The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Turnbull.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (09:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr Speaker, as this is my first occasion of speaking in the House since your elevation to the Speaker's chair, I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation to the office of Speaker and note that you have already distinguished yourself in this very important role.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015 provides the national and commercial free-to-air broadcasters with the flexibility to deliver programming on their primary television services in either standard definition or high-definition formats. Broadcasters' primary television services include ABC1, SBS ONE, 7, Prime7, Nine, WIN, Ten and Southern Cross. These services are subject to particular obligations regarding Australian content, captioning and antisiphoning.
At present, free-to-air broadcasters are required to provide their primary television service in standard definition. This is a relic of the analog era, introduced at the start of the digital television switchover process to ensure that viewers would have access to at least one digital channel per broadcaster. At the time not all televisions and set-top boxes were capable of receiving high-definition content.
Importantly for Australian who watch television on satellite, this bill makes minor technical amendments to ensure the transmission of primary services by free-to-air satellite broadcasters such as VAST receive the same flexibility to transmit in either standard or high definition.
This government is committed to removing unnecessary and outdated regulations that hamper industry from providing services that respond to audience preferences.
The government has implemented a range of initiatives to remove red tape through its deregulation work program, which was initiated in the Communications portfolio with the release of the Deregulation Roadmap in May 2014.
This roadmap committed the government to undertake a review of the free-to-air digital television regulatory framework to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for the next wave of innovation in the media sector.
The first stage of that review involved the identification of provisions that were redundant or spent following the completion of Australia's switch to digital-only television.
The second stage began in January this year, when the Department of Communications released a consultation paper seeking the views of the public and the industry on future arrangements for digital television regulation.
The proposal to allow broadcasters to provide their primary service in either standard or high definition received strong very support from the public and free-to-air broadcasters.
High-definition television equipment is now virtually ubiquitous in Australian homes. A Newspoll survey conducted in February 2014, after the completion of the digital switch-over process, found that 96 per cent of all households had a main television set or set-top box that was capable of receiving high-definition content. It is expected that this figure has grown, with high-definition capability standard in televisions and set-top boxes currently on the market.
With the completion of digital switch-over and the availability of a range of new television services, many Australians now expect premium free-to-air programming to be provided in high definition—especially events such as live sports.
The bill responds to these developments and amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, giving TV networks the flexibility to broadcast the primary service in either in either standard or high definition. It does not change any other existing arrangements regarding the primary service such as captioning, Australian content or anti-siphoning requirements.
Australians enjoy a wide range of free-to-air television services, particularly following the switch to digital television. Anti-siphoning rules ensure that our most important and iconic sporting events are free for anyone to watch, not just those who can afford a pay TV subscription. This is one of the great things about living in Australia: it is available to everyone. We have, in my submission, the best free-to-air television services in the world, and it is important that the government does everything it can to ensure that the broadcasters are able to be as flexible and innovative in the way they use their spectrum so as to improve the quality of the service they are delivering to the Australian people for free.
The anti-siphoning scheme requires any listed events to be televised first on a broadcaster's primary service. The bill will allow broadcasters to meet this obligation while also having the option of providing events on the anti-siphoning list in high definition.
The bill is being introduced now to provide broadcasters with the flexibility to broadcast upcoming events, such as this year's AFL and NRL grand finals, in high definition, should they chose to do so.
Mr Speaker, as you know as a distinguished Victorian, Australians, particularly the citizens of your state, love their football. Just this week, we have seen both the AFL and the NRL negotiate new rights deals with broadcasters. For NRL fans, many of them in my state of New South Wales, the four-year deal with Nine for 2018 is worth $185 million a year for four games per week plus the State of Origin. The NRL still has pay TV, digital and international rights to sell, and there are reports that NRL officials are optimistic of achieving more than $2 billion in total over five years.
For the AFL, the deal announced yesterday is the biggest sports rights deal in Australia's history, at a reported figure of $2½ billion over six years. From 2017 until 2022, AFL fans will be able to watch live on the Seven Network three matches per round in every state and territory, as well as the grand final and Brownlow Medal. Fox Sports will broadcast every match of the round live and Telstra will hold the rights for all hand-held mobile devices, the AFL website and IPTV.
Live sport is a huge part and a growing part of free-to-air television. As so much more of the program video content is going over the top—that is to say, it is being provided over streamed internet services like Presto, like Netflix, like Stan—and as viewers want to be able to watch episode drama programs, for example, at their convenience, the value of live events, particularly live sport, is of greater and greater importance. There is no form of television programming where high-definition transmission is more important than live sports. It does make a very big difference, as honourable members would understand.
While we have no doubt that in due course the networks will take advantage of this change to be able to show live sports, particularly football in HD, the government is not directing them to do that. Our view is that the restriction on the primary channel that it had to be broadcast or transmitted in standard definition is now clearly out of date. It is an anachronistic regulation. It served its purpose. It was important in its time. The government's approach to regulation is that we should look at every single regulation, whether it is in communications or anywhere else, and ask ourselves: what is the policy objective? If the policy objective is no longer necessary or no longer appropriate the regulation should go. If the policy objective is still appropriate and relevant we have to ask ourselves: is there a more effective or efficient way to deliver that objective by an improved form of regulation? That is the approach we take right across the board, and the statutory rules here that we are seeking to repeal are an absolutely classic case of the deregulatory agenda of the Abbott government.
We look forward to further transforming the future arrangements of digital television regulation during our fourth regulation repeal day in November. We have brought this bill forward so that it does provide an opportunity, if the broadcasters wish, to show the grand finals in high definition on their primary channels. We are committed to reducing the regulatory burden for all businesses, including the very regulated businesses in my portfolio of communications. The bill will provide free-to-air broadcasters with greater flexibility to innovate and to evolve, to incorporate new technologies, ensuring that they continue to remain relevant in a rapidly changing media environment. I commend the built the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (09:12): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will enable a trial phase of new cashless welfare arrangements and a cashless debit card, in response to a key recommendation from Mr Andrew Forrest's Review of Indigenous Jobs and Training.
The cashless debit card is an important recommendation in the Forrest Review report, Creating Parity, as a means of reducing the social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse.
