a terrorist act This takes into account the recognition that terrorists often do not act alone but are part of a wider team planning an attack. These amendments will allow control orders to more easily be issued to interrupt the chance of terrorist attacks.
This will also allow for a control order to be issued which will prevent the provision of support for or engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country. In this, we will hopefully be able to reduce the impact of Australian citizens who choose to go and fight in foreign countries.
Schedule 1 will also allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review and report on amendments to terrorist organisation regulations to add aliases or remove former names of organisations. These important changes were identified as being required following the counter-terrorism operations that occurred across Australia during September and October of this year. While it is right to put in place tighter rules on terrorist activity, we also do not want to lose our wider freedoms and so it is also right to have the Office of the National Security Legislation Monitor act as an independent oversight of national security legislation.
Schedule 2 of the bill will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The amendments will widen the functions of ASIS to explicitly include providing assistance to the Australian Defence Force. The close relationship between ASIS and the ADF has been active for many years. Indeed, Mr Nick Warner, Director-General of ASIS, stated in 2012:
Starting with the Iraq war, support for the Australian Defence Force in military combat operations has become an important task for ASIS.
And further:
ASIS reporting has been instrumental in saving the lives of Australian soldiers and … enabling operations conducted by Australian Special Forces.
The ASIS personnel deployed with the ADF have developed strong bonds, and it’s difficult to see a situation in the future where the ADF would deploy without ASIS alongside.
Formalising this close relationship in legislation therefore makes clear sense to help protect our service men and women, who defend our freedoms.
Schedule 2 will also expand provision for emergency authorisations to ASIS, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation. In addition, schedule 2 will allow for ministerial authorisation to be given for ASIS to undertake activities in relation to citizens in certain circumstances. This will help to facilitate the timely performance by ASIS to support the fight against terrorism.
I can understand the concerns that some communities may have had about how a 'class of persons' would be defined. However, the amendment, as agreed to in the Senate, has overcome this concern. As the Attorney-General made clear, these amendments will explain that a 'class of person' is defined solely by reference to their involvement or likely involvement in terrorism activities. They would not be defined in terms of religious, political or ideological orientation, ethnicity or mere presence in a particular location.
In conclusion, we are facing an existential threat to our freedoms. This threat from ISL and its supporters is growing, as we have seen in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. However, even though we may be geographically isolated in Australia, we are not isolated from this threat. We have citizens who choose to go and fight with ISIL and who may return or, as security operations have shown, actually live in our cities, with a plot and a plan to support this terrorist activity. I therefore welcome this bill for two reasons.
Firstly, the legislative changes are part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat. The bill provides clear powers to respond to the threat posed by Australians participating in foreign conflicts or training with extremist groups.
Secondly, the bill improves the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to these threats, both overseas and at home.
I therefore urge the House to support this bill as an important element in safeguarding the safety of all Australians, whilst protecting fundamental freedoms that we hold dear, as outlined in the Parliamentary Joint Committee's report. The report is an excellent one. I commend it and this bill to the House.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (20:03): Can I congratulate the member for Higgins on her first-class speech and on her commendation to the House to pass this important bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which is another part of the government's suite of measures which will help us keep our citizens safe. In the last six months the government has put through the parliament three important pieces of legislation because the government is determined to keep our citizens safe. As the Prime Minister has said, it is the No. 1 duty of any government and it is the duty of this government in particular, given the heightened security threat that we have seen as a result of Australians travelling to both Iraq and Syria and returning, and the threat that they are presenting to our nation.
It is very important that we continue to do everything we can to keep our country safe. The government is about to bring another important piece of legislation to the vote, which will occur in the first quarter of next year, which will be around the retention of metadata. That will be the fourth component of the measures that the government is putting in place.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security looked at the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 very carefully, as it has with the two previous pieces of legislation. We came up with 16 important recommendations in our report. I might just step through a few of these, because I think it is important to inform the House of how the committee deliberated on this piece of legislation and then, in a bipartisan report, recommended that the legislation be passed by the parliament, with this list of recommendations.
I might just pause before I look at some of the key aspects and just pick up on some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the process by one particular individual in this place, who referred to the committee as some type of club. I find those sorts of references to the committee ill informed, ill advised and obviously it is not the approach that serious members of this House would take. Every member of the committee is appointed by the Prime Minister. I can tell you that everyone who is on that committee takes their role incredibly seriously and it is why, with the first piece of legislation, the National Security Legislation Bill (No. 1) 2014, the committee put forward 17 recommendations, all of which were adopted by the government.
In the second piece of legislation, the foreign fighters bill, 37 recommendations were put forward by the committee, all of which were accepted by the government. And obviously with this bill before us here, another 16 recommendations were put to the government, all of which were accepted. If you look at those recommendations—take the foreign fighters bill, for instance—there were sunset clauses put in on some aspects of that legislation. There were review processes both for the legislation for the independent national security legislation monitor and for the committee itself. These were not the decisions taken by some sort of club; this was a committee, with each individual on it seriously looking at this legislation and deciding what they thought was best when it came to how the parliament should consider this. So, any idea of some sort of club is I think ill informed and ill advised, and I would hope that we would see a better and more informed debate from the Greens in the future when we are considering very important legislation for this nation.
So, that little side matter has now been dealt with. It is unfortunate that those types of things have to be dealt with, because it would be much better if we were here debating the substance of this bill rather than having people trying to make cheap political shots on national security. When it comes to the bill itself, what did the committee recommend, and why? On schedule 1, the committee recommended that the government finalise, to start with, the appointment of the independent national security legislation monitor. Obviously this is an important step and something that the committee has urged the government to do as a priority. We would then like the INSLM to consider whether additional safeguards recommended in the 2013 Council of Australian Governments review of counter-terrorism legislation should be looked at and whether special advocates need to be considered, and that all this take place given new developments in the security situation.
In 2013 a review was done by COAG, but that was in a different security situation. We now have a heightened security situation, so we want that to be a key aspect of when this is now looked at. We have also recommended that the term 'supports and facilitates' in the proposed amendments to the control order regimes be based on language in the existing criminal code. Obviously these are key components of these new aspects of control orders that have been introduced, and we want to make sure that 'supports and facilitates', to the extent possible, reflects the language in the existing criminal code. The committee also recommended that the counter-terrorism legislation bill be amended to require that when seeking the Attorney-General's consent to request an interim control order the Australian Federal Police must provide the Attorney-General with a statement of facts relating to why the order should be made and any known facts as to why it should not be made. Once again, here we are just making sure that there is proper transparency and, in particular, that the AFP, in putting its case to the Attorney-General, makes sure that it takes into account the facts as to why it should be made so that the Attorney is fully aware of the known facts as to why it should not be made—just highlighting once again the committee's desire to see transparency in this aspect.
We also recommended that the bill be amended to require the Attorney-General's consent to an urgent interim control order and that it be obtained within eight hours of a request being made by a senior member of the AFP. Once again, we could understand why there needed to be a time frame here, and we thought that eight hours was the appropriate time frame. Obviously if the Attorney is on a plane flying from one side of the nation to the other then it would be very difficult for the AFP to contact the Attorney. But other than that—and it gives a bit of time on either side to account for him landing et cetera—we saw eight hours as the appropriate time frame here.
The committee also recommended that proposed paragraphs 104.3(d) and 104.23(2)(b) of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill be amended to retain the current requirement that the AFP explain why each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions proposed in a draft control order should or should not be imposed on the person. So, once again, we are looking for the AFP having to state its case very clearly and looking at the pros and cons.
When it came to schedule 2 of the bill—the proposed amendments to the Intelligence Services Act—the committee recommended that the EM to the counter-terrorism legislation be amended to provide further information about how a class of Australian persons will be defined. The member for Kooyong touched on this point. We think it is very important that the public is fully aware of how this class of Australian persons will be defined. We went on to say that it needs to be made clear that any Australian person included in a specified class of Australian persons agreed to by the Attorney-General must be involved in an activity or activities that pose a threat to security as defined by the ASIO Act 1979. Once again, here we are looking for it to be made very clear in the EM how this class of persons will be defined. Obviously we want the community to have confidence in the approach we are taking with regard to expanding how these proposed amendments to schedule 2 will be enacted.
We also recommended that, subject to passage of the bill, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, provide close oversight of all ministerial authorisations given orally under this part of the bill and also all agreements provided by the A-G under the proposed amendments to paragraph 9(1A)(b) of the Intelligence Services Act.
In recommendation 9 we asked that the bill be amended to require an agency head to notify the relevant responsible minister of an authorisation given by the agency head under proposed section 9B of the ISA within eight hours. We thought that was a sensible time frame to enable the Attorney-General to be notified. Copies of the authorisation and other documents should then be provided to the minister and to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, as outlined in the proposed sections 9B(5) and 9B(6) of the IS Act 2001.
We also said the IGIS should be required to oversight within 30 days all emergency authorisations given by agency heads—once again, an important check and balance in this aspect of the bill—and that the IGIS be required to notify the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within 30 days of all emergency authorisations. So not only is the IGIS acting as a check and balance; the committee itself will now play a role in making sure these emergency authorisations are used only in exceptional circumstances.
Recommendation 12 was that the counter-terrorism legislation bill be amended to require an agency head to notify the Attorney-General within eight hours of an emergency authorisation given with the agreement of the Director-General of Security or without the agreement of either the Attorney-General or the Director-General of Security. This makes sure proper scrutiny is in place. Recommendations 13, 14 and 15 enhance the oversight around schedule 2 of the bill. If time permitted, I would go into a bit more detail on those recommendations; but, as the clock is ticking, I will have to leave that. I would recommend to all members of the House that they have a look at the recommendations because they do provide safeguards and oversight so that we can be confident and comfortable that our intelligence agencies will be acting in an appropriate manner, as they always do, when it comes to keeping our nation safe.
I thank all members of the parliamentary joint committee for the manner in which they went about looking at this bill. I thank the secretariat for their very professional advice and the manner in which they helped the committee in its consideration of this important legislation. These three pieces of legislation to enhance our national security are complex and this has required the committee to spend a great amount of time looking at them. Committee members and the secretariat have been incredibly diligent and professional in the way they have gone about this. To suggest that this is some sort of club is complete and utter nonsense. The committee's work has made this legislation better; and I think it has improved the safety and security of our nation, which should always be the No. 1 consideration of government.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (20:18): In speaking after such an informed presentation by the member for Wannon, I feel somewhat like a roadie jumping onstage after the encore! I thank the member for Wannon for his presentation. I am one of a number of coalition MPs who are very passionate about the broadening and additional clarification given to our agencies to perform this most important role. I am somewhat disappointed too that there has been very little contribution from the opposition in this debate.
Mr Perrett: It's just like you to extract the bipartisan moment, Andrew!
Mr LAMING: I think Australians from Western Australia through to Queensland would hope that there would be some light shone on these reforms and some informed debate. Alas, all we have here is a series of coalition speakers clearly articulating the importance of these changes in further strengthening the ability of our security agencies to respond—and one fairly vocal bloke from the other side who is only here because it is his shift to sit near the dispatch box on the Labor Party side. That is unfortunate because what we really need in here is a clear dissection and elaboration of our reforms. Any reasonable criticism is warmly welcomed. But all we have had is a hysterical and somewhat weird intervention from the Greens. Their comments about these recommendations being the recommendations of a club are plainly preposterous. It really shows how far the Greens as a movement have moved away from the desires of young Australians to see that we remain a free but ultimately law-abiding democracy into the future. It is disappointing that the Greens are not at the table and supporting what are really common-sense reforms. This exposes within the Greens movement a fundamental lack of understanding of exactly how enforcement operates—and that is a challenge for them.
I want to make four points in this speech today. The first one is about the changing environment. Senior security officials have pointed out to us the change that has occurred even in the last couple of years, particularly since the Boston Marathon bombing. There has been a shift from highly planned, elaborate and long time frame based terrorism incidents to spontaneous and almost unpredictable ones. This sets the most painfully difficult and challenging question for our security services. They have to be prepared for one individual, inspired by something they have read online, to grab a knife and in the name of some crazy, despotic movement carry out a crime in this beautiful and peaceful country. That is a challenge that we face as a nation and it is the challenge we are putting to the security forces when we say, 'Protect us from this kind of conduct.' That conduct is obviously performed to create fear and to take away the freedoms that we enjoy. We as an advanced economy are in a constant battle against those who intend to undermine us.
The second point, as British Prime Minister David Cameron pointed out in his recent address to this chamber, is that the internet—and I see that the parliamentary secretary is in the chamber—in many ways remains an ungoverned space. David Cameron put a challenge to us as a developed economy and a member of Five Eyes about the degree to which we can continue to brook such an ungoverned space. We obviously have a challenge in social services to engage every young Australian and give them opportunity. But let us accept that as a multicultural economy and as an immigration based economy, we have large numbers of young people often coming here definitely with hope but not always with the trust they will have opportunity to enjoy what other Australians enjoy. Talking to senior security officials, they tell me that our greatest challenge is actually surprisingly homogenous. They are young people. They are of certain backgrounds. They are easily influenced. But the one thing that draws almost 90 to 95 per cent of them together as a common denominator is their lack of opportunity and their lack of connectedness to the real economy.
It is at this level that we can stop just talking about whoever one case is who perpetrates violence in our community and start thinking of our broader challenge—that we leave 130,000 people in this country every year graduating from school but not even skilled enough to get the most basic of entry-level, minimum wage jobs. As long as you have those sorts of numbers entering the welfare system every year, and around 140,000 people transitioning from income replacement as an under 24-year-old to Newstart, then we have, in many cases, young members of minorities who can hide in areas of zero opportunity surrounded by an Australia that can offer so much. We cannot guarantee that that opportunity is homogenously spread amongst every family group and amongst young males who are ultimately drawn to more romantic and exciting pursuits through online connection with vigilante and terrorist groups overseas.
That will be an unending challenge, and the idea that we can intensively case-manage every family and that we can monitor what every family unit does is completely beyond the means and the capabilities of our normal social service organisations. So we are now trust in the intelligence services to be able to first pick up those signs of risk, those signs of dangerous behaviour and those signs that they are engaging in internet chat groups, peer-to-peer groups and engaging illegal and terrorist groups. It is a challenge of enormous complexity but one which, so far, we have done well on.
It really impressed me that a number of months ago those services were able to detail to me that they had identified up to 60 people overseas who had left effectively to be part of military tourism, with no other reason to travel except the thrill and the excitement of being part of a terrorist organisation fighting in a war in a foreign land. This is of enormous concern and many have mentioned it before.
Secondly, we identified, of even greater concern, up to a hundred Australians right here at home facilitating those people. For the first time these reforms go beyond a strictly defined terrorist act to also identify those who are supporting those who are training with extremist groups. This is a very big and important part of the reforms both in the two tranches that have already passed through this parliament and in the changes that we debate tonight.
Effectively, what we are doing here is enhancing those control order regimes to enable the AFP to seek control orders in relation to an even broader range of individuals who are of a security concern and to streamline that application process. Again, we are in here having a debate about elements of this legislation with not an echo or a peep from the opposition about the merits or otherwise of this legislation. Second, we are facilitating ASIS to support and cooperate with the ADF on military operations. That has been very clearly defined in the legislation—the degree to which that information is vital to the ADF in performing their role but in no way allowing them to encroach upon what are their terms of engagement. Lastly, we are enhancing the arrangements for the provision of an emergency ministerial authorisation—I think this has been adequately detailed by the previous speaker. This is particularly around enabling them to activate a control order in relation to those who are enabling or those who are specifically recruiting for those causes.
These are enormously divisive issues. I am not going to beat around the bush: what has occurred over the last few months is at the heart of even greater tensions between mainstream Australians and some of our ethnic minorities. I am also prepared to say that it lies at the heart of the recent debate brought to this place about the wearing of a burqa in public and—heaving forbid—trying to ban the wearing of a burqa for people who visit this great building. These were completely unnecessary distractions that a mature country should have been able to see right through and not in any way entertain what I think was a frivolous and puerile debate. But we got caught up in it, and I was compelled to write a piece in The Daily Telegraph, saying we have much greater things to worry about than the way a woman chooses to dress and certainly what she chooses to wear when she visits this building.
Above what we wear is what is inside. I completely respect the pre-eminence of a security official to clear everyone who enters this building, as they should every private building according to the security requirements. Anyone who enters any private building can be checked by the relevant security staff who are employed to do that very job. But once you are cleared, by definition, you should be able to go on your way and wear precisely what you chose to wear that day. At any time security officials can elect to again screen you. I have no problem with that. This legislation allows the experts to make those calls. It should not be up to us to make calls about how an individual chooses to dress.
Many of these debates were activated, even animated, by the fear in the mainstream Australian population of fomentation within large minorities in this country, in particular, that young people were being drawn to and ultimately engaged in wars for which Australia should be playing little part and certainly not engaging with a group like IS. Well, it has happened and people have left the country already, and still there are people attempting to leave. That is a measure of the challenge that we face in bringing this to a halt.
In the last few months, the message is absolutely clear, thanks to the previous two tranches and this legislation tonight. You cannot be confused and you cannot be mistaken: if you leave our shores and engage with this group, you are breaking the law and you will face enormous consequences. You will face potential prosecution. There is no reversal of the onus of proof. But if you have been to these regions and you cannot provide adequate reasons to explain why, then you are at risk of prosecution, and I think every Australian would say that is utterly reasonable. If you are going to travel to these particular regions, then you need to be able to give some reasonable explanation for why you are there, and I think Australians would expect that.
The final point that I make is one of youth engagement. In many cases, as a nation of multiple religions proud of our cultural diversity, there will be very little change that we can bring about with religious internecine and sectoral differences from outside. Ultimately, if we are going to fix the greater problem that is racking most of western Asia, these changes must come from within. These changes must come from those community groups themselves. It is not enough for those of us outside of those groups to become increasingly more hysterical or more shrill about it. We cannot change many of these elements in this debate from the outside. We have law enforcement that will identify those that breach our social expectations and our social norms of what is reasonable, peace-loving behaviour, and those laws are there.
But, ultimately, we need to go one step further. We need to support freedom-loving, peace-loving members of those ethnic minority groups to look within themselves and be the early warning system to identify youths going off the tracks. It does not matter what they are facing, whether those challenges be drugs, law-breaking, violence or, as in this case, engaging with terrorist groups, we most rely on those closest to those individuals. We cannot turn those people against us. If those people are communicating with us and are free to report and are confident that they can do so, we have a chance of helping these young people. At the moment, what we have seen are significant changes that the coalition has delivered to allow ASIS, our information services and security services, to do their job better. I am very proud to be part of a government that have an ear listening to those agencies and that are utterly committed to delivering to them the reforms and the legislation that will enable them to do their job into the future as well as they possibly can.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (20:32): I do appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 tonight. It really is a sign of the times that we live in. Recently, the foreign minister said that at no time in the United Nations' history have we had so many peacekeeping police operations taking place in the world. So, although we might think that, of recent times, we are much more civilised and the world is a safer place, through assessments such as that—who is deployed where around the world—you begin to think that maybe things are not exactly going according to plan.
The reality is that there are people around the world that have certain views of the way the world should operate, the way certain countries should operate. Theocracies—countries based upon an interpretation of a religion—do not have a great history. But, nevertheless, there are those people, and when these people rise and try to run countries with a theocratic background, it does not really work out and we start to have problems in the world. In response to the numbers of Australians that have shown interest in IS, al-Nusra and other terrorist organisations, and seeing these sorts of threats to the world and even to our own country, obviously something needed to take place. The government needed to react. Again, like the member for Bowman, I am very proud to be part of a government that has identified what the problem is and has acted swiftly to reduce that threat and to take action against such people.
In the past, in other contributions that I have made here in the parliament, I have looked at the information on the backgrounds of some of these people that have come from Australia. As we know, it is not just confined to people that might be from a lower socioeconomic background. There is a range of different people. They are male mainly, but their ages range from 18 to 40. These are the sorts of people that are ending up going over there. I often consider that what they are trying to do with their lives is find some meaning. Maybe they feel that there has been a lack of success in their lives. Obviously, this is the wrong view and they are wrong to pursue these sorts of ventures such as support for IS. It is a terrible, illegitimate, evil organisation. It is not a culture at all, just the worst in human nature. That is what IS appeals to. I guess if people tell them that they are going to be accomplishing something special or important or religious, then that might drive some people and might encourage some people to be part of such terrible organisations.
But I think it is a little bit worse than that as well. I think that some of what attracts these people is being able to hurt other people. I think that that is one of the things that really attracts some of these people. If anyone wants to cut people's heads off and parade them around or encourage one's children to hold a severed head in their hand, there is something not right about that person. Maybe they are drawn to an interest in actually hurting people. I think there are those that also like the concept of being able to rape others as well. I guess this is another point that these sorts of people are attracted to. I think there are probably also the paedophile natures amongst them as well.
I find nothing to recommend such people. I think that they are pretty much subhuman. Personally, of those that have already left, I say good riddance. If it were up to me, and if it were within my realm of responsibility, I would say that these people are exactly the sort of people we do not want anymore. If they should get in the way of falling ordnance from Australian or other aircraft then I say that that is not too bad a thing either, because the people who are attracted to these sorts of ventures—the people who think there is something good about the Islamic State, Daesh, or al-Nusra—are not the sorts of people who will ever add any great value to this country, or any value at all. If death befalls them there is nothing wrong with that.
But unfortunately, it is not just those who manage to make it overseas that we are concerned with. There are people in this country as well who actively support them, recruit for them and raise money for them. In these sorts of moments it really is right for this government to do as it is doing and pursue these people. Internationally we have an obligation not to let people leave this country to add fuel to the fire. So we should stop them, and we should act against them.
With respect to the control orders that have been part of this debate, there have been some in the community who have expressed some concern. Obviously, through the amendments suggested by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security some of these issues have been resolved. I welcome that resolution. But, in any case, it is really important that our intelligence agencies—ASIO and ASIS, together with the Australian Federal Police and in their interactions with the Australian Defence Force—are given all the tools to add to their ability to interdict these terrorists, because if someone goes overseas to kill people in the name of religion, or to do other terrible acts to people in the name of religion, then they will see the faults that they have seen in the groups that they oppose in those countries, here in Australia. Once someone has made that decision—that they want to go and hurt people, kill people, decapitate people, rape—they are no longer someone we could ever trust in this country. It is important that our security agencies have the capacity—through this bill and elsewhere—to act against them. I welcome that and I applauded it.
All the best to you, ASIO, ASIS, the AFP and the Australian Defence Force! All power to you to do what needs to be done to keep the people of this country safe! And, ultimately, all power to the ADF and ASIS, to keep other places in the world as safe as they can be, as well—within our legitimate and lawful responsibility.
In every way, I applaud this bill. As I said before, there is nothing good that can be said of these sorts of people, and we must be do everything in our power to act against them; there is no doubt about it. This bill, as we know, contains a series of amendments. This is the not the first bill; the government has acted in two other bills as well. The amendments contained within this bill address three key areas. One of the key areas is to help the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in their support for and cooperation with the Australian Defence Force on military operations. The second is to enhance the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to the IS Act agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions. The third is to enhance the control-order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process.
On that last point, I would like to raise a particular issue. Whilst I totally endorse this bill, and the two others before it, it is always right for us to consider these things and to think about whether they could ever be better—whether more could be done. I know there has been some debate and some commentary. I support that. A number of us remain concerned that the ability of the police to question people whilst they are being detained under a control order needs some more work.
Ultimately, the role of ASIO—and, to a degree, the Australian Federal Police—is to keep Australians safe and to keep this country safe. If, for instance, it comes down to whether lives could be lost when the pursuit of evidence is considered more important than the gathering of information, then we need to think carefully about that. I think that even if information obtained from someone who has been detained under a control order is later deemed to be inadmissible as evidence—or is struck out in a trial—if that information then leads to a terrorist attack being undermined or interdicted, then that is a good thing. That is ultimately what it is all about.
It is all very well to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed to put someone in jail, but ultimately the first responsibility of these agencies is to keep people safe and to stop terrorist attacks. I do not see any problem with agencies being able to ask questions of someone under control orders. After reading someone their rights it should be admissible to question them—or it should be decided by a court whether it is admissible—and it should certainly be undertaken if there is information. On all occasions, it is really important that the police and other agencies have that ability to ask questions of people under control orders, to ensure that they know as much of what is going on or what the threat is as possible. I make that point, and I know that others have already made it in this debate.
In my background, I was in the Federal Police for a couple of years before I joined the Army for 15 years. I joined the Federal Police and then the Army from a sense of patriotism, where you look at the flag and you feel something special about it—but it is about more than just a flag. It is about a nation and the things that make it good: the freedom of speech, the freedom of opportunity, the freedom of religion and the equality of the genders. Being Australian is not about a flag; it is about a state of mind and a view that this country has developed to be the best country in the world because of its background and our intention to keep it safe and to keep all these problems out of the way.
When I look around and I see people betraying our country, taking up arms or supporting organisations like the Islamic State, which is also called Daesh, al-Nusra or any of those organisations—when I see people betraying their country because of some warped understanding of a religion or some other mentality—it reminds me that the freedom that we have and the greatness of our country must be defended. It is precisely through these sorts of bills and these sorts of measures that this country will remain the greatest country in the world and that the Australian people will remain safe.
We cannot ever be certain that we can stop every terrorist attack, but we must make sure that those people entrusted to take action on our behalf and on behalf of the people have all the arms and all the support they absolutely need. So I commend this bill to the House.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (20:47): I am very proud to rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. As we have heard this evening, this bill is an important part of the government's comprehensive plan to combat terrorism. Recent actions in Australia and overseas have heightened the security threat, requiring us to act quickly and strongly to combat that threat. Australia is, of course, participating in air strikes in Iraq as part of the international coalition formed to disrupt and degrade the dreaded ISIL.
Unfortunately it is not just in Iraq or in Syria where the threat is posed. In Australia, we have seen some disturbing developments, particularly an incident in my home state of Victoria. These lone-wolf attacks add a whole new dimension to fighting terrorism and, frankly, are frightening. Other lone-wolf attacks around the world remind us just how easy it is to carry out an act of terrorism. As former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said on 19 March back in 2003, when he opened a debate on the Iraq crisis in the House of Commons:
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.
We cannot let the terrorists achieve their aims. As the honoured representatives of the people of this great country, it is incumbent upon all of us to leave no stone unturned in keeping people safe and ensuring people can go about their lives free of fear.
We have witnessed some truly frightening events unfold in this country and abroad in recent times; hence the need to act decisively and quickly. The hideous reality of terrorism, especially the lone-wolf terrorism, was thrust onto the front pages of the newspapers around the world in May 2013, when UK soldier Lee Rigby was brutally and savagely murdered on the streets of London in broad daylight. We would have to agree that that was one of the most horrific, distressing and shocking incidents that we have seen occur on any street in any city in any part of the world.
As everyone in this House and those watching at home will no doubt vividly recall, there was a terrifying incident in Endeavour Hills in my home state of Victoria just a number of months ago. Eighteen-year-old Numan Haider was shot dead after he stabbed a Victoria Police officer and an Australian Federal Police member. At a time when there was some debate about whether the government was overreacting, that really brought home that we are dealing with a terrorist threat on our own doorstep. My parliamentary colleagues here in Canberra and I feel it every day.
We particularly felt it after seeing what happened in Canada, when 24-year-old soldier Nathan Cirillo was shot dead while standing guard at the nation's war memorial. The gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, then went on a rampage through Canada's parliament before being shot dead himself by a very heroic sergeant-at-arms, Ken Vickers. That brought home to all members and senators in this parliament and the many hundreds of people who work here in Parliament House the need to act quickly and to act decisively. There has been so much bipartisanship in response to the increased terrorism threat. I am very proud of how we as a parliament as a whole have responded to what can only be called an increasing crisis.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the parliament on 22 September this year:
All that would be needed to conduct such an attack is a knife, a camera-phone and a victim.
To quote the United States President, Barack Obama, from his 10 December 2009 Nobel lecture address:
Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
These types of incidents both at home and abroad remind us that we need to be vigilant and that the threat of terrorism can never be extinguished altogether. Terrorism strikes at the heart of everything we hold dear as a peace-loving nation. It is so important that we as a government, that we as a parliament, representing this great nation do everything we can to stop this abhorrent threat, as best we can, in its tracks. We are determined to do everything within our power to keep Australians safe.
Much of the recent concerns can be attributed to the rise of ISIL, that dreaded death cult. I addressed the rise of ISIL in this parliament on the day we learned about the horrific murder of American journalist Stephen Sotloff and just weeks after the murder James Foley. Unfortunately, Mr Sotloff lost and Mr Foley were among many who have been killed by ISIL fanatics in Iraq and Syria. As a former journalist myself I cannot begin to express the distress and horror of what those men endured and what so many other men, women and children are enduring in Iraq in Syria. It is beyond comprehension.
These men were just doing their jobs. They were there on the front-line as journalists, telling the world what was going on. It is very hard for me to talk about this. I worked as a journalist from many years not in nearly as dangerous a situation as that, but I cannot rate those journalists highly enough in how they conduct themselves in what they do to share with the world the stories of horror that are going on in that part of the world.
What we are seeing at the moment—and Amnesty International has warned of this—is ethnic cleansing on a historic scale. The situation can only be described as a nightmare. Most of us have Facebook—there are some 10 million Facebook accounts in Australia—and I find it incredibly confronting that even on social media we are seeing these are horrific images that are posted with utter glee and abandon by the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes. It is unspeakable evil. I find it disgusting that these people claim to be an Islamic 'state'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who should not even be remotely linked with these murderers, these most evil of men and women.
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, on 23 October 2003, in an address in this House said:
… terrorists oppose nations such as the United States and Australia not because of what we have done but because of who we are and because of the values that we hold in common, and that terrorism—and we should remind ourselves of this again and again—is as much the enemy of Islam as it is the enemy of Judaism or Christianity.
It is vital that we remember that. It is vital that we stick together as Australians, regardless of religion or belief.
As we have heard the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and so many others say in this House, this has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the most horrific extremism by a death cult that has no regard for human life or dignity. The vast majority of us share a desire for peace and freedom, values which are such an intrinsic part of the Australian identity. This bill reflects our absolute determination that we will not let those values that we hold so dear to us be shattered. We will not to be broken by what is going on, both on our own doorstep and in Iraq and Syria.
This bill particularly responds to the threat posed by Australians participating in and supporting foreign conflicts or undertaking training with extremist groups, such as ISIL. It will improve the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to these threats through necessary and urgent amendments to national security legislation to address limitations identified in the course of recent operations. These operations include the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to undertake military operations against ISIL in Iraq and the recent Operation Appleby that disrupted an alleged terrorist an attack in Sydney.
On that note I want to make particular reference to all those men and women who are working so hard behind the scenes to keep us safe. Australians probably only get a glimmer of what they do and how much work that is going on behind the scenes to keep Australians safe. The 24/7 operation of so many of our great security agencies we sadly as Australians do not understand. We do not understand the scope of their work, how difficult it is and perhaps how many times they have averted a horrific situation on our doorstep.
Madam Speaker, I see you have taken the chair. Welcome. We believe that 70 or 80 known Australians have left our country and are fighting in Syria and Iraq. We have seen some images of some of those Australians. Some of them are very young, clearly misguided. It is beyond comprehension that the likes of young children and 16- and 17-year-old boys could end up involved in this. The government does think that there are perhaps another 100 in Australia who are supporting, facilitating and funding this behaviour. Once they leave that become radicalised, and that is a huge threat to our way of life. Returning to our shores poses a huge threat to Australians here. The reality is that the rise of ISIL presents a real threat of terrorist attacks in Australia and we must take the very firm action that we as a government are taking. There is a concern that Australians fighting with ISIL will learn the terrorist trade and come back to Australia. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Collins, Ms Louisa
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (21:00): In January 1889, Louisa Collins of Botany walked calmly to the gallows at Darlinghurst Gaol. After an incredible four trials and a conviction for murdering her two husbands, Louisa became the last woman to be hanged in New South Wales, a catalyst for Australian society to question capital punishment and a champion for women's rights. Louisa Collins was convicted of murdering her husbands by poisoning with arsenic, despite the fact the evidence against her was circumstantial. The chemist who analysed the remains of the husbands found a 'minute trace of arsenic', an amount that could easily have been explained by both her husband's having worked for Geddes and Sons woolsheds in Botany where arsenic was regularly used to clean wool. Compounding the tragic nature of the case, Louisa was convicted on the evidence of her 10-year-old daughter, May, who said she had seen a box of rat poison, which contained arsenic, at some stage in the family home, as was the case in most Sydney homes at the time.
After Louisa's second trial, the Crown prosecutor Henry Cohen wrote to the Attorney-General Sir George Bowen Simpson stating:
There is evidence which certainly may in my judgment raise doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner. She should not be put upon her trial again to answer this charge.
The jury in Louisa's second trial voted 10 to one in favour of acquittal. Despite this, Louisa was tried a third time and then a fourth time, with all-male juries, until a conviction was finally delivered and she was sentenced to be hanged.
As each trial proceeded, Louisa's plight gained more notoriety and publicity. It also spawned a protest and suffragette movement. As Louisa was poor, she was defended by an assigned barrister who was about to be struck off the roll and was no match for the best barristers in Sydney assigned by the Crown. A firm of lawyers actually reassessed the evidence in the case pro bono and discovered a very reasonable explanation for the traces of arsenic. Louisa's husbands, in their illness, had been prescribed and administered bismuth, which behaved like arsenic and, according to medical journals of the time, had been known to cause death. The lawyers Slattery and Heydon wrote to the Governor conveying this information which inspired the Governor to write to the Minister for Justice requesting that he reassess this evidence. The minister was unswayed. Several groups petitioned the Governor for a pardon and sought personal meetings with him. The last was a plea by Louisa's seven children who begged for their mother's life with Lord Carrington's private secretary. The Governor could not bring himself to face the children.
Despite all those factors, the exclusively male judiciary and body politic at the time decided Louisa must be held to account for her crime and she must hang. And hang she did in gruesome circumstances. At about 9 am on 8 January 1889, Louisa Collins was hanged in Darlinghurst Gaol. After the trapdoor to the platform on which Louisa was standing became stuck, the executioner was forced to bang the trapdoor open with a mallet and Louisa's fell so hard that her head was almost severed. Her windpipe was exposed and blood gushed onto her prison garb. The men of the colony had their way.
We do not know if Louisa killed her two husbands, but we do know that her trial was unfair. At the time of Louisa's death, women were not allowed to vote, very few worked and, if they did, it was as a domestic at a fraction of men's wages. Women could not sit on juries or in the parliament. If they separated from their husbands, they had no rights to their children. Women were second-class citizens and Louisa's plight highlighted this.
Louisa Collins' descendants are alive and living in Newcastle and some of them have been trying to locate Louisa's grave. They know she is buried somewhere at Rookwood Cemetery, but the cemetery staff cannot locate the grave. They are unable to assist the family, so the family have written to Premier Mike Baird requesting the New South Wales government assist in the location of the grave. I join with the family in calling on the New South Wales Premier to assist the descendants of Louisa Collins so that she may receive some justice from the New South Wales government through the location of her grave. I too have written to the Premier to support their request.
I pay tribute to Caroline Overington who researched the Louisa Collins story and published a book, Last Woman Hanged, which is an enthralling read outlining not only the plight of Louisa Collins but also the lives of women in the colonies and the injustices they suffered on a daily basis. Without Caroline's work, the story and legacy of Louisa Collins would have been unknown and forgotten. I seek leave to table a letter from Janice Thompson to Premier Mike Baird on 22 October, and a letter from myself to Premier Mike Baird.
Leave granted.
(Time expired)
WestConnex
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (21:05): I rise this evening to talk about a critical piece of infrastructure for my electorate of Banks: the WestConnex project, which is absolutely fundamental to the motorists of my region. The record of those opposite in the space of the WestConnex and the M5 East duplication is appalling. It was, of course, the state Labor government that built the M5 East with two lanes when it really did not take a Rhodes scholar to work out that two lanes were inadequate. In fact, within six months of it opening in 2001, its capacity had been exceeded. It was built for a maximum of 77,000 cars per day; it is actually servicing more than 100,000 cars every day. As a consequence, the people of my electorate experience gridlock on the M5 East on a daily basis, and that includes Saturdays and Sundays.
It is a very bad situation that was exacerbated by the previous federal government which said to the state government: 'You know what, we will support you in your plans to build the WestConnex project, including the duplication of the M5 East, and we'll allocate $1.8 billion to it. But there are a couple of problems. There will be no money until 2018'—this was back in 2013—'and, in addition, we will impose a whole series of onerous requirements on the provision of that $1.8 billion in six years that will add $6 billion to the cost of the project.' That is not terribly helpful. As a consequence, New South Wales Premier Mike Baird rightly said that this was extremely unhelpful and that it was not a real promise of money. It was like saying, 'We are taking the family to Disneyland, but we have not actually bought any tickets.'
That is completely unhelpful, but so typical of Labor's record in the infrastructure space. If you look at the great monstrosity that was the NBN, under Labor, a theme emerges of mismanagement and a misunderstanding of how to do infrastructure. But this government does understand infrastructure. Led by the infrastructure Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and so ably assisted by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, we are getting on with the job of building infrastructure right around the nation.
Nowhere is more important than the WestConnex, the biggest infrastructure road project in our history. And critically for my electorate, the WestConnex will mean the duplication of the M5 East. An entire new tunnel will be built. You currently have two lanes in each direction, and a new tunnel with three lanes in each direction—six in total—will be built. So we will go from four lanes to 10. If you are living in Padstow, or Revesby, or Beverly Hills, or Mortdale, or Riverwood, or Oatley, or Lugarno or Peakhurst or a wide range of other places in my electorate, that is an absolutely critical reform. Because what it means, according to the best engineering advice, is that the peak-hour trip to the city will be reduced by 25 minutes or more. There are two elements to the benefits that flow from that reduction in time. One is the productivity benefit, which is great for the economy: less time sitting in traffic in doing nothing, more time to get to your meetings, to get to that next client, or maybe sell some more of the products of the small businesses in my electorate. And, of course, there is also the opportunity for people to get home more quickly at the end of a night's work and spend more time with their families.
So it is absolutely critical. Another great element of the project is the widening of the King Georges interchange at Beverly Hills. Anyone who has driven around Sydney much knows that Beverly Hills—and it is a point that I share in my electorate with a couple of other MPs—is a terrible bottleneck. This project will add an additional lane at the interchange and will make the entry and exit ramps much longer. So rather than there being a big amalgamation of traffic at that entry point, there will be a much more gradual transition to the exits at Beverly Hills. This is very important, and it will really save a lot of headaches for the people of Banks.