The main objective of the trial is to test whether restricting discretionary cash can reduce the overall social harm which is caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse, particularly against women and children.
The trial will be conducted in up to three locations, and will be limited to 10,000 people. The locations will be selected on the basis of high levels of welfare dependence, where gambling, alcohol and illegal drug abuse are causing unacceptable levels of harm and there is an openness to participate from within the community.
Ceduna in South Australia will be the first site under the trial to commence. The leadership in the community have publicly called for this reform and see it as a mechanism to potentially address some of the welfare-fuelled alcohol and drug abuse that affects the community.
On the day the government announced it would like to proceed with Ceduna as a trial site for the cashless debit card, the Ceduna Community Heads Group—a key leadership group in the community of Ceduna—endorsed the reform and said:
We want to build a future for our younger generation to aspire to and believe we cannot do this if our families are caught up in the destructive cycle of alcohol or drugs that destroys our culture, our lands and our communities.
At the heart of this reform is a change that is being shaped specifically to meet our local needs. It has been a true collaboration to ensure that we can give our mob and our Communities every chance to create real and genuine change in their lives.
We have grasped this initiative; we have helped shape this initiative; and we are confident that this initiative is for the betterment of all people within our region.
We are also in advanced discussions with the leaders in the East Kimberley region. Key leaders in the region, led by Ian Trust of the Wunan Foundation, Ted Hall Jr of the MG Corporation and Desmond Hill of Gelganyem Trust, see the trial as a worthy idea to address many social issues facing their communities. The three men wrote to the government saying:
We acknowledge that agreeing to the East Kimberley being a trial site for the restricted debit card may seem to some a rather drastic step. However, it is our view that continuing to deliver the same programs we have delivered for the past forty years will do nothing for our people and, besides wasting more time and money, will condemn our children and future generations to a life of poverty and despair. As leaders in the East Kimberley, we cannot accept this.
When key local leaders of the stature of these people stand up and call for reform, parliaments should listen, and that is what we are doing.
Under the trial, 80 per cent of payments received by people on a working age welfare payment, such as Newstart Allowance, will be placed on the cashless debit card.
Participants in the trial will receive an everyday mainstream debit card, which will be connected to the Visa, MasterCard or EFTPOS platform.
A person will not be able to use this card to access cash or use it at liquor and gambling outlets. Because cash will be limited, the ability to purchase illegal drugs will be restricted as well.
Recognising that we do not live in a cashless society and that people need cash for minor expenses such as children's lunch money, the local footy or bus fares, the remaining 20 per cent of payments will be available for use at the person's discretion. The 20 per cent cash ration is supported by the Ceduna community.
In trial locations, the cashless debit card will work as similarly as possible to any other bank card. The trial will seek to ensure the card can work at all existing terminals and shops, except those selling the restricted products of alcohol and gambling, as well as online where possible. The only difference will be that it will not allow the purchase of alcohol and gambling products or allow cash withdrawals.
The bill also empowers the minister to authorise local community bodies in trial locations. An authorised community body will be able to reduce the percentage of a person's welfare payment that is placed on the cashless debit card. This recognises that the community has an important role to play in the trial and in encouraging socially responsible behaviour.
The trial, expected to start in the first quarter of 2016, will make a vital contribution towards informing potential future arrangements for income management, aimed at reducing social harm caused by welfare fuelled alcohol abuse and drug abuse, especially against women and children.
Income management and the BasicsCard will continue for two additional years to maintain support for existing income management participants while the trial is running. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015, introduced on 28 May 2015, will make a number of changes to streamline the income management program to enable more effective operation of the program. Income management and the trial will not be run in the same locations. In Ceduna, and any other trial site that is an existing income management location, income management will be switched off before the trial starts.
We acknowledge that, for some people, using a debit card rather than cash to pay for everyday items will be an initial inconvenience. We do not underplay that. However, the potential upside is a transformed community where women are safer, less money is spent on alcohol and gambling, and more money is available for children's needs.
We think, for this reason, this is an opportunity worth trialling.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:19): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Brisbane and Cairns control tower life extensions.
Air Services Australia is implementing new technology into air traffic control towers known as the Integrated Tower Automation Suite to combine flight and operational data, surveillance and voice communications into a single, integrated, tower specific layout. The Integrated Tower Automation Suite will be rolled out progressively in towers in readiness for the civil military air traffic management system, which will provide a common platform for air traffic control in both civilian and military controlled air space. To achieve this outcome, Air Services is proposing to refurbish existing facilities and upgrade supporting infrastructure to extend design life at Brisbane and Cairns airports. The civil military air traffic management system will be installed into air traffic service centres and terminal control units and will interface with Integrated Tower Automation Suite, which is specific to tower operations.
The Brisbane and Cairns towers were built in 1987 and 1990 respectively. The fit-out and supporting infrastructure is from the original installation and is at the end of its design life. The project is estimated to cost $23.93 million in total: $9.98 million for Brisbane and $13.95 million for Cairns excluding GST. These costs include all construction costs, labour, external consultants, travel and an allowance for risks and contingencies. Subject to parliamentary approval, the construction works for the Brisbane tower are planned to commence in late 2016 and be completed by mid-2017. The construction works for the Cairns tower are planned to commence in early 2016 and be completed by late 2016. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:22): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Stirling redevelopment, Stage 3A, Garden Island, WA.
The Australian government's first responsibility is the security of our nation. To achieve this objective the government must invest in infrastructure which supports our soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen to ensure that they have the right platforms and equipment to be able to do their jobs. The Department of Defence is proposing to upgrade and replace ageing critical infrastructure and to construct new facilities at HMAS Stirling on Garden Island, Western Australia.
HMAS Stirling was named in honour of Captain James Stirling, Royal Navy, the naval officer who landed on Garden Island in 1827. Captain Stirling returned in June two years later to found not only the first European settlement in Western Australia but also the first free colony anywhere in Australia. HMAS Stirling's crest is based on Captain Stirling's family coat of arms. HMAS Stirling has grown over the years to become the Royal Australian Navy's major operational fleet base on the west coast of Australia and the home port for about half of the Navy's major war vessels.
The existing infrastructure at HMAS Stirling has reached or is nearing the end of its design life and will not continue to effectively support Navy operations from Western Australia without immediate and substantial redevelopment. The HMAS Stirling redevelopment, stage 3A, project will include critical upgrades to electrical, water, sewerage and communications infrastructure. It will also include general building upgrades to key facilities to improve and to extend functionality essential to support current and future naval operations.
This functionality is especially vital considering the future uses of HMAS Stirling, including hosting a number of our Navy's future submarine and frigate platforms that the coalition recently announced as part of an $89 billion investment in naval capability. The HMAS Stirling upgrade project is valued at an estimated $366.8 million, excluding GST, which includes construction costs, management design fees, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and escalation allowances. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin in mid-2017 and should be completed by early 2020. The project will provide opportunities for jobs and growth throughout the construction period. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:25): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Growler Airborne Electronic Attack Capability Facilities Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to refurbish existing facilities and construct new facilities at three locations across Australia to support the introduction of 12 new EA-18G Growler aircraft and support systems for the Australian Defence Force. The 12 new Growler airborne electronic attack aircraft are capable of providing electronic warfare support by disrupting a broad range of military electronic systems. Operating in conjunction with air, land and sea forces, the new Growler aircraft will be able to support the full spectrum of defence tasks.
The works are proposed at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, the Army Aviation Centre Oakey, in Queensland, and at Delamere air weapons range, in the Northern Territory. The project will provide fit-for-purpose facilities to support and sustain the operation and maintenance of the Growler aircraft capability. The project works include civil works, living accommodation, administration facilities, logistics and maintenance facilities, training and simulated facilities, multi-storey car parking, landscaping and demolition works.
The project is valued at an estimated $348.6 million, excluding GST. This includes construction costs, escalation allowances, professional service fees, design, construction and defence contingencies, and information technology equipment. This investment will provide local employment opportunities for subcontractors in Queensland and the Northern Territory and will provide economic benefits for local businesses and industry.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to begin in the first half of 2016, with completion expected by 2021. The government is committed to delivering world class defence capabilities to support our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen and airwomen in their roles at home and indeed abroad. The addition of the 12 new Growler aircraft will further enhance our military's capability and ability to engage in modern warfare. These proposed works will ensure that our bases are ready for the Growlers' arrival. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:28): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Melbourne and Brisbane air traffic services centre—Extension works.
Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence are proposing to replace their existing air traffic control systems with the new civil military air traffic management system being delivered under the OneSKY Australia program to provide a common platform provision of air traffic control in both civilian and military controlled air space. To achieve this outcome Airservices Australia is proposing to extend existing facilities in Melbourne and Brisbane to modernise the facility and upgrade the existing supporting infrastructure to enable delivery of the new system.
The proposed works comprises new air traffic service centres, which include controller rooms and amenities in Melbourne and Brisbane to house the new air traffic control consoles and associated facilities. The existing air traffic service buildings in Melbourne and Brisbane will continue to contain air traffic control support facilities and be repurposed, following the decommissioning of the existing air traffic control system, to house non-operational staff. The project is valued at $107.61 million, including GST. These costs include all development and delivery costs: management, design fees, construction costs, fittings, contingencies and an allowance for future escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed works are scheduled to commence in early 2016, with a staged practical completion and commissioning from 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (09:30): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 6th report of 2015 related to referrals made in May and June 2015.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr PERRETT: by leave—As deputy chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 6th report of 2015, which deals with two projects—one referred to the committee in May and the other in June. The first project is the proposal to build an international quality visitors centre adjacent to the Australian National Memorial in Villers-Bretonneux in France. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will oversee the project, which is expected to cost $93.4 million.
The committee received a briefing on the project and held hearings in Canberra on 26 June. I had hoped the parliamentary secretary would let us go to inspect the site but that did not eventuate. Along with the National Memorial, the centre to be named after Sir John Monash will recognise and pay tribute to the 290,000 Australians who served on the Western Front between 1916 and 1918.
The centre is designed to offer visitors a unique experience. It will use state-of-the-art multimedia technology to provide visitors with an immersive experience that will be both evocative and educational. The works will comprise the interpretive centre itself, but will also include significant civil, horticultural and landscaping works to the site. Importantly, the centre will be built partially below ground level so that it does not visually compromise the iconic and poignant Lutyens designed memorial. In fact, some of the planned landscape features will complete Lutyens' original design for the site, particularly the wandering gardens. The opening of the centre is planned for April 2018 to coincide with the centenary of the Battle of Villers-Bretonneux. Visitor numbers in excess of 100,000 per year, both Australian and international, are expected.
The project is a significant undertaking for DVA. The delivery time frame is tight. For this reason the committee recommends that the DVA provide a status report at the mid-point so that the committee can assess how they are tracking in terms of expenditure and build schedule. Despite the significant cost being committed to this project—unfortunately, it will not be creating jobs here in Australia where they are needed—the committee is satisfied that this project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that it proceed.
The other project I report on today concerns the Department of Defence stage 2 redevelopment of RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales. The works will upgrade and replace critical infrastructure to improve the functionality and capability of facilities at the base. The estimated cost of the project is $274 million. The base has grown significantly since its establishment in 1941. This prompted Defence to carry out improvement works in the 1990s, and the first stage of this redevelopment project was completed in 2004.
The second stage will include upgrades to engineering services, constructing new office accommodation, vehicle entry and parking facilities. It will also include demolition of some buildings that cannot be refurbished to meet current building standards and that have now reached the end of their useful life.
The committee received a briefing from Defence and conducted a site inspection at Williamtown on 22 July. At the subsequent hearings, Defence outlined how the redevelopment will consolidate various elements that are currently dispersed across the base in order to deliver significant efficiencies. Through the public consultation process and during the public hearing, concerns regarding road access and safety were raised. A representative of Port Stephens Council told the committee how this project provides an opportunity for the local council to work with Defence to provide safety upgrades and enhancements to the adjacent Medowie Road. This is a suggestion that the committee endorses and the committee has made a supporting recommendation. The committee is satisfied that this project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that it proceed.
In concluding, and on behalf of the very efficient chair, Senator Dean Smith, I commend this report to the Senate.