We are getting on with the infrastructure job. The WestConnex is critical for my electorate, and I am proud to be part of a government that will be delivering that important infrastructure.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (21:10): It seems longer, but it was just 14 months ago that this government took office. On 7 September 2013 newly elected Prime Minister Abbott addressed the Australian people to claim victory in the federal election. He said:
In a week or so the Governor-General will swear in a new government. A government that says what it means, and means what it says. A government of no surprises and no excuses ... and a government that accepts that it will be judged more by its deeds than by its mere words.
Of course, the fact that millions of people watched this on live national television is apparently no longer any guarantee that an Australian Prime Minister will admit that he said these words, but we should hold him to them.
In their election costings this government promised a $42 million cut to the Indigenous Policy Reform program, which provided legal assistance services to Indigenous Australians. But on 6 September 2013, the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said that the coalition's cuts would not affect Indigenous legal assistance, only policy work carried out under the program. The incoming government promised repeatedly that front-line services would not suffer cuts. Like almost every other promise made by the Abbott opposition, this assurance that front-line services would not suffer has been flagrantly disregarded by the Abbott government.
The government has launched a shameful and devastating attack on Indigenous legal assistance funding. In MYEFO the government ripped $43 million from legal assistance providers, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, ATSILS, and Family Violence Prevention Legal Centres.
The Attorney-General cut more funds for vital legal services in the budget by taking a further $15 million from legal aid commissions and $6 million from community legal centres. In the budget the government cut more than half a billion dollars from Indigenous programs, including funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services.
In October Senator Scullion told Senate estimates that funding for unique service providers such as Reconciliation Australia, the Healing Foundation and the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services was not guaranteed.
And what of the government's assurance that its cuts would not affect frontline services? Rubbish, absolute rubbish. Mick Gooda, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, who as a commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission reports to the Attorney-General, has pointed out this broken promise in his most recent annual social justice report, tabled in parliament on 26 November.
Commissioner Gooda said of the budget cuts:
The impact on frontline services is already evident. ATSILS are losing staff and branch offices are being forced to close. This has already occurred in Queensland, with offices in Warwick, Cunnamulla, Chinchilla, Dalby and Cooktown closing down.
It is disappointing that these budgetary measures may also lead to the closure of many other ATSILS offices across Australia.
More than that, Gooda rejected the government's notion that any distinction could be drawn between policy work and front-line work. He said that the value of indigenous legal services is their ability to provide advice to government about justice policies that can reduce the shameful level of incarceration of Indigenous Australians. Gooda quoted NATSILS's chair, Mr Shane Duffy, who said:
… more people are going to end up in prison. It's as simple as that.
I want the government to reflect on that statement. More Indigenous people will go to prison as a result of their cuts. In this, as in numerous other policy areas, this government has shown that it cannot be trusted to keep its promises. What do front-line cuts look like if not sacked staff, reduced services and closed offices? What could be more 'front line' than working to reduce the level of Indigenous incarceration?
When he took office, the Prime Minister told us that the hallmark of his government would be that 'It says what it means and means what it says.' But, after 14 months of dishonesty and dissembling, broken promises and backflips, I am reminded more of Humpty Dumpty, who famously said to Alice: 'When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
Electorate of Longman
WYATT ROY (Longman) (21:15): As this is the last sitting week of the year, I think it is really important that we reflect on what has been an amazing year of achievement locally. Probably the biggest difference that I have noticed, particularly in the last few weeks, as I get around the electorate, is that prosperity is returning and businesses are prepared to put on more staff. That is as a result of our policy settings, whether that was getting rid of Labor's carbon tax or the mining tax or, this year alone, over $2 billion in red tape.
Kennedy's Timbers in Narangba have put on five staff.
Mr Brough interjecting—
WYATT ROY: The member for Fisher interjects; I know he opened that business. I think they are very good people. Well, they have just put on five staff, including a new apprentice, since we repealed the carbon tax, after downsizing during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. We helped R&R Hire Services in Caboolture with their red tape as part of our red-tape repeal agenda, and they have, in about the last six months, doubled their staff.
We have also signed landmark free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China, and they are helping macadamia farmers in Elimbah. Packer Leather in Narangba pays a 14 per cent tariff going into the Chinese marketplace, which all goes under this Chinese deal. And they are putting on more staff. So we are seeing prosperity return to our small businesses.
But the coalition government has also approved nearly $1 trillion in environmental approvals for projects, and those include part of the approval for North East Business Park, or North Harbour, locally, which has just got under construction. This is incredibly exciting. It is a project that had been delayed for nine years. Over 15 years, their independent economic modelling shows, that will create 20,000 jobs across our region.
So, while things are moving in the jobs market locally, we have also made very significant changes across a whole range of areas locally. One of the best things that I have done in this job is to walk down to Dale Street in Burpengary where, as locals know, it floods every time it rains. As somebody who lost a family home when I was growing up, I can sympathise with what these people face. After years and years of inaction by both state and federal Labor governments, I sat down with the Prime Minister and said, 'This is something that we need to do for this community,' and we funded $1.9 million to build a flood levee for the people in Burpengary. To tell them that they no longer have to go through the issues that you go through when you lose a family home is probably one of the best things anybody can do in public life.
Also, as to saving lives locally, the D'Aguilar Highway, as locals know, has seen tragedy after tragedy. I campaigned on this in 2010. We came to government last year. I can now say that $1 million has already been spent on the upgrade, with $15 million more to be spent early in the New Year to upgrade the worst spots on the D'Aguilar Highway. It was something that had been put in the too-hard basket for too long; now there is $16 million flowing.
Nearly $3 billion is being spent on the Bruce Highway between Pine Rivers and Gympie. As locals drive up it, they are seeing the work that has been done on basically every intersection along that highway—
Mr Brough: And Roys Road!
WYATT ROY: including Roys Road in the member for Fisher's electorate—not in the member for Longman's electorate, I would just point out! But it is making a very big difference to our community and will unlock the economic potential of our region.
One of the big things we have struggled with locally is mental health. We have far too high a youth suicide rate, and I was very proud to announce, just a few months ago, that Caboolture will be a site for a headspace clinic which will help generations of young people to deal with some of those very difficult issues that we face with youth mental health.
As to the Dakabin train station, anybody who commutes to Brisbane would have seen that the Dakabin train station had hundreds of cars parked along the road in a very dangerous situation, and students at Dakabin State High School had to deal with that. Well, by Christmas, or very close to Christmas, construction will be complete on a 300-space car park, and that was a $300,000 commitment that I took to the last election. It is almost completed; it may well be complete by Christmas, weather permitting, making a big difference to local commuters.
After years of policy missteps on the NBN, the Labor Party, we knew, under the strategic review, would not complete the NBN until 2024. Today we added to the 37,000 local homes with the extra suburbs of Sandstone Point, Ningi, Beachmere and Godwin Beach. The NBN is getting back on track and, by mid next year, that will be done, improving the lives of many locals.
Blair Electorate: Disability
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (21:20): My electorate of Blair is blessed to have many fine disability service providers who work tirelessly to improve the lives of people with disability in the Ipswich and Somerset region. Last Friday, 28 November, a record number of these providers participated in my annual Blair Disability Links event. This is the fourth year I have held this event outside my electorate office in the Brassall Shopping Centre. It is a day I look forward to each year. It is held to celebrate the International Day of People with Disability, which is 3 December this year. It is terrific to catch up with our local disability service providers, people with a disability, their families and their carers. This year, more than 700 people came through to have a chat with the providers and to network with each other.
The disability service providers who participated were keen to tell me of the value they place in the event. Kathryn Acutt, from Aged Care Plus, said Blair Disability Links was an important opportunity for services like hers to meet carers face-to-face. Kathryn said: 'Too often, carers are isolated and do much of their work behind the scenes. Today, they get the opportunity to network with each other and learn about other services on offer.' I heard this sentiment from provider after provider and from carer after carer, and from many people suffering from a disability.
And as I spent time last Friday speaking with and listening to providers, people living with a disability and their carers, I saw valuable connections being made. I saw ideas being shared, business cards exchanged and pamphlets being offered to people. I witnessed the strength and resilience of our community. I witnessed also the large number of people who were there in wheelchairs and walking frames, young and old.
Providing a forum for these connections and sharing ideas was what prompted me to hold the first Blair Disability Links event in 2010. Since then the event has gone from strength to strength. Last year we had 500 people attend; this year 700. The then Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas, officially launched the first Blair Disability Links event in 2010. About a dozen disability providers participated.
This year over 40 providers participated, and the information booklet produced is now 67 pages in length. These include organising such as Carers Queensland, the Salvation Army, the West Moreton Hospital and Health Service, Anglicare, Centrelink, Medicare, the Commonwealth Respite and Carelink Centre, and FOCAL Extended, which in 2014 proudly marks its 40th year of providing service to people with disability and their families and carers in the region. Also present were the Services Union, whose representatives chatted to providers about the NDIS and their campaign for fair wages and conditions in the disability sector. There were many specialist organisations present, including the Ipswich Stroke Group, Able Australia, IRASI, CODI, Walk on Wheels and ArtISability.
Speaking of ArtISability, I was pleased to launch their 2015 calendar at the Blair Disability Links last Friday. Founded by Debbie Chilton, a local disability advocate and herself in a wheelchair, ArtISability is a visual arts program that assists people with disability or mental illness to deliver completed artworks to the art gallery wall. ArtISability's 2015 calendar—their first—is a wonderful achievement, and I commend them on it.
The Blair Disability Links in 2014 was an outstanding success. I want to thank a number of people. I want to thank Kylie Stoneman in my office for her tremendous work again this year, pulling the event and the information booklet together. I have given out 12,000 of these kits from my electorate office to people with disability, their carers and providers across Ipswich and the West Moreton region. I also want to thank the owners and managers of Brassall shopping centre for permitting me to hold it, and Ipswich City Council for its practical support.
The success of Blair Disability Links and the associated information booklet has convinced me of the need for a Blair seniors links to connect aged-care service providers with seniors and their families in the community. Watch this space in 2015, and I call on interested local seniors and their groups to contact me to discuss this interesting concept.
I want to thank local providers who have cared for people in my community for so long. We have many people suffering from a disability in the Ipswich and Somerset region, and what they do shows their love, their compassion and their understanding for people with disability.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (21:25): I wish to raise tonight, for the second time in just over a week—because last Monday I drew the House's attention to competition policy—a critical issue for the future of our nation, the shape of our nation and the sort of country we want to live in. I made reference last week to the need for innovation and entrepreneurship. But I want to add to that tonight, diversity.
I also want to take everyone back, because it was in 1974 that the Trade Practices Act was introduced into this parliament by the Labor Party. The following year a very famous Australian, one John Howard, was the minister, and he amended that act. In doing so, he introduced into the act the object of the act, which is critical to the way in which it is interpreted by people today, such as the ACCC or the courts.
I would like to read to the parliament what the object of the act is. For those in House, you can see what a very large document this is. These are the words that describe the meaning and the purpose behind all of the individual components of the act:
The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection.
Those words have not changed in 39 years; yet consider just how much the economy has changed. Think about the concentration of market share we have seen develop in so many aspects of society. I would then pose the question, 'Has this act really met its goal, its lofty ideal, its objective of promoting competition?' I would argue that in many fields it has failed that test.
Minister Billson, who is doing a fantastic job, who is pointing to the need for us to have a diverse, innovative and entrepreneur-driven economy, has the Harper review out. The Harper review has had many people come to it with suggestions on how we can strengthen this act. But if I take you back over the last 39 years, there have been many attempts, including the Hilmer report, to strengthen this act; yet we have seen further and further concentrations of market share. That diminishes the opportunity for diversity. It diminishes the opportunity for the fair go and for the entrepreneur in Australia to get a start, and it certainly does nothing for innovation.
I am proposing tonight the first change in 39 years to the object of the act, to read: 'The object of this act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of innovation, entrepreneurship, diversity, competition, fair trading and the provision for consumer protection.'
Something as small as that, as few words as that, can say so much about the way in which our courts interpret the meaning of what this parliament and this government would want to see for the future, because quite clearly the object of the act to date has not met what we would all have hoped, that is, to maintain the diversity that we so strive for.
Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr BROUGH: My apologies, Madam Speaker—thank you for pulling me up, member opposite. That is not a good way to finish the night, is it?
Madam Speaker, this is not just about the grocery industry. I was speaking today to medical experts, who have seen the power of big business inordinately drive out their innovative drive, taking it away from them; in fact using that power to deny them the opportunity to bring products to market. This is not what we want for Australia. Whether it is medical, manufacturing, primary industries, services or retail, it is important that all aspects of Australian society have a go.
So not only do I suggest that we look at changing the object of the act to bring it in line with a modern society but that we make it clear throughout the act, as is done in other acts of parliament, what our objects are. Make it clear so that the definitions and the detail, the minutiae of it, can be brought into a context which says, 'This is the sort of Australia that we strive to achieve.'
This is no small matter. There will be those who will say that we should do nothing. To do nothing will take us back 39 years to a time where there was greater diversity, where more people had a chance to have a go. I want to see those opportunities flourish again. It is up to us and this parliament to make sure that we make these small changes that can make such a large difference.
House adjourned at 21:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms F. M. Scott to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the University of Western Sydney (UWS) and the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) as part of the landmark China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and the forged relationship will provide:
(i) broader and improved healthcare options as a result of the clinical and research trials conducted by the UWS’s National Institute of Complementary Medicine and the BUCM to validate and translate Chinese medicines into an integrated healthcare setting;
(ii) the international framework for Australia to become the leading western accreditor of the $170 billion dollar global traditional Chinese medicine market; and
(iii) formalised connections with the internationally regarded researchers at the BUCM which will further enhance the reputation of the UWS as a leading centre of research excellence that delivers practical social and economic outcomes for the residents of Western Sydney;
(b) the MOU between these two universities was among 14 commercial agreements signed between Australia and China, and will secure unprecedented levels of market access to the world’s second largest economy, with a population of 1.36 billion and a rapidly growing middle class; and
(c) households and businesses will also reap the benefits of cheaper goods and components imported from China, placing downward pressure on the cost of living and the cost of doing business; and
(2) commends the Government on its approach to securing a historic free trade agreement between Australia and China.
Ms Hall to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which aims to raise awareness among Australian women of the symptoms of ovarian cancer; and
(b) each year 1400 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and more than 1000 will die from the disease—that is one woman every 8 hours;
(2) notes with concern that the prognosis for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is generally poor due to the advanced stage of most ovarian cancers at the time of diagnosis;
(3) acknowledges that there is no screening program or detection test for ovarian cancer, and that the Pap smear will not detect the disease;
(4) recognises that:
(a) ovarian cancer is not a silent disease and that all women experience symptoms, even in the early stages of the cancer; and
(b) the four most common symptoms are:
(i) abdominal or pelvic pain;
(ii) increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating;
(iii) needing to urinate often or urgently; and
(iv) difficulty eating or feeling full quickly;
(5) understands that every Australian woman needs to know the symptoms of ovarian cancer; and
(6) notes the need for greater focus on education and additional research funding to help Australian scientists to find early detection markers and more effective treatments for this disease.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
L'Arche
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:30): On Saturday I had the privilege of launching a book that was written by Geoff Rigby, Stephen Rigby and David Treanor. This book is called My Home in L'Arche. It is a book of stories that come together to make the one story of L'Arche. I think what L'Arche stands for is best presented in words by one of the authors, Geoff Rigby, and I might add at this point that it was Geoff Rigby that introduced to me the concept of L'Arche and also the wonderful work that is done in L'Arche communities—communities that are about creating relationships between those people that are part of the L'Arche community and the community generally.
I will go to the words of Geoff Rigby, which highlight that the words 'relationship', 'community' and 'mutuality' are the words that are commonly used to embrace the vision of L'Arche. These are words that arise when you start talking about what happens within a L'Arche community. On page 91 of the book there is a circle, and in it are a number of words that really go to the heart of what L'Arche is: it is about solidarity, relationships, community, dreaming, inclusion, tenderness, forgiving, love, joy, diversity and independence. It is recognising that people with intellectual disabilities have the same rights to have a good and full life as people that do not have intellectual disabilities.
It is the story of those people that are involved in the L'Arche community that makes this such a poignant book. I would like to just read the words about one of those people, Jason Palethorpe, who is part of the Brisbane community: 'It was with a sense of amazement that I watched Jason become an integral part of the Brisbane community,' always being supported and loved by those people that were involved in the community.
This is a fantastic book. It is wonderful work and it was done under the stewardship of Geoff Rigby. Unfortunately, Geoff Rigby is extremely ill at the moment, but this book is a testimony to his life of giving to community and caring for people in it.
Glowrey, Dr Sister Mary
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:33): A few weeks ago I was visited by a constituent, Robyn Fahy, and a friend, Karin Clark, wife of Robert Clarke, member for Box Hill. They came to inform me of an exciting new development which has seen Dr Sister Mary Glowrey become only the second Australian to be on the official path to canonisation, after Saint Mary MacKillop. Dr Sister Glowrey was a remarkable women whose story needs to be told, as her selfless contribution to the betterment of humanity is an example to us all.
Born on 23 June 1887 in Birregurra, in the Western District of Victoria, Mary Glowrey was the third of nine children. Displaying immense academic talent early, Mary, on scholarship at South Melbourne College, matriculated at age 14 before graduating from the University of Melbourne in arts and medicine in 1910. After her first medical position at Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand, Mary moved to the Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital and St Vincent's Hospital, where she looked set for a distinguished local career in medicine. In 1916, she established the Catholic Women's Social Guild and became its first president; it was later to be known as the Catholic Women's League. In my electorate of Kooyong, she set up baby clinics in Camberwell with Dr Eileen Fitzgerald. As she was, for a time, based at the beautiful Carmelite Monastery around the corner in Kew—and with a younger brother at Xavier College in Kew—we formally claim her as one of our own in Kooyong.
But it was one event that changed her life forever. She read a pamphlet about the high infant mortality rate in India and the lack of medical missionaries. This was, for Mary, her calling. She made her trip to India, arriving in Madras in 1920. It was there that she established the Catholic Hospital Association of India, which now assists 21 million people every year. As the first nun to work as a doctor, her efforts were acknowledged both near and far, with Pope Pius XI bestowing a special blessing on her endeavours as a medical missionary and the Guntur nuns of her order saying she 'created the association out of nothing'.
It was therefore particularly pleasing that, just the other week, when Prime Minister Tony Abbott hosted a special dinner in Melbourne in honour of visiting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he acknowledged the work of Dr Sister Mary Glowrey and gave his support for her canonisation. Sister Glowrey was indeed someone special. I join with so many people across the Australian community, including Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Hart and Archbishop Fisher, in recognising her substantial contribution and her example of faith and love as one which we hope sees her canonised as Australia's second saint. Her efforts of yesterday provide a bridge between the Australian and Indian people of today.
Seniors: Health Care
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:36): I recently held four seniors morning teas in my Isaacs electorate as part of Seniors Week celebrations. I find these events an excellent opportunity for me to talk to seniors in the Isaacs community and to discuss issues that matter to them. This year I held morning teas in Chelsea, in Carrum Downs, in Mentone and in Noble Park.
In the six years I have held these morning teas, I have never heard such a level of concern about the difficulties facing seniors in my electorate. Many seniors I spoke to are frightened for their future. They are scared by Tony Abbott's cuts to the age pension and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and they are angry about the government's tax hike on filling up a tank of petrol.
The single issue that was raised most frequently, though, was the Abbott government's plans to introduce a $7 GP tax to visit the doctor. Many seniors in my electorate, in particular those with chronic health problems, simply cannot afford $7 payments to visit their local GP. Again and again seniors said to me that, if the government does introduce the $7 GP tax and does increase the cost of medicine, they simply do not know how they will make ends meet. Stories like this are frighteningly common. For those with limited incomes and a rising cost of living, Tony Abbott's GP tax is threatening to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. In my electorate it is estimated that Isaacs residents would be paying an extra $6.8 million per year, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable in my community.
One of the things that make Australia great is our strong universal healthcare system. Since the introduction of Medicare, Australians have been assured that if they are sick they can be seen and treated by a doctor without charge. This is how Australia's health system should be. You only have to look as far as the United States to see the terrible effect of heavily privatised health care. Many sick Americans simply cannot afford to go to the doctor and, as a result, become more and more sick, to the point that they are a major financial burden on the US health system and a weight on economic productivity. It is a remarkable fact that current health expenditure in Australia makes up 9.1 per cent of GDP compared to 17.9 per cent of GDP in the US, despite America's system of selective health care. It is clear that universal health care leads to better health outcomes and higher productivity.
I call on the government to drop its plans for yet another tax, to stop its attack on Medicare and to commit to the principles of universal health care, which the vast majority of Australians support. That is the message I got from seniors in my electorate when I met them at the seniors morning teas this year, and that is the message I am sure I will continue to get until the Abbott government drops its plans.
Petrie Electorate: Small Business
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:39): I want to quickly talk about the 3,000-plus small businesses that operate within the federal seat of Petrie. I want to thank them for the staff they employ and for their valued contribution to our national economy. Last month there was a national campaign in relation to shopping small this Christmas. I am wearing one of the badges for the Shop Small campaign. The Shop Small campaign is all about local people supporting small businesses in the lead-up to Christmas this year.
On the weekend I went out to the Margate Festival at Margate, which was put on by Commerce and Industry Redcliffe Peninsula, the local chamber. There are four to six local chambers operating within the Petrie electorate: two in Redcliffe, one at North Lakes and one at Deception Bay, and then another few over in Sandgate and North Brisbane. I would say to all those local chambers of commerce: we support the small businesses and we certainly want to see you prosper and do well this Christmas.
When I was at the Margate Festival, a number of small businesses I spoke to told me that they are continuing to invest in their staff and that they are also continuing to invest in their customers. Whether they are a retail store or a service industry, they thank their customers very much for shopping at the local store. They are continuing to contact their customers so that their customers know what valuable services and products they offer. Their local staff are great salespeople for them. When they are out at the local shops or talking to friends about where they work, they let them know about the small business in which they are employed and the services they offer. I say to all the small businesses and the 150,000 people that live in my electorate that this Christmas you can support small business by buying vouchers for local restaurants, cafes, retail stores, shops that provide artwork, pet shops, shoe shops, clothes shops, local tradies—all of these people can be supported this Christmas.
The federal coalition government appreciate every small business. We thank you for your company tax, for the taxes that you pay, and we will continue to make sure that your taxes are spent wisely. We are cutting red tape to small business. We are getting the country's finances back on track after Labor's debt and deficit disaster of the last six years. Businesses should be confident, as we sign up to more free trade agreements too, that there are more opportunities for them to sell.
Finally, to everyone in my electorate: this Christmas, shop small and support the local businesses that operate in your area.
Brisbane Storms
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (10:42): On the night of Thursday, 27 November, Brisbane was hit by a terrible storm, a storm with wind gusts of more than 140 kilometres per hour, with golf ball sized hail, that led to dozens of people being injured and 1,000 properties being damaged. In fact, three of my staff suffered significant property damage—smashed windows, ruined carpets, lost computers, lost awnings. I pay tribute to them, notwithstanding their personal difficulty at home, for continuing to help the people in my electorate of Griffith to work through some of that storm damage.
The sorts of damage that we saw in Brisbane included flooded streets and extensive hail damage to cars, including the cars held by car dealers, of course. At nearby Archerfield Airport, aircraft were overturned. There was so much damage on our streets. I drove through Annerley in my electorate, South Brisbane, West End and Woolloongabba during the day on Friday after I returned from Canberra to see some of the damage. There were cranes lifting trees off houses.
When I visited the SES, which is headquartered in my electorate, they were being inundated with requests for help. It was really heartening to see that there were SES volunteers from all over South-East Queensland pitching in to help, as well as firefighters, police and Defence personnel, who were also helping with the clean-up. As I understand it, there were some 1,400 calls for help that day. Tens of thousands of people were without power for a very long time. I understand that the estimated damage from the storm is around $100 million. It was a very difficult time for a range of people who suffered storm damage and for the people who were trying to help. It was not just homes and private property that suffered damage.
On Friday, I visited local schools Mary Immaculate and Our Lady's College. I saw Father Adrian at the church on the Mary Immaculate premises, who was obviously quite upset at the extensive damage to the church. There were broken stain glass windows, tiles gone from the roof, and water leaking through the church. It was a very distressing site and it was pleasing to see so many volunteers helping to clean up the church.
Underneath the church, where the library is at Mary Immaculate school, there was a lot of damage to the equipment. I understand there were people in the library when the storm hit who were in very dangerous circumstances because of flying glass. I visited St Josephs where Father David had closed the church and the school has suffered extensive damage. I visited Brisbane State High School. And, of course yesterday, I spent some time at Junction Park State School, which is another school that has suffered really terrible damage with a lot students work damaged. I congratulate those on the repair effort—it was a terrible storm.
Lyne Electorate: Expressway Spares
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (10:45): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a major milestone for a major local company operating in my electorate of Lyne. Recently Expressway Spares celebrated 50 years of successful operation. Expressway Spares was founded by Gerard Cassegrain in 1964 to service the logging industry and it has subsequently grown and developed into the largest major spare parts business for Caterpillar parts in the Southern Hemisphere. It has used its expertise, specialising in spare parts and refurbishment of machinery, supplying to all facets of the earthmoving equipment industry including mining, general contracting and the rural sector.
The company has now grown to be one of the biggest employees in our electorate with over 180 employees. Its major workforce is located at Sancrox, halfway between Wauchope and Port Macquarie. It also has opened operations in the Hunter Valley at Mount Thorley, MacKay in Queensland and Perth in Western Australia. Its headquarters incorporates of 7,000 square metres of covered storage area and workspace and a 25-hectare machinery display and storage area.
At an event two weekends ago to celebrate 50 years of successful operation, we heard speeches from Patrick Cassegrain, the son of Gerard, and his sister Catherine Dunn, who have been involved in the business along with other family members Dennis and nephews in the Dunn family.
Gerard's vision was related. He was a French emigre who came to Australia in the 1950s with his wife and children. He started off in Sydney and moved to the far end of the Hastings Valley, to Yarras, as a logging contractor with one vehicle. He saw the need for spare parts on the North Coast, and his vision transformed into a little shed on a newly declared stretch of the Pacific Highway, which was effectively in the middle of nowhere—nowhere near Port Macquarie and nowhere near Wauchope, which were the historical centres. But he had a vision and started there with a single shed. It is now a huge industrial supplier to all those industries that I have mentioned.
Long service awards were given to their valued staff for five, 10, 20 and 25 years of service. The current business manager Patrick Cassegrain complimented his wonderful staff, because their business is their staff. They are a very professional operation. They know their product and they know their market. They are flexible, efficient and have highly trained staff—I commend them.
Bendigo Electorate: Saltworks Community Dinner
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:48): Today I rise to congratulate the community of Eaglehawk, who came together recently to raise funds for their community Saltworks dinner. Over 120 people joined Jacinta Allan MP, Maree Edwards MP and me at a typical Saltworks community dinner in Eaglehawk to raise funds to keep the community dinner going. Together we raised funds to keep this dinner going not just for one year but for two years. Together we raised over $10,000 to keep the dinner going.
The fifty dollars a ticket will provide 17 meals to community members. The community dinner, which is held every Friday night, is a free dinner and it brings people together. Some of them are hungry and some of them are alone. It brings people together through in an environment that is safe and inclusive, and makes sure that people in Eaglehawk have somewhere to be on a Friday night.
We know that many people and, particularly in Eaglehawk, many local families are finding it hard to make ends meet. We know that some people are lonely and disconnected, and this dinner provides an opportunity for the community to come together to share a meal. For some people it is the only meal of the week that they share with others. We are social creatures and it is important that people come together. Saltworks volunteers do a wonderful job supporting and bringing people together. It is not just the meal that they share but also each other's company. Special thanks in helping to organise the event need to go to the businesses and organisations that got behind the dinner, including St John of God's pathology department, St Liborius Primary School, the Eaglehawk branch of the Bendigo Bank, bART 'n' PRINt, Bendigo Anglican Diocese, 3BO, Phoenix FM—in fact, all of our local media got behind the dinner—The Media Suitcase, the Australian Cable Reel Company, the Community Foundation for Bendigo and Central Victoria, the Bendigo Community Health Services and AFS. These are the organisations that got behind the community dinner to make sure that it would continue.
I know from attending the dinner quite a number of times last year how important this dinner is to the community of Eaglehawk. Many people shared their stories and the struggles that they have had. Many of them today are volunteers to help out others. This is Bendigo, this is Eaglehawk—making sure that nobody is left behind, making sure that we are supported through the hardest of times. I congratulate the community of Eaglehawk on coming together to save a dinner, a dinner that has become known throughout Bendigo, and we now have other areas of Bendigo saying that they would like to organise their own. Congratulations, Eaglehawk.
Solomon Electorate: Schools
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (10:51): The Essington School in my electorate of Solomon recently had its preschool graduation ceremony for its modern Montessori pupils. Fifty-two young, bright minds attended the ceremony to perform three songs for the audience. I have to say that I was very impressed with the children singing Santa Claus is Coming to Town in Mandarin—it was the highlight of the evening. I had the privilege of being able to award the students their graduation certificates as well as shaking all their hands. I would like to read into Hansard the names of the graduating students: Paras Agarwal, Aanya Babu, Jace Barnes, Zoey Barolits, Ellora Bear, Monte Bridge, Charlotte Cabot, Ava Caputi, Emily Cavers, Alexander Chin, Alessandro Cirillo, Chanel Cox, Deklian Cross, Luke Dimasi, Margaux Dornier, Zoe Georgakis, Alessia Handford, James Harley, Oliver Houben, Oliver Jones, Sophia Karanikolas, Aiden Kent, Christina Kiranou, Hannah Lay, Emily Lowe, Elri Mentz, Orlando Muhandiram, Kaisher Parmar, Anthony Papandonakis, Anaiya Patel, Nate Pauline, Lloyd Pearce, Alice Phillips, Arthur Phillips, Ruby Quin-Conroy, Amrutha Rajasekar, Sarvesh Ramamoorthi, Spencer Simpson and Nomikos Skandaliaris. I have a very multicultural electorate. I look forward to spending many more evenings with these children, because they were quite outstanding.
With the little bit of time that I have left, I would also like to acknowledge the Kormilda College students who created history in that they were the first Territory win of the Australasian Pacific Finals of Tournament of Minds. Kormilda College took home first prize in the maths engineering category, the Territory's first in the 32 years it has been running. I would like to congratulate some of the Territory's brightest students for their hard work: Tinika Van De Wildekamp, Raphael Duffy, Jesse Ramsay, Ishwar Ramkumar, Micah Ramsay, Dirk Van De Wildekamp and Josiah Little. I am really pleased that I was able to read their names into the Hansard too. We have some outstanding schools in the Northern Territory. (Time expired)
World AIDS Day
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:54): I would like to put on record and recognise the fact that today is World AIDS Day. I know that members across this parliament remember that today is World AIDS Day and pay tribute to all the work that has been done to combat this disease. There are many people living in Australia and throughout the world with HIV and AIDS. There has been quite a lengthy journey to get to where we are now.
When AIDS first became apparent, it had a double impact. People were very sick, and there was also a stigma attached to it. The stigma was associated with the fact that it tended to be associated with same-sex relations between men and also with sharing injecting needles, but not everybody who contracted AIDS or HIV contracted it in this way, and the manner in which you contract a disease does not make it any less important.
There have been fantastic campaigns conducted by governments throughout Australia, and it is always important to be vigilant and remember the messages that were put out in the eighties that led to combating AIDS. The antiretroviral drugs that are in place now have really made a big difference, but there are still many countries in the world where HIV and AIDS are causing an enormous amount of stress and an enormous loss of life and where the education surrounding HIV and AIDS is anything but what it should be. There are still countries where there is a lot of discrimination based on people's views on sexual orientation, and it can lead to exclusion and discrimination in those communities.
Silence about HIV and AIDS leads to ignorance and will lead to the disease increasing, and those people who are vulnerable will be more vulnerable. So I share with the House today that my sister-in-law died of AIDS back in the early nineties. She was not a drug injector, but she was exposed to the virus, as was her husband, who did have same-sex relations. At the end of the day, on World AIDS Day, I always remember both of those people and all the other people who have lost their lives through AIDS.
Small Business
Mrs PRENTICE ( Ryan ) ( 10:57 ): Small business makes an incredibly important contribution to our economy. There are more than 13,000 registered small businesses in the electorate of Ryan, providing tens of thousands of jobs and a vital boost to our local economy. However, small businesses run by local mums and dads can only flourish if we all make the decision to support our local traders and entrepreneurs by shopping small. Imagine the difference it would make if you diverted the money you spent on fruit and vegetables at your supermarket and instead spent that at local greengrocers or at a local farmers market. To small business, your weekly spend could be the difference in keeping their doors open.
Like many of us on this side of the House, I had my own small business for 20 years, struggling to balance the books and prioritise expenditure and not taking holidays so we could afford to advertise or buy a new computer. That is why we must all consider our shopping habits this Christmas. Why not give someone a unique handmade gift instead of a mass-produced one? It may cost a few extra dollars, but surely there is greater satisfaction in giving a thoughtful present that helps a neighbour provide for their own family at Christmas.
The Australian National Retail Association estimates that Australians will spend about $32.6 billion this Christmas. That is on decorations, gifts, food and drink. If we all choose to divert just one per cent of that money into the more than two million small businesses in Australia, that will mean an extra $326 million into our local businesses. The reason this is so important is what economics calls the 'local multiplier effect'. Money spent locally stays local and goes around the local economy seven times. For every dollar you spend at a chain store, just 13.6 per cent is respent in the local economy. However, with every dollar you spend at a local small business, 48 per cent is re-spent locally. To put this into some perspective, let us say I spend $100 at a chain store. Of that $100, $13 is reinvested locally and then, of that $13, just $1.75 makes it to the next round. On the other hand, if I spend that $100 at a local store, $48 is returned to the local economy, and of that $48 another $23 makes it to the next round—an increase of 300 per cent. That is an extra $56.29 locally in just two steps. That is the power of 'shop small'.
If we apply this formula to our festive season, millions of extra dollars will flow to all our local communities. This is great for jobs. The easiest way to create jobs in Australia is to support small business. If one million small businesses grow to a point where they can employ just one more person, that is one million extra jobs. By shopping small and by supporting small business, we create more local jobs. So this year spend just one per cent of your Christmas money at a small business and watch your local area thrive. Support 'shop small'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has expired.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Cyclone Tracey
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:01): I move:
(1)acknowledges that 24 December marks 40 years since Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, killing 71 people and destroying 70 per cent of buildings, including 80 per cent of residential homes, leaving homeless 41,000 of the 47,000 people living in Darwin;
(2)recognises the enormous Commonwealth contribution in providing extensive resources to perform the rescue and evacuation of survivors and for the rebuild of Darwin, including:
(a)the Royal Australian Navy undertaking its largest peacetime relief operations with HMA Ships Balikpapan, Betano, Brunei, Hobart, Melbourne, Stalwart, Stuart, Supply, Tarakan, Vendetta and Wewak berthing in early January 1975 to join HMA Ships Brisbane and Flinders;
(b)naval personnel spending 17,979 man days ashore during January 1975, with up to 1,200 onshore at the peak of operations working to re-build Darwin; and
(c)the evacuation of approximately 30,000 of the 45,000 Darwin residents in the days after the disaster thanks to the Royal Australian Air Force and Qantas; and
(3)notes that:
(a)the estimated damage to Darwin was $837 million dollars in 1974 dollars;
(b)the resilience of Territorians is remarkable;
(c)Cyclone Tracy was a defining moment in the history of Darwin—a city that had already been rebuilt after the 1942 Japanese bombings and natural disasters in the years preceding World War II; and
(d)today Darwin is a thriving city and is looking forward to maximising future opportunities, particularly around Developing North Australia.
It is inconceivable to imagine the devastating impact that a natural disaster can leave on our community, with the loss of homes, livelihoods and the health and safety of those that we love the most. Today I would like to share with the House the details of one such natural disaster—one that profoundly changed the lives of almost 50,000 people who were living in Darwin some 40 years ago. It was a natural disaster that changed Darwin forever.
As the motion states, 24 December this year marks 40 years since Cyclone Tracey devastated Darwin, killing 71 people and destroying 70 per cent of Darwin's buildings, including 80 per cent of Darwin's homes and leaving 41,000 of the 47,000 people living in Darwin homeless. I think it is important for us to look back on this significant event in Darwin's history and acknowledge the community spirit and the resilience of all those involved in bringing Darwin back to life. We have come a long way since Australia's single, biggest natural disaster hit, and we should acknowledge those who supported the reconstruction efforts and those who helped shape Darwin into the modern metropolis that so many Territorians are now proud to call home.
By Christmas Eve 1974, Darwin had already endured many hardships. It had weathered major cyclones in 1897 and in 1937. And we were the scene of the first enemy attack on Australian soil during World War II. Yet no-one anticipated the ferocity of Cyclone Tracey, which lasted around seven hours, leaving the town in ruins. The Northern TerritoryNews commemorative 40th anniversary lift-out contains an incredibly moving collection of tales of survival, strength, courage and hope. Its contributors should be commended and, in particular, editor Rachel Hancock, on a job well done. Some of the stories indicate Darwin had been caught off guard because of Cyclone Thelma weeks before. People had prepared then only for the cyclone to drift towards the Kimberley coast and to dissipate. Cyclone Tracey was expected to be much the same, and perhaps because it was Christmas Eve many residents were caught unprepared. As the eye passed over the city between midnight and 7 am, winds of more than 217 kilometres per hour ripped through houses and buildings and damaged critical infrastructure across the city. The winds were so fierce that the Bureau of Meteorology's anemometer was destroyed. People were hurled from their homes like rag dolls. Livelihoods changed. Public services like communications, power, water and sewerage were severed, and those on boats in the Darwin Harbour had no hope at all. At sea, 16 people perished.
Trisha Shep said that the sounds from that night will forever haunt her. As the roof of her home peeled away, she huddled under a mattress with her husband and four-year-old son. She recalls:
We could hear our beloved dogs crying … The outer wall which was giving us shelter blew out and my husband was exposed to the elements. We had our son in between us and held on to each other as the wind sucked and pulled us upwards and sideways. We said goodbye to each other as … the wind screamed and roared above us.
Toni Harper says:
As the wind intensified I felt a pinching … That was the house lifting off the pillars … We heard the roof go, that's when we really started to get scared … From 1am to 7am we said the Lords prayer, that was all we could do.
Ted D'Ambrosio sheltered with his family in his car, which was parked in the carport under the house. He recalls:
The noise was so great, and the wind was so devastating, and there was the screaming of people … it was just something out of a—horror movie …
For Brian Graham, it was the last time he saw his father. He said:
… I still remember the sound of the wind something I will never forget … still fresh in my mind and to lose our father to drowning … I can't imagine what he must have gone thru!
The entire fabric of life in Darwin was catastrophically disrupted that night. The damage bill was estimated at $837 million. In some of the newer northern suburbs homes, the destruction was absolute. Some journalists likened it to Hiroshima in 1945. The scene at Darwin Airport was one of utter chaos. The operations and terminal buildings had been severely damaged. Navigational aids had been destroyed or disabled. Runways and taxiways were littered with large containers and all sorts of building debris. In the harbour, the shipping fleet was decimated. Approximately 20 of the larger vessels were wrecked, including the Navy patrol boat HMAS Arrow. Fishing trawlers, ferryboats and yachts were also destroyed. Most of the boats in the harbour were either sunk by the huge waves or run aground.
Major General Alan Stretton, who was the Director-General of the Natural Disasters Organisation, was placed in charge of the rescue efforts for Darwin on Christmas Day. He carried out counterdisaster activities through local liaison and action committees, with priority given to health issues and restoration of communication and water supplies, as well as evacuation. The three branches of the defence forces played a major role in the relief operations in the city and the suburbs. On Boxing Day, naval aircraft left southern bases for Darwin, with urgent supplies and personnel. The Army also flew specialist personnel into Darwin, and through them rations, store equipment and specialist vehicles were supplied. Emergency committees were established to deal with such matters as accommodation, clean-up, clothing, communications, evacuation, food, law and order, sanitation, and health and social welfare. People have relayed stories of how there was no money and no homes and how it was like a war zone. There are so many stories of how many people had lost everything. It is just hard to imagine.
The evacuations were necessary. The RAAF, Qantas, TAA and Ansett were involved in carrying out Australia's largest ever air evacuation, which saw Darwin's population drop from 47,000 to 10,000 within a matter of days. For the next six months, access to Darwin was regulated by a permit system to keep so-called unnecessary people out of the rebuilding city.
The Royal Australian Navy undertook its largest peacetime relief operations, with HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Stuart, HMAS Stalwart, HMAS Supply, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Betano, HMAS Balikpapan, HMAS Brunei, HMAS Wewak and HMAS Tarakan berthing in early January 1975 to join the ships Brisbane andFlinders. Incredibly, during January 1975 naval personnel spent 17,979 man-days ashore, with up to 1,200 onshore at the peak of operations, working to rebuild Darwin.
Eventually Darwin was rebuilt, substantially in the location and form it had been pre cyclone and with the replication of pre-existing planning deficiencies. Today the Top End continues to cope with natural disasters through well-established and cooperative emergency management arrangements, effective capabilities and dedicated professional and volunteer personnel.
Cyclone Tracy was a defining moment in the history of Darwin, a city that, as I said earlier, had already been rebuilt after the 1942 Japanese bombings and the natural disasters in the years preceding World War II. Those harsh times have helped forge the Territory into what it is today. Territorians are renowned for their resilience to hardship, including the ability to innovate and adapt, a strong community spirit that supports those in need and the self-reliance to withstand and recover from disasters.
Today, many say that Darwin is the unofficial capital of north Australia. The Abbott government is absolutely committed to developing north Australia, and it is keen to see Darwin continue to evolve and prosper. I often say that Darwin and her people are very much like the phoenix, rising from the ashes in all its glory, reinvigorated, bigger, better and more beautiful than before.
As we approach the 40th anniversary, we have much to be proud of, but we also have to remember those who lost their lives and those families who were profoundly impacted by this event. The anniversary will be very difficult for them too. There are so many stories that I could share, but we only have 10 minutes. I seek leave to table the names of all the victims of Cyclone Tracy.
Leave granted.
Mrs GRIGGS: Thank you. I would also like to table the Northern Territory News cyclone anniversary lift-out. It is a very, very important piece of history that should be recorded in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mrs GRIGGS: Thank you, and I thank you for listening. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:11): I commend the member for Solomon for putting this motion forward and for her contribution. We do not agree a lot of the time, but on this I agree absolutely with her. Her contribution was a very good summation of the events that surrounded Cyclone Tracy and after and I think does justice to those who worked so hard and to those who sacrificed.
Bruce Stannard in The Age on 28 December 1974 said of Cyclone Tracy that it was 'a disaster of the first magnitude, without parallel in Australia's history'. We now know subsequently that 71 people were killed, and damage was estimated at $800 million in 1974 prices. The most compact cyclone on record in Australia destroyed in excess of 70 per cent of buildings and 80 per cent of all housing, leaving 41,000 of 45,000 people homeless, and led to the evacuation of more than 30,000 people.
We have heard the story about how it happened. First identified as a significant cloud mass on 20 December 1974, it was tracked by the Bureau of Meteorology staff, including Ray Wilkie and Geoff Crane. Mr Crane issued the first alert on 21 December as 'a tropical low that could develop into a tropical cyclone'. By 10 pm that night, it was officially pronounced as a tropical cyclone, 700 kilometres north-east of Darwin. On 22 December, it moved south-west, passing north-west of Darwin. On 23 December, the ABC, quoting the Bureau of Meteorology, said there was 'no immediate threat to Darwin'. However, in the early morning of the 24th, Tracy rounded Cape Fourcroy on the western tip of Bathurst Island and headed south-east directly at Darwin. There was strong rain and increasing wind, with the first damage beginning to occur between 10 pm and midnight.
It was generally believed that the first building destroyed was the famous—or some might say infamous—weatherboard-constructed Seabreeze Hotel at Nightcliff, commemorated today by the very popular Nightcliff Seabreeze Festival, held on the Nightcliff foreshore in April of each year. The eye of the cyclone passed between Fannie Bay and Nightcliff at around 3.30 am on 25 December. It tore through the town and then returned an hour later for another go. 1974—what a momentous year!
The anemometer at Darwin airport, as the member for Solomon has said, was destroyed at 3.10 am. The last wind speed recorded was 217 kilometres per hour, but the Bureau of Meteorology's official estimates suggest gusts reached 240 kays an hour. Darwin had been damaged, as the member for Solomon has said already, by previous cyclones in 1897 and 1937 and was largely destroyed by the 64 Japanese aircraft raids in 1942 and 1943.
On Christmas Eve, Darwin style, people were celebrating as they do. Many remained all night in the pubs where they had been drinking, as the winds were too strong to return home. Dawn Lawrie, a famous Northern Territory person and mother of the current leader of the ALP in the Northern Territory, said:
We'd had a cyclone warning only 10 days before Tracy [that another …] was coming, it was coming, and it never came. So when we started hearing about Tracy we were all a little blase.
Another resident, Barbara Langkrens, said:
And you started to almost think that it would never happen to Darwin even though we had cyclone warnings on the radio all the time … most of the people who had lived here for quite some time didn't really believe the warnings.
Darwin, thanks to Tracy's devastating impact, will never be so ill prepared again.
We have heard of the impact—71 dead; sadly, some say there were far more than that, especially so-called long-grassers who may have been without shelter that dreadful and awful night. You can hear the late Bishop Ted Collins's recording of the noise of the incredible winds at the Darwin museum's excellent Cyclone Tracy display, a truly chilling reminder of that hideous night. Most of Darwin's 12,000 dwellings were either destroyed or severely damaged. Thirty-one aircraft were destroyed and 25 were severely damaged.
After 7 am on Christmas Day, Darwin Hospital began receiving patients. Over 500 were treated on Christmas Day, along with 112 admitted. Both operating theatres worked nonstop until the morning of Boxing Day. A surgical team arrived from Canberra around sunset on Christmas Day. The Whitlam government set up an emergency committee on Christmas Day afternoon with the arrival of the Minister for the Northern Territory, Rex Patterson, and Major General Alan Stretton, Director-General of the Natural Disasters Organisation, arrived in the early evening. Housing was in makeshift accommodation and emergency shelters. Trench latrines were dug and water deliveries were made by tankers. Emergency vaccinations began. This was a dreadful set of circumstances.
Patterson and Stretton took advice from the head of the health department, Dr Charles Gurd, that evacuation was essential. Ten thousand left on Boxing Day and the next day. Evacuation by the RAAF, Qantas, Ansett airlines and TAA continued at cost to government, including road transport to Alice Springs. One person I know who was involved in those evacuations was Fred McCue Sr, who was the manager of Ansett in the Northern Territory. Adelaide River, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs residents set up reception centres, raised money and helped people as they passed through. Between 26 December and 31 December, 35,363 people were evacuated: 26,828 by air and the remainder by road. This was, in any set of circumstances, a most horrific set of events. The government of Australia responded appropriately, but most importantly the people of the Northern Territory responded in the right way—although, sadly, many left, never to return.
Reconstruction was itself a challenge. In February of 1975 Gough Whitlam set up the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, despite calls from several conservative politicians of the day to forget and leave Darwin as a small, isolated township or move it inland. This reconstruction committee was chaired by the former Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, and Sir Leslie Thiess and was headed up by Tony Powell. In May 1975, only eight months after work had begun, over 3,000 cyclone coded houses had been built by companies like Grollo, Barclays and others. Schools, clinics et cetera were also constructed. Prime Minister Fraser continued the reconstruction. By 1978 over 40,000 people were resident there. However, more than 60 per cent of the pre-Tracy population never went home. Of course, Malcolm Fraser granted self-government to the Northern Territory in 1978.
By the 1980s, Darwin was largely unrecognisable to the Darwin of 24 December 1974. I arrived in Darwin in the middle of 1975. It was a scene that you could never forget. When I went to live in Darwin, one of the first places that I lived in, in 1976, was a house on Bagot Road. I slept in the back room; the back room had no wall. It was an interesting place, to say the least.
The period was known for the many people who came to the Northern Territory to participate in the reconstruction. It was said that anyone who could put a nail bag on would get a job, and they did. They made a magnificent contribution to the rebuilding of Darwin and the Northern Territory. It is a tribute to them and all of those who were engaged that what we see today is the product of their work. We should never forget the sacrifices that were made but most importantly understand and remember the contributions made in that huge humanitarian operation by the Navy, the RAAF, Qantas and TAA personnel, doctors, nurses, police, public servants, construction crews, power and water teams, transport workers—they all deserve special mention. One of the people who worked during that period is a member of this parliament, the member for Leichhardt. He can tell you some interesting stories about his time in the period post-cyclone.
Many lessons have been learnt. What we know is that Mother Nature in this part of the world is incredibly dangerous and must never be underestimated. Australians in strife, we know, are indomitable and compassionate. We have proved time and time again—such as with Cyclone Althea and Cyclone Yasi in North Queensland and Black Friday in Victoria—that we know how to work together as a community and to respond for one another with great compassion, being aware of the welfare of all.
We should remember that the ABC's emergency role should never be jeopardised by funding cuts. The commitment to the North by the Whitlam government and subsequent governments should never be allowed to wither. It is a remarkable story, tragic but ultimately triumphant. Darwin's rise, phoenix-like, to the extraordinary city it is today proves it must never be forgotten. All schools should have it as part of their Australian history curriculum. I commend motion to the House.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:21): I want to confirm that I would like the list of the names of the victims of Cyclone Tracy recorded in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The list read as follows—
Andrew, Peter |
Lay, On'ing Owen |
Bell, Malini Palathil |
Lang, John Dudley (Jack) |
Bloomfield, Dorothy |
Lim, Arthur |
Bonner, Cecil Henry |
Macklin, Paul Alaister |
Brown, Geraldine Elizabeth |
Marshall, Ronald Charles |
Bruhn, Andrew Mark |
McNabb, Eric Arthur |
Bolger, Wotsanbuk (Bungun Major) |
Muir, William Daniel |
Burgess, Dean William |
Odawara, Shigemori |
Butler, Louisa Fanny |
Parker, George Valentine |
Calton, Leslie Kevin |
Portman, Suzanne Mary |
Chaney, Paul Mark |
Rennie, Ian Robert |
Clarke, Rose Susanna |
Roewer, George |
Clough, Eileen Patricia May |
Smaniotto, Giovanni |
Curtain, Raymond John |
Stephenson, Cherry Leonie Rose |
Daffey, Peter Brian |
Stephenson, Kylie Jane |
Daniel, Avis Winifred |
Swann, Robert Gordon |
Dearden, Graham William |
Taylor, John Thomas |
Dewar, Peter James |
Thompson, Gerald Frederick |
Dibua, Charles Joseph |
Thompson, Richard |
Fealy, David Grant |
Turner, John |
Fenton, Gary Roger |
Vincent, Ruth Nazmeena Adrienne |
Grant, Michael John |
Wade, Robert Norman |
Hampton, Raymond |
Wenck, Shirley |
Hanson, Thomas William |
Westerman, Gregory John |
Harder, Lisa Karoline |
Westwood, Terrance Carew |
Hoff, Donald James Duncan |
Wheatley, Kenneth James Scott |
Holten, Dennis Keith |
Williams, Kerry Lynda |
James, Rueben Paul |
Williams, Molly |
James, Richard Roland |
Waffle, Siegfried Karl Otto |
Knox, Catherine Michelle |
Wood, Jennifer Anne |
Knox, Elva Dawn |
Woulyatt, William |
Knox, Michael John |
Yoshida, Koji |
Knox, Stephen James |
Yu, Frederick Yee Char |
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Palestine
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:22): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that as of 1977, the United Nations made 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People;
(2) recognises 2014 as the United Nations International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (IYSPP); and
(3) acknowledges the objective of the IYSPP was to promote solidarity with the Palestinian people as a central theme, contributing to international awareness of:
(a) core themes regarding the Question of Palestine, as prioritised by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People;
(b) obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly those requiring urgent action such as settlements, Jerusalem, the blockade of Gaza and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, and;
(c) mobilisation of global action towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Question of Palestine in accordance with international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.
In moving this motion, I want to first acknowledge that in 1977 the United Nations declared 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. I also want to acknowledge that 2014 has been declared as the United Nations Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
I want to remind the House that it has been 67 years since the partition of Palestine and the occupation, which continues until today—an occupation that is devastating, demoralising and damaging for all involved. The time has now come for this to end. Australia, and indeed this parliament, must now recognise the state of Palestine. Australia must vote yes at the UN for Palestinian Statehood. Fifty six per cent of Australians are in favour of this and 135 countries have already done so.
In his message for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon affirmed that:
We have passed through another sombre, sad and sorry year for Palestinians, Israelis and all who seek peace. Over the course of 50 brutal days this summer, the world witnessed a ruthless war in Gaza — the third such conflict in six years.
He goes on to remind us:
An end of the conflict will only come through a negotiated and just political solution, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions.
He says further:
The Israeli and Palestinian people face a shared fate on shared land. There is no erasing the other. Yet I fear deeply that with each passing day the people of the region are losing any sense of connection — any sense of empathy — any sense of mutual understanding of our common humanity and common future.
He ends by calling on all parties, on this International Day of Solidarity:
… to step back from the brink. The mindless cycle of destruction must end. The virtuous circle of peace must begin.
In reiterating and echoing the UN Secretary-General's statements and sentiments, I want to stress that while the Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, marred in injustice, stained by oppression and steeped in despair, the politics of violence will always prevail.
Violence will beget violence and radicalisation, with more intifadas, suicide bombings and rockets rendering peace in the Middle East an ever-dwindling prospect. While this conflict continues to be trapped within the walls that enclave and entrap the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, its lasting, peaceful and just solution is just as trapped. While roadmaps to peace are blocked by intransigence and invasive unlawful settlements, there will be no peace not just for the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Middle East, the Arab and Muslim world and the Jewish diaspora but also for the rest of us in the world. Such is the passion, fury and the desperation that this conflict evokes, that even here in Australia, it has lent itself as a cause d'armes for misplaced and misunderstood radicalisation.
In 2011 I led a Parliamentary Friends of Palestine delegation to the region. We met with Dr Yossi Beilin, a leading Israeli political figure, who played an active role in the peace process during the time of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He indicated to us then that the progressive voices for peace in Israel were disappearing. Today it appears they have all but disappeared. As a consequence, the politics of desperation, cynicism and fear have garnered a political class that is hard, intransigent and unimaginative. In Israel today a dangerous, conservative sentiment prevails that is encapsulated by a foreign minister who will never accept a Palestinian state, a housing minister who intends to rebuild a temple on the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Israeli parliamentarians who join settlers praying in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and a Prime Minister that is leading his country and his people on a path where there are no real or genuine prospects for peace.
Last month, former Israeli President and Nobel Laureate, Shimon Peres, speaking on the 19th anniversary of the Yitzhak Rabin assassination, criticised Prime Minister Netanyahu's government for failing to make peace and declared: 'Those who have renounced making peace are not patriots.' He bemoaned: 'It's a shame that the only peace initiative was an Arab initiative.' Shimon Peres wondered, 'Where is the Israeli peace initiative?' and he warned that 'time is against us'.
On this day we need to go beyond simply urging both sides to come to the peace table. We need to demand, for the sake of peace and stability in the region and indeed the world, that all sides sit down and bring closure to this issue based on justice and international law. Finally on this day we need to acknowledge and understand that the prospects for a two-state solution are increasingly dissipating and we are left with very few options. We are potentially embarking on a road map that leads to nowhere. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Laundy: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:27): It is actually sad to stand here today having heard the previous member's address, which did not really hold out a lot of hope. Hope is our future. Hope is our present—hope for peace. The member reminded us that there are those of the Jewish faith who are still seeking peace—progressives for peace. But what were the words? They were: 'Peace—an ever-dwindling prospect.'
The world is in a state of fear that even resonates in this nation. There is not mutual understanding. In fact, there is not understanding that we can even think to grasp here in Australia, where we are free, where we can have an election, like yesterday, without fear or favour or threat of challenge or violence—even though everybody says the world is going to end if this party gets in or that party gets in—and where our children do not go without food, they do not live under threat, they do not go to school under threat, they are able to travel across borders with ease and they are not threatened at border posts.
Through the offices of this parliament, I have had the great, enlightening experience of going to the Middle East on two occasions. The first occasion was to look at the peace process in the Middle East in 1990. Nothing has changed since 1990. In fact, the situation seems to be far more intractable today—the fear, the divisions greater and the conflict greater and more repetitious. What did Ban Ki-moon say? Three major events in a short time. The threat is that there will be another major event shortly unless somebody comes to the table and says, 'This cannot happen.'
We do not understand the Israelis' fear of their borders being under attack from every side. We do not understand that. We do not live that life. We did not live under threat. But I should remind the House that, in my experience, on each occasion when this federal parliament has been represented in the Middle East we did not go and speak just with the Israelis or just get the Israelis' point of view. We always went to the Palestinians at the highest levels and spoke to them about the situation they were in—only to find by the time we arrived back in this country another issue had flared.
It is right that members of parliament in this place take an interest in human rights across the board, and they have. I have heard the responses. I understand the motion. What I do not understand is where we go from here. What is the pathway? What is the opportunity? I, personally, with all my discussions with the Friends of Palestine in this place and with the Israelis, do not have a response to give the parliament. I do not understand why, when a child gets in trouble, their family's house gets torn down. I have no concept of that.
But where Australia can play a role is that we can at least be interested. I hope as a nation we are able to use our good offices on every occasion with a view towards peace and not a view towards conflict. I reiterate that I am closely aligned with the state of Israel and will remain so. I believe that they have a right to exist and I will protect that right. On the other hand, I understand the pain of my fellow Christians in Palestine and all others in Palestine. I personally look forward to the resolution of the matters at the earliest time.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (11:32): I thank the member for Calwell for bringing this motion forward. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This motion is particularly pertinent at a time when Israel is facing severe internal and external criticism for its proposed 'Jewish state law', which will entrench apartheid in that state. It is also pertinent when there are clear signs that the international community is no longer prepared to accept empty platitudes of support for a two-state solution accompanied by unconvincing attempts at peace negotiations while the Israeli government continues to create more 'facts on the ground' in the form of settlements.
Sweden recently joined the 135 states that already recognise the state of Palestine. The UK and Spanish parliaments have passed resolutions in favour of a Palestinian state. There is clearly overwhelming international support for a Palestinian state, yet a just solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict remains elusive.
My core proposition is that finding a just solution to the conflict is not a contest between pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians. It is in fact about seeking a lasting resolution based on international law. The question then is: what does a just solution look like and how may it be achieved? In this context, it is important that the conflict between Palestine and Israel not be overcomplicated or mystified by reference to religious wars, a clash of civilizations or ancient enmities. The truth is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is not a complex problem.
Everyone knows that the final status questions are borders, Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. Thanks to the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, we know what international law says about all these questions. The ICJ, the highest court in the world, also known as the World Court, went through all the final status issues. The World Court said:
No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
It also said:
… the principle of self-determination of peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly …
It follows that the Palestinian people, whose existence the court said is no longer an issue, are entitled to the right to self-determination. Palestine's right to self-determination is not in international law subject to any performance criteria stipulated by Israel. No other oppressed people have had their right to self-determination made conditional on the preferences of the occupier.
The World Court found that the separation wall Israel built had been constructed in such a way as to include within it the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. The World Court said that all Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, had been established in breach of international law. Here is where the role of international solidarity becomes important. It is to help turn a legal victory into a political victory. It is to help convert a legal consensus into a political consensus.
When the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Arthur Balfour, wrote a letter to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in 1917 expressing support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, this document—somewhat grandly named the 'Balfour Declaration'—came to be regarded as doctrine wherever the question of Palestine was being discussed, and it was used as an instrument to legitimise the establishment of the state of Israel. Unfortunately, the important qualifying statement in the Balfour Declaration, 'it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine', is usually omitted whenever the declaration is referred to.
When the UN Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine was voted upon, the foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, referred to it as Israel's birth certificate. Like the Balfour declaration, it was raised everywhere the question of Palestine was being discussed. But Palestine has its birth certificate too, the 2004 opinion by the International Court of Justice. The ICJ judgment confers legitimacy on Palestine, and yet how often do we hear this opinion mentioned compared to, say, the Balfour Declaration and the partition resolution?
It is critical that we read, explain and publicise the ICJ opinion at every opportunity. Every year the UN General Assembly passes resolutions affirming Palestine's right to self-determination, and today the UN is much more representative of the world's peoples than it was back in 1947—decolonisation and independence struggles have seen to that, thankfully. The majority of the world's countries support a two-state solution, compensation for land, a right of return, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and the illegality of Israeli settlements under international law. These resolutions—which are also birth certificates for Palestine—go to the core issue, which, as I have said, is not about taking sides in a contest too often overloaded with irrelevant cultural and historical baggage or sidetracked by violence on both sides but is in fact about what is right under the rule of law by which all countries should abide.
The World Court and the UN General Assembly have clearly outlined the principles for resolving the conflict. Solidarity with Palestine means educating and organising along these lines.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:37): I rise today both to second the motion that the member for Calwell has brought to the chamber and to speak in favour of it. My predecessor spoke about going to Palestine. I have not had the opportunity to go to Palestine, but in a weird twist of events in the electorate I represent I did not have to, because people of Palestine came to me. I have lived in my part of Sydney my entire life, and in fact I am the third generation of my family to do that. Being Catholic you are cursed, I think, with leaning right on values and leaning very left on social justice. If you were to talk about this topic in my electorate, this is one that resonates. It is the social justice side of this that particularly resonates with me. I learn better by immersion and, after I was elected, the member for Calwell contacted me, I guess on a hunch that the demographics of my electorate would have over time given me exposure to this cause—and I am very thankful she did that. What I did do once I agreed to be the co-chair of the Friends of Palestine was that, because I am a simple character that learns better by immersion, I contacted friends of the member for Calwell and I asked to basically go and sit and listen, as I learn a lot better when I listen. I went one step further. It was a Saturday afternoon in Auburn and around 50 or 60 people had gathered together. I took my wife and my two daughters with me to spend an afternoon with some truly amazing people and to listen to their stories.
We hear the constant referral to the two-state solution; both parties refer to it. But I am as frustrated as the previous speakers are on this topic, because quite often I believe this is used as a line to hide behind; it does not get past that. The sole motivation of everyone in this place is to make this country and this world a better place for our kids—and to do so, this is an issue we need to attack; we need to be real about it. I have great faith in the hearts of Australians—I always have had and I always will have. A slang term that we use is the 'fair go'. For the last almost 60 years, the people of Palestine have not had a fair go. What my wife and daughters and I heard that afternoon over three hours was story after story from first generation and second generation Palestinians. We heard about the impact that the situation in Palestine has had on the parents. Imagine, if you will, going home this afternoon and going to put your key in the door and it doesn't fit. You think, 'Hang on a minute. What's happened here?' You knock on the door, and someone that you do not know opens the door. They are in your home. That is what happened in Palestine. That is what happened all those years ago. A people were displaced and they have been fighting for their identity every since. That is it simply. If you look at the Middle East and the issues that we as a globe confront today, we can trace it pretty much back to this region some 60 or 70 years ago. Anyone who stands in this place and argues differently is not being fair dinkum.
We got back in the car after three hours. I am blessed with three beautiful children, and all of them, fortunately, look like and take after their mum. In the safety of our own car, where we could voice our opinions and talk amongst ourselves about this issue, my middle daughter, my 15-year-old daughter, Sophie, said from the back seat, 'Dad, you've got to do something to help.' You cannot listen to the stories of people who were directly impacted on this front and not come away with any other desire than to help—and to do that we must be fair dinkum. We must take our soft diplomatic voice through both the UN and the halls of these chambers. The things discussed in this chamber should not be influenced by the power of the lobby; they should be influenced by what is right.
Member for Calwell, in the Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People—many of whom call my electorate home—what you propose here is right. I will stand side by side with you at all times on this issue. I will debate this topic and yell for change—because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing every day and hoping for a different solution.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:43): I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Reid when he says that to be a member of this parliament and do nothing is wrong. We were elected to this parliament to make our country and the world a better place. We have allowed the situation in Palestine, in the Middle East, to continue since 1949, and it is unacceptable.
The International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is about promoting solidarity; it is about saying that what is happening in Palestine, what is happening in the Middle East, is wrong and that we have got to bring about a change. In 2011, I visited Palestine with the member for Calwell and the member for Fremantle. What I experienced there was not what I thought I was going to experience. It was something which I was not prepared for. It was something that I did not know existed in that form. Prior to my visit, I did not quite understand what 'occupation' meant. It was not until I saw the separation wall, until I learned of the difficulties faced by the Palestinian people each and every day of their lives and until I learned of the barriers that were put in place of these people by the bureaucracy that I understood. And, of course, until I visited Palestine I did not really understand what the settlements were. I did not know about the housing demolitions that have created so much angst amongst the Palestinian people.
I visited Gaza, and my visit to Gaza was life changing. The Gaza people have had three conflicts within the last six years. Each and every day of their life is a struggle for their existence. I visited UN schools in Gaza and I listened to young people. I listened to how human rights have been incorporated into the curriculum. I learnt how important it was for the human rights of people to be respected and about the impact that the occupation has had in Palestine.
It is imperative that the Middle East conflict comes to an end. Until peace—and lasting peace—has been reached in the Middle East, it will have an enormous impact on the world. Not only will peace benefit Palestine but it will also benefit the Israeli people.
A two-state solution is one that provides respect to both parties. I do not know how we can stand in this parliament, deny the right for the Palestinian people to exist and just give lip-service to the fact that we support a two-party solution, yet, at every opportunity that we have as a nation, we stand up and vote against that happening. We put in place barrier after barrier. We show no support for reaching that solution. As the member for Reid said in this place, how can we in all conscience allow this to continue? I cannot. I cannot stand here and argue that what is happening in Palestine is the right thing. I cannot argue that the blockade should continue in Jerusalem, where sick people are denied access to medical treatment. I cannot support a situation where the lives of people living in Jerusalem are subjected to the worst sort of apartheid. I cannot under any circumstance support the continuation of the settlements.
The UK and the Spanish parliaments, as the member for Fremantle stated in her contribution, have stated their support for Palestine. I think it is time for us, as a parliament, to stand up and put on record our support for the Palestinian people and our real support for a two-party solution.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:48): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ): No, we are all Deputy Speaker.
Ms O'DWYER: Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are all Deputy Speaker; there is no-one acting.
Ms O'DWYER: Okay. This debate comes at a worrying time in the Middle East, as we hope for a peaceful agreement between Israel, the Palestinian people and the wider Arab states. There are justifiable pronouncements that we are witnessing the start of a third Palestinian intifada. I was horrified by the recent mutilation of five Israelis, including a Druze policeman, who were butchered in the recent attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem. This follows the hostilities over our winter between Israel and Hamas. The hostilities saw Hamas terrorising the citizens of Israel through their bombardment of towns and cities. Innocent adults and children were killed and maimed on both sides as a result of Hamas purposefully firing from civilian areas and even United Nations schools and hospitals.
Despite 20 years of attempts to reach a final status solution between Israel and the Palestinian people, the Australian government continues to call on all parties to work through negotiations to achieve a peaceful and secure solution for all Israelis and the Palestinians. I respect Ms Vamvakinou, and I believe that she is very sincere in aiming for a true and peaceful solution. But it is my view that this motion does not achieve that.
The twenty-ninth day of November should really be a happy day for the entire region. If we go back in history, 29 November 1947 was the day that the United Nations voted for the petition plan recognising both the future state of Israel and a Palestinian-Arab state. While Israel accepted the proposal, the Arab nations refused to accept any proposal that recognised a Jewish-Israeli state and then went to war with all that followed.
In order to achieve peace, we need to encourage both sides to take positive steps that can achieve peace for all. I am fortunate that I have visited Israel twice, and I have seen how Israel is trying to achieve this. I have also visited the city of Ramallah on two separate occasions. During my time visiting Israel I saw a united Jerusalem where, since 1967, all religions have been able to live in the city and visit their holy sites safely and peacefully—a situation that was not the case prior to that date. I saw a successful, democratic country where all citizens were treated equally. There were Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Palestinians attending Israeli universities and the wounded from Syria being treated in Israeli hospitals. I saw a place where women are treated equally. I saw a place where sexuality does not define you and where gay people can live their lives knowing that they are protected by the law. I also know that most Israeli politicians, including Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, appreciate a Palestinian state.
On the issue of a blockade of Gaza, it is my view that the facts do not align with an idea that there is somehow a medical and food aid blockade. This is simply not the case. Medical and food aid continue to be allowed by Israel into Gaza. Even the granddaughter of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was transferred from Gaza to an Israeli hospital for treatment this year. However, over the years, Hamas has also imported into Gaza building materials which were then used to build terror tunnels to attack Israeli citizens rather than to build homes and schools for their residents.
I am very concerned about the way in which Israel and the Jewish people are portrayed in Palestinian schools and on television shows—an education which encourages continued hatred and denial of Israel's very right to exist. It is my view that the continued hatred of Israel, encouraged by the Palestinian leadership, is one of the real obstacles to the ongoing peace process. I do not believe, though, that this represents the true nature of the Palestinian people. Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved by all the parties negotiating a mutually equitable outcome. I continue to call on all parties to show restraint and hope that Israelis and the Palestinians can live in peace and security through a negotiated two-state solution.
Debate adjourned.
Coastal Shipping
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (11:53): I move:
That this House:
(l) acknowledges the detrimental results of the former Labor Government's coastal shipping regulatory changes introduced between 2009 and 2012 which have significantly impacted on Tasmania;
(2) agrees that the number of major Australian registered ships with coastal shipping licenses fell from 30 in 2006-07 to just 13 in 2012-13;
(3) recognises that the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 adversely affected the Australian maritime industry, with Tasmania losing its international shipping service because of changes to cabotage;
(4) recognises the great potential of a coastal trading sector unconstrained by needless red tape and distorted shipping arrangements;
(5) notes the review into coastal shipping undertaken as a matter of priority by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development with its findings currently being considered by the Minister's office; and
(6) urges the House to reform the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 to mitigate the damage that has already occurred, particularly in the state of Tasmania.
The changes to coastal shipping in 2009 and again in 2012 under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012, particularly in relation to cabotage rules, damaged our nation's competitiveness, decreased productivity on our vital coastal shipping routes and pushed up costs. Higher costs have seen manufacturers in aluminium, cement and fuel refining have no choice but to use coastal shipping for their products and raw materials, and a number of these businesses have closed in recent years as a result of dramatically higher rates for coastal shipping.
The changes by Labor have impacted nationally but, as an island state, nowhere has been harder hit than my state of Tasmania. The last international vessel to service Tasmania, the AAA service, stopped at Bell Bay and other domestic ports on the east coast before heading back to Singapore. The service ceased under the changes made by the previous government, overseen by the member for Grayndler. One might ask who the member was bidding for. It certainly was not the manufacturers, farmers and exporters in my state. Perhaps it was for the members of the MUA.
When the AAA service was deemed unviable more volume moved on to Bass Strait and, with no competition due to the competitiveness of Australian ships, prices went up. In fact, the number of major Australian registered ships with licences to move coastal freight fell from 30 in 2006-07 to just 13 by 2012-13. Whilst the number of vessels has marginally risen since the period of the Australian sea freight 2012-13 report, deadweight tonnage has plummeted by 64 per cent over the last two years.
The state government at the time responded, after ignoring the problem for two years hoping it would go away, with the policy of going into competition with the private businesses plying Bass Strait—great! The then opposition, now government, committed $33 million over three years to entice, encourage and, if you will, subsidise the service to return to Tasmania and service hubs in Asia. No more starkly can you see the financial impact directly on Tasmania as a result of Labor's changes in government. Multiply that cost around the country and consider the length of our coastline and you can imagine the impact on business that relied on such services.
Australia is not an island, at least not in the sense of the way we compete in the cost of our goods getting to market. Australia is a signatory to the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, the MLC, which came into force in August 2013. To date, 64 ILO member states, representing more than 80 per cent of the world's global shipping tonnage, have ratified the convention. The MLC provides an international safety net of standards regulating seafarer employment relationships for the world's 1½ million seafarers and creates a level playing field for shipowners and ship operators.
I know that they are enforced very strictly here in this country. I will provide some examples of the direct impact on businesses in my state, but I emphasise this is indeed a national issue. Norske Skog pays 27 per cent more to move paper across the 420 kilometres of Bass Strait to the port of Melbourne than the cost of moving paper from their mill in Albury, also roughly 420 kilometres—the same distance. The demise of coastal shipping has reduced the routine services they depend upon to Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. When you compare costs at New Norfolk to their operation in New Zealand, it gets worse. New Zealand to south Queensland is 30 per cent higher, New Zealand to New South Wales is 10 per cent higher and New Zealand to Western Australia is 10 per cent higher—all with the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme taken into account. New Zealand into Asia compared to New Norfolk into Asia is 35 per cent without the TFES and roughly 15 to 20 per cent with the TFES. It is a disaster.
Farm machinery manufacturer Mick Boyd from Longford paid $800 for moving a cultivator from Rotterdam to Melbourne. From Melbourne to Devonport is $1,600. Hansen Orchards, in the electorate of Franklin, for a 12-kilogram carton to Sydney, including the TFES, pays $4.40 compared to an 18-kilogram box ex New Zealand on international freight services for around $1. Wood machining from Melbourne pays $4,000 to Longford—the same piece up the Hume Highway would cost around $900.
This was a scathing report that the Productivity Commission gave. The commission found that as an island state Tasmania was especially vulnerable to regulation and regulatory changes that increased the cost of coastal shipping trade. This was failed policy by Labor. Every Tasmanian senator and member should support the scrapping of the changes that were made in 2009-12.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Nikolic: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (11:58): This motion really does two things. One is to divert attention away from the fact that the Liberal Party, since coming to office in September 2013, has done nothing at all about Bass Strait freight. Despite all of its promises, it has done nothing. It promised a lot and it has delivered nothing. It has had the Productivity Commission report that was referred to by the member for Lyons since 7 March this year. What has happened to it? Nothing. We have had Minister Truss come down and, essentially, say that the Joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian Economic Council will look at it. That was in June. There is still nothing from that report. We have had the members for Bass, Braddon and Lyons talk about the possibility of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme being opened up to north-bound exports. And then, of course, in the last few weeks we have heard this murmuring about coastal shipping.
But coastal shipping, of course, is really talking about the wages—the wages of the Australian workers on the ships. This government has never seen a worker's wage it does not want to cut. We have seen that recently. We have seen it with the ADF and we have seen in the past, because it will take every opportunity it can to attack workers.
But if you look at the history of Bass Strait freight and how complex an issue it is, and if you talk to industry and to the exporters who are trying to get produce off the island, it is much more complicated than those opposite would have you believe. That is why, of course, the Labor government introduced the Freight Logistics Coordination Team in 2011 to deal with the issues and to have the people that are trying to get produce and freight off the island in conversation with the government about what levers government has and what governments can do. That led to Labor investing $40 million over two years to help exporters tackle the high freight costs and to grow and export their volumes and their value. It would fund the establishment of the expert advisory support and a trial of an online trading portal especially aimed at small agricultural producers and look at the ways of cutting waste, particularly when it comes to empty shipping containers across the strait.
We looked at this very, very carefully, and we had $40 million on the table—$20 million from the Commonwealth and $20 million from the state. What happened when those opposite came to government? They scrapped that $40 million that industry and people had asked for in Tasmania. Since then, they have had the Productivity Commission review, which we talked about, which they have had since 7 March. That review, of course, said what every other Productivity Commission review has said—that is, there is no coherent economic rationale for the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. The Productivity Commission report said what we said it would say, and that is that the scheme should be scrapped. This is, of course, not what we support on this side of the House. But, clearly, they went into that report knowing that it was going to come to this conclusion. Since then, they have done absolutely nothing with it.
To make it worse, the state Liberal government came out just last week with the same announcement that the former state Labor government made in February. It was the exact same announcement—that is, they are commencing negotiations for an international ship to go out of Tasmania to export our goods—except that, of course, the state Liberal government are saying it is going to cost more than when Labor was having those same negotiations. So the state Liberal government and the federal Liberal government said that they were going to fix Bass Strait. And, of course, they have not been able to do it, because it is complex. They made all sorts of promises to exporters and to people who want to get freight off the island, and they have delivered nothing—nothing at all.