BILLS
Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015
Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015
Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:35): The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 is important legislation. It is timely legislation. It was introduced on 25 June 2015 and provides new, modern and flexible superannuation arrangements for people joining the Australian Defence Force on or after 1 July 2016.
This new military superannuation scheme will be a fully funded accumulation scheme. The current Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme, MSBS, will be closed to new members from 1 July 2016. Importantly, serving contributing MSBS members will not be compelled to move to ADF Super although they may choose to do so. For the first time, ADF members will be able to join the superannuation fund of their choice. A default military superannuation scheme will also be established, as is required under law.
Our Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force men and women have a unique and remarkable role, both at home and abroad. That is recognised by everyone who sits in this place. In recognition of this unique role, ADF Super members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent, regardless of the superannuation fund they choose. I say 'generous' but it is also wholly appropriate. This rate is higher than that offered to Australian public servants, which is 15.4 per cent, and significantly higher than the 9.5 per cent available to the majority of Australians through the Superannuation Guarantee. I know we all recognise that ADF members have a unique and special role. They place their lives on the line—many of them, each and every day, when they go out to do their duty. In fact, all of them at some stage or another do just that.
There will be no requirement for ADF Super members to make employee contributions to their superannuation. As a result, serving contributing MSBS members, who currently contribute a minimum five per cent of their salary, who choose to become ADF Super members will immediately receive a five per cent increase to their take-home pay. ADF Super fixes one of the long-running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community—namely, the lack of flexibility and portability of a member's superannuation benefit.
Accompanying legislation was also introduced to establish ADF Cover, the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015. ADF Cover is a new scheme that will continue to provide members of the ADF with death-and-invalidity cover. The government recognises that the nature of military service makes it extremely difficult for ADF members to obtain death-and-invalidity cover at a reasonable cost. ADF Cover addresses this issue by ensuring that all ADF personnel who are members of ADF Super have full death-and-invalidity cover.
ADF Cover provides the same level of death-and-invalidity cover as is provided to members of the current MSBS. ADF Cover will apply regardless of the superannuation fund chosen by the ADF member. ADF members will not be required to make any contributions to ADF Cover and all benefits paid under ADF Cover will be met from consolidated revenue. ADF Cover will provide benefits for ADF members who are medically discharged and whose capacity to undertake civilian employment is limited as a result of a medical condition that occurs while serving in the ADF. That is important because many who serve—and proudly wear their uniform—find it difficult when they transition back into civilian life, none more so than if they have a medical condition caused by that service on behalf of the nation. It is difficult enough for them to be able to fit back into normal civilian life. To be able to do it with financial security is vitally important.
If an ADF member dies in service or an invalid dies whilst receiving an invalidity pension, benefits will be paid to the dependents of that member or invalid or to their estate. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015 and the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015, for flexible service, is very important legislation in this place. Accompanying the introduction of ADF Super and ADF Cover is legislation which provides for significantly more flexible service for permanent ADF members. The government has introduced groundbreaking reforms that for the first time will enable ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to Defence capability requirements. That is an important distinction: subject to Defence capability requirements. If they are wearing their uniform, we want them to put that first and foremost, as all ADF personnel do, but these are groundbreaking reforms.
These significant reforms will improve the ADF's workforce model and will provide additional flexibility for members of the military. We need to understand that the world is a changing place and that we need to be able to provide flexibility for our Defence people who sacrifice a lot to wear the uniform. Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you and I are well aware of that, having done a number of the Australian Defence Force parliamentary programs together. You and I have seen it firsthand, as I know the member for Moreton has in the various capacities that he has undertaken in his parliamentary career. When you go to the bases and you have an in-depth look at what those people do, their commitment never ceases to amaze. They put extraordinary ability and talent into their work every day, and they have to because their lives and the lives of many others are very much in their hands.
This legislation will also improve the ADF's employment offer, leading to improved recruitment and retention of personnel. That is important too, because retention of personnel is something that Defence needs to ensure. Defence needs to ensure they have good working conditions and good superannuation security in order to make Defence a place that people want to go to take up a career. I was so pleased that I was able to take part in a review of the gap year program that the coalition government introduced and to see so many of those young people who might have done other things for their gap year after year 12 or, indeed, perhaps would not have chosen to participate too much at all. The experiences that they had at Royal Australian Air Force Base Forest Hill at Wagga Wagga and the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka, the home of the soldier, will provide advantages for life for those young people, no matter what they choose to do in their life.
Defence is a modern, flexible and responsive employer. I say the word 'responsive'. I know the great work that the Kapooka commandants do at Wagga Wagga. Theirs is one of the most difficult jobs in the nation. We think that we have an important job to govern the country and, in your case, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and the member for Moreton's case, to keep the government accountable. The Kapooka commandant has the job of making sure that all the recruits who do not go to Duntroon—they are not officers; they are young recruits, and some are not so young—are the future of the Army. They are the future of the long line of khaki which has served us steadfastly, proudly and staunchly since 25 April 1915, and even a little bit before that. Colonel Stephen Jobson is doing a fantastic job. He follows a long line of wonderful people who have held that job—one of the most, I believe, important in this nation.
I am digressing a little bit from the superannuation legislation before us, but what that commandant has done to ensure that bullying is no longer a part of any military establishment that he runs and certainly the Kapooka Army base and to ensure that respect for women is first and foremost, front and centre, of anything that that base does is to be commended. I know that he is headed for much bigger things in his future military career. He certainly is, because the sorts of things that he has improved upon from previous commandants are to be admired. Whilst I am speaking of that, the member for Bass was formerly a Kapooka commandant. As I say, it is one of the most difficult, most demanding and challenging jobs in the nation, but they have all done a very, very fine job.
Getting back onto this legislation: the government is steadfastly committed to supporting ADF personnel, and these reforms will help bolster Defence's capability. Importantly, these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the ADF. We want to make it attractive. We must make it attractive for people to want to be able to serve our nation, because, as we all know, there are challenges which lie ahead, and we are going to need the very best and brightest people wearing our military uniforms.