When are they actually going to deliver a response to this Productivity Commission report? When are they actually going to tell Tasmanians how they intend to resolve it? From talking to those exporters and those people who have ramped up production because of Labor's $100 million jobs and growth plan, we know it has seen volumes increase and has seen these industries grow—
Government members interjecting—
Ms COLLINS: You are all very happy over there to go and make these re-announcements and see these industries grow, I am sure, and the jobs that grow from them, because your name is on every press release for the $100 million that Labor committed. And we have seen it working. We have seen these industries grow. We have seen them expand. They are now all complaining that, of course, they cannot get stuff off the island, because you have let them down. They are telling me that the Liberal Party have let them down at the state and federal levels, because they have not delivered what they promised they would deliver. (Time expired)
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (12:03): Bell Bay Aluminium, in my electorate of Bass, is, sadly, one of the few businesses of its size left in northern Tasmania. Its importance simply cannot be overstated. It uses 25 per cent of Tasmania's total electricity; it contributes $700 million year on year into the Tasmanian economy; and it is responsible for supporting 1,000 direct or indirect jobs. The General Manager of Bell Bay Aluminium, Ray Mostogl, is a very good bloke, a capable bloke. Last Friday, he won The CEO Magazine's Manufacturing Executive of the Year Award. Ray Mostogl is one of those people who is not murmuring; he is screaming for change in the coastal shipping area. He said publicly that, after Labor introduced the coastal trading act in 2012, 'Bell Bay Aluminium faced a 63 per cent increase in its freight rates.' He has said that this has, 'led to greatly reduced shipping options and competition'. And critically, he identifies sea freight as, 'one of the key means to keep the Bell Bay aluminium smelter viable'.
There is not a murmur, as the member for Franklin says, about coastal shipping; it is a scream from manufacturers and businesses in our home state of Tasmania. Mr Mostogl draws a clear link between Labor's coastal shipping regulations, the impact on shipping costs and the direct viability of his company in Tasmania. So you might dismiss these people, member for Franklin, as irrelevant to the debate, but we take them a little more seriously on this side of the House.
Mr Mostogl has revealed that leaving ships idle at ports for a day—as demanded by the MUA before loading can commence—costs international ships $10,000 a day and Australian ships up to $20,000 a day. He points out, as the member for Lyons did, that freight rates from Tasmania to Queensland in the first year of Labor's coastal trading act rose dramatically from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012—while international rates elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere are about half that at $17.50. Mr Mostogl is just one of those stakeholders demanding change in this important policy area.
I wonder what the member for Franklin, the member for Grayndler and the member for Denison might say to the 130 people at Bell Bay Aluminium who lost their jobs in the last two years of the Labor-Green government, partly as a result of this ridiculous change. What would they say to those people? I am sure they would flick them onto the Greens leader, Christine Milne, who said in last Saturday's Examiner, where she denigrated Bell Bay Aluminium and the three other major industrial companies in Tasmania as, 'exaggerators wanting a handout'. They are not exaggerators; they are taxpayers and employers of people in our state, member for Franklin, and you should be ashamed of supporting this coastal trading change that the member for Grayndler made. I express my absolute disgust at what we are hearing from the member for Franklin when it comes to Tasmanian jobs.
As Tasmania's representative on the coalition's deregulation committee, I want to continue removing bad Labor-Green legislation from the productive components of our economy. I want to roll back these special deals with the MUA and the union handlers, which have contributed to reduced productivity and a growing disparity between domestic shipping costs and shipping from overseas.
I know the member for Grayndler and his offsider, the member for Franklin, revel in the shrine that has been established for them on the MUA website by Paddy Crumlin—that wonderful shrine to the member for Grayndler. But he would get a different reception in Tasmania—and so would you, Member for Franklin—if you ventured outside of Hobart and talked to some of these big producers about what they think about coastal shipping regulations.
Under Labor's protectionist permit system, there were almost 1,000 fewer coastal voyages and almost two million fewer tonnes of freight moved by foreign vessels in 2012-13. There has been a huge decline in coastal freight loaded in 2012-13 compared to five years earlier under the Howard government. It is the knee-jerk policies we saw from Labor with the live cattle trade that cost jobs in the cattle industry and, as the Productivity Commission has shown, are costing jobs in Tasmania. We are determined to roll back these changes, release our coastal trading potential and support Tasmania's economic revitalisation.
Unlike the Greens, the member for Franklin, the member for Grayndler and the member for Denison, the Tasmanian Liberals will continue to stand up for jobs in our state and push for urgent changes to Labor's coastal trading act.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12:08): This motion is a dud. It is a dud for three obvious reasons. First, it is clearly an attack on Australian workers, because the federal government obviously has a preference for foreign ships and foreign crews working our coastline. We have precious few ships and precious few Australian workers on our coastline at the moment. If this motion was ultimately to be enacted and to become the law of the land and the coastal shipping reforms of the previous government were to be overturned, then some of those people would lose their jobs. Those who remained would have to endure diminished conditions of service.
The second issue is that this is an attack on the rights of workers to organise and negotiate. This is clearly an attack on the MUA and the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, two of the key unions that represent Australian workers on Australian ships. But I do not want to dwell on those first two issues, on how it is an attack on workers and an attack on unions. I want to dwell on what this is really all about. This is all about Bass Strait. This is all about the federal Liberal-National government not wanting to do anything to remedy the situation with Bass Strait, and the situation is that Bass Strait is and remains the most significant brake on Tasmanian economic development and it is the easiest to fix.
I will give you a sense of how big a problem it is. To get a 20-foot container of some sort of commodity from Hobart to a North American market, it costs $500 to get the container to a northern Tasmanian port, another $1,000 to get that container from the north of Tasmania landed in the port of Melbourne—so we are up to $1,500—but only $500 to get that container from the port of Melbourne to the North American market. In other words, three quarters of the cost of shipping a container from Hobart to North America is getting it landed in the port of Melbourne from Hobart. The majority of that cost is getting it across Bass Strait. Yes, we can tinker around the edges with an international shipping service in Bell Bay that will advantage a small number of Australian producers and yes we can commission a Productivity Commission report, but frankly what is needed—and it is quite simple—is an effective subsidy arrangement applying to all people, vehicles and freight in and out of Tasmania across Bass Strait.
Government members interjecting—
Mr WILKIE: One of the reasons the broad community treats politicians with complete and utter contempt is that they are sick of all this mudslinging and abuse in places like this. I sat here quietly and I showed respect to the two government speakers. I would ask that they do the same to me and then maybe the community will treat us with more respect.
So, what is needed? It is quite simply an effective subsidy arrangement for all people, vehicle and freight in and out of the state. That will take leadership. I understand that the government has an ideological position—it wants to reduce the cost of business. That is what I want to do as well. The government also has an opposition towards organised labour and opposition to the unions. What I ask the government to do is show some really strong leadership here and put the ideological battle off to the side and act in the public interest.
We have talked a lot about these firms and the difficulties that they have to endure. Think about Blundstone—it makes gumboots in Moonah in my electorate. Think about the fact that three-quarters of the cost of getting those gumboots to their North American markets is just getting them landed in the port of Melbourne. Deregulating coastal shipping in Australia will do next to nothing to help that company. In fact, the government itself has already, with its two speakers, given a number of examples of Tasmanian businesses who are crippled by the high costs of Bass Strait. You were giving the examples yourself and I have given another example of Blundstone boots. The fact is that the strait is a crippling brake on our economy and, until we can give effective subsidies to bring it into line with transporting goods across a similar distance on the mainland, Tasmanian businesses will be fundamentally disadvantaged.
Remember, if we help the businesses we help the community. Yes it might take a little bit more federal money up front to improve the subsidy arrangements, but I tell you what, members of the government—it will save Canberra money in the long run. The more we boost the economy, the more we do not need other handouts from Canberra.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (12:14): What an amazing contribution from the member for Denison—the man who claimed to all Australians that he was the most influential member of the lower house for the years 2010 to 2013. He said he was going to do great things for our state and great things for our country. He has made a compelling case on a number of the issues that we are concerned about as Tasmanian MPs. Why didn't you, Mr Willkie, member for Denison, do anything about it for the three years that you were apparently—according to yourself—the most powerful man in this country? You did nothing.
Mr Wilkie: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think any good comes from the government verballing me. I have never said what he has claimed I said.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ): That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.
Mr WHITELEY: We have the member for Denison taking this holier than thou line that he is the only respectable member in this chamber, and everyone else is riffraff.
Let me get back to the point. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, coupled with the Tasmanian Labor-Greens coalition, have failed my state on just about every single social and economic indicator: unemployment levels are up, education levels are down and budgets on both fronts are in massive deficit. Of all the failures of those two governments, including the federal government, the coastal trading act was perhaps the most effective in assisting the former government in hogtying the Tasmanian economy. Shipping is the lifeblood of the Tasmanian economy. When shipping works, the Tasmanian economy works; when shipping fails, the Tasmanian economy fails.
Just a few weeks ago there was a press release from the Maritime Union of Australia which said, 'We are urging the Abbott government to protect Australian jobs.' They should rewrite that. What they are urging the Abbott government to do is to protect their jobs. At the end of the day, as a government, we have a job to protect all jobs. We do not protect one sector of the economy—10 jobs here—but cost 50 jobs there. If you come to my state and go around my electorate, manufacturers will tell you they have been shedding jobs now for years and years and years. But what this government did was put in place the productivity report. It is, member for Franklin, a complex matter, and we are working very diligently on it.
Under the previous Labor government's coastal shipping reform—where shipping companies were loaded down with bureaucracy, red tape and the need for endless permits, coupled with union protectionism—the shipping industry was effectively run into the ground, costing jobs and increasing costs to consumers and exporters. Yes, it saved some jobs—the jobs that obviously count to the Australian Labor Party—but in my electorate, in my state, it has cost hundreds of other jobs. What you are really saying on the other side of this chamber is that is okay to protect these jobs, and we will do whatever we have to do through legislation, but at the cost of hundreds of other jobs, which obviously do not count.
Labor's coastal shipping reforms are really a throwback to the old Labor new protectionist platform of the early 1990s. Just 49 million tonnes of coastal freight was loaded in 2012-13. Five years earlier, it was over 59 million tonnes. Over the period 2010 to 2030, Australia's freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent. While the national road and rail component is projected to double, coastal shipping movements are only expected to grow by a mere 15 per cent.
These sorts of figures will not surprise anyone—not least the Labor Party or the member for Grayndler, who will be in the chamber to wrap up this debate—because they knew exactly what they were doing when they introduced this backward-looking reform. They knew that, by implementing their union protectionist policies, overloading shipping companies with red tape and requiring permit after permit to ship goods around the country, it would cost the industry billions of dollars, it would increase the cost of goods to consumers, it would cost jobs and it would hurt the Tasmanian economy. But they pressed ahead regardless of the damage that it was going to wreak on every single business that relies on shipping in this country and particularly in the state of Tasmania—including businesses in my electorate.
In December 2010 the then shadow minister for transport, the Hon. Warren Truss, said:
This change would immediately take us back to the bad old days where companies wanting to ship product around Australia would have to wait weeks and sometimes months for an Australian flagged and crewed vessel to become available.
The now Deputy Prime Minister predicted:
It will be cheaper and simpler to import products from Asia, the United States and even Europe than it will to move them from one port to another in Australia. It will be more attractive to process Australian raw materials overseas than to ship them to an Australian port.
He was spot on. It has cost Tasmanian producers, manufacturers and small businesses money and jobs. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:19): The oncers who have promoted this motion before the chamber do not know what they are talking about. They are driven by an ideological position that says: when in trouble on an issue, attack workers. That is their reflex position. They do not understand the reforms that were introduced by the former federal Labor government and they do not understand what the challenges are for the shipping sector in Tasmania.
The industry agreed with us. We did not write the policy. We sat down and worked with industry, and what they came up with were issues such as the volume of exports, which is one of the big challenges. So how do you facilitate an increase in the volume of exports? You do so through practical measures. For example, by dealing with salmon so that it is not frozen but semifrozen, and giving public support for that, you increase not just the value of the product at its end destination but also the volume of exports, due to the demand that increases for that product. They were practical solutions, not the simplistic, just-smash-workers solution that is being put forward.
Our shipping reforms were not a protectionist model. If you want to look at a protectionist model, have a look at the Jones act in the United States and what other countries do with their shipping policy. What we said was: 'We want a level playing field for Australian shipping. We want them to be able to compete with their international competitors on an equal basis.' So we undertook measures such as slashing tax rates on Australian shipping companies to zero; introducing a seafarers tax offset to encourage the employment of Australians, something that this government is trying to abolish now; and creating the Australian International Shipping Register, allowing foreign-owned vessels limited access to tax relief provided that they hire Australians as senior officers and commit to investment in skills training. They are the sorts of measures that we undertook. In Tasmania, a $37.5 million fund was set up to help Tasmanian companies overcome obstacles to increase exports.
But what we see from this government is an attempt to throw all of that out. They say that workers who staff ships around the Australian coast should not be paid Australian wages. Just think about that. At the same time, we are having a debate about the China free trade agreement, where Andrew Robb says it will not allow Australian wages and working conditions to be undermined by Chinese wages and working conditions. If a truck that goes from Melbourne to Sydney happens to be owned by a Filipino who brought in a Filipino worker in order to drive that truck, that driver cannot be paid foreign wages. Shipping cannot be undertaken in those circumstances either.
It is not just about the undermining of working conditions. We know that, if you look at where incidents have occurred around the coast—incidents that have a significant impact on the Australian economy—they have involved foreign-flagged ships. We know that flags of convenience represent a problem not just for the economy but also, potentially, for the environment due to the damage that can occur, such as what occurred off the Gladstone coast just a few years ago, and national security. It amazes me that those opposite, who speak a lot about border security, are quite prepared to have the Australian flag completely disappear from the Australian coast. This is not Work Choices; this is Work Choices on water. That is what they want. They want Work Choices on water to enable the replacement of what remains of the Australian shipping industry.
We have an opposite approach. We want to build the Australian shipping industry. We want to build its capacity. It has not been given a chance to work, because those opposite have been busy undermining the investment that would occur from the business community. The business community will not invest in a program that the current government are saying that they will get rid of; common sense tells you that. Those opposite have failed in their approach. They have retreated to the old-fashioned, bash-the-worker approach. That is simply not good enough and not in the interests of Tasmania. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Lung Health Awareness Month
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:24): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that November is Lung Health Awareness Month;
(2) acknowledges that lung disease contributes to more than 10 per cent of the overall health burden in Australia, and was the cause of:
(a) 20,376 deaths in 2012, almost 14 per cent of all deaths;
(b) 276,505 hospitalisations in 2011-12, representing 3 per cent of all hospitalisations; and
(c) more than 1.4 million hospital patient-days in 2011-12, over 5 per cent of all patient days;
(3) recognises that at least 1 in 10 Australians will be affected by lung disease;
(4) takes note of the new initiative launched by Lung Foundation Australia (LFA), Just One Breath, which explores the extraordinary things that can be done with just one breath;
(5) shares the message with constituents, friends, family and other loved ones, to get everyone thinking about their own lung health, and encourages them to visit www.justonebreath.com.au and share the champions' stories; and
(6) commends the work of LFA in raising awareness, supporting those affected by lung disease, developing clinical resources and supporting research to find a cure for lung disease.
This motion notes that November was Lung Health Awareness Month, and it also highlights the fact that 10 per cent of the overall health burden in Australia is caused by lung disease—20,376 deaths in 2012 and 14 per cent of all deaths. So it is a very significant illness and one that needs to be taken seriously. There were 276,505 hospitalisations, representing three per cent of all hospitalisations, with more than 1.4 million hospital patient days, in 2011.
People that are living with lung disease quite often feel stigmatised by the fact that they have this illness, and quite often the reason for their not having healthy lungs is falsely attributed to their own behaviour. But, regardless of the cause of a person's lung disease, it is really important that they receive support, from a personal perspective and from a health perspective, in eliminating health costs. Lung disease impacts on people in various ways. They have difficulty walking long distances and are often unable to work or participate in leisure activities. You can see how the failure to be able to participate in work activities has an impact on our economy. Even simple things such as showering can be quite difficult for people living with lung disease. They can have panic attacks, anxiety and depression. Inactivity and inadequate self-management lead to a deterioration in health. These people can quite often become what is commonly referred to as 'frequent flyers' within the health system, simply because they do not get the right sort of rehabilitation that they need.
Last week the member for Hasluck and I launched the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Lung Foundation, and that was a very interesting and informative launch. At that launch, Professor Jennifer Alison talked to those of us that were gathered there about lung rehabilitation and about one of the lung diseases that is very frequent, COPD. These people that are living with COPD are frequent visitors to hospital accident and emergency rooms and then end up being admitted to hospital. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an eight-week program of exercise and education. It is individually tailored so that the person can live to a safe level of functionality, participate in more community activities and also live within the community. It limits the symptoms of breathlessness so that panic attacks are minimised. They take their medication properly; they coordinate their breathing with movement so they can do their tasks in a more normal way. This all leads to a reduction in infection and reduces the signs of infection at a very early time.
Not only does it improve the quality of life by increasing functional capacity but it keeps people well and out of hospital. By reducing hospitalisation, it reduces the cost to our health system, it reduces the in-patient bed days, it reduces the mortality and it also, as I mentioned, reduces the health costs. The average number of bed days in public hospitals currently is 4.5 and in private hospitals it is 7.7.
There is a fantastic campaign that we also learnt about and which is mentioned in the motion. It is Just One Breath. It was launched in conjunction with Lung Health Awareness Week, and it has tips for good lung health and a simple lung health checklist. Also, music and sporting stars share their Just One Breath stories: Christine Anu, Casey Dellacqua, James Morrison, Melissa Breen, Matt Hall, Archie Roach and Justen 'Jughead' Allport all show what they can do with 'just one breath'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (12:30): I second the motion. I was always told that the first rule of public speaking was to take a deep breath. So here I go: in, out. Breathing is one of the simplest daily actions that we so often take for granted. Healthy lungs are fundamental to a healthy life, but half of all Australians rarely think about their lungs. According to recent research by the Lung Foundation Australia, most Australians think they have no lung health issues, and so lung disease often goes undiagnosed. Most are unaware of the symptoms, which can be as common as a cough or a feeling of breathlessness that many will attribute to being unfit or out of shape.
At least one in 10 Australians do in fact have lung disease. That figure is highest in children and older Australians. Lung disease is not just cancer. It ranges from illnesses we hear about commonly, such as asthma, bronchitis and the flu, to more serious diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. Typically, younger Australians suffer from asthma, and older Australians suffer from lung cancer or COPD. Indigenous Australians die of lung diseases at a rate that is three times higher than other Australians.
It is easy to focus on the facts and figures about lung diseases, but it is harder to imagine what life is like for those experiencing it. I have had asthma since the age of 27. As a young schoolteacher I remember having to walk away from the blackboard and reach for a Ventolin inhaler in the middle of teaching, hoping I would not lose the attention of my lively class. Now as the member for Hasluck I take my puffer each morning and night and take care to carry it with me as I visit local businesses and schools in my electorate. I even have it with me here in the chamber today. In my case, the saying 'take time to stop and smell the roses' is more about taking time to keep my lungs healthy by monitoring my breathing patterns and living an active lifestyle—although not active enough. I am lucky to have been well supported in managing my asthma, and lung health has become part of my daily life. My experience is one of the good ones. It makes sense when you think about it, but in many cases lung disease has wide-ranging implications for quality of life.
I am in a multiparty group called the Parliamentary Friends of Lung Foundation Australia, and last Wednesday, with the member for Shortland, I hosted an event to launch a new lung-health awareness campaign for the foundation. We heard stories from lung disease sufferers who found that their lung diseases affected their daily choices. One Canberra woman with lung disease told us that her shortness of breath often influenced her decision to stay on the couch rather than getting up and being active. This is despite the fact that being active is a key part of the recommended rehabilitation for the lung condition she has. Through engagement with lung disease rehabilitation, she has learnt not to hold her breath.
What was interesting about the onset of my asthma at the age of 27 was that I, like every other Australian, took my lungs for granted before that. We think we are immortal with our lungs. Yet they are an organ that has a profound impact on so many other parts of the body—because if we do not get oxygen then we do not give our body the nourishment it needs in order for our brains to remain active. I know that my way of challenging the irrefutable fact that I had asthma was to not seek medical treatment but to try and exercise actively, until I was told that it only takes four minutes to kill you. That changed my mind, because awareness of that was important. I think, in the whole area of looking after our lungs, we need to give serious attention to what the implications might be. Even a short pain when breathing is often a sign that there is something wrong.
With just one breath, I can bring local issues from Hasluck to the floor of the parliament. With the member for Shortland, I will continue to be a strong advocate for developing awareness of the impact that diseases can have on our lungs and the importance of our lungs to being able to have a full, rich life with a future. Thank you.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:34): Can I start by congratulating the member for Shortland for bringing this matter before the House? As a former chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health, she has been a passionate advocate for so many conditions that would otherwise fly below the radar and would not be brought to the attention of this parliament, were it not for the tireless work of the member for Shortland.
Like me, she represents an electorate which has long drawn its wealth and its identity from industrial activity and coal mining. Tragically, what comes with coal mining and with a lot of industrial activity, particularly in the years when we were growing up, are the associated dust diseases. When you come from a region like ours you are acutely aware of the impact of dust diseases and lung related diseases on public health—whether it is an uncle, a neighbour, a family member or somebody you know there will be somebody who is touched by it. In my own district there is dusty lung from coal mining, mesothelioma and any of the other asbestos-related diseases which are all too common in the neighbourhoods around which we grew up.
We take the view that people are entitled to healthy workplaces and healthy lives. The houses they live in and the places they work in should not be killing them. That is one of the things that propels many of us into parliament. So today we mark the end of Lung Health Awareness Month, held during November and which creates an awareness of the plethora of lung related illnesses that impact on millions of Australians, many of which have been outlined by the member for Hasluck before me.
Lung Health Awareness Month provides an opportunity to increase awareness of the prevalence, symptoms and treatments for lung diseases. They include lung cancers, cystic fibrosis and asthma; infectious diseases such as influenza and bronchitis; and, as I have mentioned, the dust related diseases. Lung Health Awareness Month aims to promote awareness of these illnesses and diseases to the wider community, sufferers and healthcare professionals. This is because, as Lung Foundation Australia states, lung disease does not discriminate; it affects young, old, male, female, smokers, former smokers and non-smokers—never smokers. It affects us all.
Currently, lung disease contributes to more than 10 per cent of the overall health burden within Australia. There were around 20,000—closer to 21,000, actually—deaths in 2012 and a quarter of a million hospitalisations over the period 2011-2012. There were more than 1.4 million hospital patient-days over that same period. It may surprise many to know that that represents around 14 per cent of all deaths and about three per cent of all hospitalisations—five per cent of patient-days within hospitals alone. At least one in 10 Australians is going to be affected by a lung disease. That is higher in the fibro suburbs of my electorate and for those who are working in heavy industry or in mining.
New initiatives launched by the Lung Foundation Australia, such as Just One Breath—just one example—are an organised commitment to explore the extraordinary things that can be done through just one breath. It is about sharing a message with constituents, friends, family and other loved ones to get everyone thinking about their own lung health. And it is about ensuring that we get access to early diagnosis and early treatment.
When you think about the importance of early diagnosis and early treatment, you have to ask yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker: what work does a price signal on seeing your general practitioner when getting medical imaging such as a lung X-ray or a blood test have to do with having a lung disease? What work does a price signal have? I would argue, and I am sure the member for Shortland and the member for Wakefield would argue that it has absolutely no work to do whatsoever. Anybody who knows anything about this area knows that getting to see your doctor, following up on a course of treatment, ensuring that you have the X-rays, ensuring that you have the blood tests and ensuring that you have that course a treatment which is necessary to getting something early and treating it is what we need to be doing.
So I congratulate the member for Shortland and the member for Wakefield, who I know are passionate about this area. The GP tax has no work to do and it is why I hope that this week the government will scrape that barnacle from its hull.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:39): I thank the member for Shortland for moving this motion, and also my colleague the member for Hasluck for all his hard work on this important issue. Last month was Lung Cancer Awareness Month and I was delighted to participate in a Lung Foundation Australia Shine a Light on Lung Cancer awareness event. Every year, around 11,000 Australians are diagnosed with lung cancer. The symptoms of this disease can often be vague, sometimes leading to misdiagnosis, so Lung Cancer Awareness Month helps to promote community education on what a cough really means.
Lung Foundation Australia is a national organisation supporting research, developing educational fact-sheets, training health professionals, and undertaking community awareness activity and advocacy around the nation. As we saw through their informative event held in Parliament House last week, Lung Foundation Australia develops relationships with government in respiratory health to highlight the financial and personal impacts of lung disease. Their public awareness campaigns draw attention to the importance of lung health and the symptoms of lung disease.
I was delighted to participate in a Lung Foundation Australia fundraising event several weeks ago. This commenced as a result of the great generosity of a Boehringer Ingelheim, a multinational pharmaceutical company, whose Australian headquarters are located in my Bennelong electorate. Boehringer Ingelheim's Managing Director, Wes Cook, has regularly shown his generosity and the importance with which his organisation holds their social obligations. This includes regular support for the annual Bennelong Volunteers Recognition events. This year's will be held this coming Friday.
Boehringer Ingelheim donated to charity earlier this year by being the highest bidder at the Press Gallery Ball for a tennis lesson with the great Ken Rosewall and me. They on-donated this to Lung Foundation Australia to raise even more money at their annual event in November. I was delighted to act as the auctioneer for this beautiful prize. The bidding was fierce; it went to over $1,000 for a game of tennis with the great man, Ken Rosewall. It went to $2,000, then to $3,000 and then above $4,000—there were two bidders. I could not bear to see a loser, so, without consulting Ken, I thought we would level it off at $4,250 each and we will give them both a game, which coincidentally managed to raise twice as much money for our Lung Foundation group. They were happy, although I have not told Ken the good news that he is up for two games. He recently celebrate his 80th. He has been off the circuit for a while, so he is fit and ready to go.
Lung health is an interesting issue in itself. Some of our greatest swimmers suffered from lung disease. Ian Thorpe is one. He suffered from asthma and it was recommended that he should train, and train he did and became one of our greatest swimmers and at the same time addressed his illness. The great trainer Les Gronow, who trained many of our great tennis players, from Lew Hoad through to Mark Edmondson, Pat Cash and others, wrote a book titled Breathe in, breathe out: health and fitness the Les Gronow way. His belief of physical performance was the criteria of lung capacity over your weight. At one stage he said to some of his players, 'There is not much more I can do about your lung capacity, you will have to push back from the table and reduce your weight.' It gives me great pleasure to speak on this subject, both from the point of view of health and of performance.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:44): I have to thank the member for Shortland for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I echo the words of previous speakers in congratulating her on this effort.
Some of my earliest memories as a child are of not being able to breathe—of having asthma and being taken down to the women's and children's hospital in the middle of the night by my mum. It is a particularly terrifying thing if you happen to experience it, particularly if you are young. But it is also pretty terrifying for those around you. I think my mother still has a fair bit of distress about those memories. I think she found it very worrying—having to make those emergency visits to the hospital with a sick child in the middle of the night. My grandmother had emphysema at the same time, so she and I shared a common bond, but my mother, who could breathe but had to take care of us both, really felt it. I think we need to be mindful of that impact on families when we discuss lung disease.
On Friday I was at the Asbestos Victims Association Memorial Day in Pitman Park in Salisbury. The City of Salisbury has a memorial to honour those who have suffered from and lost their lives to asbestosis, to mesothelioma or to lung cancer. It allows the families of those victims to honour them and to acknowledge their passing. This would not have happened but for the efforts and the energy of Terry Miller OAM, who has long been passionate—one of the most passionate people I have ever met—not just about honouring families and making sure that the victims, and the families of those victims, of asbestosis are looked after but also about prevention and making sure that others do not suffer from that terrible but entirely preventable disease.
At that event we heard from a lady named Tracey. She gave a stirring, heartfelt address to those present about the death of her husband, Rob Dietrich. It was one of those passionate addresses that did not leave many dry eyes among those present at that event. Even the MC had tears in her eyes. I had tears in my eyes. Nearly every politician there was affected by Tracey's very passionate address about what had been a very terrible death and the impact on her children, Andrew and Maddison, of the loss of their father—and the impact on her of the loss of her husband. As I said before, it did not leave a dry eye at the event. It made us all too aware of the importance not just of preventing asbestosis but of Lung Health Awareness Month and the importance of this motion coming before the House.
Lung disease affects families and it is something we need to be cognisant of when we are looking at our health budget—10 per cent of the overall health burden in Australia, 20,000 deaths, three per cent of hospitalisations and one in 10 Australians affected by lung disease. We do not have to go too far in this debate to hear from people who have suffered from asthma or who have family members who have had to care for those with lung diseases, so we know that this is an important motion. It deserves the efforts and energies of all of us in the House. I congratulate the member for Shortland for bringing this motion forward and all the other speakers in the debate. It is important that these motions are bipartisan, that we show our care and concern for those who are suffering—particularly for the families of those who are suffering from these very distressing diseases and events. My concern and my thoughts are with all of them.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (12:48): I too thank the member for Shortland for recognising the importance of this matter and I acknowledge the contributions of the members for Hasluck and Bennelong, as well as the contributions of other members here today, in raising lung health awareness in our electorates. I encourage all members to get involved in the Just One Breath initiative of the Lung Foundation of Australia.
Lung disease is a silent killer in our community, contributing to almost 14 per cent of all deaths in 2012. A lot of members have touched on the fact that this places very significant pressure on our health system. The Macarthur region in south-western Sydney has some of the highest rates of asthma and lung disease in all of the Sydney Basin. The Macarthur region also has one of the highest rates of lung cancer in New South Wales.
To breathe is one of the most basic functions of the human body but also the most important. The proper function of one's lungs is something that we take for granted. As stated by Lung Foundation Australia, at least one in 10 Australians have a lung condition. Commonly, lung disease goes undiagnosed, as people are unaware of the symptoms; for example, a productive cough or breathlessness. I also note that Indigenous people die of lung disease at a rate three times higher than non-Indigenous Australians. Lung disease is not just a cancer; it also includes asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic cough, bronchitis, pulmonary fibrosis and much, much more. It is debilitating and constant and, as the Lung Foundation says, 'When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.' We should always be thinking of our lungs, and I encourage everyone to take the lung health checklist at www.justonebreath.com.au.
I am going to focus on one lung disease. In my electorate of Macarthur I have had the great opportunity to meet and get to know a number of young people living with cystic fibrosis, through my involvement with the Macarthur CF Swimathon. Cystic fibrosis is the most common life-threatening, recessive genetic condition affecting children and young adults today in Australia. According to Cystic Fibrosis New South Wales, a baby is born with cystic fibrosis every four days. Most will not turn 40. This is a sombre fact and one that I hope to make a difference about. At present there is no cure for CF, but the faulty gene has been identified, and doctors and scientists are working to find ways of repairing or replacing it.
CF affects breathing and digestion. Sufferers need up to two hours of intensive chest physio daily, to help break up the mucous in their lungs so that they can breathe. On average, a person living with CF will also take 40 enzyme tablets to help with digestion every day just to survive. The average life expectancy is slowly increasing, and now a person living with CF may live to their mid-30s. But there are still many children who do not reach adulthood and, sadly, there is no cure.
This year's CF Swimathon in Macarthur was a reminder of this fact. Local boy Michael Cotton passed away at age 20 from cystic fibrosis. Michael's family and friends in the Macarthur community rallied together at the swimathon to bring hope to the families and sufferers living with this terrible disease. So far the Macarthur community has raised more than $400,000 over the last six years for cystic fibrosis treatment and research. There is promising new research and new medications, which will help. I am proud that the Abbott government has listed new drugs on the PBS for the treatment of cystic fibrosis. The Macarthur community will once again rally around our local families living with CF, who battle this dreadful disease each and every day. That is why this February I will again be supporting Team Lozza, wearing pink tights and hitting the pool. It is not a good look in those pink tights, but these young people are an inspiration to me, and I take every opportunity I can to raise awareness of this disease that they live with every day of their lives.
While cystic fibrosis is a matter that is near to my heart, lung disease is a major contributor to our burden of health in Australia, with one in 10 Australians affected by lung disease. I thank Lung Foundation Australia for their Just One Breath campaign. I believe that this will be a very effective tool in raising awareness about lung health for children and young people and our elderly. I would encourage all members to share this message with their constituents, which I will also be doing with the Macarthur community. I encourage our community to get behind the local initiatives that will support residents who are living with lung disease. I am very proud of the organisers, sponsors, volunteers and teams who get together in Macarthur each year to raise money and awareness for the treatment and cure of cystic fibrosis through the CF swimathon.
As our nation prepares for the coming summer holidays, children will be thinking of what they want for Christmas. I know that at least 80 young people in my community will be wishing for a cure for cystic fibrosis. That is what I will be wishing for, too. I hope that one day CF will mean 'Cure Found'.
Debate adjourned.
Square Kilometre Array Radio Telescope Project
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:54): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the key role that Australia is playing in the international Square Kilometre Array (SKA) project to build the world's largest radio telescope;
(2) welcomes the recent news that the CSIRO's Australian SKA Pathfinder telescope in Western Australia, an important precursor to the international SKA, has been trialled very successfully with encouraging results;
(3) recognises the technology employed in this ground breaking project has potential applications extending far beyond radio astronomy; and
(4) congratulates the Australian scientists, led by SKA Australia Director, Professor Brian Boyle, working with the international community on this project.
I am delighted to bring to the attention of the House, through this motion, the leading role Australia is playing in what is described as the most extensive science collaboration in the world.
As chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Science, together with the member for Corio, I was pleased earlier this year to host a special briefing for MPs on the Australian Square Kilometre Array project and the implications for a range of scientific advancements. During my speech today, I will be referring to documentation that has been prepared by the CSIRO—their fact sheet on ASKAP. I also refer members directly to the website ska.gov.au for a very comprehensive overview of this project.
The ASKAP telescope will help us to understand how our own galaxy has developed and its current structure. It will also be a world leader in the study of pulsars, transient radio sources and magnetic fields in space and will help to cast light on fundamental physics and processes at work in the universe. The technology that is required to construct this project really does help to push the technological boundaries. The SKA will be a complex system incorporating a range of different radio receiver types and communications equipment, several supercomputers and novel cooling and energy generation technologies.
The Square Kilometre Array project currently has 11 partner countries, with more than 100 institutions in 20 countries contributing. It is a testimony to our Australian scientists and the will of government and industry that Australia won the bid to co-host one of the two major telescopes that will help establish the SKA telescope. The ASKAP is a large-scale, world-leading, pioneering astronomy infrastructure installation of 36 antennas in remote Western Australia working together as a single instrument. The design of ASKAP is unique among radio telescopes. Its antennas feature three-axis movement and will use phased array feeds rather than single pixel feeds to detect and amplify radio waves—a development being pioneered by CSIRO especially for ASKAP. These attributes mean that the telescope will survey large areas of sky with unprecedented speed and sensitivity. Initial testing that was carried out earlier this year showed that ASKAP was breaking new ground in radio astronomy technology and performing superbly. The test results showed that it was well on course to achieve its ambitious science goals.
The decision to build ASKAP was made in the 2007 budget under then science minister Julie Bishop, at the same time the Howard government decided to bid to host the SKA. ASKAP was constructed over the period 2007 to 2012 at a cost of $188 million. It is now in its commissioning phase and is showing very promising results. Next year, the formal science program is due to commence.
It is very fitting that we take time today to recognise the team involved in the SKA project here in Australia. As a nation, we are very good at recognising our sportspeople, entertainers, artists, writers and even doctors when they achieve international success. We are less likely to publicly applaud our world-class scientists. I am sure that far fewer people have heard about the big wins our SKA team have had than the loss the Wallabies suffered to Ireland. That is a great pity and something I would really like to see change. We often talk about the need to get more students studying maths and science at school. Perhaps, if they heard more about these exciting scientific developments, they might be encouraged to do so. The fact is that last month two of the teams involved in the SKA project were joint recipients of the 2015 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, one of a cluster of prizes awarded at a star-studded awards ceremony at Silicon Valley in the United States. Then, just last week, the SKA team were the overall winners of the industry minister's fourth annual Australian Innovation Challenge. Not surprisingly, the judging panel found that ASKAP illustrated the characteristic Australian ingenuity that has led to our greatest scientific ideas and breakthroughs.
I again take the opportunity to congratulate everyone involved. I especially recognise Professor Brian Boyle, who was project director and who led Australia's bid to host the SKA. In 2013 he received the Public Service Medal for his work, and he has received numerous awards for his research. He is one of the finest astronomy researchers in the world. Australians should all be proud of our world-class scientists and the vital role our nation is playing in this major international scientific collaboration.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (12:59): It is with pleasure that I second this motion. The Square Kilometre Array, being a Western Australian project, is a project that I have been very familiar with over many years. To date it has enjoyed bipartisan support at both a state and a federal level. Certainly, the government that I was a minister of in Western Australia put some very substantial funding towards getting this project up and running. I am pleased to say that that has been continued by the Barnett government.
It is a project that saw very significant investment under the Labor years federally because, as well as having the array, one needs to have the computing facilities that are necessary to allow us to exploit the extraordinary amount of astronomical data that we are receiving. We invested some $80 million in the Pawsey Centre in 2009 for the development of the supercomputing facility. In 2012 we invested some $18.8 million to make sure that Australian firms and research institutes were able to get involved in these SKA projects. It is absolutely fundamental that we provide the capacity for our scientists, for our research institutions and for our industry to leverage into this project. There were a whole variety of private sector companies, including RPC Technologies and Aurecon Australia, that were assisted to get involved, as well as obviously the research outfits—the CSIRO, the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research and Swinburne University—that were capacitated by this grant of money to ensure that we were part of this project.
The next big hurdle that we are going to meet is the funding that will be required of Australia for us to participate in the next phase of the SKA, the portion of the SKA that has been awarded to Australia. As members would know, it is being divided between Australia and South Africa. Australia's contribution is estimated to be in the order of 100 million euros or, on current exchange rates, probably about $130 million. That will be a contribution that Australia has to make and we hope that we see the federal government being prepared to step up to the plate.
We are a little bit pessimistic because we have seen the $836 million that has been taken out of science and research and development in the current budget, with a cut to the CSIRO alone of $114 million. I am sure the member who moved this motion is very sincere in her commitment to science. Indeed, I believe the Minister for Industry is also committed and I enjoy attending the Parliamentary Friends of Science events with them. But I think we have to do more than just talk the talk. There has to be a preparedness to invest in science and technology, and one can only say, looking at what has happened in the budget this year with $836 million being stripped out of research and development over the next four years, that one cannot be terribly optimistic.
I conclude by saying that the Square Kilometre Array and the projects that are in place now have very much depended on the delivery of the NBN. The delivery of fibre-optic cable up into that Mid West region has not only been a boon for this project but underpinned a huge fluorescence of new technologies in the Geraldton area. That is another very positive spin-off for our community.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:04): I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague the member for McPherson to recognise the outstanding efforts of those involved in the international Square Kilometre Array project. We know this is as the SKA project. Amongst other things, it will see the world's largest telescope built in the Murchison, which is sited in the remote heart of my electorate of Durack in Western Australia.
The project has recently seen the CSIRO's Pathfinder telescope, known as ASKAP, successfully trialled in the Murchison. The ASKAP is a world leading radio telescope, designed, built and operated by the CSIRO. The ASKAP is a precursor to the world's largest telescope, the SKA, which is yet to be built. The technology being developed for the project will continue to evolve and shall have applications far beyond radioastronomy. This megaproject shall have a life of its own over many decades and is only possible with full and committed international cooperation, which has been led by SKA Director Professor Brian Boyle.
The project places a global scientific spotlight on Australia, Western Australia, the Murchison and the broader area known as Australia's Mid West. Towns, businesses, developers and entrepreneurs throughout the Mid West are applauding the benefits that they anticipate will flow from the project, including scientific, research, economic and social benefits. Many are making plans to capitalise on emerging opportunities.
There is a group of miners, developers and government agencies with investments and/or interest in the Mid West that I would like to recognise for their ongoing and very costly efforts in an endeavour to achieve coexistence with the SKA project. You will not be surprised that the SKA project does require radio science. This, of course, is a challenge for iron ore mine operators, trains and transport, not to forget mobile telecommunications. This group of miners, agencies and investors seek to facilitate the SKA moving forward but without unsustainable impacts on other industries and, in particular, on resources and infrastructure projects, which can bring so many economic and social benefits to our nation, the Murchison, the Mid West and Durack more broadly.
There are enormous deposits of iron ore—magnetite and hematite—in the Mid West, as well as a variety of other minerals. The WA Department of Mines and Petroleum data highlight that within a 100-kilometre radius of the SKA and the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory there are 154 mining tenements, with a further 603 tenements within a radius of 100 to 150 kilometres. There is significant potential for projects within these tenements to be adversely impacted by the SKA project's 'radio quiet zone', creating a barrier to investment. This is unnecessary and unwanted.
The 2011 memorandum of understanding between the Australian government and the Western Australian government on radio quiet matters concluded with an agreement to develop strategies on the coexistence of radioastronomy and other economic development. A proactive approach on coexistence is necessary to ensure all parties clearly understand their roles and responsibilities and a system is in place to give practical effect to the coexistence outlined in the 2011 MOU.
The Chamber of Minerals and Energy considers the establishment of strong partnerships and mutually beneficial solutions as key to the coexistence of the SKA and other stakeholders. The chamber supports the efforts of state and federal government departments to work with both industry and the CSIRO to develop clarity for those within the coexistence zone. If the efforts of the government departments fail to deliver certainty for industry stakeholders and do not give appropriate effect to the coexistence principles, CME supports the development of alternative arrangements to address the issue, such as regulation or legislation. These alternative arrangements would also contemplate compensation where coexistence cannot be reached.
Some of the entities with interests, investments and/or stranded investment in the Mid West include major mining project proponents such as Mitsubishi, which holds the interest in the Jack Hills project—an ex-employer of mine—and Sinosteel Midwest, which has the Weld Range and the Dead Goat Hill projects. I believe the development of the Mid West would be best achieved through a balance between radioastronomy and continued industry growth. This will result in a diversified economy which delivers investment attractiveness and certainty.
Realising effective and sustainable industry coexistence in the Mid West will require a true partnership approach across all levels of government, local industry and the scientific community. I am very pleased to support the motion put forward by my friend the member for McPherson.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (13:09): I rise to speak in support of this motion on the Square Kilometre Array. I pay tribute to those members who have spoken, because it is true that the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope reasserts Australia's scientific leadership in astronomy beyond the optical field and back into radioastronomy, where, typically and historically, Australia has been extremely strong. The Square Kilometre Array demonstrates again that Western Australia is more than just a mine. It shows that Western Australia is both the cultural leader and the scientific and research leader of our nation.
The work to establish the SKA and the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory began almost 15 years ago, and it spans the combined efforts of the Howard government, the Rudd government, the Gillard government, the Rudd government and now the Abbott government; and, in Western Australia, the governments of Geoff Gallop, Richard Court, Alan Carpenter and, more recently, Colin Barnett—genuinely deep, bipartisan support for a research project that is global in its nature and timeless in its quest. It is a project which is every bit the same size and scale as the Large Hadron Collider in Europe and every bit the technological leader not just in terms of the physical astronomy but in terms of the science, the technology and the data processing required to drive a radio telescope that in effect has a baseline as big as our continent and extends as far as New Zealand.
There are, among the multiple nations that have supported this, 11 countries that are providing financial support and technological support to get the SKA up and running. From the New Zealanders, the British, the Chinese and the Americans, we have an international collaboration of very significant proportions. It is an international collaboration because we are building the world's largest technically possible radio telescope. It is 50 times more sensitive that any other radio telescope that has been constructed and 10,000 times faster than any similar piece of scientific equipment on the planet or within the grasp of science as it currently stands.
The significance of the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory and of the Square Kilometre Array is in astronomical terms: it will allow the scientific research of astronomical events that date back to the very start of the universe. I am reminded of a rather humorous story about one of the very hardworking Western Australian science ministers—and we have had several in this patch; we had John Day, we had Fran Logan, we had Troy Buswell for a while. When Troy as minister for science in Western Australia was officially opening the Pawsey supercomputing centre, which is related to the Square Kilometre Array, he attempted to answer why we should build the SKA. Troy was asked by a constituent: 'Why would we want to have a radio telescope that could see back to the start of time?' Troy thought for a bit and reflected, 'If we could see back to the start of the universe, we could see the astronomy that underpins the big bang.' The constituent asked Troy, 'Why would we want to see that?' Troy thought a bit more and responded, 'So that it never happens again!' That is pretty thoughtful scientific insight from Troy, who brought both good humour and good public administration to the business of aligning his government with this project at a time when dollars were scarce and priorities were very much focused on the global financial crisis.
This unique part of Western Australia, with its unique landscape, has the unique capacity to put in place the regulations—as has been commented on by my colleague the member for Durack—for the quiet radio environment to allow this project to have the best possible chance of gathering the best possible data to underpin the best possible science that will help grow not just our knowledge of the universe but also our standing as a nation both in scientific research and in international collaboration on that research. I commend this motion to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Shop Small Month
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:14): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) November was Shop Small month;
(b) Shop Small is an annual event designed to encourage people to explore their local small businesses;
(c) small business is a major driver of both employment and production; and
(d) shopping locally helps to ensure a vibrant local community and a stronger local economy;
(2) acknowledges the many people who went out to support local business during Shop Small month; and
(3) encourages people to shop locally this Christmas.
I have very weird taste in music. All my life, I have liked music that no-one else likes. I have quite often bought CDs, and the total sales of that CD for that particular band or that particular group would be maybe 200. So I learnt really early in my life that, if I wanted those bands to make a second CD, I needed to buy the first one. I was one of a very small number of people that they depended on. I know in my community too that, if we want our local butcher to survive the onslaught of a major retail chain, the one thing we have to do is shop there. That is the one thing that causes them to survive.
There are reasons why Shop Small month, in November, was a very good idea. It was not just because 95 per cent of the two million actively trading businesses in Australia are small and not just because there are 116,000—nearly 117,000—small businesses in Western Sydney but because, when you shop small and shop locally, the money you spend circulates through your local economy more than it does if you shop in a large chain. In fact, if you spend a dollar at a small local business, 45c of that will be reinvested locally, compared to only 15c if you shop in a large retailer.
We all know that, no matter where you go in this country, you find small businesses that have great products to sell, whether it is a cider maker in Bendigo that found a better use for the apples that are grown locally or it is Cinnabar, in Wagga, which makes fantastic clothing out of the local merino wool. In my area, it might be the local Spar Supermarket, in North Parramatta, a small supermarket that sells local produce on a regular basis, a fantastic place to shop. There are great local businesses that need our support.
With Christmas coming up, we all have another opportunity to support our local businesses, because they very much make us who we are. Innovation in product and innovation in style come from these small businesses. In my community of Parramatta, it is our small business that is very much responsible for the diversity and range and the innovation in product, whether it is Desi Kasai butchers, who have introduced camel, the really fine cuts of goat and skin-on goat into Harris Park; the Green Wheat bakery, in Merrylands, which uses wholemeal flour to make Afghani bread; or Patel Brothers, which has a small supermarket chain which sells brown basmati rice by the 20-kilo bag—you would not go anywhere else for rice than the Patel Brothers in Harris Park.
There is Shri Ganesh foods, in Quakers Hill, slightly out of my electorate, which makes all the batters for idlis and dosas, an incredibly successful local food manufacturer; as is Real Turkish Delight, also just on the other side of my electorate, in Auburn. It makes fantastic chocolate and Turkish delight. If you want the really modern pork cuts, you cannot go past the Thai and Chinese butchers in my region, like the New Hup Fatt butchery in Merrylands. I call them the 'Fatt butchery' because it is part of their name. They have a fantastic range of pork.
And then, as I said, we have Spar, which has opened up in North Parramatta. I can drop in there on the way home. There you find stocks from incredibly good local suppliers such as The One That Got Away, which packages fish in Bondi and sells it through the small supermarkets. Again, I know when I go there that, if I want to be able to get that particular product and I want Spar to keep stocking it, I have to buy it. So I use my purchasing power in order to ensure that my community provides me with the service that it needs.
And then of course we have the Chinese herbalist; the new meditation schools; and the music and dance teachers in a range of dance forms from across the world, including Carnatic music and dance. We have specialists in renewable energy that have moved into that space of helping households and business keep their prices down. We have businesses that are very good at helping other businesses move online and a range of new disrupted technology organisations such as the local one that provides human resources services online. These are the people who run these businesses who are building links in our community and introducing the diversity of range which makes our community strong. We also have small businesses building business links with their country, with the country of their parents, in Kenya, Lebanon, Nepal, Indonesia, India and China, and, through those business relationships, dragging our economy forward to a place where it can prosper.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Ripoll: There certainly is, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (13:20): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I would have been happy to second this motion. For the knowledge of the House, Shop Small started in the US some five years ago. It started as Small Business Saturday—a one-day event to encourage shoppers to support small businesses around the time of the GFC. Small Business Saturday still runs in the US, having taken place the weekend before last. What began as a one-day event in the United States five years ago is now a movement that has expanded across the world, including the UK, Canada and Hong Kong, and here in Australia we just saw a month of the Shop Small movement take place.
Shop Small is a national movement which was launched by the Prime Minister last year. I acknowledge the member for Parramatta and the member for Oxley, who joined with me as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Small Business, where we launched the program this year. During the month of November shoppers were encouraged to buy from local small businesses and to generally recognise the vital role that mum-and-dad business owners play in the life of their communities and in serving their communities.
Within my electorate of Wright there are over 10,000 local small businesses—that is an enormous number—creating over $1 billion, making them the largest contributing sector to the gross regional product of my electorate. I would like to pay tribute to Amex for sponsoring the small business program in Australia and in particular to Rachel Stocks, the Managing Director for Australia and New Zealand, along with the spearheading team, Luisa Megale, the Vice President Asia, and Jane Drew, the Senior Manager Public Affairs and Communications.
From a local perspective, our chambers of commerce are doing a great job in enhancing and mentoring small businesses in our community. The Boonah Chamber of Commerce will soon be holding its annual street festival parade, which encourages businesses to decorate their shopfronts as we come into the festive season. The community are invited to attend the festival in the main street so that the energies and efforts of businesses are there for all to be seen. Recently the Lockyer Valley Regional Council held its annual business awards, which showcased most of the small businesses and apprentices. It is always amazing to see the diversity of businesses in the Lockyer Valley, given that it is a rich and fertile agricultural precinct, predominantly known for being the best vegetable-growing region in Queensland, and all the allied businesses associated with that sector.
On Friday night the Scenic Rim Regional Council held their annual business awards, again showcasing small business within the larger Scenic Rim area. This is an enormous evening, presided over by the Scenic Rim mayor, John Brent. He is extremely proud of the small businesses in this area, given the constant pressures on small business within farming regions struggling with drought.
Since 2010, however, over 25 per cent of small businesses have left the market because things have been too tough. Recent data from Amex shows that 41 per cent of small businesses surveyed in November said that they do not think they will be around in five years time. As a government, we are trying to recreate the parameters. If you are selling cattle, we have reintroduced the live cattle export markets, which have become such a stimulus for the economy. In the agricultural sector, in particular in my area, we have generated three free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, opening up new markets so that we are not subservient to the duopolies that exist with our current retailers. In the manufacturing and industrial sector, over $800 billion worth of approvals have been made through Greg Hunt's office that will ultimately end up in the small business sector. We have cut $2 billion worth of red tape, one of the bugbears of small business, who continually tell me that they are laboured and burdened by red tape.
We are doing our best to get the budget back in control by making the grown-up decisions to stop the boats. We have gotten rid of the carbon tax, which will free up the purse strings of mums and dads in my electorate so that they can invest those savings into small business. We have also gotten rid of the mining tax. This government is doing all it can to support small business.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (13:25): I am pleased that the member for Parramatta, Julie Owens, has moved this motion, because it is an important motion which talks about what each of us—not only as members of parliament but also as members of the community, citizens of Australia—can do to help small business. I was very pleased to attend the launch of the Shop Small campaign for 2014 in the Senate alcove on 28 October, along with my parliamentary colleagues the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, Julie Owens and Gay Brodtmann, the member for Canberra. It is the second year of this great campaign, and it is strongly supported by members of both sides of the House. It should be something that we all support, regardless of our politics—because, in the end, we all do support small business. There is no question about that.
Shop Small is a bipartisan national movement that is committed to supporting the thousands of small businesses throughout Australia. The movement celebrates the efforts of hundreds of thousands of Australian men and women who establish, own and work in the small business sector and recognises the positive role they play within our communities. The Shop Small campaign encourages customers to shop in local small businesses in the crucial lead-up period to Christmas. We all know how important that it is not only for families but also for small business proprietors, owners and those who work in their own shops and stores. While the rest of us are having holidays or some time off, they are the ones who are serving us at the counter, and it is important that we recognise them in this place.
The Shop Small campaign toolkit is a great idea and it serves to encourage all of us to take a bit more initiative and participate and go and talk to, shop at and spend money in our local small business enterprises. I am one of those people who always loves to shop at a small business. I have always believed that you start big campaigns by doing something really small. If you think that there is too much market power focused on the majors then shop at your local butcher, baker or fruit and vegetable shop. Do the walking with your own wallet and your own feet. Follow the talk by doing the walking and go and support your local businesses. You might find that they are actually your neighbours—people who live on the same street that you do; people in your own community. They are the small business people who actually sponsor the local footy team and soccer team. They are the people who get out there on Clean Up Australia days and take time off, as we do, to go and clean up their own environment and the local creek and park.
Small business plays an important role in the Australian community. It plays a vital role, and we should do everything we can individually and personally to support small business and also, as MPs, use the role that we have in the community to encourage others to support local small business. I have many friends who own, operate and run small businesses from their own little microbusinesses through to franchises and more established companies, and it is important to acknowledge the work they do and the contribution that they make. The Shop Small campaign is one way to do that. It is a good way to bring to the front of mind that perhaps, instead of clicking the button on the screen to buy something, see if you can find it just down the road, somewhere local, whether it be a bit of fashion or something else. I know the member for Parramatta proudly says that she tries to buy as many Australian bits of clothing as she can—and that can be a real effort. I think I will occasionally make a fashion statement and try to do the same thing myself.
I want to congratulate the people involved in making this happen, particularly American Express, who have really gotten behind this campaign and have put their weight and power behind, it in partnership with a range of organisations, such as little tiny organisations like Google, Qantas, Energy Australia and MYOB, just to name a few. Industry groups such as ACCI, AHA and Restaurant and Catering Australia were also involved. They all came to the table on this to be able to demonstrate that, if you want small business to succeed, you need to support them. If you want the country to succeed, you need to support small business. If you want people to have more jobs and grow the economy, then you can start by supporting your local small businesses. I would encourage everyone listening to do exactly the same thing in their own small way.
I also wish the campaign well into the future, and I trust next year will be even bigger; it is getting bigger every single year. I will make note, though, in the last few seconds I have to say that Labor did a lot for small business in government—around $4 billion worth of direct assistance. If there is one common theme right across all business groups and representatives it is to bring back the tax loss carry-back, because that had more to do with supporting cashflow than just about anything else. I commend the motion to the House.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (13:30): I thank the member for Parramatta for bringing this motion before the House. The member not only has been a strong voice for Shop Small over the past month but also has had a strong visual presence in the chamber. I have noticed the vibrant wardrobe the member has donned, and the many creative local designers from her electorate that have been showcased here in parliament—so congratulations.
I have previously supported motions in this parliament acknowledging the great steps this government is taking to support and grow our small businesses, and I am pleased to be supporting this motion. Shop small is a month-long recognition of the important role small business plays in driving the Australian economy. The campaign calls for us to think big, shop small, because small businesses do big things for us in our community.
During November we highlighted the essential pillar that small business occupies in our national economy. In the month of November Australians were urged to support local small businesses. In Dobell this is happening all year round from florists, butchers and bakeries, to mechanics, plumbers and electricians. These are just some of the small businesses that drive local employment and provide services that keep our community running. As I have stated many times, you cannot have a strong and healthy society without a strong economy to sustain it, and you do not have a strong economy without profitable businesses.
Small business is a major driver of both employment and productivity in Dobell. We have 8,491 businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. Six-hundred and nine of these businesses are in the retail trade sector; 367 are in the manufacturing sector; and 310 are in the accommodation and food services sector. These are just some of the diverse businesses that fuel our economy and provide employment to approximately 40,000 locals.
I recently met with small-business operators in the town of Kulnura, which is on the western boundary of the Dobell electorate. Kulnura is a rich, diverse agricultural location just a stone's throw away from the bustling town centres of Wyong and Gosford. The area is home to chicken farmers, environmentally sustainable vegetable growers, fruit farms and a first-class, award-winning orchid plantation. For those not familiar with the New South Wales Central Coast, it may come as a surprise that our small business community is so diverse. This is one of the unique qualities of my electorate that I am so proud of. Many of our local businesses are family operated and are looking for opportunities to grow and generate further employment. They are looking for the opportunity to give a young person their first job, to welcome back a new mother into the workforce, or provide active and meaningful employment for senior Australians.
Today's motion rightfully highlights that shopping locally helps to ensure a vibrant local community and a stronger local economy. As the member for Dobell, I have enjoyed many opportunities to promote the outstanding contribution of local small businesses and the role they play in building a vibrant community. In the window of my Parliament House office hangs the photography of Jim Picot—a photographer and owner of the Toowoon Bay pie shop. Jim's photos are award-winning and capture the natural beauty of the Central Coast—and his pies are pretty good too. Roses 2 Go is a pioneering and award-winning small business located at Woongarrah. Last month owners Nicky and Wade Mann made history, becoming the first husband and wife team to have both been awarded the prestigious Nuffield Farming Scholarship, which promotes innovative farming practices. Luka Chocolates is yet another great example of an innovative small business that has brought something unique to Dobell. Husband and wife Anton and Kate have created a wonderful place for people to experience chocolate making and to taste the handiwork of the chocolatiers. These are just three examples of the mums and dads who invest so much into the success of their small business.
I would like to thank and acknowledge the many people who have enthusiastically embraced Shop Small. Now our task is the ongoing promotion and support of our local businesses. The Australian reported earlier this month that $18 billion is expected to be spent on gifts, food and vacations this Christmas. This is a tremendous opportunity to support your local economy through supporting small business. This Christmas, before you go online to order your gifts, why not take some time to explore your local shops, find the deal you are looking for and support your local small businesses. By supporting small business, you are investing at a local level, supporting your neighbour and helping to create more local job opportunities.
In concluding, I would like to again than the member for Parramatta for moving this motion and also thank and congratulate the small businesses that operate in Dobell. Without their commitment and determination to succeed we would not have the rich and diverse community I am so proud to represent. All members of this parliament want to see small business flourish. While we may from time to time disagree on the path to take, it is abundantly clear that we understand and recognise the important role that small business plays in supporting this great country, and I commend this motion to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:36 to 16:05
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ) (16:05): Can I say to my colleagues: a thousand apologies for being late. Are there any statements by honourable members?
Transport Workers Union and Virgin Australia
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:05): I rise today to congratulate the Transport Workers Union and Virgin Australia for their leadership in creating a workplace environment that supports employees experiencing family violence. Under a recent workplace agreement negotiated between the parties, Virgin employees will be entitled to five days working leave, leave for medical and legal appointments, and workplace flexibility if they require temporary changes to working hours and rosters. This agreement will allow employees to change their telephone numbers and email, giving women more protection from being followed and stalked at work by abusive ex-partners.
For women experiencing family violence, workplace support is crucial. It gives women the confidence to escape abusive relationships without having to worry about the impact that it may have on their jobs. I would like to commend the TWU for their efforts in fighting for the rights of all workers, including our workers placed in the most vulnerable of situations, and Virgin Australia for its enlightened approach to this issue.
I also want to acknowledge the broader campaign by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to guarantee these sorts of protections for all working Australians. Led by Ged Kearney, the ACTU is using all avenues to work with employers in all sectors of the economy to ensure that employees experiencing family violence receive the workplace security that they deserve.
I commend these moves by both our unions and corporate Australia to tackle an issue that cuts across the ideological divides. We will not truly address the challenge of family violence in our community, and this invidious practice within our community, unless we address it in all aspects of our society.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ): If it is the wish of the chamber, I would be happy to go to 4.50 pm.
Boothby Electorate: Broadband
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:07): The NBN Co today released their national rollout plan to June 2016. There are a large number of suburbs in the electorate of Boothby where the fixed line build will commence over the next 18 months, including Belair, Blackwood, Colonel Light Gardens, Lower Mitcham, Panorama, Pasadena, St Marys and Torrens Park. There are approximately 27,800 premises in Boothby that will see the NBN build commence in their area in the next 18 months.
Compare this with the performance of the previous government. They had six years, they talked a big game and they did very little. Other than a pilot site at Willunga in South Australia, in six years they connected only 69 brownfield premises in the entire state of South Australia. This will be welcomed by constituents in my electorate who are keen to see high-speed broadband. I will continue to fight for residents in Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill who do want to see high-speed broadband, but we do have half the suburbs in the electorate of Boothby undergoing a build over the next 18 months.
World AIDS Day
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:08): Today is World AIDS Day. This year's global World AIDS Day theme is 'Getting to Zero: zero new HIV infections. Zero discrimination. Zero AIDS-related deaths'. Today we recognise the tireless efforts of individuals and organisations working to combat the spread of HIV, as well as showing support for those living with the virus.
Globally, AIDS has taken an estimated 36 million lives, and nearly the same number live with HIV. In Australia alone there were 1,236 new cases of HIV diagnosed in 2013, reflecting an increase in infections nationally in recent years. It is vital that HIV remain on the global health agenda. Efforts must be made to continue and develop awareness programs to ensure Australians are informed about the transmission of HIV and how to protect themselves and others from the spread of the virus, while continuing to work towards breaking down stigma and discrimination.
I take this opportunity to mention the excellent work of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is an effective global partnership between government, civil society, the private sector and people affected by those diseases. I also take this opportunity to remember Joep Lange, Jaqueline van Tongeren, Glenn Thomas, Martin de Schutter, Lucie van Mens and Pim de Kuijer, some of the world's leading HIV researchers, who were tragically killed on flight MH17 while on their way to participate in the AIDS 2014 conference in Melbourne. We remember their expertise, determination and care for their fellow human beings. We must continue their efforts until we get to zero.
Burns, Mr James Drummond 'JD'
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:10): Yesterday the Casey Electric paid tribute to a local Anzac, JD Burns, who had grown up the Lilydale electorate. He joined up in February 1915, arrived in Gallipoli in September 1915 and was tragically killed a few weeks later. His father was the local Presbyterian minister. He had attended Scotch College and excelled. He wrote a poem about the cause of the First World War and what it entailed, called For England, that became world-renowned. His death at the time was a huge blow to the local Lilydale community.
With the assistance of a Centenary of Anzac grant, a plaque was unveiled at the Lilydale cenotaph yesterday afternoon. On behalf of the local Centenary of Anzac committee that I have worked so closely with, I pay tribute to them and to the local historical groups who helped bring this about.
Member for Fraser: Staff
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:12): Politics is a team sport. In 2014 I am fortunate to have had an exceptional group of people assisting me with speeches, articles, policy ideas and electoral engagement for the most populous electorate in Australia. Thank you to my paid staff: Toni Hassan, Damien Hickman, James Koval, Gus Little, Matthew Jacob, Michael Cooney, Joshua Turner, Jill Peterson, Taimus Werner-Gibbings, Jacob White, Thomas McMahon, Lyndell Tutty, Jennifer Rayner and my chief of staff, Nick Terrell. My interns, fellows and work experience students: Matthew Woodroffe, John Zerilli, Tom Russell-Penny, Kirrily Mackenzie, William Brown, Matthew Jacob, Matthew Zagby, Annabel Johnson, Cameron Amos, Laura Rohan-Jones, Patrick Cooney, Joshua Woodall, Tim O'Hare, Jo Dodds, Caitlin Bunker, Jessica Hudson, Wolffe Gaunt, Daniel De Voss, Tim Griffin, Justine Ramsay, Griffen Murphy, Ben Molan, Harry Dalton and Lillian Bannock. And my office volunteers: Alison Humphreys, Ken Maher, Matthew Zagby, Hayley Pring, Rhianne Grieve, Joanne McCarron, Bernie Davern and Trishna Malhi
Each of these people has qualities I admire. Collectively they are smarter, more patient and more experienced than me. And it goes without saying that they are also funnier and better looking! To everyone on my team: thank you for what you have done this year to assist the people of Fraser, to help me and to make our small contribution to securing a better, fairer, more prosperous and more just future for our great nation.
Hasluck Electorate: Men's Sheds
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (16:13): My electorate of Hasluck in Western Australia is lucky enough to have men's sheds in the Foothills, Gosnells, Kalamunda and Hillside regions. Men's sheds are an established part of the health infrastructure to improve men's health and wellbeing by providing welcoming spaces for men to spend time together or take time out. The determination and strength of the Hasluck community has recently seen the construction of a new community shed in the Walridge Country Estate for retirement living in Gosnells.
The local men's shed gave considerable support to the construction of the new shed. The Mundaring and Foothills Men's Shed provided support and advice. The Kalamunda Men's Shed provided tools and equipment. Members of the HillSide Church Men's Shed assisted with the construction of the shed, and two local branches of the Bendigo Bank also provided a $5,000 grant. The shed was also constructed with the assistance of four outstanding residents of Walridge Country Estate: Mr Bruce Wilson, Mr John Lathwell, Mr Kevin Ryan and Mr Richard Holmwood. Sadly, Mr Bruce Wilson did not live to see the completion of the shed. Bruce was well-known as a lone wolf who would come in to work on the shed in the wee hours of the morning. He would always ensure he returned home in time to make his wife, Bev, a cup of tea with her breakfast.
At the launch, Bev unveiled a plaque on the shed that was dedicated to Bruce. I commend the community's initiative on the construction of the Woolridge Community Shed. Strong local communities for aged care in Hasluck is a key priority, and knowing that the community is behind me gives me great comfort.
Dudley Public School: Victoria Cross Recipients
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:15): During the First World War only 63 Victoria Crosses were awarded to members of the Australian armed forces. Very specially, two were awarded to former students of Dudley Public School. That is really quite remarkable. It is an achievement that is unrivalled anywhere else in the British Empire. Clarence Smith Jeffries and William Matthew Currey were both awarded the Victoria Cross, a decoration that accords recognition to a person who 'perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry, acts of valour or self-sacrifice, or display extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy'.
Both of these young men attended Dudley Primary School. The school is extremely proud of them. Just a couple of weeks short of his 23rd birthday Captain Clarence Smith Jeffries was posthumously awarded with the Victoria Cross, following his actions in battle. Also awarded the Victoria Cross was Private William Matthew Currey, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous bravery and daring in the attack on Peronne on the morning of 1 September 1918. He was aged 22. The school holds both of these young men close to their hearts and they are very proud of their actions.
Anzac Centenary
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:16): Since I last updated the House, I am pleased to congratulate a number of new recipients in the Higgins electorate of the government's Anzac Centenary local grants program. The program is helping to fund local community projects allowing future generations to continue to honour the memory of World War One. Solway Primary School, in Ashburton, and the King David School, in Armadale, are being supported to install memorial stones, allowing their students and community to learn about the servicemen whose sacrifices helped make our great nation.
Toorak RSL branch is receiving help to repair the St Johns War Memorial and to restore a display collection of historic photographs. We are helping Prahran RSL branch to restore and relocate the former honour boards of students at the former Hawksburn State School. East Melbourne RSL branch is being funded to replace their First World War honour rolls. Yarra Trams will be helped to build a monument to remember former members of Malvern depot whose lives were lost. St George's Anglican Church, in Malvern, will also be receiving support to help restore a copy of the painting The Great Sacrifice. While the City of Stonnington is being supported to upgrade the World War One memorial in Victoria Gardens, Prahran. These are all fitting memorials in this our centenary year to remember those who served to defend our country.
Indi Electorate: Kiewa Valley Primary School
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:17): In response to a carefully scripted letter from students at Kiewa Valley Primary School, in Tangambalanga, asking me for a new national flag, earlier in November I drove to their school and personally delivered the flag. So, thank you, to Madison Colsen and Nathan Martin. You have undertaken your jobs as flag monitors with distinction. When I presented the flag I did so under the watchful and proud eyes of Principal Bernie Boulton, your families, classmates and teachers. Your school values were displayed high on the wall: respect, teamwork, honesty, trust, resilience, learning and being your best. At every turn these values were evident. Kiewa Valley is clearly a proactive school. It has outstanding relationships with stakeholders and the wider community. The school see values in their students being anchored in their local community through the relationships they have built within the community. The school's vision is to guide their students to become active, informed citizens of the world. I can confirm that these students are well on their way to being informed citizens of the world. They are not afraid to ask questions, proud of their school and communities and proud to have a new national flag. I am really looking forward to welcoming them and showing them around Parliament House on Wednesday.
Solomon Electorate: Education
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:19): I rise today to speak about the great opportunities being provided to schools around Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate, through the Capital Grants Program.
Five schools in my electorate have been awarded a total of $738,598 to improve infrastructure around their campuses so students can get the most out of their time at school. Last Friday, I visited each of the schools to announce the good news and I was received with welcoming arms.
Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School will receive $37,000 to construct an outdoor sun-smart multidisciplinary learning space, while St Andrews Lutheran College will receive $84,534 to replace a water meter and a fire hose reel and box. St Mary's Catholic Primary School will receive $159,164 to construct a safe school entrance, including wheelchair access, while $188,500 will go to Mackillop Catholic College to fit out student toilet and change rooms. St John's Catholic College will receive $269,400 to refurbish the canteen facilities on their senior campus.
I realise that buildings alone do not make a school, but students attending each of these schools will benefit greatly from these enhanced facilities once they have been completed. Learning in an improved environment can make all the difference, and I thank the Abbott government for their investment— (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Post and Ante Natal Depression Support and Information
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:20): During Postnatal Depression Awareness Week in November, I had the great honour of visiting PANDSI, which provides support to families in my electorate of Canberra. PANDSI aims to improve the perinatal mental health of women, men and their families in the ACT through counselling and support. As we know, perinatal depression and anxiety affect up to 20 per cent of families, and the work that is done by PANDSI is vital in helping families to understand and manage their experiences, providing strategies to cope and recover.
Last month's annual general meeting was a chance to reflect on the work of PANDSI over the past year, and it was a chance for me, on behalf of all Canberrans, to say thank you to all the staff, volunteers and supporters for the wonderful service that PANDSI provides to my community.
It was also a great opportunity to say thank you and farewell to outgoing PANDSI President Dr Marian Currie. Organisations such as PANDSI simply could not exist without the hard work of dedicated individuals like Marian. Marian has been on the board of PANDSI since 2002 and has a background in nursing, midwifery, neonatal nursing, lecturing and research. In the early days of PANDSI, there was no funding from ACT health. It slowly got funding to run support groups. Marian kept PANDSI together through thick and thin. Marian, thank you for all the great work you have done in building up PANDSI and thank you for the incredible support you have provided to so many Canberra families. We wish her all the best for her retirement.
Hinkler Electorate: 2014
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:22): This year, 2014, has been a great year in the Hinkler electorate, and I have delivered on each of the election commitments that I made to my constituents. Ministers, assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries have visited the electorate to hear Hinkler residents' views. I have successfully advocated on behalf of numerous constituents for what are often very complicated issues relating to immigration, taxation, Centrelink and Medicare.
I have been fighting to end the buck-passing between departments with regards to the exploitation of foreign workers in the Queensland horticulture and tourism industries. I have sought decorations for Long Tan veterans and census recognition for Australian South Sea Islanders. Bundaberg is one of 10 sites prioritised nationally for the National Broadband Network. Bundaberg and Hervey Bay are among 18 sites selected nationally for the first phase of Work for the Dole.
I would like to congratulate my state colleagues Ted Sorenson, Jack Dempsey, Anne Maddern and Stephen Bennett on their efforts locally. Local hospital wait times have significantly improved. Local crime has reduced, and the maintenance backlog in Queensland schools is being addressed. My focus going forward will be to work with my state and local counterparts to attract investment to the region to create jobs.
I would like to thank my staff and supporters Debbie, Larine, Darlene, Stacey and Janelle; and Bill Trevor, Pat Denham and Brian Courtice. It has been a great year and I look forward to 2015. Finally, I take this opportunity to wish all Hinkler residents a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year. My door is always open.
Wardle, Mr Clinton and Mrs Trish
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:24): On Saturday, 6 December, I will be attending a farewell function for Clinton and Trish Wardle, who will be moving on after a decade as ministry team leaders of the Churches of Christ Modbury. The Churches of Christ is located immediately adjacent to my electorate office and, as such, I have developed not only a close personal association with many of its members but also a personal friendship with Clinton and Trish. Indeed, from time to time, my office has used the church premises for community receptions and presentations, and I am grateful to have been able to do so.
As civic leaders and local residents I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Clinton and Trish for their work in the local area over the last decade. I have no doubt that they have made a difference to the lives of many local people. I particularly acknowledge their welcoming and open door attitude to new arrivals in the area regardless of people's background, nationality, culture or religion—often making available the church facilities to them for their own cultural use. Taking a leadership role in any community is never easy, and Clinton spoke about this in his sermon only a couple of week ago. I have no doubt that Clinton and Trish will be missed by the many friends they have made over the years in my local area and I wish them well as they settle into their new community.
Longman Electorate: National Broadband Network
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:25): Today the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and I were proud to announce that we are adding Goodwin Beach, Sandstone Point, Ningi and Beachmere to the rollout of the NBN. This is on top of almost 27,000 homes locally in Banksia Beach, Bellara, Bongaree, White Patch, Woorim, all of Bribie Island, Bellmere, Caboolture, Upper Caboolture, Elimbah, parts of Wamuran and parts of Morayfield. That is part of our trial of the construction of the coalition's policy of fibre-to-the-node NBN. What that ensures is that locals will get the NBN years sooner at less cost to the taxpayer and at a cheaper rate for the consumer.
The NBN was one of the great messes of the Labor government. We saw in the strategic review that under the Labor Party the NBN would not have been completed until 2024. What we see with the communications minister and the coalition government getting the NBN rollout back on track is that 27,000 premises locally will have an NBN service by June next year. That is something that would not have happened under the Labor government. Today we announced those extra suburbs of Goodwin Beach, Ningi, Sandstone Point and Beachmere being added to begin construction by mid-2016. By the middle of next year, we expect the NBN Co to release their next three-year rollout based on need—addressing the areas of worst internet connectivity first. That will deliver a better result for locals.
Scullin Electorate: Bubup Wilam
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:26): I spent most of Friday helping out on prepoll in the Victorian state election, but I was pleased to take a brief break to attend the Christmas celebrations for the Bubup Wilam early childcare centre. The Bubup Wilam early childcare centre is an Aboriginal community controlled early childhood education centre which has been a fantastic facility, achieving great results and engaging 70 families in my electorate and around it.
It was fantastic to be at Funfields in Whittlesea on a beautiful Melbourne spring, or summer, day to share in the celebration of the achievements of the year. I was pleased to be welcomed there by Lisa Thorpe, the CEO, and to share in the occasion with Bronwyn Halfpenny, the state member for Thomastown, as well representatives of the City of Whittlesea and the state government. It was terrific to speak to parents about the difference this centre is making to their families, their children and their family lives more broadly. It was fantastic also to speak to educators, including young Aboriginal women like Jedda, who feels so thrilled that she can contribute back, having gone to university, to her community in which she lives.
The election of a state Labor government in Victoria brings heart and hope to Bubup Wilam, as they can see some support that has been missing since the cessation of the national partnership. But there is still great concern in the community that this wonderful facility, which is delivering fantastic results for the local Aboriginal community in Melbourne's north, is under threat because the Abbott government does not put its money where its mouth is in terms of its commitment to meeting school attendance goals in closing the gap. This is a fight that will continue, and I am proud to stand with Bubup Wilam and its community.
International Day of People with Disability
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (16:28): The third of December is International Day of People with Disability. There will be a number of events in Macarthur to celebrate this day and raise awareness of the challenges people living with a disability face each day. Campbelltown City Council will be holding a Celebrating Ability community forum where people living with a disability, their carers and family can access information about local services and programs. The council will also be launching their Deaf and Hard of Hearing resource pack for local services. Camden Council will be celebrating this important day with a Splash Out Pool Party, and a number of local services across Macarthur will be holding morning tea with employers and community groups to meet with local job seekers.