The closure of MSBS and establishment of ADF Super were announced as part of the budget. These changes will reduce the government's unfunded liabilities by about $100 billion by 2050. It is important to note that this is not a savings measure. ADF Super has a forecast total cash cost of $433 million over the forward estimates to 2018-19 and $3.196 billion over the decade. ADF Super will be a new, modern and flexible superannuation arrangement for people joining the ADF on and after 1 July 2016. Members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent—but, as I said, it is not so much generous as appropriate. ADF Super fixes the long-running issues of inflexibility and portability of a member's superannuation benefit. That is vitally important.
ADF Cover is a new scheme which will provide members of the ADF with death and invalidity cover, given that they are unlikely to be able to source this cover at a reasonable price, given the very unique and dangerous nature of their work.
Flexible service is a groundbreaking reform which adds flexibility to the ADF's workforce model. Flexible service will allow ADF members, where possible, to serve part time. This new flexibility arrangement will vastly improve the ADF service offer, which will improve recruitment and retention. As the member for Riverina, I want to see more people going through Kapooka. I want to see the government committing to making sure that some of those gap-year young people—they are not students anymore—and those people who want to join the ADF at whatever age are able to have that security of superannuation guaranteed.
The government has worked with stakeholders such as the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Australian Defence Association in developing these policies. All major stakeholders support these important reforms, and I am encouraged to hear that the Australian Labor Party will also vote to support these bills. I thank them for that bipartisan commitment. The Abbott government is steadfastly committed to supporting ADF personnel. These reforms will help bolster Defence's capability and, importantly, these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the Australian Defence Force.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): I thank the parliamentary secretary as we say good morning to the students up there in the gallery, including the wonderful kids from Saint Brigid's in Gisborne.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (09:48): I rise to speak on the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015, the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 and the Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015. The Labor Party is always happy to provide bipartisan support for good policy. This is important, sensible legislation to support our Defence Force personnel, and I am happy to personally support it.
We are extremely lucky in this country. Apart from many of the people who live near military bases, most Australians do not often see our Defence forces as we go about our everyday lives. When we do see the occasional convoy of Army vehicles driving through our streets our reaction is usually surprise that we have seen them at all and then pride in our wonderful men and women who are there to serve and defend us if and when needed or help us during a time of natural disaster, as they often do in Queensland. In other countries, sadly, when they see their army or air force or navy, this is not the case. There can be quite a different scenario in other countries where it is sadly commonplace to see combat personnel patrolling the streets for a much more sinister reason.
We truly do live in a safe, stable and lucky country and we must always cherish that. We must always remember that we can live so freely in this country because of the wonderful men and women who have served this country in the past and who are serving this country now, always at the ready to defend those freedoms we cherish so deeply. I particularly acknowledge the around 2½ thousand ADF personnel who are deployed overseas right now and the challenges that that can place on their families. Obviously we cannot be complacent about our Defence Force, even though each of the three forces is respected around the world as amongst the best defence forces.
The men and women who make up our Defence Force are not like any other sector of our workforce. They have a very regimented and demanding way of life. They must abide by a severe military disciplinary code. They have long and irregular working hours, certainly not the nine-to-five lifestyle that many people in the population enjoy. They have a very high standard of physical fitness that they must maintain throughout their career. The statutory retirement ages are well below the community norms. This is not to mention those frequent relocations and separation from family. Sadly, the ADF personnel have a divorce rate that is much higher than average. I think it is only topped by politicians. Obviously, they receive less pay than politicians and they are in a lot more danger than politicians.
Nevertheless, despite those challenges, the ADF is an honourable calling, but it is definitely a tough life. That is why Labor fully supports the employer contribution rate for ADF personnel of 16.4 per cent, which is obviously higher than the general public sector. The bills before the chamber will establish a new superannuation scheme, the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Scheme, or ADF Super, which will kick in from 1 July 2016. They will also provide a stand-alone statutory death and invalidity cover, or ADF Cover, for ADF personnel who are members of ADF Super and also for those personnel who choose their own superannuation fund.
The Podger review, released in 2007, identified several important problems with the current Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme. Although the MSBS is very generous to ADF personnel who are long-serving members of the forces, it is much less generous to personnel who serve shorter periods of time. The MSBS is complex and difficult for members to understand. There are no portability provisions in the MSBS. Members are not able to roll over their employer benefit to another superannuation fund of their choice. There is a maximum benefit limit with the current MSBS scheme. Personnel with ADF long service are forced to stop contributing to the scheme once they have reached the total payout limit. These bills will largely correct these deficiencies.
The government's original proposal for changes to the ADF superannuation structure, announced in their May budget, included a two-tier system. The two-tier system was criticised not only by Labor but also by the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Returned and Services League. The main objections to the proposed two-tier system were important objections that go to the heart of the culture of our defence forces. The contribution rate under this initial proposal was 15.4 per cent with an additional 2.6 per cent for any period in which members were serving in war-like operations. The base rate of 15.4 per cent did not distinguish between ADF personnel and civilian personnel.
It is important to recognise that ADF personnel have a unique and challenging career path. ADF personnel would still be exposed to danger, they would still be away from their families, they would still be enduring the physically and emotionally demanding aspects of ADF life regardless of whether or not they are exposed to war-like operations or involved in peace-keeping missions, and obviously the peace-keeping missions would not attract the extra 2.6 per cent. Such a distinction between war-like operations and other duties of Defence Force personnel could be detrimental to the morale of the entire Defence Force. Another objection to the proposed two-tiered rate of superannuation is that it would be an administrative nightmare. It would be costly and difficult for both administrators and Defence personnel to keep track of what rate was applicable when. I am sure all of us have dealt with veterans, even from the Vietnam War, who have had problems keeping track of what actually went on, or widows of World War II veterans.
The single rate of 16.4 per cent reflects the unique nature of Defence Force service. It is a generous rate that is well above community standards, and so it should be. It is higher than the contribution rates under the superannuation guarantee, the Commonwealth public sector scheme and the parliamentary superannuation accumulation scheme. The latter applies to all parliamentarians first elected after 31 August 2004, which I understand is about 80 per cent of the personnel in the parliament. About 80 per cent of the government's frontbench is on a different scheme, but that is a story for another day.