I have been very privileged to be able to host a number of students from Mater Dei over the past four years for work experience in my office. I have also hosted a number of local young job seekers through Nova's transition to work program for work placements. I have been very impressed with the effort and support that these young people are offered and I look forward to continuing this excellent program at my electorate office. Employment opportunities are very important in ensuring that people living with a disability are included and feel accepted in our community. This is especially important for our young people as it gives them the opportunity and the tools to be independent and to live life their way. I encourage more employers across Macarthur to get involved with these fantastic programs, and I thank the many employers across the Macarthur region who are already doing so.
Access to good-quality services and support is also incredibly important for people living with a disability and for their families and carers. I also thank the many community groups, organisations, individuals and employers who are creating opportunities for people living with a disability to find employment and better access services and who provide a support network and promote inclusiveness in our community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Randall ): I thank the member for Macarthur for his speed reading!
Victoria State Election
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (16:30): I want to put on the record my appreciation for the phenomenal Labor candidates who stood in the state seats that make up my federal seat of Chisholm. Given that I live within a sea of blue in the maps, these are candidates who were running in seats that probably they did not have a great prospect of winning, but they still flew the flag and had some phenomenal swings in my neck of the woods.
I give a big shout out to Gavin Ryan, in the seat of Burwood, who gave up six months of his job, his life, to campaign tirelessly; and an enormous thanks to Stef Perri, in Box Hill, and her family. She has young kids. Her partner, Alex, was an amazing support. Jennifer Yang, in Mount Waverley, is an absolute dynamo and is someone to watch in future. Full credit to Jennifer, who ran a tireless campaign and did an amazing thing. In Forest Hill, Pauline Richards, who again is a true community candidate, knew that she was against the odds and did not turn it around but was out there fighting and has managed to save the Healesville reserve.
To Steve Dimopoulos, who has won in the seat of Oakleigh, congratulations—again, a great campaign. Goodbye to Ann Barker, who retired at the election. She is an amazing woman, the longest-serving female in the Victorian parliament, who has been replaced by a great candidate in Steve Dimopoulos. And congratulations also to Hong Lim, the long-serving member for Clayton, who retained his seat, the new seat of Clarinda. Congratulations all.
Braddon Electorate: Broadband
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:31): Today marks yet another positive day in the life of this government and in the life of the NBN Co. The NBN is back on track. If it had not been for the intervention of this government, the project that was supposed to have finished in 2019 would have been finished in 2024; the cost would have blown out by $29 billion; and consumers would have been paying anywhere around 80 per cent more for their internet bills.
The great news today for my electorate of Braddon is that the next 18-month rollout has been announced, and the first tranche of that rollout has been confirmed. I can say today that the city of Devonport, the biggest city of my electorate, and the surrounding areas will be the first to be rolled out, on 1 July next year. I would hope that those people in that area of my electorate would have high-speed broadband by this time next year. The rollout plan also notes every other part of my electorate within this next 18-month rollout. That is exciting news. Hopefully in the next two or three months I will be able to confirm even more, closer dates for those other parts of my electorate.
Can I pay tribute to the minister, Malcolm Turnbull, his staff and his department. They have got this project back under control. This was an absolute mess. Those opposite can put out all the brochures they like, and they can make all the speeches they like, but anyone who knows anything about business knows that this was a complete and utter stuff-up. It is back on track, and it is back on track in Braddon.
Mission Australia Youth Survey 2014
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:33): This morning I attended Mission Australia's release of their Youth Survey 2014. It was rather a disturbing set of figures that were released. The survey was conducted across 13,600 respondents. Of those, 19.7 per cent spoke a language other than English at home, and 5.6 per cent of those were young Aboriginal people. Sixty-one point two per cent were female and 38.8 per cent were male. The thing that I found so disturbing was that only six out of 10 felt that they would achieve their aspirations to achieve career success. That was the level that felt they would achieve career success. Seven in 10 felt that they would own a home.
The thing that I find so disturbing about this is that we are getting figures like this, with young people believing that they will not be able to achieve their career goals and will not be able to own a house, whilst, on the other side, programs that will help them do this are being cut—programs like Youth Connections, programs that have worked so well in the electorate that I represent in this parliament. It is an absolute disgrace that we do not have support in place to help young people achieve their career goals and achieve what we have been able to achieve in our lives. I call on the government to be much more proactive in this area.
Townsville Enterprise
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (16:34): In Canberra last week, it was my pleasure to host the mayors from my region. Bill Lowis from the Burdekin, Jenny Hill from Townsville, Rodger Bow from Hinchinbrook, Frank Beveridge from Charters Towers and Alf Lacey from Palm Island formed a delegation with the Townsville Chamber of Commerce and Townsville Enterprise to push the collective story to Canberra. As a group, we were able to speak to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the ministers for Trade and Investment, Finance, Justice and the assistant minister for infrastructure. We were able to throw a rope around the government senators from Queensland so that the mayors understood that we are not a government tied to the big cities but that we have a strong representation throughout the regions. We spoke of our plans and our vision for the future. To each minister I say thank you for being frank and open to the discussion.
We have now been given a helpful direction. We have an opportunity to map out bold plans when it comes to investment and infrastructure. My region represents the largest population based in Northern Australia and we need to ensure that we are able to place projects of interest in front of people who understand us and our region. My region will lift its eyes and go for economy-changing projects which will take us further into this century better prepared and bring us closer to Asia and our Melanesian neighbours such as Papua New Guinea. This was a great event organised by Tricia O'Callaghan from Townsville Enterprise. My region is all the better for it. I thank the House.
Great Victorian Bike Ride
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:36): There is no better way to experience North-East Victoria than to take in the sights on a bicycle. On Sunday, about 4,000 bike riders started the 2014 Great Victorian Bike Ride. They wound their way through the beautiful valleys and challenging hills to reach the lovely town of Yackandandah. It was the ideal way to start the ride, which is a fantastic promotional tool which emphasises healthy lifestyles. The daily spend is estimated to be $35 per rider and we know that many riders will revisit the area once they have had this wonderful taste. Today, the riders head out from Yackandandah, up the valleys, over the fantastic Tawonga gap and down into Bright. In coming days the riders will pass the vineyards, olive groves, wineries and eateries through Myrtleford, Milawa, Moyhu, Mansfield and on to Alexandra.
Locals also take part. I know Scott Cavandah from Yea Secondary College—Hi, Scott—and 30 of his schoolmates will be enjoying the bike ride. Congratulations to Bicycle Network for choosing the North East and to the great bike ride committee members like Moyhu's Max Baker, Neil Jarrott and Tina James, and all the volunteers and community members who ensure that the bike ride goes smoothly through their part of Indi. Well done, good riding and welcome back when you are finished!
Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:37): Earlier this year I had the enriching experience of participation in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, spending a week attached to the 51st Battalion Far North Queensland regiment based at Porton Barracks in Cairns. The 51st Battalion is a regional force surveillance unit responsible for border protection in an area covering over 600,000 square kilometres of rugged and remote terrain on the Cape York Peninsular. I lived in the barracks for a week, sharing accommodation and meals with the troops, including ration packs. The exercises were very hands on. I participated in rugged terrain driving exercises in the G-Wagen and Unimog, a marine navigation course, jet boat patrols, as well as physical training and weapons handling drills. I would like to thank Major Simon Sullivan for making the necessary arrangements for my trip and also Major Ravenscroft and other members of the unit. The experience enhanced my appreciation for the work of our troops and the testing conditions in which they operate. After getting to know the officers, the full-time soldiers and reservists, they opened up and shared their genuine concerns with me, which include how bureaucracy, excessive documentation and overzealous risk management are stifling our defence forces. It is valuable to get this insight as a member of parliament.
World AIDS Day
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:39): I commend the member for taking part in that fabulous program. I rise today to mark World AIDS Day. HIV can affect anyone. I think back to the 1980s when AIDS gripped this nation. It was an epidemic. In Melbourne, where I was living, it seemed that almost every person my age, including me, had lost a friend or loved one to this disease. In 2014, HIV-AIDS can be not only prevented but treated. HIV is now a manageable infection. A diagnosis of HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was, thanks to the incredible work of scientists, researchers and medical professionals. I would like to count my sister, who did some very, very early work on AIDS in the eighties, as one of those incredible scientists.
However, just this morning the ACT AIDS Action Council's acting Executive Director, Philippa Moss, highlighted how important it is that we do not become complacent. The incredible progress that has been made since the nineties has seen our vigilance and fear around AIDS subside, resulting in a recent rise in reported HIV cases around Australia. According to the council, here in Canberra HIV diagnoses have doubled in the last three years, mainly in men who have sex with men, but not exclusively so. AIDS continues to be a major public health issue, and last year's theme—'Getting to Zero: zero new HIV infections. Zero discrimination. Zero AIDS-related deaths'—continues this year. (Time expired)
Australian Defence Force
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:40): Good government is about vision and planning. The aim is to make sure that our final outcome is always of benefit to the Australian nation. Just before the election in 2013 we were assured by the then Labor government that the government debt for 2013-14 was to be $18.5 billion—never mind that it was originally supposed to be close to surplus. But what we found after the election was a $30 billion difference. The debt level had skyrocketed to $48.5 billion. This is unacceptable. In all areas, reduction is a must and savings have to be made. We simply cannot continue to borrow money internationally to pay off debt.
One of the original proposals to make such reductions impacted on the pay package offered to our Defence personnel. Gilmore is, and always will be, a Navy region, and despite the need for savings it is no secret that I have had concerns about some of the proposed changes, particularly the changes to recreation leave as well as tax-free income and allowances. After months of discussions with our ministers and the Prime Minister, I welcome the opportunity to inform the House of changes to the original proposals. They are: reinstating the additional five days of extra recreation leave a year for arduous service, adding to the existing 20 days of annual leave and the 10 days of additional recreation leave; reinstating the second extra day of Christmas leave; maintaining the existing motor vehicle arrangements; and reinstating off-base ongoing food allowance. Many in Gilmore will be proud of this. (Time expired)
Indi Electorate: Pangerang Community House
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:42): I rise today to congratulate the Pangerang Community House art students on the diverse and colourful art exhibition opened on Friday, 24 October at the Wangaratta Library. Everybody should be very proud of the work on display, and the exhibition had a real community warmth. Thanks also to the Pangerang House coordinator, Tanya Grant, for the invitation to join the 40 artists, family and friends, and officially to open the exhibition. It was a pleasure to meet the artists, including Cassie Hurley and her granddaughter Tahlia, Carmel Fitzpatrick, Marie Vincent, Richard Gray, Bianca Paola, Maria Hausler, Brenda Thompson and Barbara Pearce.
I particularly want to thank youngsters Mabel O'Keeffe and her brother Harvey for showing me the portraits that they had done of me. Their involvement showed how the Pangerang Community House arts and craft program caters for people of all ages and pays particular attention to young people. Thanks to the art teacher Robynne for guiding and encouraging the students to push their talent and artistic boundaries. The different styles, such as blind contour, opened up a whole new avenue for creativity for those who tried it. Congratulations everybody, well done, and thank you very much for the invitation to participate.
Bowman Electorate: Charity Work
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:43): Indisputably the best place in Australia to live, work and play, Redland city, and its council, have had some extraordinary partnerships with the non-profit sector in 2014. Led by the irrepressible yodelling mayor, Karen Williams, 'Diner en Rouge' on Saturday night raised over $15,000 for domestic and family violence. It was ably supported by an organising committee comprising Zontaites Roz Kinda and Debbie Clancy; Frank Pearce and Kristen Banks from council; Helen Harrison and Katrina Beutel from the Redlands Centre for Women; Judith Trevan-Hawke from Zonta as well; Glen Morgan from Rotary Cleveland; and Maryann Talia Pau on that organising committee.
Cleveland Rotary also had a $20,000 fundraiser for flood relief using garage sales, and that was ably done by Phil Robinson and of course Glen Morgan, whom I mentioned earlier.
The Bay Islands Chamber of Commerce, ably led by Col McInnes, is focusing on business and tourism this year. The Horizon Foundation, with Joe Gamblin as their CEO, have a new space on Runnymede Road. The Donald Simpson Centre, with Ernie Harrison and now Tony Christinson, is doing great work for our over 50s. Domestic and family violence is a focus of UnitingCare and Dr Lyn Hulett. In juvenile justice and removing graffiti, BoysTown's Brendan O'Connor and the Cage's Linda and Peter Grieve have been tireless in their efforts. In crisis accommodation there are Mangrove Housing and BoysTown, with Ann McAnally and Ann Chandra respectively. And of course there is the SPEAK program, which is working hard to increase literacy. Thank you Stephanie Crick, Clare Skelly, Trish Blake and Louise Flaherty for your great work.
Shortland Electorate: Breast Cancer
Shortland Electorate: Seniors Forum
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:45): I would like to share with the House two fantastic events that took place in the Shortland electorate. On 30 October this year I advised the House that I would be holding a breast cancer morning tea on the 31st. That breast cancer morning tea was held, and it was an outstanding success. We raised over $1,000 for breast cancer research. The beneficiaries of that were the Hunter breast cancer trials and the local Hunter breast cancer support group, as well as the peak body that sells the pink ribbons. Thank you to everyone who attended. It was a great morning. We learnt a lot and had a lot of fun.
I would also like to put on the record the success of the seniors forum that I held on 7 November. We had fantastic speakers who came along and shared information with seniors in the Charlestown area. I see one of my roles as a member of parliament as ensuring that the people that I represent can get the information that they need to be able to access the services in the community that are available. It has been said to me on so many occasions that it is like trying to find your way through a maze—there are services out there, but it is knowing about those services. I think every member of this parliament is beholden to make sure that the people that they represent can access that information and know what is out there.
Wright Electorate: Road Safety
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (16:47): I rise to offer a challenge to every single resident of my electorate of Wright as we move into this Christmas break. Earlier today I was looking at last year's road toll statistics. In the year of 2013, there were no less than 1,193 deaths on the national roads, eight per cent down from the previous year, may I add—an outstanding achievement—but nevertheless 1,193 too many deaths. Broken down by state, New South Wales and Victoria had record lows, so well done to those guys. Northern Territory, Queensland—my home state—the ACT and Western Australia had fewer deaths than the year before. Tasmania and South Australia were slightly higher.
The challenge I send out to everyone in my electorate is: don't be a bloody idiot on the road over the Christmas break. Irrespective of whether you vote for me or not, your life is far too precious to me as a father, as a husband and as the representative of the electorate of Wright. Please do not think that you can go and do a seven- or eight-hour shift or a 10-hour shift at work and then jump in a car and start off on your annual holiday with the most precious cargo in your vehicle, that being your family. Be road wise about road safety. Get home safely.
Community Living Project
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:48): I was so pleased yesterday to attend the 30th birthday of the Community Living Project. This is a project that supports people with a disability to live full and independent lives. Indeed, it was a triple celebration yesterday: it was the opening of their new building and their 30th birthday, as well as their AGM.
Of course, the Community Living Project had a vision that government has only just caught up with, and that is that the person with a disability is in the centre of the support services they receive. With the introduction of the NDIS, giving control to people with a disability has been an essential part of that program. But the Community Living Project knew 30 years ago how important it was to put the person with a disability in the centre and to support that person to live independently and, most importantly, fulfil their potential.
This project was not set up by government; it was indeed what parents strived for. I would like to particularly pay tribute to Jill Wishart, Gray Brooks and Olive Western, founding parents that wanted a better opportunity for their children. Their work has paid off with the 30th celebration, with the Community Living Project still providing excellent services to people with a disability, helping them find employment, helping them live independently and, importantly, providing a social aspect to their lives.
Gilmore Electorate: National Broadband Network
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:50): Today is an exciting today. For more than two years now we have been wondering about what is going to happen with the NBN, with an extended delivery notice of 2019, 2021, 2024 and so on. But now, today, we know that an extra 43,000 homes are going to have the National Broadband Network towards the end of 2016. It is just an amazing announcement that we are able to make. It is going to be a mix of technology, from fibre to the premise and fibre to the node to fixed wireless—38,000 for fibre to the node and almost 5,000 for fixed wireless.
The people of Gilmore will be absolutely thrilled—from a patchwork of rollout plans to a lovely plan of sequential development. More than 14,000 are going into the outer Nowra suburbs, over 8,000 going into the Shellharbour suburbs and 10,000 going into the Bay and Basin area. Sussex Inlet will be pleased with 2,000, Callala Bay with 1,900 and the Gerringong and Gerroa area with almost 1,700. Congratulations on the planning. Malcolm Turnbull has done a phenomenal job. A number of houses in the local area will be getting fixed wireless—like Bawley Point, Kiama, Shoalhaven Heads, St Georges Basin and Ulladulla. The residents there are going to be very thrilled about that. There is more to be done, because the southern Shoalhaven still has not hit. So I need to lobby for them as well.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Ewen Jones ): Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (16:51): by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Education and Employment Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:52): It is important today that I rise to talk on the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment inquiry into TAFE and its operations, which was recently tabled by the committee. I am pleased that you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker Jones, as the chair of that committee and having worked very hard, along with all the other members on the inquiry, to provide a report that highlights the importance of TAFE.
Through the committee's inquiry we heard that TAFE is indeed an important public institution, a longstanding entity in many communities around the country that not only educates school leavers, job seekers and those looking for a career change but also provides important opportunities to get vocational educational, hands-on training and actively gives back to the community. The importance of TAFE was echoed throughout the inquiry, whether that be from students, interest groups, industries, universities and the wider Australian community. Indeed, it was recognised that TAFE plays a critical role as Australia's principal public provider of vocational education and training. Its importance in this context cannot be overstated.
The affordability and accessibility of TAFE were important elements brought up in the inquiry. TAFE underpins the vocational education and training sectors across Australia. We heard about how important it is that people can get access to this type of training and that it is done in an affordable way. TAFE's strength as a significant not-for-profit public entity charged with educating and instilling skills and trades in our young people offers great hope for the long-term sustainability of TAFE. In a vocational education landscape, when there is a varying level of quality provided, from very good quality to concerns around quality, TAFE did stand out as being one brand that people can trust.
TAFE did actually stand out as being one brand that people could trust. I have certainly seen that firsthand in my electorate of Kingston through the work done at the Noarlunga campus of the TAFE South Australia network. Indeed, we are seeing a new TAFE campus being built just outside my electorate at the old Mitsubishi site, which will also service my electorate very well. I have done a number of tours to see the good work that has been done there.
TAFE plays an important role in the lives of a cross-section of our community. I think what was really emphasised during the report was how important it is for school leavers, adult re-entry, Australians looking to upskill themselves in the hope of a career change and those from migrant communities who use TAFE to strengthen and refresh their skills within an Australian education framework.
Also, it needs to be recognised that TAFE plays an important role in assisting students struggling with literacy and numeracy. If you look at any opportunities in the job market, those who do not have literacy and numeracy skills will inevitably be left behind. They will be left behind and locked out of the job market. It is an area in which TAFE does particularly well. It is probably not a profitable area, but it is one that is so essential to our community if we are going to ensure that those most vulnerable are not locked out of the job market.
Also, we heard that prospective employers are looking for people with vocational education qualifications but also, importantly, connections with industry. That was something that came out of that report. It is certainly something that the community looked at—making sure that we continue to encourage TAFE to partner with industry to ensure that it continues to deliver the skills that are required, especially in a changing job market.
Getting back to looking at what TAFE does, it also clearly helps fill the void when there are skills gaps. That is really important, especially when you are looking at a situation where an industry or a workforce might have to readjust. Something that occurred near my electorate was the closure of Mitsubishi. That was a very difficult time. It will continue to be a difficult time in the automotive industry as we see Holden leave Australia and then Ford, Toyota and all the parts manufacturers that are associated with this industry. TAFE has a critical role to play in helping those individuals transition into new jobs. Without that training, we will not be able to ensure that employees transition with new skills.
I think it was recognised in the inquiry that the private sector will not necessarily fill that gap. When we see whole communities going through a transition such as the closure of massive amounts of manufacturing, we will not necessarily see private training providers filling that void. It is so critical that our public provider is able to step in, retrain and reskill these workers who are looking down the barrel of redundancy. It was certainly echoed that this is not only important somewhere like Adelaide but also very important in rural and regional areas that are seeing quite a significant transition. I think that is really important to recognise as well.
The community report references several key recommendations. I believe, if they are adopted, they will improve the longevity and prosperity of TAFE as Australia's chief vocational education provider. Firstly, there is a recommendation that the government should, through the Council of Australian Governments, make a value statement comprehensively defining the role of TAFE within the vocational education and training sector together with its future direction in the competitive training market from a national perspective. I think the statement should also acknowledge that the affordability and accessibility of the training market is underpinned by a strong public sector provider. And it should acknowledge TAFE's ability as the majority, significant not-for-profit public provider.
It was very important that we recognised that TAFE should set a benchmark for prices. It should provide support for regions and industries in transition. It should sustain investment in skills development for new, innovative and emerging industries. It should have a range of job readiness courses, particularly around language, literacy, numeracy and digital skills. It should provide—for mature age and early school leavers—access to pathway qualifications, where this is the most appropriate pathway to employment. And it should be a strongly government backed institution that can attract strong support in the education markets in Australia.
Some of the other recommendations include that the government should address ongoing concerns regarding the highly variable quality and depth of training provided, and that the government—in its discussions with states and territories regarding the impact of current funding arrangements on TAFE provisions of pathways to employment—also raises the impact of these arrangements on TAFE provisions of pathways to tertiary education or higher level studies. There were a number of other recommendations but I am going to run out of time so I encourage everyone to read those recommendations. I certainly encourage the government to seriously consider the bipartisan report that came out.
I have to take this opportunity to thank the secretariat, the chair and the deputy chair for the work that they did. I also thank the committee that worked very constructively to put this report together and to hear the evidence right around the country. I was appointed to the committee a little later, and I know that the committee put extensive work in, listening to communities around the country. It is a good example of what can be done in a bipartisan way to investigate and put some very sensible recommendations to government.
I certainly commend the report to the House. I recommend that you have a read of it. I congratulate all those involved.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:02): Though not a member of the committee I want to speak on what I think is a really important report that has been delivered with very impressive recommendations. We have talked for a long time about the two challenges in welfare reform—the two bookends of education: the zero- to five-year-olds entering into formal school, and transitioning young people out of formal education into the workforce. This committee has focused on the second area in their excellent report.
For a long time we have known that we have a huge skills imbalance in Australia. Put simply, 170,000 foreigners come in to do the work that we cannot skill our local people to do. They repatriate those salaries overseas and it costs our economy about $20 billion a year. At the same time we produce around 140,000 unemployable Australians from the school system every year, who go straight onto youth allowance. Another 130,000 of them each year sequence from youth allowance into Newstart. This is a direct and measurable failure of our education system. There is nothing more the government can do than provide opportunity but at this point we are not yet able to produce the skilled Australians to do the work our nation needs.
We are a low-population economy—high on capital and low on labour numbers; high on minimum wage but low on people to do the jobs in a new economy that we are going to need. This is a massive challenge for Australia. I am glad that this report considered those measures.
What I want to see very much is a revisioning of tertiary education—attracting more people who would not contemplate training into TAFE and other private education providers, and encouraging people at TAFE to contemplate a blended degree with a university, earlier. I do not think it is adequate that you need to complete your TAFE degree before you can realistically get into university. It is time to remove that barrier.
We need to be looking at sequencing those 140,000 young Australians who can do no better than receive income replacement from the state, to contemplate a career in one of our high-quality TAFEs. The obvious way to achieve that is to remove the upfront costs, which is precisely what the Commonwealth has done. But I want to see many more TAFEs with far stronger partnerships with universities. Those are the points that I want to make tonight as I highlight the important work by MSIT in south-east Queensland. But, secondly, I am still frustrated at the lack of partnerships that we have with our skills councils and even understanding between jurisdictions of precisely what the needs are for the next generation's training. The jobs of tomorrow are still not adequately catered for in TAFE.
Lastly, I want to emphasise that in schools, as they struggle with the university pathway and the vocational pathway, we need to be absolutely cautious that we do not close off one pathway to students by promoting another. I do not think that we should be closing off for vocational students their pathway into tertiary education. They may not be getting an OP score, as we know it in Queensland, but the pathways for those students, at any time after leaving school, should be the possibility of doing just one or two subjects at university, picking up one or two MOOCs online and not just thinking that, because you chose when you were 15 to be a hairdresser, that is all you will ever contemplate until you are 21, because the bridge back into university, no matter how theoretically attractive and bureaucratically simple that is, is a massive step—to go back five years in demographics and start studying again with 17-year-olds. So many people can never achieve that.
MSIT are grappling with just those concerns, with 20,000 students and 150 courses. They are looking after southern Brisbane, Logan and Redlands, some of the most challenging areas in Queensland. We are only nine per cent of the nation's GDP, but it is an area that is absolutely stacked with 15- to 24-year-olds—more so than anywhere else in the state. MSIT, with its campuses at Mount Gravatt, Loganlea, Yeerongpilly, Alexandra Hills, Beaudesert and Browns Plains, does just that by having tertiary education close to home. While I accept the need for excellence, there is nothing more powerful than having tertiary education somewhere close on a public transport route for those who have never contemplated the possibility of doing that.
Survey results today came out saying that young Australians aspire more than anything to a successful career, followed by homeownership. As I say repeatedly, there is no greater responsibility for a government than the provision of opportunity—the provision of places and pathways that people can take up. It is not up to us to kick doors down, grab people by the scruff of the neck and sit them in front of university lecturers; they will do that of their own accord if we make those pathways possible. What MSIT does is make sure that those high-skill jobs for tomorrow can be accessed through this transition. They have the arrangements for people who left school at 15, people who did not complete senior and, of course, mature-age students.
I want to emphasise that the Brisbane economy is mostly light commercial and niche manufacturing, so it is a little unusual. It has the Gold Coast just down the road, with a real emphasis on tourism. But we do have to be careful. I know we can fill seats at TAFE for a whole range of service industries and we know that internal consumption is a growth area for every economy, but we must be skilling in science, technology and engineering. These are the really big areas; we refer to them as the STEM professions. We must be drawing people on the margins into these areas, because these are the GDP-generating jobs. It is just not enough at the age of 17, simply because you were not exposed to science, technology, engineering and maths at school or never had a great and inspiring teacher in that area, to rule it out for life, because these are the areas that are economy transforming. We must do everything we can to inspire young people into this direction and to inspire young women in particular to contemplate a career in these areas, where often they never have. There is a great imbalance in science and technology for intake of young women, and we can do better.
Lastly, some of the recommendations that came out of that report and particularly the submissions really indicate that we can still do better in a couple of areas that I want to mention. The first one—and this was suggested by TAFE Directors Australia—is the need potentially to help the public provider align their education and training outcomes with the needs of our economy. This is effectively a charter that understands, through states and territories, what our national priorities are. There is still too much jurisdictional difference. We need to better align those federal and state providers so that Queensland is not purely focusing on Queensland's skilling needs, because in reality, when you are looking for a job, these boundaries need to disappear. Every state needs to be pulling its weight. Young Tasmanian children should be dreaming of a job in the mining communities in the electorate of Durack. Young Queenslanders should not just think that tourism is the be-all and end-all because they live on the Gold Coast. We are still not there yet.
Secondly, the skills council can still play a more nuanced role in this. They still need to be looking forward to the workforce needs of tomorrow, and I have already referred to that. That is still not happening to the satisfaction of TAFEs. Linking of small business is wonderful and an emerging area, but let's be honest: not all of commercial south-east Queensland in every business is regularly reminded of the need to workforce-plan, to think about the jobs and the skills they will need and to feed that back in. When conditions in the workforce are changing, do not assume that everyone in TAFE knows that. Do not assume that every university lecturer understands that. Many of them have not been in the workforce for nearly a decade. We need that feedback directly from small business, because they have a stake in this. The idea that somebody else does the training is old thinking, and we can do far better than that.
Let's remember also the role of social capital, and this is that TAFEs are increasingly providing those core skills: living skills, workplace literacy. We call these foundation skills for many students that have had very challenging backgrounds. Thank you to TAFE for their work, not just directly in the provision of lectures but in the social support to keep people from struggling—young mums struggling with a partner that is giving them no support at all, struggling on a low-income, with closely spaced kids, to still make it to TAFE every day; they deal with those skills as well. That is vitally important. TAFEs are also providing links to apprenticeships, industry linkages, traineeships—all of those things—many of which universities are not directly concerned with.
Lastly, we need a level playing field. The Queensland government is doing great work in privatising the TAFE space to maximise the use of lazy assets. Only 27 per cent of TAFE assets are used between nine and five. It is extraordinary that three-quarters of TAFE assets in Queensland are what we refer to as lazy assets. Why not have someone else coming in and using those assets at a market price, training and competing with TAFE? TAFE is not to be the provider of last resort; TAFE is a provider of excellence. But we want more than just that single body responding to the needs of Queensland and, more generally, the nation. States and territories can also provide TAFEs with more policy certainty about where we need to go in training. This is a reminder for all governments. It was all brought up beautifully in this report. I commend those on the committee for their great work.
Debate adjourned.
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:11): I take the opportunity to make some brief remarks about the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, A clearer message for consumers. I appreciated being a member of the committee whilst it carried out the inquiry into country-of-origin labelling for food. I thank all of those people who made representations to the committee. From memory, 50-odd presenters made formal submissions and gave evidence to the inquiry. It was an inquiry that gave a very good overview of the current country-of-origin labelling laws and systems and the issues confronting Australian producers and manufacturers. I walked away from the inquiry having a much clearer picture of what the issues are, the concerns of the industry broadly and the kinds of things we ought to try to do to assist producers and manufacturers in this country.
The committee's report contains eight recommendations, which does not sound like a lot, but they were eight important recommendations. I am not going to go into the detail of them because my view is that if somebody really wants to know about the inquiry they ought to get a copy of the report and read it. It is not a very large report and it summarises the issues much better than I can do in the few minutes that I have available to me.
This inquiry took place only a couple of years after the Blewett inquiry into effectively the same issues. From memory, the Blewett inquiry came up with 70-odd recommendations. I am a little disappointed that we have not implemented all of the recommendations of that inquiry, one in particular, which I will come to in just a moment. Nevertheless, this issue is very important to so many people across the country, particularly producers, food growers and food manufacturers. It is important on two grounds. Firstly, I believe that a consumer has the right to know what is in food, they have the right to know where it is grown and they have the right to know in which country it was processed or transformed. I believe that is a fundamental entitlement of people throughout Australia when they make choices about the food and the product they are going to buy given that standards vary from one country to another when it comes to manufacturing products across the world. Secondly, it is important to the producers themselves, whether they are a manufacturer in the broad sense or a food producer. Again, having a clear understanding of where the product is made becomes a very important and effective marketing tool that we all know makes a difference to the survival of businesses around the place.
If I can just go back for a moment to the question of the right for consumers to know all about this, the right is important because we know full well in today's day and age, when we live in a global environment, that not all countries produce their food in exactly the same way and under the same safety standards that we do in Australia. When someone makes a choice about what they are going to buy, I believe they have a right to make that choice in the full knowledge of where the product came from, and then they can make a judgement as to whether they feel confident in it or not. With respect to the producers, can I also add this comment: again, they also compete today in a global world and their markets in turn have a right to know where products come from, because they can make exactly the same judgements about where they will source their product and where they will not.
The eight recommendations talk about how we can simplify doing that, and I am fully in support of the recommendations. It will be interesting to see whether they are adopted by government and whether they are modified. In essence, what we tried to do as a committee is simplify the information that is available to consumers so that it makes it a little bit easier for them to make that choice. As part of the survey we had representations from the Choice organisation, who from their surveys claimed that 40 per cent of Australians believe that it is crucial for them to know where products are coming from.
There are a couple of other concerns that I have with respect to this whole process, and I want to very briefly touch on them. The first is the fact that food standards, in particular, are controlled under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand protocol that we have in place—it is an arrangement we have with New Zealand. It is an arrangement that I believe was put into effect in about 1995 or 1996—it is almost 20 years old. At the time it might have seemed and sounded like it was a good idea. The reality is that today we and New Zealand operate as competing countries in respect of a whole range of products. It is my view that the arrangement whereby we work in cooperation with New Zealand may well be appropriate with respect to the food quality standards information that goes on the food but, when it comes to the country-of-origin labelling, the matter ought to be separated—taken out of FSANZ and given to the ACCC to deal with—as was recommended in recommendation 41 under the Blewett inquiry. So I guess my view is: yes, we maintain an arrangement with New Zealand about prescribing the nutritional content and the health information that is required on packaging, but, when it comes to country-of-origin labelling as to where the product comes from, that becomes a separate matter and it ought to go to the ACCC and not to FSANZ.
That would also overcome my second problem relating to the fact that we are indeed competing with New Zealand with respect to a whole range of products. In fact, in the course of the inquiry it became clear that because of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement that we have with New Zealand there is a degree of confusion about what we allow in from New Zealand and what labelling information is required from their products as opposed to what comes from other countries. In other words, in the eyes of some, the New Zealand arrangement allows products to be brought into Australia—you might say under a backdoor arrangement—that we would otherwise not necessarily have allowed into Australia were it not for that arrangement. There were some sureties given that that is not necessarily the case and that the process we use is quite robust and so on, but I am not sure whether that satisfies everyone. My view is that where we see today that we enter into free trade agreements with countries, as New Zealand has done, we are nevertheless competitors on a whole range of products and it would be much easier and much clearer if we actually had our own system in place.
The last comment I will make about all this is that it is true that in recent times we have entered into several free trade agreements with other countries. The primary reason, in my view, for having pushed through with those free trade agreements is to try and open markets to our producers and in particular our primary producers, our farmers and so on. We know full well that Australian product is very much in demand right across the world because of the way we produce things in this country. We even heard stories about how, for our dairy farmers, the price of milk could well go up to about $8 a litre in places like China where those who are bit more affluent would be prepared to pay those kinds of prices for Australian milk because they have more confidence in it than in the milk that comes from other places.
So labelling, and clear labelling, is just as important if we are going to try and help our primary producers as it is to do all of the other things that we are trying to do. It is important to open up markets in other countries if those other markets can also have confidence in the labelling. But it is also important because back here in Australia our consumers are part of the markets that producers are missing out on because the labelling has been blurred over the years.
I think this issue has been talked about for far too long. I think there is enough willingness from the Australian public to say we need a change. That is what drove this inquiry in the first place. We have come up with some recommendations, and I think it is high time that we made the labelling system of products here in Australia much clearer for all.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:21): This is an opportunity again to support what I think is a very positive report that has been submitted to this place and a lot of work by the committee members concerned. I want to highlight four areas in this report, A clearer message for consumers: report on the inquiry into country of origin labelling for food, which I think are promising and one area that needs to go a little further. I am very impressed with recommendation 1 and the clarification around 'Made in'. Up until now, 'Made in Australia from imported and local ingredients' has been incredibly vague and poorly understood by the general community, and it did need to be improved. This recommendation 1 to provide 'Made in Australia' only for 90 per cent content or above is very positive, and then to use the 50 per cent cut-off for mostly foreign or mostly domestic is absolutely common sense.
There is also obviously a lot of misleading advertising and food labelling. I do not think any of us would disagree that that is an area that we really have to focus on continuously and vigilantly via the statutory authorities that are concerned.
As an eye surgeon, I will support any increase in size of labelling, but in reality packages are self-limited for space. I understand that many food manufacturers are very concerned about that recommendation because already, they would argue, there is a huge amount of information on packaging, and increasing size presents them with certain difficulties. They would point out, I accept, that increasingly technology will play a role here.
My main reason for rising today was first of all to point out that there is still a possibility to generate virtuous positive cycles around country-of-origin labelling. By that I mean having some kind of competition to increase local content, to make the wavering food manufacturer consider putting more local ingredients in because there is a business return on that investment. Currently there is not. Currently, if you can save a buck and use some foreign products, I do not blame food manufacturers for doing just that to maximise their profit.
We have a role here in identifying the most Australian product in its class of foodstuffs that are on the shelf. This is a possibility amongst packaged food, canned food and reconstituted and shelf-stable juices. There is a possibility there to identify the most Australian juice in its class according to the content of what they use. This would simply be—as we currently do nutrient analysis on every food through FSANZ anyway—an option for food manufacturers to list what they intend to stick to as a minimum over the next 12 months. Of course, that can change. But, where they win that competition to have the most Australian ingredients in their product, they deserve some form of recommendation. This would be not a cost for a supermarket to bear but an industry supported, self-regulating ability to identify the most Australian food product in its class. You can do it with technology, but you can also do it by simply highlighting the label with a transparency that makes the price tag yellow instead of white.
When people shop and walk down those two aisles, really, that have Australian product battling to remain on the shelves, it is mostly packaged mixed goods; it is mostly reconstituted shelf-stable juice; and it is canned food. That is where the battle is. The battle is not down in the domestic cleaning products. It is not down in fresh fruit and veg. That is all clearly labelled. In that very small area of the supermarket, we should be able to identify that it is the Heinz baked beans as opposed to someone else's baked beans that are the most Australian baked beans. You do not need to write anything on a label. You just need to have a little flyer or a dangly hanging from the shelf front. Who on earth is going to do that? Heinz will because they have a one to two per cent market advantage for doing it.
It is an $80 billion sector, so what does a one per cent change to Australian consumption of products do in that sector? It makes a big difference—hundreds of millions of dollars for Australian food manufacturers. That is a one per cent change. Plenty of studies have been done on how many people will change their purchasing habits if they know what is Australian, and the jury tells us that it is between three and five per cent. That is a multibillion-dollar dividend if we can make it simple.
Not quite so simple is the IT component. This was recommendation 6, where we talked about bar code technology being optional. I think we have to be tougher than that. I think the least that food and grocery manufacturers can do is be part of a bar code system that Australians are able to use with their smartphones. All of us under the age 70 have got smartphones. Everyone is using them. Many people have two of them. It is time for food and grocery manufacturers to stump up. I am sick and tired of the Food and Grocery Council representing, predominantly, foreign food and grocery arrangements. They put 'Australian' in front, but the AFGC are mostly representing foreign food producers and are probably the greatest stumbling block in getting progress in this area. I know Australians keep asking for more progress, but in reality they go into shopping centres and supermarkets and they do not buy Australian products, because of a combination of brand loyalty and price. We know that. But, as a state, we can make it easier for them to make that shift if they choose to.