The flexibility built into the ADF Superannuation Scheme allows for the reality of personnel moving in and out of the ADF. This particular element of the scheme will be crucial in encouraging women to participate in the Defence forces. The percentage of women in the ADF has been increasing over the past few decades, with several milestones responsible for large jumps in the number of women entering the forces. I particularly commend the leadership of the ADF, who have been have helping to set the culture. I particularly mention the former head of the Army, Lieutenant General Morrison, who delivered the line, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept', which I think has done so much to change the culture in the ADF, particularly in the Army.
In 1992 the Keating government announced that women could serve in all Army, Navy and Air Force positions except direct combat units. In 2005, women were permitted to serve in the headquarters and the administrative companies of artillery, armoured and infantry units of the forces. This allowed women to take up roles in combat units. Women are now able to be employed in approximately 90 per cent of positions in the ADF. However, women still only account for 15 per cent of ADF personnel. Like any workplace, to encourage more women to participate the Defence Force needs to make it easier for women to plan their career in the ADF and accommodate changes that become necessary. This legislation, in terms of a sensible retirement, is part of that package. The flexibility built into the ADF Superannuation Scheme will not cure the low participation rate of women in the defence forces but it will give women the comfort to know they will not be penalised for a break in their career path, particularly when having children.
It is vitally important that we look after all of our Defence Force personnel. Defence Force personnel should be confident that they can comfortably retire and that the superannuation accrued throughout their career, whether continuous or interrupted, will sustain them in their retirement. How could we have the people charged with defending our nation worried about how they will survive in retirement? ADF personnel are in a unique position in our society. There are not many jobs where you cannot get sent overseas until you have a will. That is the sad reality for people on deployment. I particularly acknowledge all the legal officers who support people going on deployment. All ADF personnel should know that we appreciate the sacrifices they make, both big and small. They should know that all of us in this place have their best interests at heart, just as they have the best interests of our country in their hearts. These bills will modernise the conditions of the ADF workforce. The changes are important and necessary. Labor is always willing to provide bipartisan support to good policy. These bills reflect good policy, and I am happy to support them.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:58): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015, the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 and the Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015. These bills give me the opportunity to highlight the fact that the Abbott government is resolutely committed to supporting Australian Defence Force members throughout the period of their service and also in their retirement. This commitment is evident from this landmark legislation introduced to the House on 25 June 2015, which will establish a new military superannuation scheme for ADF members, to be known as ADF Super. As part of the government's recognition of the unique nature of military service, further legislation was also introduced to establish ADF Cover—a new scheme that will continue to provide members of the ADF with death and invalidity cover. Also introduced was groundbreaking legislation enabling ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to Defence capability requirements.
ADF Super fixes one of the longest-running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community—namely, the lack of flexibility and portability of a member's superannuation benefit. The government has worked with stakeholders such as the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Australian Defence Association in developing these policies. All major stakeholders support these important reforms. This government is steadfastly committed to supporting ADF personnel and these reforms will help bolster Defence capability. Importantly, these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the ADF.
Several weeks ago I was very fortunate to accept an invitation to join Battle Group Waratah at the 2nd/17th Royal New South Wales Army Reserve for a personal training session. The Prime Minister also attended. Attending was a mistake—it was a rigorous and tough workout with some exceptionally fit men from a range of age groups. Our Prime Minister was magnificent—I was good for weight and age! Having been in many training groups myself, what struck me was the camaraderie in this group. It was an extraordinary thing to see. It is one thing for an athlete to train to try to win a game, but the fitness level that a Defence member must have means that their life and the life of their team mates may well depend on their ability to lift and run and carry and make decisions, literally, under fire. To see the rapport between our ADF service men and women really made me proud to be Australian. Their professionalism and work ethic left me feeling confident that our nation's defences are in the best possible hands. This is why it is so important for government to do everything we can to support our ADF personnel, as evidenced by the bills being discussed here today.
ADF Super represents a new, modern and flexible superannuation arrangement for people joining the ADF on and after 1 July 2016. This will be a fully-funded accumulation scheme. The current Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme will be closed to new members from 1 July 2016. Members currently contributing to MSBS will not be required to move to ADF Super, although they will be given the option to do so. This legislation means that for the first time ADF members will be able to join the superannuation fund of their choice. A default military superannuation scheme will also be established, as is required under law.
In recognition of the unique nature of military service, ADF Super members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent, regardless of the superannuation fund they choose. This rate is higher than that offered to Australian public servants—15.4 per cent—and significantly higher than the 9.5 per cent available to the majority of Australians through the superannuation guarantee. There will be no requirement for ADF Super members to make employee contributions to their superannuation. As a result, serving contributing MSBS members who currently contribute a minimum of 5 per cent of their salary and who choose to become ADF Super members will immediately receive a 5 per cent increase in their take-home pay.
ADF Super will apply to those joining the ADF for the first time on and after 1 July 2016, to those contributing MSBS members who choose to join ADF Super, to those preserved MSBS members who rejoin the ADF and choose to become a member of ADF Super, and to those MSBS and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme members who receive retirement pay and rejoin the ADF on a full-time basis or as a reservist on continuous full-time service on or after 1 July 2016. Current contributing DFRDB members are unable to transfer to ADF Super. The introduction of ADF Super does not affect the government's delivered election commitment to provide new indexation of DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions.
Underlying this, ADF Super is being established to provide members of the ADF with a modern and flexible accumulation superannuation scheme. This modern workforce has far greater needs for flexible working arrangements, with new mums having varying needs as an example. ADF Super will facilitate a flow of people in and out of Defence and in and out of the super provider of their choice, which is a big change on the previous rigid arrangements and should help to attract a new cohort to serving their nation.
Throughout our extensive consultations the lack of flexibility and portability of a member's superannuation benefit was one of the longest running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community. Australian Government Actuary modelling confirms that ADF personnel who serve less than 15 years will especially benefit under the new superannuation arrangement. Approximately 80 per cent of ADF personnel separate after serving less than 15 years.
The Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 establishes a new statutory death and invalidity scheme to be known as ADF Cover. The government recognises that as a result of the unique nature of military service it is difficult for ADF members to obtain death and invalidity cover at a reasonable cost. ADF Cover addresses this issue by ensuring all ADF personnel who are members of ADF Super have full death and invalidity cover. ADF Cover provides the same level of death and invalidity cover as is provided to members of the current MSBS. ADF Cover will apply regardless of the superannuation fund chosen by the ADF member. ADF members will not be required to make any contributions to ADF Cover and all benefits paid under ADF Cover will be met from consolidated revenue. ADF Cover will provide benefits for ADF members who are medically discharged and whose capacity to undertake civilian employment is limited as a result of a medical condition that occurs while serving in the ADF. Accompanying the introduction of ADF Super and ADF Cover is legislation that will provide for significantly more flexible service for permanent ADF members.
The government has introduced groundbreaking reforms that, for the first time, will enable ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to Defence capability requirements. These significant reforms will improve the ADF's workforce model and will provide additional flexibility for members of the military. It will also improve the ADF's employment offer, leading to improved recruitment and retention of personnel. Defence is a modern, flexible and responsible employer. The introduction of flexible part-time work for full-time ADF members will encourage skilled and experienced people to stay in the ADF longer.
In this centenary year of Anzac, it is fitting that the Abbott government is making these changes to further support ADF personnel. These reforms will help bolster Defence's capability and improve the conditions of service for members of the ADF. I commend these bills to the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:08): As the opposition have already made clear, we support these bills and, in fact, believe that they are most appropriate. As we are talking about our Defence personnel, I will also take this opportunity to acknowledge that yesterday was Vietnam Veterans Day and also the 49th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. This year also marks the 50th anniversary since Australia's first regiment left for Vietnam. To commemorate the day, I am aware that services were held right across Australia in remembrance of those Australians who served in Vietnam and, indeed, in remembrance of all those families that were, in one way or another, affected by the Vietnam War.
As with World War I and World War II, I believe that there are few communities across Australia that would not have direct links with the Vietnam War, in one way or another. In my own electorate—indeed, in my own neighbourhood—a service was again held at Montague Farm where several years ago a memorial was built in recognition of Australia's Vietnam veterans. When Montague Farm was established as a new residential estate in the early 1990s, each of the streets of the estate were named in memory of one of the 58 fallen South Australian soldiers, with brief details about that solider printed on the street name. It was the idea of Fred Pritchard, the South Australian Housing Trust project manager of the estate, who was himself a Vietnam veteran. Being in Canberra I was unable to attend the Montague Farm service this year, but I was represented by Deb Matheson from my office, who laid a tribute on my behalf.
I was, however, able to attend, as I have done for years, the annual Vietnam veterans march, memorial service breakfast and family and friends day held at Torrens Parade Ground last Sunday. Each year, the event attracts hundreds of veterans, their families and their friends for a wonderful afternoon of entertainment. Sadly, because the veterans are ageing and it requires a huge organisational effort to put on the event, I understand that this year's family and friends day event may have been the last.
The Vietnam War was a defining period in Australian history, as was the Battle of Long Tan. As has been pointed out by several other speakers, some 62,000 Australians served in Vietnam and 521 lost their lives over there and perhaps others died after their return to Australia. Three thousand were injured and many, many more still carry the mental scars of their service in Vietnam.
Last week I mentioned the work of Dr Glen Edwards, a person I have come to know. He was a medic over there in Vietnam who, since coming back from Vietnam, has written two books—one called Vietnam: theWar Within and the other Beyond Dark Clouds—which track the effects of the Vietnam War on the lives of not only the soldiers but also their families. He has done work with respect to families here in Australia, in New Zealand and in the USA. There is no question that many veterans are still suffering from the nightmare of the service over there.
The Battle of Long Tan—which, again, others have spoken about at length, as I have on other occasions—was something that defined Australia. It not only replicated the courage, mateship and bravery that we saw at Gallipoli 100 years ago; it also, once again, saw Australian and New Zealand soldiers fighting side by side. That battle ended up with 18 Australians killed and 24 wounded. In terms of the casualties of the Vietnam War, it was one of the more significant occasions.
I have spoken about the war on other occasions and I do not want to go into a great deal of detail about the Vietnam War per se today. But I do want to make this observation. The Vietnam War resulted in a mass migration of Vietnamese to Australia. Some 57,000 Vietnamese came to Australia in the years immediately after the war. This year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the post Vietnam War arrivals of Vietnamese people to Australia. There was a celebratory function held here in Parliament House several weeks ago. I spoke about that earlier on today in the Federation Chamber.
In that spirit, it is most appropriate that the Vietnam War Memorial, located at the Torrens Parade Grounds in Adelaide and opened in 2004, depicts both Australian and South Vietnamese soldiers and that, each year, former South Vietnamese soldiers now living in Australia join Australian Vietnam War veterans in the military parade and memorial service that I referred to earlier on in my remarks.
It was equally fitting that the South Australian Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le, a former Vietnamese refugee himself, was at the dais to receive the military salute of both Australian and Vietnamese soldiers marching past in the parade. I doubt if any of those Australian Vietnam veterans marching in the parade on Sunday could ever have imagined that decades after the war they would be saluting a Vietnamese born South Australian Governor.
The treatment of Australian returned Defence personnel has not always been handled well by governments on both sides of politics over the years. Since being in public life, I have developed a close friendship with countless veterans and veteran organisations and I have taken up so many causes and grievances, not always successfully, on their behalf. I have often sat down with veterans and listened with absolute disappointment to their stories about the way that they have been treated as veterans, quite often by the very Defence organisation that they served under. I have watched their health deteriorate from a combination of aging, sometimes mental anguish and dispiritedness. Indeed, only last Sunday I was reminded of a veteran who is still seeking recognition and justice for his service to Australia decades ago. In a similar way, I continue to fight for those people who were affected by the atomic nuclear testing here in Australia, many of whom have since passed away but many of whom are still battling for recognition and justice.