Government is not going to do it, but I will tell you who will. It will be the loyalty programs. Coles and Woolies have eight million and seven million customers respectively. I have got their cards in my wallet. Most of us carry those cards. I am not going to fall into the trap of being pulled up for using props, Deputy Speaker, but I carry six cards and two of them are supermarket loyalty cards. I do that to get the fuel discounts. These guys collect an enormous amount of data on my shopping preferences. There are enormous opportunities for me to opt in, with these profiles, and tell Coles or Woolworths that I have an interest in low-fructose foods, high-energy foods, low-cholesterol foods or Australian-country-of-origin products. It should be a relatively simple matter for me then to be able to walk with my phone and scan what I am buying or wirelessly download from my loyalty program customer profile everything that I have bought over the last five years. They could tell me what my preferences are, and then I should be receiving SMSs every time constituent analysis changes, country of origin of a product changes or price changes. If there is a special on, I should be able to get it as an SMS on my phone as I enter the store.
This is probably five years away, but, if that is where we are heading, as a state we need to provision for that. We need to provision for that possibility. If I care about Australian-produced goods, all that data is already collected, because already the supermarket loyalty programs know the constituent analysis of every food. They have done that already for FSANZ. They know the star labelling of every food, because we have now got that agreed through the states and territories. It would be a relatively simple matter for them to connect the star ratings with the foods and then allow customers to talk about what they want to know about what is on the shelves. In the end, the state may have to do very little but facilitate these programs to occur. I am excited about those potentials and, if it can help Australians buy a few more country-of-origin labelled products, we may be able to get around some of the more complex areas of labelling and mandating of printing of information on scarce label space and have people empowered, through smartphone devices, to do it.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (17:28): I appreciate the opportunity to speak in relation to report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry's inquiry into country-of-origin labelling of food. I want to congratulate the chair, the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and all the committee members for all the work they have done on this committee, because I think it is a very important report. Country-of-origin labelling is obviously a very contentious issue, particularly for regional members of this place—and I note the presence of two regional members in the chamber beside me at the moment.
This is a contentious issue which prompts very passionate responses, but I particularly want to speak in relation to one of the recommendations in the report as it relates to seafood. Recommendation 7 is:
The Committee recommends that the Northern Territory's country of origin labelling of seafood in the food service sector be referred to the Council of Australian Governments for consideration.
This is a very important recommendation for my electorate, the electorate of Gippsland, and in particular for the Lakes Entrance fishing industry, which has been one of the leading advocates, on behalf of fishermen, to improve the system of labelling for seafood purchased in the food service sector.
My concern—and I have raised this before in the House—is that it is very likely that Australian fishermen and anyone who eats seafood in a restaurant, club or bar is currently being ripped off throughout Australia, apart from perhaps in the Northern Territory. That is because the country of origin of the product you are being served is never provided to you when you are in that restaurant environment. It is high time that we end the rip-offs and rorts and tell consumers exactly what they are eating.
If I go to a restaurant—and I am partial to seafood—and I order flathead tails, I want a delightfully sweet fish more than likely caught by a Lakes Entrance trawler fishermen under sustainable conditions and a highly regulated industry. I do not want bass from the Mekong Delta smothered in batter and plonked on a plate of deceit and passed off as some fresh Australian seafood. I encourage Australians to take this challenge next time they order seafood from a club or a bar and actually ask the waiter or waitress, 'Where did this come from?' Chances are, he or she will not be able to answer the question and no-one in the kitchen will be able to answer the question. I do not blame them, because they are not required to answer the question. What concerns me is that there are fish being passed off as fresh Australian seafood in many of our restaurants and clubs at the moment when they are not. I think the Northern Territory system is a far better way of managing what I believe is a major concern for the dining public but also for fishermen.
I am not just concerned for the diners in these restaurants; I am also concerned that fishermen are not getting a fair return for their wild catch or farmed product. The Australian aquaculture industry's reputation for sustainably managed and environmentally sustainable fisheries means those fishermen would be able to attract a premium for their seafood if it was fully declared to the dining public in advance at a restaurant or club. We know, in many cases, that fish is sourced from overseas, with about 70 per cent of Australia seafood being imported. There is currently no obligation whatsoever to tell the diners in these establishments where the seafood has come from.
When I talk to industry representatives, they tell me that they are not against imports by any stretch of the imagination. They simply want country-of-origin labelling to provide fairness in the industry and to ensure that customers are well informed and can make an informed choice to buy Australian product and perhaps even pay a little bit more if that is their choice. They are concerned that they are not getting full value for the Australian product.
I would like to quote from a submission that the Lakes Entrance Fishermens Co-Operative made to a previous government inquiry on this issue. This is from Dale Sumner, the chief executive, who has been a long-term campaigner on this issue. He said:
Given the strong consumer demand for Australian seafood it is incredibly frustrating and concerning that imported seafood is able to be sold without any declaration regarding its origin being made at the plate. This is a significant issue for both the seafood processing sector and more importantly the consumer.
The current failure of labelling laws in regard to cooked seafood is contributing to an increasing number of consumers losing confidence in what seafood they are eating. Consumers need to be comfortable eating seafood and be provided a clear understanding of where it originated.
It is our preference that the specific country of origin should be labelled however would be satisfied if as a minimum “Imported” was … on all seafood sold cooked to ensure that the consumer has the opportunity to make an informed decision when purchasing seafood.
He goes on to argue:
The venues that are selling seafood on their menus simply for profit are our concern; the consumers in these venues are being ripped off.
We have had a trial in place. The inquiry report correctly refers to that process in the Northern Territory. It has basically been a massive trial that all Australia could learn from.
I accept that the recommendation is to send this to the Council of Australian Governments. I hope they take it seriously. I am fearful that COAG is a place where good ideas go to die, but I am hoping this time that the Council of Australian Governments take it seriously and looks very closely at the Northern Territory example. It has been a six-year trial. It has worked on the ground. Most of the concerns that have been brought up by the restaurant industry and others have been countered by the Northern Territory process. They have found there is very little cost for the small business sector at all. They have found that the average cost of compliance with the legislation is in the order of $600, not the tens of thousands of dollars that was argued by the industry when it was first put forward.
I think it is an important issue. It is certainly an important issue for the fishermen in the electorate of Gippsland. It is also an important issue, I think, for consumers across Australia. Again, I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry for the work they have done and for what I think is a very valuable report.
With a little bit of indulgence by the House, I want to comment just very briefly on an announcement today by the leader of the Nationals in Victoria, who has announced his resignation, which I think is important news and I bring the House's attention to it. Peter Ryan, who has been the leader in Victoria for many years now, has announced his resignation as the leader. It follows the weekend's election result, which obviously was not the result that my party was looking for. I want to acknowledge that Peter has been a terrific leader for the Nationals in Victoria and has been one of the more formidable campaigners in our party's history, with several great wins against the odds in seats like Benalla, Mildura, Moreland and Gippsland East. He has been at his best when his back has been against the wall, and he has helped our party recover to a strong position in the parliament. He has been a formidable campaigner. He is a very robust debater on the floor of the parliament but one of the gentlemen of the parliament, prepared to shake hands with the opposition at the end of the day. He has been well respected on both sides.
The National Party in Victoria will select their new leader on Wednesday, I believe. I note the presence of my good friend Mr Cobb, who I think may have an interest in the outcome. We may both be speculating on the same potential future leader. With that indulgence, I commend the committee for its work and the inquiry. I look forward to COAG taking up the challenge of bringing some sense to our food labelling laws, particularly as they relate to seafood prepared and cooked in our restaurants, pubs and clubs around Australia.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:36): I rise to speak on the motion of Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, and I congratulate him and his standing committee, because this is a longstanding issue. It is not an easy one, because there are conflicting interests. Obviously it is enormously important, if it happens in Australia, that there are jobs involved in the packaging. Even more so, it is important if it is processed in Australia, because that also involves jobs, equipment and everything that goes with it. So there are competing interests here, with those who want to import and package; import and process; or import, package and process.
But I must say that those things are surmounted by the fact that the most important thing is—we are talking food here—where it is grown. Obviously the various retailers, be they the supermarkets or whoever, do not like constraint at all. Basically, they would rather not have too many fences around the way labelling happens at all. And it is also true that there is a large percentage, larger than most of us want to admit, who really are more concerned with the price than where it is grown, processed, packaged or whatever.
We are talking food here; we are not talking fibre, cotton, wool or timber. In fact, it is quite likely fibres will be exported, processed overseas and come back again as an article. That is nowhere near the case when you are talking food. Whether you are talking bread or whether you are talking biscuits, no matter what you are talking about, the chances of Australian product being exported, processed as food and coming back is far less than it is with other agricultural products—or steel, iron ore or coal, whatever you want to talk about. It is far less likely. But the one thing you know is that, if it is grown here, the chances are it is processed and it is packaged here. That means that the government does not have the same responsibility—because it is government's responsibility—to be sure that, wherever it comes from, it is done according to Australian standards. It does not always happen, but it is our responsibility.
I want to congratulate Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, and his committee for making a genuine and, by and large, very good attempt to come to terms with the issue—because, come to terms with it, we must. It is too important that the information is there for producers and for a lot of retailers—not all but a lot of retailers—who care about the quality of the food they buy and those who care that they support, as much as is feasible, Australian producers, packagers and processors. I do not believe, as this report says, that it costs more for anyone to use the particular labelling that they are suggesting rather than any other sort of labelling.
Country of origin food labelling has been the topic of many public reviews and unsuccessful legislative reform attempts not just in the last 10 years but for far longer than I have been in this place. I would say it has been a big issue for the last 30 years. In those days, far more processing of food to be exported happened in Australia, let alone to be consumed domestically. In March this year another report was ordered on country of origin food labelling. I think the time has come for us to really look at this seriously—and not be too interested in supermarkets or various importers but deal with it honestly. The report found that consumers and peak advocacy groups claim there is confusion about the various country of origin labelling claims for food products in Australia. Anyone who disagrees with that is certainly wearing blinkers.
I think a certain level of confusion also exists for food producers and manufacturers, leading to compliance issues—and I do not think that is an unfair statement either. The level of dissatisfaction with the existing labelling framework indicates that a system which is designed to inform and guide industry and consumers needs to be overhauled. You cannot make it as simple as it can be and simply say that we just have a bar of green or yellow for Australia and black for what is not Australian. If you do it on quantity, we only have to look at, for example, Brazilian juice. It comes over here as an extract and it is one per cent extract and 99 per cent Australian water. So that would be false. It would not be Australian. If you do it on value, then it becomes 99 per cent Brazilian and one per cent Australian. So there are complications in what some people want to make a very simple issue.
Rowan and his team, with the support of the relevant ministers, embarked on an enquiry on this issue and they held hearings in most of the capital cities in Australia. I think most of their recommendations showed a very genuine attempt to come to grips with the issue. It became clear during the inquiry that country of origin of food is not important to everyone but it is very important to Australia's producers and it is certainly important when it comes to the fact that, if it is grown, processed and packaged in Australia, there are no issues. I agree with the committee's findings that any country of origin food labelling regime should not present an impediment to importers and/or provide non-tariff trade protection to our industries. But it should provide clear and accurate information to consumers who wish to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers.
The recommendations that have been put before us will not have any significant negative impact on Australian producers or manufacturers and will provide common-sense information that consumers can understand. I am not going to go through those recommendations—they are a matter of record for anyone who wants to look at the report—but I will repeat that this is an issue that has been around for a long, long time. I think the vested interests, who are pretty obvious—and they do not need me to run through them again—and do not want it so defined probably need to button up and just bear with it. There is one thing for sure: if it is grown in Australia, if it is processed in Australia and if it is packaged in Australia, then we know, as the Chinese know, that it is a very good product.
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (17:45): I take this opportunity today to endorse the report which has a clear message for consumers produced by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. This is the first involvement I have had with a committee and the production of a report. It was a thoroughly satisfying experience, and I think it is the best of what we can be in this place—where members from all sides of the political divide come together and make a contribution. I am very proud to have been involved and I look forward to being involved in many more reports in the future.
Country–of-origin food labelling is a critically important issue, particularly as consumers become more discerning about what they eat and where their food comes from. As information technology becomes more available, people can access that information more readily and access adverse information where they fear that food may be dangerous.
It is a very important report, particularly for producers in my electorate. The horticultural industry around Warren Blackwood, which is making giant strides in establishing its brand under the Southern Forests Food Council, is one of many primary-producing organisations around my electorate who will benefit from stronger and more robust food labelling.
In addition to that, the recently signed free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan also mean that we need more robust country-of-origin labelling, particularly so that Australian food being exported into those markets can be identified as such.
In the lead-up to the report, we were hearing of widespread dissatisfaction from all sectors of the industry with the current arrangements and the difficulty in defining the safe harbour arrangements as they currently stood. The terms of reference that we finally arrived at and were given by the ministers asked us to investigate, in the first instance, whether the current country-of-origin labelling system provided enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
The second term of reference was whether Australia's country-of-origin labelling laws are being complied with and what, if any, are the practical limitations to compliance. The third term of reference was whether improvements could be made, including to simplify the current system and reduce the compliance burden. The fourth term of reference was whether Australia's country-of-origin laws are being circumvented by staging imports through third countries; and, five, the impact of Australia's international trade obligations of any proposed changes that we might propose.
I admit to be being a little sceptical that we would come up with anything from this review, given that there had been many reviews conducted in the past and most of them ended up going nowhere. I have to say that, given the enthusiastic leadership of the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, as the chairman of the committee and the excellent work of the other committee members—and I will not name them all—as I have said previously, it was a pleasure working with them and we have given a new dimension to this issue.
I also believe that we have developed a constructive set of recommendations which, if adopted, will give some very clear guidelines to consumers, reassurance to those of us who care about the origins of the food we eat and give Australian producers the opportunity to better identify their locally grown food.
I thoroughly enjoyed the evidence-gathering process where we took evidence in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, where we did a field trip to some of the producers who were directly affected. The whole committee appreciated the fact that these people took the time to come and give evidence. We also appreciated getting a broader understanding of the issues around the nation.
I want to run through the recommendations we have come up with and give a small explanation of them. Recommendation 1 from the report is that the committee recommends that the Australian government implement the following country-of-origin labelling safe harbours. 'Grown in' represents 100 per cent content of the country specified—in other words if it is claimed that it is grown in Australia, then consumers can be confident that it is 100 per cent grown in Australia. 'A product of' indicates 90 per cent of the content from the country specified. This is where some of the more important changes that we have suggested come in: 'made in from Australian ingredients' indicates 90 per cent from the country specified. 'Made in', for example Australia, 'from mostly local ingredients' specifies more than 50 per cent Australian content; and 'made in' Australia, in this particular example, 'from mostly imported ingredients' specifies less than 50 per cent Australian content. That is an important recommendation because it does specify much more clearly than the current system what those specifications are.
Recommendation 2 is that the committee recommends that the Australian government amend the standard 1.2.9 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code will allow for the prescription of the country-of-origin label text information on packaged foods be increased in size when compared with the surrounding text on a product label. It came up many times in evidence that the country-of-origin labelling was in very small text amongst much bigger advertising and promotional text. That is another important recommendation.
Recommendation 3 is that the committee recommends that the Australian government increase the scrutiny of products with mostly or all imported ingredients that use misleading Australian symbols, icons and imagery. Once again, evidence was presented on several occasions of imported product that used the Australian flag or the kangaroo for the koala to give the obviously misleading impression that it was an Australian product when it was wholly imported from another country.
Recommendation 4 is that the committee recommends the introduction of visual descriptor that reflects the safe harbour thresholds of Australian ingredients in the content of the product. A very simple system of a symbol, rather than a text or in addition to text, so that shoppers in a supermarket aisle can very easily pick up a product and identify the country of origin, specifically Australian.
I would also like to mention recommendation 6—I will not mention every recommendation—that we voluntarily institute a bar code so people with mobile phones can access the bar code and get all the information they require while they are in the supermarket. As we have said previously, people are looking for much more information on the source of the food that they eat. The rest of the recommendations are on the record, and I would urge people to get hold of the report and look at it. I would like to close today by thanking the secretariat for the wonderful work that they did throughout the process—in particular the secretary Julia Morris; the secretary of the inquiry, Anthony Overs; senior research officer Lauren Wilson; research officer Leonie Bury; and administrative officer Prudence Zuber. I will close by endorsing the report for the parliament. I am very proud of the little part I played in putting it together.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (17:53): I think the member for O'Connor is being a little bit modest. I am sure he had a big part to play in this very important report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. This food labelling report is important, and I know how important agriculture and food labelling is to the member for Durack and her constituents. I represent the Riverina, one of the great food bowls of this nation—I would argue the greatest food bowl of this nation, but it is certainly one of the most important. There is very little that we do not grow in the Riverina. Pawpaw, pineapples and sugar are excluded, but we grow just about everything else, and much of it is sent overseas. There are a lot of people in my electorate, some very vocal, who are very, very concerned about food labelling—as they should be. Bart Brighenti is one, a citrus grower in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area who emails me on an almost daily basis to decry the food labelling of this nation.
There have been a number of inquiries into Australia's food labelling over the past decade. I am sure that this report is going to go some of the way to clearing up the anomalies, that it is going to go some of the way to helping to improve the situation. We will never get something that is absolutely perfect for everybody; we will never get something that all the citrus growers, all the wineries and all those important food-processing factories are ever going to be entirely comfortable with—obviously, in conjunction with our supermarkets. Whenever we change food-labelling laws it comes at a cost to supermarkets, they claim. Then that cost is put on to the products on the supermarket shelves, and obviously is then borne by shoppers, including families, who go to buy their daily and weekly supplies.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry has produced a report which sends a clearer message for consumers into country-of-origin labelling for food. I would like to commend the committee, which was very ably led by the member for Grey—a very good member and a very thorough member who is very particular about detail—on this comprehensive inquiry and this very useful report. I note that Michelle Landry, the member for Capricornia, was on the committee. She too is a very good member. I was in Rockhampton the other day. The agriculture that they are producing there also needs good food-labelling laws. I had the good fortune to conduct an infrastructure roundtable meeting in Rockhampton, and the member for Capricornia played a vital part in that. She is to be commended for her ongoing role to better food-labelling laws and for her ongoing commitment to agriculture.
As the committee noted when embarking on this inquiry, the regulation of country-of-origin labelling for foods has been subject to reform in recent years, but confusion remains. Indeed, in his recent green paper on agricultural competitiveness, the Minister for Agriculture noted that the public still finds country-of-origin labelling confusing. When you go into a supermarket and look at the various food labels on all the products, I can appreciate what it is like for mums and dads. They have got their kids with them; they want to buy Australian goods that are grown here, made here, packaged here, canned here; but the trouble is sometimes you are damned if you can actually even find out where the product comes from. You have kids screaming at your hip, you are trying to push a shopping trolley around, you are trying to make sure you get all the things on your list, and of course you need to get home and cook dinner and do all those sorts of things. There are lots of pressures when you go to the supermarket without having the added burden of understanding the food labelling. Sometimes it is in a particular type size and you can hardly read it. It is all very confusing. The objective of any country-of-origin labelling framework must be to give consumers clear and discernible information about where their food is grown without imposing unnecessary red tape on agribusinesses, unnecessary red tape on supermarkets, unnecessary red tape that is going to cost the person at the end of the line—that is, the consumer—even more money.
It is easy in principle, but it can be challenging in practice when a mix of imported and locally-grown produce is involved. To that end, I would commend the work done by Senator John Williams, the Nationals senator for New South Wales, who has been on the case of country-of-origin labelling for as long as I can remember. I am not speaking out of turn here: he has often gone into the party room and made good submissions, and I know he too would have talked to the member for Capricornia about this report. He would have had input into making sure that food is correctly labelled and making sure that those people who are producing the food and canning the food understand that their concerns are being heard in this, this parliament of the nation.
The committee is to be commended for its first recommendation which, I believe, makes some quite sensible delineations between produce that is grown in Australia—being 100 per cent content—to that made in Australia from imported ingredients, which involves less than 50 per cent Australian content. The use of a sliding scale as a system of safe harbours—as set out in recommendation 1—strikes a good balance between clarity for consumers and minimisation of red tape for business. Such a system of safe harbours would, I think, be assisted by the use of visual descriptors, as the committee has recommended in recommendation 4. Of course, symbols can be misused, and a recognition of this no doubt sits behind the committee's recommendation that greater scrutiny of misuse is required.
Increasingly, people want to know where their produce is coming from. More often than not, people want to buy local whenever and wherever they can. There are a very good recommendations—eight in total. Recommendation 3, for example, recommends:
...that the Australian Government increase its scrutiny of products with mostly or all imported ingredients that use misleading Australian symbols, icons and imagery.
That is so important. We should not have foods coming in that are pinching the good old kangaroo, or other similar Australian symbols—the outline of the nation, including Tasmania of course—and trying to pass them off as, or con consumers that they are, Australian made or Australian grown. In recommendation 5, the committee recommends:
…that the Australian Government, in conjunction with industry and consumer advocacy groups, develop and implement an education program designed to raise awareness of country of origin labelling rules, regulations, requirements and impacts, for consumers and industry. The program should be developed and implemented following any changes that have been adopted in response to this report.
That is important. We need to get the message out there. We need to be educating everybody from youngsters up about the importance of home-grown food, the safeguards that are in place, and the fact that it is best in most cases to eat produce that is coming from local areas.
As the member for Solomon takes the chair, she will be interested to know that recommendation 7 of this particular report recommends:
…that the Northern Territory’s country of origin labelling of seafood in the food service sector be referred to the Council of Australian Governments for consideration.
That is important. I know what a great advocate the member for Solomon is for Northern Territorians. I know also how important it is that food labelling is correct, because we have discussed a number of times how important it is to have correct and proper food labelling. I know that as a mother the Deputy Speaker would also know how important it is on most occasions—if not all occasions—to be seen to be and to be doing the 'buy Australia' thing, and to be loyal to our Australian producers and our Australian farmers, who are the very best at what they do. We grow the freshest and best food available. We all know that. But it is also important that we get the labelling right. I cannot stress that enough.
I again commend the committee and all of those on it, including Labor members opposite and the Independent member for Indi, for the work that they have done in endeavouring to get better food labelling laws in this country. It is so important. It is important for farmers, it is important for agribusinesses and it is also very important for the supermarket end of the chain.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (18:03): As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, I am very pleased to rise to speak on the report into the inquiry into the country of origin labelling for food. I acknowledge the very good leadership of Mr Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, as chair of the committee, and all members for their contributions. I agree with the comments made earlier by the member for O'Connor: it was a very positive, satisfying bipartisan inquiry to be involved in. The work of the secretariat was invaluable, and I thank them for their commitment and professionalism, and I believe the quality of the report is excellent.
An inquiry such as this can only be meaningful with strong stakeholder involvement and consultation, and I believe we achieved just that. The inquiry received more than 60 submissions, held seven public hearings and spent some time visiting food manufacturers.
So why have the inquiry? Why is it that a number of inquiries have already looked at Australia's food-labelling system and yet the consumer, who seeks to be informed about certain qualities of food, still remains confused, uncertain or unclear? This inquiry has arisen due to further alleged high levels of confusion not only amongst consumers but also amongst some manufacturers. For the consumer, this can mean that they are consuming things that they do not want to eat or did not intend to eat. For the manufacturer, it may mean that they have unintentionally fallen foul of the law.
Amongst the five terms of reference, the committee inquiry paid particular attention to whether the country-of-origin labelling system provides enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. My interest as a lawyer is, in particular, in protecting the consumer so that, when a consumer goes to the supermarket and picks up a product that says it is grown in Australia, the consumer can be sure that this product indeed comprises 100 per cent Australian content. They deserve nothing less. That is what I care about: the consumer having informed choice, especially in this day and age, when consumers are more and more focused on the quality of the food that they serve their families. If they want to support Australian farmers and Australian food manufacturers then the Australian law should assist them with this—not hinder or cause confusion but actually assist them to make these purchasing decisions.
The Australian Consumer Law, as it stands, specifies which foods must have country-of-origin labelling and provides some guiding principles for the industry. It does not prescribe explicit rules with regard to labelling but simply states that the labels cannot be false, misleading or deceptive. The recommendations from this inquiry will add strength and clarity within that existing Consumer Law framework.
The committee is of the view that country-of-origin food labelling should provide crystal-clear information to consumers who wish to make their own choices to purchase Australian food or, indeed, not to buy Australian food; they may want to buy only Italian tomatoes, and that is their right. Our report and recommendations strengthen consumer protection in the area of country-of-origin food labelling and, at the same time, do not present impediments to importers.
A clear er message for consumers, the aptly named report into country-of-origin food labelling, has eight recommendations which give consumers informed choice. I might just give a small flavour—pardon the pun—of some of the recommendations in the report. Recommendation 1 is clearly the most important and is on the safe harbours for labelling: 'grown in' will stipulate that 100 per cent of content is from the country specified, whereas 'product of' stipulates that 90 per cent of content is from the country specified. Recommendation 2 allows for certain relevant text on packaged food to be increased in size so that we can read it; we do not have to squint. I am sure we have all been found in the supermarket aisles squinting at very tiny writing on the packaging, so it only makes sense that it should be big enough for the consumer to read it. Recommendation 3 increases the scrutiny of misleading Australian symbols or imagery. That is so we do not get the wrong impression and are not misled. That is what the consumer deserves. Recommendation 5 is to develop and implement an education program regarding country-of-origin labelling rules et cetera for both consumers and industry so that we can all understand the rules, regulations and labelling system better. There are various other very important recommendations which I will not refer to now, including on bar code technology and so on, which I commend.
The report urges the federal government to make major changes to stipulate the level of local and imported ingredients in food products. I commend the report and its recommendations, which examine the options for improvement to country-of-origin labelling law and policy. I trust that the recommendations will be embraced by my government so that we will relieve the frustrations, confusion and level of public angst amongst those for whom country-of-origin food labelling is a salient topic and, more importantly, provide protection for consumers and also support the very important Australian farmers and manufacturers. I commend this report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (18:10): I rise to speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Economics entitled Report on foreign investment in residential real estate.I want to begin by thanking all of the committee staff who did their characteristically good job in supporting the work of the committee. I also want to thank all of the witnesses who made themselves available so that colleagues on the economics committee could get to the bottom of what is a very sensitive topic and what is a very sensitive area of public policy, because there are perceptions in the community about foreign investment in real estate which in many instances dwarf the reality of the incidence of foreign investment in real estate. At times, unfortunately, those perceptions are fed in a not particularly constructive way by small sections of the media and, as a consequence, the downside of foreign investment in residential real estate is often emphasised or exaggerated at the cost of a proper, robust debate about an important issue.
Of course there are some downsides to the foreign investment regime as it applies to foreign investment in real estate , an d we should be very conscious of those an d do what we can to close down any loopholes or fix any problems , but it is my view that the benefits of foreign investment in residential real estate are underappreciated. It is clear that foreign investment in real estate boosts housing stock, not just for foreigners but for the broader Australian community. It is also very clear that one of the thing s that is often said about foreign investment in real estate is that it competes with first home buyers and that it also pushes up prices. That is not particularly true. There is a lot of evidence that foreign buyers are not competing in the same specific markets as those of many Australian first home buyers.
When it comes to the report, I support the bulk of the recommendation s, especially those which go to beefing up compliance activity , tougher penalties , better data collection and closer collaboration between different levels of government an d also between agencies within a level of government , particularly federally. There are issues that need to be addressed in the foreign investment regime , and some of the recommendation s are a step in the right direction.
We have not issued a dissenting report , though we do have concerns and, in some cases , substantial concerns with some of the recommendation s . The member for Chifley , who is also the deputy chair of the committee , has gone through some of those concern s, an d so I do not intend to repeat them here in my own brief remarks. What I would like to do is to focus briefly on attacks made by the chair of the committee on the people of the Foreign Investment Review Board , particularly it s chair , Brian Wilson. Unfortunately , t he chair of the committee has been attacking Brian Wilson throughout the process, whether it be through the media or whether it be at various speaking opportunities around the country. My view is that you can say what you want about the resourcing of the FIRB or the laws and regulation s which it operates un der, but it is disgraceful to slur a fine Australian who is a key part of the economic architecture of this country and who was very helpful to the committee ' s deliberations as well. It says a lot about the chair of the committee that she treats someone of the calibre of Brian Wilson as another opportunity to grab attent ion for herself for the purpose of her own political advancement. I have far more confidence in the chair of the FIRB than I have in the chair of the economics committee. I suspect anyone who has dealt with them both would have a similar view. Her behaviour throughout this process has left a lot to be desired. She has constantly gone for the cheap headline, a sneaky leak or a character assessment over proper efforts to get to the bottom of a difficult issue in a way that benefits the nation.
The member for Higgins, the chair of the committee, ought to know that the chair of the Foreign Investment Review Board does not determine the resourcing of that body and does not determine the Treasury resourcing. So to blame him for any holes in the foreign investment regime is petty ; it is pathetic. What makes it worse is the silence of the Treasurer during all of this slurring of the FIRB chair. The FIRB is a responsibility of the Treasurer , yet , while the member for Higgins goes around the country bagging a fine pers on, the Treasurer remains mute. What kind of treasurer leaves one of the key people in his own portfolio undefended like that? It is important that not only the Treasurer's silence but also the member for Higgins's behaviour is put on the parliamentary record.
As I said before, we acknowledge the gaps in the FIRB framework, and we can either support or at least live with many of the recommendations of the report. We have also outlined where our concerns are. What we cannot cop are the gutless and attention-seeking attacks on the Foreign Investment Review Board's people, and the equally gutless failure of the Treasurer of the nation to speak up on their behalf.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:15): I was pleased to participate in this very important inquiry of the economics committee. Housing affordability is a very serious issue affecting families and first-home buyers in my community. I cannot count the number of times that I have heard concerns from parents about their kids being unable to afford to buy a property in our community to live in, and about their kids being forced to move away from family, friends and those important social networks that really define who we are as human beings and how we live our lives. That is why I became involved in this inquiry. That is why I was pleased to not only hear of the experiences of Australians in respect of this issue but also—importantly—to hear from some experts who have spent a degree of time analysing this issue, and who have made some very good recommendations to the committee in respect of the issue of foreign investment in our property market. I would also like to thank constituents and members of the Kingsford Smith community who contacted me and gave me their views regarding this important issue. Throughout this inquiry, I have tried to take up all of those issues, raised by the constituents that contacted me, with the various witnesses and authorities that appeared before the committee during the inquiry.
There are many factors that affect housing affordability in Australia. They range from cultural issues—the Australian aspiration for a quarter-acre block with a backyard is something that is peculiar to our nation, and does affect the way we live and the sorts of properties that we purchase—to state infrastructure levies, which can have an effect on supply; and even to the way our cities have developed, and the fact that most of us live on the coastline—all of these things feed into housing prices in Australia. We have had a dramatic increase in housing prices in Australia over recent decades, which has created a lot of passion within our community and, unfortunately, a lot of misunderstanding about the way the system works. I think it is worth highlighting the evidence presented during the inquiry about the way the system actually works—because most Australians would not have an appreciation for the way our foreign investment system works with respect to purchasers of domestic residential housing.
Firstly, the evidence found that foreign investment is not distorting the market for first-home buyers in Australia. Generally, the evidence given to the committee indicated that first-home buyers do not compete with foreign investors; first-home buyers tend to buy established homes, particularly in the unit market. They tend to buy established homes at the lower end of the market, for understandable reasons. We need to understand and comprehend the foreign investment market and how that works, and indeed the restrictions on foreign investment in real estate in Australia. Under our current regime, foreign buyers are prohibited from purchasing existing residential property in Australia. They may only purchase 'off the plan', if you like, or new development. The aim of that policy is to encourage the construction industry in Australia to grow, to create jobs through investment, and for us to increase our housing stock. Generally, this system has worked. The committee does not recommend a change to that system.
There has been pressure on the housing market, but it is generally not related to that system. It is purely an issue of supply and demand and supply being delayed in catching up with demand, which has been quite hot in Australia over recent decades. The foreign investors may add pressure, the committee found, to the new development market, to new developments of housing stock, and in some cases in high-end developments and high-end purchases. The evidence of this is particularly acute around educational institutions such as universities. In my community, the University of New South Wales is a big attracter of foreign students, so naturally there is pressure from foreign investors on new housing developments around that area.
What is important, the committee found, is ensuring that the system works well and ensuring that the system is being enforced. There was evidence presented before the committee that that may not be the case. The recommendations deal with that in terms of strengthening the civil penalty regime for breaches of foreign investment framework, criminal penalties for third parties who knowingly assist foreigners to breach the framework and strengthening the divestment regime for temporary residents found to have purchased established properties against the rules. They are all recommendations that I support.
In terms of information, ensuring, on the national land titles register, greater coordination between the Department of Immigration and FIRB with respect to temporary residents departing Australia is a recommendation that I also support. Recommendation 10—that the government amend the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to provide that residential properties sold off the plan and marketed solely for sale overseas—is something that I definitely support. I was contacted by constituents who advised me that residential developments in our community had been solely advertised, in their view, to overseas markets, and Australians were prohibited from even getting a look in. That is a question that I put to the FIRB: was there any evidence of that occurring in Australia? The answer that came back from the FIRB was that that is not occurring. It would be a breach of the rules. So recommendation 10—to ensure that that is enforced—is something that I support.
Recommendation 3 is for a modest administrative fee to apply to the current screening of all foreign purchases of residential real estate by temporary residents. This is something that we believe caution should be applied to. It needs to be assessed in terms of outcomes. Firstly, there are no fees for reviews by the Foreign Investment Review Board into takeovers, company acquisitions, share buys or indeed purchases of land, particularly agricultural land, as it stands at the moment. So this would be a new fee for the operation of FIRB. That is something that I think needs to be looked at in the broader foreign investment landscape, because it could be argued that such a fee would be protectionist. It would be increasing barriers to foreign investment in Australia. The other issue is: we need to look at whether or not other jurisdictions throughout the world apply similar fees. We do not want to be pricing ourselves out of the market. It is well and good when the property market is hot and there is a demand, but what happens if that demand falls off? Are we providing a disincentive for people to invest in our property market and construction in Australia, at a disadvantage to other nations?
Finally, I thank the committee secretariat and all those who made submissions to the committee. It was a very worthwhile undertaking. I pay tribute to those involved in the inquiry.
Debate adjourned.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) ( 18:24 ): The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Vietnam
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:24): As International Human Rights Day falls next week, it is appropriate for us to think about the many thousands of innocent people that are being harassed, abused and imprisoned for seeking to exercise nothing other than their basic human rights. Given my particular interest, I would particularly like to reflect on developments occurring currently in Vietnam.
Far too often do we see journalists, cyber activists, lawyers, religious leaders and human rights defenders fall victim to Vietnam's repressive measures and partial judicial system. Many cases heard through the courts appear to be politically influenced, often involving a cursory examination of evidence and allowing for little or, in some cases, no defence at all. While there has been a general expectation that Vietnam would take appropriate steps to improve its human rights record since its election to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council last year, little appears to have changed. In fact, many consider the situation is worsening.
As of May this year, it is reported that Vietnam is holding more than 200 political prisoners in custody, with hundreds more under house arrest. These prisoners of conscience have committed no crimes other than standing up for what they believe. However, the Vietnamese government has responded by prosecuting activists with such trumped up changes as: 'attempting to overthrow the government', 'disrupting national security' and 'conducting propaganda against the state'.
These include activists like Mr Dang Xuan Dieu, an engineer and community worker, who was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment with a further five years under house arrest in 2013. He was convicted of 'attempting to overthrow the government', under article 79 of the Vietnamese Penal Code, for his affiliation with the Catholic Church and his advocacy for freedom of religion. Similarly, Mr Ngo Hoa and Mr Phan Van Thu were also convicted under this article, with an additional charge of subversion early last year. Mr Ngo was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for his blog posts in support of imprisoned activists, while Mr Phan was sentenced to life imprisonment for his suspected connection with an organisation called the Council for the Laws and Public Affairs of Bia Son.
Generally, penalties ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment would only arise in the west for capital offences, such as murder. Clearly, Mr Dang, Mr Ngo and Mr Phan have committed nothing of the like. These activists are amongst hundreds of others who have fallen victims to Vietnam's harsh laws and tainted judicial system.
I recently meet with Elaine Pearson, Director of Human Rights Watch in Australia, who raised with me the alarming rate of police brutality occurring throughout Vietnam. She informs me that, from 2011 to the present, there have been 22 reported cases of severe beatings of people in custody and, tragically, another 28 cases where deaths have resulted directly from police brutality. Amongst them, Mr Dinh Dang Dinh, Mr Nguyen Huu Thau and Mr Huynh Nghia died earlier this year. Their families have not been offered any explanation from the authorities. These incidences are deplorable, especially for a country that is a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Last month, I had the opportunity to speak with a number of religious leaders in Vietnam, including Father Phan Van Loi from the Roman Catholic Church, Venerable Thich Khong Tanh from Lien Tri Pagoda, Pastor Nguyen Van Hung from the Protestant Church, Mr Le Quang Liem from the Hoa Hao temple and Mr Hua Pho from the Cao Dai Pagoda. Interestingly, the Vietnamese constitution actually provides that 'all citizens shall enjoy freedom of belief and religion' and that 'all religions are equal before the law'. However, in practice it is anything but that. Religious activity in the country is closely monitored by the government, and significant restrictions are placed on religious organisations, particularly those that have not been sanctioned by the state. The Lien Tri Pagoda has been the latest target of the government's campaign to suppress freedom of religion. This pagoda was issued with a notice on 18 August to close their premises to make way for the government's plan for a lucrative commercial development. The Lien Tri Pagoda has been in existence for more than half a century, and it is a place of hope and worship for the monks and members of the Buddhist faith. Given that Vietnam signed onto the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982, we have every right to expect that Vietnam will honour its obligations as part of the international community.
This brings me to the current discussions taking place about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I know that there are mixed views in the community regarding Vietnam's ambition to be part of this agreement. Given Vietnam's track record, I understand it is hard not to be critical of Vietnam's interest in this matter. Since 1980, Vietnam has been transitioning from a centrally planned economy to a market-based economy. Access to the US markets has been very important and a priority for Vietnam. Understandably, Vietnam also holds real ambitions that the TPP will provide for greater trade liberalisation throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and that it will open up significant trading opportunities into the future. However, given the current restrictions on labour rights in Vietnam, this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed throughout the current TPP negotiations.
In Vietnam, workers are not entitled to join a free trade union. They can only organise through unions which are subject to the control of the Communist Party. Workers who have attempted to organise outside the government-sanctioned structure have been prosecuted and jailed. This is precisely what occurred in the case of Mr Do Thi Minh Hanh, Mr Doan Huy Chuong and Mr Nguyen Hoang Quoc Hung, who were sentenced to between seven and nine years of imprisonment for helping low-paid workers in a particular industrial dispute. The issue of appropriate and enforceable labour laws is essential; laws must be not only made but also enforceable, and that should obviously be a condition of the TPP.
I genuinely believe that Vietnam has an extraordinary potential to play a significant role in world affairs and in a greater involvement in the UN, while advancing its own economic development through enhanced trade opportunities. However, Vietnam's ambition in this regard will depend on its genuine efforts to implement the necessary reforms to improve its labour rights record, in order to meet its international obligations. Specifically, if Vietnam wants to access the TPP, it must stop its suppression of non-government-controlled trade unions, and ensure enforceable labour laws covering the rights of organised labour, while safeguarding working conditions and protecting workers' rights. Unless real and tangible progress is made in these areas, we have every right to be wary of Vietnam's intention to comply with the requirements of the TPP. As I have said, Vietnam has great potential; however, its realisation is being hampered by the country's poor human rights record. From my perspective, Vietnam is now at a tipping point. It can either continue along its dubious course, or it can move to redefine its future and proudly stand with members of the international community, recognising the human rights and the dignity of its people.
Nevertheless, on this international Human Rights Day we should reaffirm the view that no-one deserves to be deprived of their basic human rights, and we should remember that it is our responsibility to be the voice of those who are not being heard.
Banks Electorate
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:34): I am looking forward to the opportunity this evening of informing the House about a number of community organisations in my electorate who have been doing some fantastic work. Before I do that, as a member of the House Standing Committee on Economics that recently conducted the inquiry into foreign investment in residential real estate, I feel a need to respond to the completely out-of-line remarks of the member for Rankin in relation to that committee and, indeed, to the work of its chair, the member for Higgins.
The member for Higgins did a great job as the chair of that inquiry. The points that she has been making with such force are very important ones. The most important of all is that under the entire term of the previous Labor government—all six years—there was not one person prosecuted by the Foreign Investment Review Board for a breach of the rules in relation to residential investment in housing. Not one person in six years, according to the FIRB as administered under the previous government, breached the laws. That defies belief. It is entirely appropriate for the chair of a committee to shine a light on that great failing and to note that the changes Labor made to those investment rules around 2010 brought confusion to the sector and to its enforcement. She was saying absolutely the right thing in calling FIRB and the previous government to account for, frankly, not doing the job to the extent required. It just defies believe that there was no-one in the entire nation breaching the rules. Common sense tells you that cannot be right, and common sense is usually a good indicator of the truth, in my experience.
I will now turn to some important events that have been going on in my local community. Some organisations have been doing great work in recent months. I want to tell the chamber, in particular, about the Oatley Heritage and Historical Society. The Oatley Heritage and Historical Society researches and reports on the history of the suburb of Oatley. Oatley is located at the beautiful Georges River right in the middle of my electorate. The Oatley Heritage and Historical Society, for many years now, has been conducting research and reports on the history of that great suburb. It works with local schools and tell the kids about the history of Oatley. It writes articles for local newspapers about our local history.
Recently I was able to meet with its president, Roger Robertson, and various other members of the committee to talk about the great work that the historical society is doing. Just to give you a sense of how detailed the work is that the society conducts, right now they are doing a piece of research into Oatley in the year 1938. It is focused entirely on what was happening in the suburb of Oatley in 1938. That shows you the intellectual and research depth of this organisation. Once a quarter, they host an information evening in the Oatley municipal library where they talk about the history of the suburb. I am looking forward to getting along to one of those events shortly. They also have a terrific collection of archival material, photos and videos, and they are increasingly putting those up online so that the people and young kids of Oatley can learn more about the history of that great suburb. I say congratulations to Roger Robertson and all the team at the Oatley Heritage and Historical Society.
Tonight I also wanted to congratulate the Riverwood ex-services club and the Riverwood ex-services legion for their recent Remembrance Day service. Riverwood RSL is one of the bedrocks of our community. The Riverwood ex-services legion branch, which is led so ably by Dick Matthews, does a fantastic job in our community. The Remembrance Day service was a particularly poignant one. There was singing from the St George Sing Australia group. I would like to thank the several dozen singers who were there, including its leaders John Darcy, Toni Darcy and Margaret Corby.
I would also like to thank the kids from Lugarno Public School who came along, and Irene Faros, the principal, who is a very energetic leader for that school. They sang beautifully on the day. It was terrific to see them there. I certainly want to congratulate Riverwood Ex-Services Club. President Michael Free and Stuart Jamieson, who has recently taken on the CEO's role, are doing a terrific job.
Recently, I was also able to take some time to meet with ROAR at Riverwood, which is the newly formed residents' organisation at Riverwood, which is a thriving community in my electorate that has some big changes going on at the moment. There is a large new development going on at Washington Park, which is a mix of public and private housing. There is a terrific community spirit in the Riverwood area. I would like to congratulate Lance Brooks and Michelle brooks, from Payce Communities, who are doing a great job in encouraging residents to speak out about the issues they care about. Each Friday they have a barbecue there in the Riverwood area for local residents. It is a free barbecue and it is a great place to go along and catch up with friends. I was there last Friday having a chat with local residents. I met with a number of residents at the ROAR meeting: Claire Ballieu, Antonio Genovese, Omar Sharif Haidar. It was a full and frank discussion, which are always the best kinds. I enjoyed it very much.
In the community of Hurstville, in my electorate, there is a very strong culture of education. Education is absolutely critical right across my electorate, but no more so than in Hurstville. There are a significant number of tuition colleges where parents make sacrifices to send their kids to these tuition colleges, sometimes at significant expense, to give them every opportunity to make the most of their talents. Last Saturday I visited Fiona Education, in Hurstville, to award certificates to the best students in the tutoring centre. It is run by Fiona Park and has been in business for more than 10 years. It teaches kids from kindergarten all the way up. It was great to be able to provide certificates to Kelly Yu, Alicia De'Battista, Lucas Liang, Leo Ziyu Huang, Brendan Li, Landon Jarvis, Arthur Zeritis, Angela Ji, Fardin Shadman, Simon Carey, Perry Chen, Leo Yang, and Thomas Liao. From year 4, Emily Wu, Logan Ng, Victor Mok, Jasmine Guan, and Fiona Lin. From year 5, Sebastian Papadopoulos, Henry Lan, William Cui, Arena Wang, and Tony Mao. From year 6 Francis Mau and Charles Liang also won certificates. There was a fantastic community spirit at Fiona Education on Saturday. I applaud and encourage the kids who are doing that extra work, and the parents who are really encouraging the kids to make the most of their abilities.
I would also like to congratulate the Knights of St George Heart Association. St George Hospital is one of the most important institutions in the St George region. For nearly 30 years the Knights of St George Heart Association has been raising money for the cardiothoracic unit at St George Hospital. Saturday night was another one of those terrific events. Dr David Horton is president of the Knights of St George Heart Association. On Saturday night we heard not only from Dr Horton Snr, but also from Dr Matthew Horton, who is actually Dr Horton Snr's son and himself a cardiothoracic surgeon, following in his father's footsteps at St George Hospital. It was a terrific night. Congratulations to Susan Leahy, who did so much work in the preparation. There is always so much involved in organising one of these big dinners and Susan did a great job. I would also like to congratulate Alan Jacobs for all of his efforts. More than 200 people actively contribute to the Knights of St George Heart Association. It is a fantastic organisation. I have never been to a local event with so many community leaders, which really demonstrated the depth of feeling for this organisation and its work. I thank the Knights of St George. Like all the other organisation I have discussed tonight, I congratulate them on their great work.
Asylum Seekers
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (18:45): I want to thank the member for Fowler just now for reminding us that it is international Human Rights Day next week on 10 December and for once again honouring and speaking up for the victims of human rights abuses and persecution in Vietnam. Australia is now home to many people who fled from Vietnam as refugees. It is therefore appropriate that I take this opportunity of the grievance debate to speak on two bills that are presently before the Senate, as I was absent from the parliament when they came before the House of Representatives: firstly, the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 and, secondly, the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014.
The Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill goes further in the government's quest to put pointless, unprincipled and harmful obstacles in the way of asylum seekers and to undermine Australia's international humanitarian obligations. It goes further in allowing the exercise of power to occur without scrutiny, review or even compliance with international law.
Page 3 of the bill's explanatory memorandum says the amendments will:
provide that the rules of natural justice do not apply to a range of powers in the Maritime Powers Act, including the powers to authorise the exercise of maritime powers, the new Ministerial powers and the exercise of powers to hold and move vessels and persons;
ensure that the exercise of a range of powers cannot be invalidated because a court considers there has been a failure to consider, properly consider, or comply with Australia’s international obligations…
That is just extraordinary. We are talking about the power to intercept, detain and move ships and their passengers. Such actions will no longer be subject to the rules of natural justice and they will no longer be subject to Australian judicial consideration in terms of their legality under international law and Australia's international agreements. Let's be clear: these changes are not designed to stop deaths at sea and they are not designed to assist in the speed of processing and proper resettlement.
It was bizarre to hear the minister recently say that the coalition government would determine Australia's international obligations and that the views or input of other nations or multilateral bodies on the question of our international agreements and commitments were irrelevant. How absurd! How would the minister and the Abbott government regard the decision by another nation to freely interpret its own obligations to us under a treaty or another form of international agreement? Are free-trade agreements now to be subject to the whimsical interpretation of any country's government of the day?
Are fundamental international covenants like the Refugee Convention now to be a kind of jabberwocky text about which the Minister for Immigration, in Humpty Dumpty mode, will be able to claim:
When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
We might suggest, as Alice does, that words should mean what they say. I suspect the minister would answer, as Humpty Dumpty does:
… the question is, which is to be master—that is all.
That is because this is clearly a minister and a government that believes it is the master and not the representative of the people and not the custodian of our principles, responsibilities, values and obligations; it believes it is our master, deciding by itself and for itself what is good for Australia. I hope that senators considering these bills note the approach contained in this legislation very carefully, for it represents a far-reaching change to the long-established balance between the powers of executive government, the legislative responsibilities of the parliament and the role of the courts in interpreting domestic and international legal obligations.
The effect of part 2 of schedule 5—which seeks to remove references to the Refugee Convention from the Migration Act and instead create a self-contained and self-fulfilling statutory form of the convention's protection obligations—is to defeat the purpose of international law, which is to put in place principles that are collectively adopted, supervised and observed. What's more, it seeks to remove the role of Australian courts in assessing the actions of government with respect to international law. In so doing, it shatters a critical check on government power, which has always been shaped and constrained by judicial consideration of the principles and protections that exist in foundational documents like the Australian Constitution and key international covenants and agreements.
Schedule 1 of the first bill gives the minister power to detain people on the high seas and in international waters and to cause them to be transferred to another country or even to the vessel of another country. This change arrives in the wake of the events in July when the government directed that two vessels be intercepted in international waters. It handed over one boatload of asylum seekers to the Sri Lankan navy and was prevented from handing over other asylum seekers by a High Court injunction. It detained passengers for a month on board a Customs vessel while it conducted enhanced screening assessments of protection applications. The fact that it has only been the High Court standing between the government and complete impunity when it comes to its treatment of asylum seekers is an illustration of the importance for accountability in safeguarding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The bill attempts to override these safeguards and this accountability by providing new powers, which have presumably been framed as a form of retrospective justification as well a licence for future conduct.
The government does not seem to know that passing a law in Australia cannot give the minister the power to detain people on the high seas under international law, including the law of the sea, refugee and human rights law. Furthermore, the actions that such powers contemplate infringe the sovereign rights of other nations and raise constitutional issues in Australia regarding the separation of powers—for example, the provision allowing arbitrary detention at the minister's discretion without oversight or judicial review.
The return of temporary protection visas is a terrible development in this bill as it would return asylum seekers to circumstances of uncertainty, psychological distress and legal limbo. The creation of a proposed new safe haven enterprise visa is difficult to assess because of the lack of detail provided but, to the extent that some of its features are clear, it is hard to support.
Both the TPVs and SHEVs envisage that visa holders would not be able to leave the country for the duration of their visa and would not be permitted to apply for family reunion. As we saw during the time of the Howard government, such provisions only create an incentive for family members to get on boats since there is no legal way for them to come to Australia to be with their loved ones.
The changes proposed in schedule 4 carry on the ever-widening permeation of administrative unfairness. As with the migration amendment bill passed a few months ago, these changes reduce and constrain the opportunity for asylum seekers to have adverse decisions properly reviewed.
Schedule 6 contains changes that will retrospectively invalidate protection visa applications made by Australian-born children of asylum seekers. This is despite the fact that the children were born in Australia, have never left Australia, are currently eligible to apply for a protection visa and, in some cases, have Australian birth certificates and are eligible for Australian citizenship.
The effect of these changes is that children will be sent offshore to Nauru to a situation where, according to the recent National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, mental health problems are about 30 per cent higher than the normal child population.
The Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill is also extraordinary in its overreach and the taking of power in the sole non-reviewable discretion of the minister. The bill introduces personal ministerial powers to set aside and substitute decisions of delegates and tribunals and to cancel a visa with or without natural justice 'where it is in the public interest to do so'. This represents a further abrogation of the rule of law and the separation of powers.
These two abominable bills cause me to ask: how far have we fallen as a country? I am reminded of Prime Minister John Curtin's last major parliamentary speech on 28 February 1945, in which he championed the new international peacemaking organisation which would become the United Nations. He said:
If we are to concert with other peoples of goodwill in order to have a better world, there must be some pooling of sovereignty, some association of this country with other countries, and some agreement which, when made, should be kept.
… … …
There is a price that the world must pay for peace; there is a price that it must pay for collective security. I shall not attempt to specify the price, but it does mean less nationalism, less selfishness, less race ambition. Does it not mean also, some consideration for others and a willingness to share with them a world which is, after all, good enough to give to each of us a place in it, if only all of us will observe reason and goodwill toward one another?
I think this great man, John Curtin, one of my predecessors as the member for Fremantle, would be ashamed of Australia today.
Prime Minister Abbott is fond of quoting another Australian Labor PM Ben Chifley who spoke of our country's great objective, the light on the hill, which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we can lend a helping hand. Under this government our light on the hill has become a deep dark bunker. We are seeing Australia's hard-won reputation as a constructive, generous and principled member of the international community traduced, along with longstanding pillars of democracy, good governance and the rule of law.
These bills are a further instalment of injustice; a grasping for authoritarian power, for power unsupervised by the courts and incompatible with our international obligations. Worst of all, they will produce many instances of individual harm and unfairness that will make for terrible experiences in the lives of our fellow men, women and children who have already suffered too much.
Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (18:54): As we pass through the last sitting week of parliament for this year, I thought it was appropriate that I bring to the attention of the House some of the local achievements in the Lyne electorate. As we have often heard, this government is getting ahead and building the roads of the 21st century. Nowhere is it more evident that in the Lyne electorate.
Our government's decision to reverse Labor's funding cuts on the Pacific Highway and restore the 80-20 funding split with the New South Wales government will mean over $2 billion extra into this project. This important piece of national infrastructure will be transformed into a four-lane divided highway—hopefully by the end of the decade—all the way to the Queensland border.
There are two major sections in my electorate which have had their work commenced. The first is the $820 million Oxley Highway to Kundabung upgrade, which is one of the very important missing links in the upgrade. This project will see 37 kilometres of motorway north of Port Macquarie, which will result in two new bridges—across the Hastings, and also further north across Maria River. This 37 kilometres of motorway will mean 933 more construction jobs at its peak over the next three years, and nearly 3,000 indirect jobs throughout the region.
The other road project in my electorate is the second part, the Kundabung to Kempsey upgrade, which I had the pleasure of attending with Andrew Stoner, the state member for Oxley. It is a 14-kilometre section of the Pacific Highway upgrade, which will bring the dual highway upgrade into an existing part from north Kempsey, and as a result this project will generate about 167 construction jobs.
We are also investing in other important transport linkages along the mid-North coast which includes the $17 million upgrade of the Buckets Way between Taree and Gloucester. We are also investing over $10 million in the Greater Taree Roads and Bridges Package, which will fix a number of important bridges which are essential for trade and commerce and for the daily commute for workers around Dyers Crossing. People in the dairy, timber and beef industries rely on these bridges, and I am sure the council will put the money to good use.
Also over the current term of this parliament Greater Taree City Council, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Gloucester Shire Council and Kempsey Shire Council are getting an investment from the Commonwealth of around $100 million towards local council services and infrastructures, through federal financial assistance grants. This program and the $15 million in extra Roads To Recovery funding through the coalition's investment will mean that there are safer roads. And there is certainly a back log of roads that need attention in my electorate.
The NBN was given much fanfare and expectations about it have been built up quite unbelievably by the previous government, but it has taken a change of government and the work of our Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to unravel some of the construction delays, the messes, and the absence of a rational business plan. A technology mix and a commitment to more solid business practices, like actually getting paying customers to contribute to the cost of it, means that there has been an increase in connections. Many of these have occurred in the electorate of Lyne—including fixed wireless towers around Gloucester, Taree, Wingham, and in the Manning, Camden Haven and Hastings regions. Fixed wireless towers are planned for Beechwood and Wauchope around New Year.
With the previous roll-out where we had fibre to the premises in suburbs of Taree, there was an obvious deficiency in the planning. It defied logic but they were rolling out fibre to the premises in the suburbs of Taree but not in the central business district. As a result of lobbying the minister and NBN Co—and after an application of good common sense—they have decided to roll it out in the Taree CBD, which I commend.
While they have the infrastructure there, they will continue it into Cundletown and out to Wingham and other areas.
We have Green Army and Work for the Dole projects that have been announced in the Lyne electorate. Two project teams have been appointed under the Green Army scheme—one for the Manning and one for the Hastings—and a number of other local environmental rehabilitation projects earmarked for improvements. The Work for the Dole program is being expanded and will not only deliver more skills, training and confidence to young local job seekers, but assist in delivering important community projects like the beach-to-beach and school-to-school projects in Camden Haven.
I would like to talk about the beach-to-beach program. This community initiative has been designed, engineered, planned and presented to the department by a conglomerate of active individuals, including engineers, architects, concreters and construction workers. Not only have they got this project to the stage on paper that the department thought it was one of the best projects they have seen across the nation, but they have actually started with volunteer work. I recently had the Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Hartsuyker, in to have a look at this and he was similarly impressed. I would like to bring to the attention of this chamber the great work of this community committee.
Another committee is working on a similar bike path in Camden Haven, called the school-to-school project. Again, it is a community initiative. The planning and the commitment to get the documents together to the level they have done is a credit to them all. There are a lot of land purchases and other property issues to be settled before this project can go ahead, but I will continue to fight to see if we can get Work for the Dole for it, once we get over these technical hurdles.
We should also reflect on some of the other achievements of the government. We have all heard about the abolition of the carbon tax and how $550 will make a big difference to the budgets of many families in my electorate. The removal of the mining tax will make a difference too because the budget had liabilities of up to $50 billion over the next decade as a result of the tax. It was the only tax that failed to raise much money at all and this huge liability is now off the Commonwealth's liability list. Recent free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China will have huge benefits for many sectors of the agricultural economy, but in particular beef and dairy will benefit in my electorate. We have given approval for over $1 trillion worth of new projects which, as they work through the system, will deliver greater employment and development in our regions.
The Minister for Agriculture has fought for $320 million drought support package, as well as farm household assistance services. We have recommenced the live trade export of sheep, cattle and goats to Bahrain, Iran, Egypt and Indonesia, and this has been very beneficial to farm-gate and saleyard prices in my electorate. The ripple-down effect of that disastrous policy failure by the previous government just about bankrupted even small landholders, let alone people in the Northern Territory. It rippled all the way south through the markets in Queensland into northern New South Wales and even down to the Lyne electorate, where people were actually removing animals from sale because the market had collapsed.
There are so many things this government has achieved in this first year and I am very pleased to see that a lot of these benefits are rolling out in the Lyne electorate.
Abbott Government
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (19:04): Those great philosophers, Jagger and Richards, wrote and sang in 1965: 'I can't get no satisfaction'. Australian voters might be reminding themselves of this today, as they consider the disappointment known as the Abbott government. This is a government defined by disappointment, deceit and incompetence. The opposition leader who promised so much has morphed into a confused Prime Minister—a man rapidly sinking into the quicksand of his own negativity. Not only can he not lead the nation he cannot even lead his own government, which is desperately split on policy and political direction and crippled by internal power struggles.
The source of this government's dysfunction is the cynical opportunism of its period in opposition. Most parties in opposition focus on holding governments to account and on rebuilding their credibility by developing new ideas. That is what Dan Andrews did in Victoria over the past few years. He made himself a participant in the battle of ideas and now he is Premier of Victoria. When the Abbott government was in opposition its only focus was on attacking the former Labor government. As opposition leader, the Prime Minister transformed the coalition into the 'no-alition', building his entire case for power on anti-Labor hatred and three-word slogans—everything about politics and nothing about policy.
That is why the Tories have retreated to their comfort zone today. Without positive ideas they have been forced to lean heavily on Tony Abbott's regressive and punitive personal ideology—one that values individualism ahead of equity and opportunity. The Prime Minister's negativity did make him a formidable opposition leader, but it makes him a pretty bad Prime Minister. We now see that negativity is all he ever had. It is his only weapon: he is a 'one-trick Tony'.
You cannot win the battle of ideas if you have no ideas; you cannot run an economy on three-word slogans; you do not create jobs by saying 'no' to everything; and you do not inspire people by misleading them. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised no cuts to health, education, pensions, the ABC or SBS. He promised no new taxes. In government, he has cut $80 billion from health and education, slashed funding for the ABC and SBS and created new taxes whenever people visit a GP or fill up their car at the petrol bowser. Rubbing salt into the wounds, he has since insulted the electorate's intelligence with Monty Pythonesque claims that he has not broken any promises.
The Prime Minister is on the wrong side of history; his place defined not by leadership and forward-thinking but by a sad yearning for a less equal and less progressive past—a place where average Australians pay a Medicare levy every week only to be told they have to pay again to visit a doctor; a place where education is about entrenching privilege, not spreading opportunity; where climate science is derided; and where a visiting US president's praise for the splendour of the Great Barrier Reef is attacked by those opposite as an affront to our national sovereignty. It is a place where our renewable energy target has been so successful that it has to be scrapped; where we have only one woman in the cabinet; where radio shock jocks and partisan newspaper columnists set the government's political agenda; where bigotry is a right; where people communicate over ageing copper wire rather than 21st century fibre; and a place where the long-faded trappings of our colonial past are revived through the reintroduction of the British honours system.
The Abbott government has misread the egalitarian nature of Australian culture. Australians care about the fair go. Part of what defines us is a generosity of spirit—one that embraces a sense of community and common interest. Australians support measures to improve the budget, but they are not stupid. They know that when a single income family on $65,000 a year will be $6,000 a year worse off every year, while corporate tax cheats are a protected species, that budget repair is being used as a cover for an ideological agenda. They know that a budget that was truly under emergency conditions would not promote a paid parental leave scheme that will have an ongoing impact on the budget of $5 billion a year and more into the future. The 2014 budget was not a plan for the future but an attack on the gains of the past. Australians know it is unfair and they are demanding better.
In my own area of infrastructure, the Prime Minister has treated his election promises like plates at a Greek wedding. The government said it would preserve the independence of Infrastructure Australia. What they have done is try to remove that independence through legislation—an attempt abandoned only after pressure from Labor and business groups, including the Business Council of Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and, indeed, Infrastructure Australia itself.
The government said they would reappoint Sir Rod Eddington and the chairman of Infrastructure Australia but they appointed a former Liberal Party minister instead. They said they would not invest in infrastructure without cost-benefit analysis to ensure value for money. Then they took money from Infrastructure Australia priority projects that had had cost-benefit analysis done and reallocated it to the East-West Link, Westconnex and a Perth freight link.
The government said there would be cranes and bulldozers at work on new projects within 12 months of their election. But there are no bulldozers, just bull dust. They said they would pay money to states for infrastructure projects in stages, based on the achievement of milestones. Then they gave the Victorian government a $1.5 billion advance payment for the East-West Link, a project that has not commenced construction.
They pretend they are investing in new infrastructure. But they continue to travel the nation on a magical infrastructure re-announcement tour, seeking ownership of existing projects funded by the previous Labor government. This deceit has reached absurd levels with the renaming of projects. Labor's F3 to M2 project became Northconnex, while Western Australia's Swan Valley Bypass became NorthLink. Renaming a project does not make it new. Worst of all, the few new road projects in the budget are being funded by cuts to all Commonwealth investment in public transport projects not under construction.
The Prime Minister, in his manifesto Battlelines, wrote:
Mostly there just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car and cars need roads.
An absurd proposition for any national leader to make in 2014.
I do not remember a more cringe-worthy moment than when he had an opportunity to speak to the world's leaders about a vision for the future at the recent G20 meeting in Brisbane. Mr Abbott's contribution involved whinging about Australians not supporting his GP tax and proudly declaring he had removed a price on carbon. There is no issue too big for Tony Abbott to show how small he is.
But I have got news for the Prime Minister. Serious world leaders want to act on climate change. Serious world leaders see our system of universal health care as something to be envied. The problem is not that Tony Abbott is stuck in the past. It is that he wants the rest of Australia to go back there and keep him company.
Prior to the election, the coalition insisted it would provide adult government. But there is nothing adult about a government that has spent an entire year attacking the Labor Party and devoted no time to actually governing. There is nothing adult about a Parliament that is run on partisan lines. There is nothing adult about having an Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, sit on the sidelines on the basis that he is only incompetent, which is the best possible scenario that you can make from the events that occurred in New South Wales.
Australians are sick of the negativity this government has brought to national political debate. They want a government to focus on what really matters: them, jobs, access to health care, equity of opportunity through access to education; cities that are productive, sustainable and liveable; healthy communities that value diversity; and an integrated transport system that includes both public transport and roads.
Above all, Australians want a government that governs in accordance with Australian values, like that of the fair go. This might come as news to some of those opposite, but not all values have a dollar sign in front of them. This is a government characterised by opposition to anything public: education, public health, public transport, public broadcasters, public housing. The theme is they do not like the public but the public will certainly get a say come 2016.
Moore Electorate
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (19:14): In speaking to this adjournment debate, I wish to place on record the main challenges facing the Moore electorate and set out a vision for improving the standard of living for my constituents. Local employment self-sufficiency is one of the most important facing my suburban coastal electorate. Currently over 75 per cent of employed residents commute out of the City of Joondalup each day adding to the traffic congestion along the Mitchell freeway. There is a requirement to create 70,000 new jobs in the wider region by 2031. It is therefore critical that key economic development projects continue to progress on schedule, including the Neerabup Industrial Area, the Ocean Reef Marina redevelopment and the growth of Joondalup City Centre.
I am fortunate enough to have a close working relationship with the City of Joondalup, which earlier this year launched its economic development strategy, titled Expanding horizons. The strategy sets out a long-term agenda to expand opportunities for business, investment, innovation, research, education and local employment. It focuses on higher value added economic activity which leverages key strengths and emerging global growth opportunities in the context of recent free trade agreements signed with Japan, Korea and China. The city has adopted a collaborative regional approach to economic development, working proactively in partnership with key stakeholders from across the federal and state government, industry, education and not-for-profit sectors. The City of Joondalup is now working closely with the City of Wanneroo to finalise a regional economic development framework which will provide a clear and practical vision for the entire north-west metropolitan subregion. An example of regional cooperation between local governments is seen in last week's tri-cities delegation to Canberra, which involved the cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo and Stirling making a combined presentation to the federal government for the benefit of the wider region.
A second challenge for our region is the timely implementation of state-of-the-art communications infrastructure, namely the National Broadband Network. No specific dates for installation have been confirmed, despite inquiries. The federal government must ensure that the Moore electorate is serviced as a matter of priority, as many established suburbs, such as Duncraig, Sorrento and Edgewater, have inadequate access to high-speed internet connections. This represents one of the key local priorities that will transform both economic development and lifestyles in our area.
The City of Joondalup has developed a digital city strategy which is heavily dependent on NBN communications and broadband infrastructure to support the growth of knowledge sector jobs, digital technologies, teleworking and coworking hubs. Located in the Joondalup Learning Precinct with Edith Cowan University and West Coast Institute, the sixty27 Coworking Space, which derives its name from Joondalup's 6027 postcode, provides collaborative opportunities between local entrepreneurs, businesses and researchers to drive local innovation. The precinct encompasses the latest in technological development, including cybersecurity, health research, engineering, digital technologies, three-dimensional animation, augmented reality and 3D printing. The knowledge based precinct provides the opportunity to enhance productivity and international competitiveness through targeted research and collaboration with industry, leading to the commercialisation of Australian inventions and innovation. This visionary, strong focus on innovation is designed to enhance business competitiveness and growth and directly complements the aims and objectives of the federal government's Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda.
A third key priority for the Moore electorate is the need for additional road funding to widen Wanneroo Road. Wanneroo Road is a major arterial road providing north-to-south corridor access in the eastern part of my electorate. For most of its entire 44-kilometre length, Wanneroo Road is a dual carriageway. However, along the relatively short stretch between Joondalup Drive and Menchetti Road, it remains a single carriageway of rural standard. There has been a history of traffic accidents along the road over the years, with incremental improvements through state and federal road-funding programs. Over time, the volume of traffic has increased due to growth, including the number of heavy haulage vehicles servicing quarries and general industry.
During my time as a councillor before entering federal parliament, a petition signed by 466 residents was organised and presented to the City of Wanneroo, calling for the road to be widened. The cost of widening the 5.4-kilometre stretch of Wanneroo Road is estimated to be in the order of $45 million. When the proposed extension of the Mitchell Freeway from Burns Beach Road to Hester Avenue is constructed in 2017, the plannedNeerabup Road exit off the freeway will be designed to directly meet the realigned Flynn Drive at a major signalised intersection on Wanneroo Road.
This key intersection will form the entry to the Neerabup Industrial Area, the source of future employment creation and economic development. It is estimated that the industrial park will create up to 20,000 new jobs. It will make practical sense to complete the extensive roadworks, including traffic signals, in a single construction phase with Wanneroo Road at dual carriageway standard, as opposed to the wasteful demolition and reconstruction of the intersection at a later date.
Upgrading Wanneroo Road will directly improve road safety for my constituents in the suburbs of Carramar and Banksia Grove, particularly at the Golf Links Drive intersection. It will also provide an alternative to the Mitchell Freeway and help service suburbs such as Mindarie and Clarkson.
I am very privileged to represent the people of Moore, who live in a strong and vibrant community. I will not rest on my laurels. There is always more to be done. In order to make our area an even better place to live, I will continue to work towards promoting greater local employment self-sufficiency and continue lobbying for the timely installation of broadband communications infrastructure and for major road projects such as the widening of Wanneroo Road.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hawke ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 22 .
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Public Service: Redundancy Payments
(Question No. 484)
Dr Leigh asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 September 2014:
Since 7 September 2013, what has been the total cost to date for redundancy payments to staff made redundant from the Australian Public Service.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The Australian Government publishes costs of ‘Separations and redundancies’ for each financial year within the Australian Government Financial Statements as part of the Final Budget Outcome.
While individual entities may be able to identify their redundancy costs over the specific period requested, this information is not readily available for the whole of the Australian Public Service. To provide the level of detail sought would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Australian Public Service: Redundancy Payments
(Question No. 485)
Dr Leigh asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 September 2014:
What is the estimated total cost of redundancies associated with the Government’s plan to cut 16,500 staff from the Australian Public Service.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The 16,500 is an estimate of the expected overall reduction in staffing from 2012-13 to 2016-17. Actual reductions in staffing, including the means of reduction, reflect decisions of individual entities. Staff leave the public sector for a variety of reasons including through resignations and retirements for which no redundancy payment is required.
As part of the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Government announced it would provide additional funding to selected entities for redundancies in 2013-14 and 2014-15 to assist in implementing savings decisions affecting government entities’ operations made by the previous Government. Where funding was provided to an entity for 2013-14, this was outlined in the relevant Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statement. Funding applications for 2014-15 are still being considered and are not for publication at this stage.
Outside of the entities that receive funding under this measure, meeting redundancy costs is a matter for individual entities.
Australian Public Service: Redundancy Payments
(Question No. 486)
Dr Leigh asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 September 2014:
Since 7 September 2013, how many of the public servants who have accepted voluntary redundancies are members of the (a) Public Sector Superannuation scheme, and (b) Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, and what is the average payout benefit for public servants accepting redundancy in each of these schemes.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
ComSuper have compiled the following information in relation to superannuation benefits for staff made redundant. This does not include information on redundancy payments:
Voluntary Redundancy Payments only - September 2013-October 2014 (inclusive) |
Number of Membe - rs |
Number of members taking an indexed pension component |
Average indexed pension (over this period) |
Number of members taking a non indexed pension component |
Number of members taking a non indexed pension component |
Number of members who took a lump sum or rollover component |
Average lump sum or rollover component |
Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) |
|||||||
Full pension (Preserve and immediate claim as a deferred benefit) |
87 |
87 |
$62,271` |
87 |
$36,591 |
|
|
Pension and lump sum (Preserve and immediate claim as a deferred benefit) |
472 |
472 |
$65,835 |
143 |
$27,262 |
472 |
$282,778 |
Full pension |
8 |
8 |
$49,770 |
8 |
$24,255 |
|
|
Pension and lump sum |
461 |
461 |
$48,247 |
160 |
$20,l23 |
461 |
$220,153 |
Full lump sum |
12 |
|
|
|
|
12 |
$686,495 |
Lump sum of accumulated member contributions -Postpone pension and accumulated productivity benefit |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
$215,001 |
Preserve all in the fund |
425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
1,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) |
|||||||
Full Pension |
1,122 |
1,122 |
$54,525 |
|
|
|
|
Full pension - residual accumulation benefit preserved in the fund |
577 |
577 |
$24,123 |
|
|
|
|
Pension and lump sum |
1,703 |
1,703 |
$35,008 |
|
|
1,703 |
$71,151 |
Pension and lump sum - residual accumulation benefit preserved in the fund |
90 |
90 |
$25,478 |
|
|
90 |
$47,965 |
Full Lump sum |
272 |
|
|
|
|
272 |
$334,370 |
Lump sum of accumulated member contributions -preserve balance in the fund |
29 |
|
|
|
|
39 |
$48,499 |
Preserve all in the fund |
691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
4,494 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Membership of the CSS and PSS does not directly correlate with the composition of the Australian Public Service. * Members claiming a part pension and part lump sum can either take their accumulated member contributions as a non-indexed pension or a lump sum. In all cases, the accumulated productivity benefit is taken as a lump sum benefit. |
|||||||
Australian Public Service: Redundancy Payments
(Question No. 487)
Dr Leigh asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 September 2014:
Did the Government’s projected savings from reducing the size of the Australian Public Service, announced as part of the 2014-15 budget, take into account the cost of redundancy payments.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
There were many measures that related to the Government’s objective to deliver ‘Smaller Government’ in the 2014-15 Budget. These were individually costed to reflect the factors related to each policy.
Department of Communications: Executive Training
(Question No. 515)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 21 October 2014:
Since 7 September 2014 to 30 June 2014, what training has been provided for (a) Executive, and (b) Senior Executive Service, level departmental officials, and what (i) total sum has the Ministers' department spent, and (ii) is the breakdown in cost, for such training.
Mr Turnbull: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department does not disaggregate between educational expenses, study leave, coaching services, training or classification levels of staff participating in these activities.
Department of Communications: Consultants
(Question No. 535)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 21 October 2014:
Since 7 September 2013 can the Minister provide details as to the use of all consultants within his/her department, including reasons for engaging their services, and the costs involved.
Mr Turnbull: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
Details of the Department's consultancies valued in excess of $10,000 are available on the AusTender website www.tenders.gov.au.
While AusTender contains details of contracts valued at $10,000 or more, it is considered to be an unreasonable diversion of resources for the Department to provide details of consultancies valued at less than $10,000.
457 Visas
(Question No. 558)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 28 October 2014:
In respect of a recent media report 'Leaked report raises concerns over 457 visa' by Heath Aston (The Age, 19 October 2014), will the Minister (a) take action to strengthen the integrity of Australia's Migrant Worker Programs, and provide greater opportunity for young unemployed Australians to find work, following revelations that a leaked Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) report and audit into Australia's migrant worker program found significant shortcomings, discrepancies and serious issues with the program, (b) investigate claims and take action on media reports that the (i) audit raised serious concerns over 40 per cent of the 457 visa holders, including evidence that many are no longer working for their nominated employer or are not being paid at the rate at which they were promised, and (ii) FWO report suggests that serious concerns regarding migrant worker jobs, payment and treatment throughout the hospitality industry exist, (c) investigate claims that (i) almost 350 people, nearly 20 per cent, of migrant workers were found to be 'no longer employed by a sponsor', and that there are concerns regarding the rife underpayment of many foreign workers, and (ii) certain cafes and restaurants in populated areas are almost entirely staffed by foreign workers, (d) investigate what measures or attempts were made by the cafes and restaurants identified in the media report, to advertise and hire Australian workers, before they staffed their businesses with foreign workers, and (e) reduce the number of foreign workers being granted working rights in Australia in order to improve employment opportunities for Australians, and improve working conditions for employed Australians.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Please refer to Question on Notice 560.
457 Visas
(Question No. 560)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 28 October 2014:
In respect of a recent media report "Leaked report raises concerns over 457 visa?" by Heath Aston (The Age, 19 October 2014), will the Australian Government now reconsider (a) its measures to make it easier for businesses to apply for 457 visa workers, (b) the proposed relaxation of English language competency, and (c) the loosening of migrant worker rules and regulations in the context of addressing Australia's high unemployment of 6.1 per cent.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Coalition Government is focused on delivering policies that will benefit the Australian people. This may come as a shock to the honourable Member but this Government, unlike the former government with the live-cattle export saga, is not in the business of jumping at shadows.
The Government has taken a careful and evidenced based approach which is why it commissioned the independent 2014 Subclass 457 Integrity Review prior to making any decisions about the future of the programme.