Also yesterday I wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs about the health of veterans of 111 Light Anti-Aircraft Battery, who served at RAAF Base Butterworth in Malaysia between 1964 and 1966. I understand that half of those Defence personnel have died, in most cases from unusual cancers. Whilst the evidence is anecdotal, there is a belief that the death rate is unusually high and that it may be attributable to one, or perhaps a combination, of the following causes: insect repellent fog containing the chemicals DDT and dieldrin; range fuel used for cleaning and deemed by the Commonwealth as a carcinogenic fluid; or cordite, the projectile propellant used in ammunition, creating toxic smoke and fumes. We do not know for certain whether the death rate is attributable to one, two or a combination of all three of those substances. But, given the statistics and the number of those veterans that have died, with the cause of death in most cases being cancer, the veterans are requesting that the government carry out a more scientific investigation to try to determine whether there is a pattern and whether the deaths are indeed attributable to their service in Malaysia on behalf of Australia.
This bill quite properly makes several improvements relating to the employment conditions of serving ADF personnel, and I understand that, in a couple of cases, those changes will commence from next year. We as a country need to take the same responsibility for Defence personnel who have ceased serving the country. Our support for our Defence personnel should not be limited to the years in which they are serving; it should take into account the years following that. We now have considerable evidence that, in many cases, their injuries, their ailments and their health deteriorate much more so after their service has been completed. In that respect, I think we as a nation could do better.
Labor supports this legislation. I understand that a new ADF superannuation scheme, with an employer rate at 16.4 per cent for any ADF member joining after 1 July 2016, will be implemented. As other members on this side of the House have made clear, we also support Project Suakin, which provides the necessary flexibility to enable a range of full-time and part-time service categories and options. Today we are starting to see more flexible conditions of employment operate in all areas of employment. That reflects the nature of the society that we live in. The same conditions should apply to ADF personnel. This particular change will be equally beneficial for females and males who want to serve in our defence forces but who, for one reason or another, might need to have time out or to commit themselves on a part-time basis to their service to the country because of other obligations or commitments. It is quite appropriate that we accommodate those needs. I also note the measures to create ADF Cover, replacing the existing death and disability scheme. That is an improvement to the current support that we provide our ADF personnel.
As I said at the outset, it is important that we provide appropriate conditions and the appropriate level of support to our ADF personnel who serve this country. It is a unique service, and that point has been made time and time again by speakers in this place. In recognition that it is a unique service, we should also recognise the unique fallouts that quite often result once their service has ended. Our support for our ADF personnel should not be limited to the period of their direct service to the country but should also apply to their years in retirement. With those comments, I repeat our support for this legislation.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:20): Today I speak in favour of the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 and related bills. The people of Lindsay have long had a firm relationship with our defence forces. To this day, the Lindsay electorate includes and is surrounded by many defence bases. To our north is Richmond RAAF Base and to our west is RAAF Base Glenbrook. Inside the electorate we have the Orchard Hills Defence establishment, and of course the Penrith engineers still call the region home. It is the Defence history and the Defence personnel that brought my mother's family to the Penrith region, when my grandfather worked in the munitions site on the north side of Penrith, now called Thornton.
Lindsay is very proud of our key military history. In fact, Lindsay is named after Norman Lindsay, a lot of whose work, in cartoons and caricatures, was about the recruitment of young people into the Army. We deeply respect our defence forces and we honour and respect what they have done in keeping our country strong, free and safe. Whether it be the efforts in the Middle East involving peacekeeping missions, or national security or analysing intelligence, the men and women who are part of our forces are the backbone of the way of life we often take for granted and the peace in which we live.
We are reminded that yesterday was Vietnam Veterans Day, when we commemorate not only the 1966 Battle of Long Tan but the whole war, where much of the fighting took place with small enemy groups who used the dense forests and tunnelling systems to ambush Allied troops. At the Battle of Long Tan 18 Australians were killed, while estimates place enemy deaths at well over 1000. That battle is considered the first major conflict of that war in which Australians were engaged. They were outnumbered, but they held our ground. Yesterday was a reminder of the heroics and the sacrifices our troops are prepared to make to defend the values that we hold so dear.
We were also reminded last weekend of the 70th anniversary of the VJ Day or VP Day, which marked the end of World War II. After six long years of fear and sacrifice, our nation finally tasted freedom. We get a glimpse of that moment through those indelible images of people dancing in the streets and throwing masses of tick-a-tape across the footpaths of our towns and cities. They finally got to share in the joy of peace, but not before facing the reality of some terrible costs—not just numbers of those killed and wounded, but the stories of unimaginable horrors. I was honoured last week to have heard the story of the journey of the father of Tanya Davies, the member for Mulgoa in the New South Wales parliament, who endured many of these horrors and wounds. People still get shivers up their spines from the mere mention of places like Sandakan and Bataan, where people were sent on death marches; or places like Borneo or Kokoda, where people were cannibalised. In a little over a month's time, I will be joining the Panthers on the Prowl—11 wonderful young women from my community—to trek Kokoda. Then there was the infamous Burma Railway, where people were so starved their bones protruded through their skin and many died. There was the horror of the Australian ship, the Centaur—a well-marked hospital ship that was mercilessly torpedoed just off the coast of Brisbane, drowning 268 nurses and medics. We still do not know exactly how many people died in the air raids on Darwin or in the other raids on Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales—when midget submarines entered Sydney Harbour.
The war brought so many horrors to the world and to our country. My grandfather, a young man from Stanthorpe, was sent to the clean-up of Nagasaki only weeks after the bomb had been detonated. He saw the extreme suffering of many Japanese people. Peace in the Pacific, and peace to the world, should be celebrated by the whole world. Earlier this year my electorate paid tribute to all those Australians killed in every theatre of war since the Sudan Conflict in 1885. They placed 102,807 poppies—that is equivalent to more than twice the capacity of the SCG and represents more than half those killed on the battlefields of France and Belgium during World War I.
Today it is important that we look at the sacrifices the Australian Defence Forces have made so that we can live freely. It is important that we provide the right superannuation for Defence personnel. They are the real heroes of Australia—those men and women who tirelessly serving in our Defence Forces. I support this bill, as it recognises the need for a superannuation fund that is better tailored to the needs of defence force personnel. Previously there was the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, the DFRDB, which closed in 2001, and the current Military Super Scheme, which currently has around 56,500 contributing members and 96,000 former members, who no longer contribute because they have left the forces, and 11,000 pensioners. This old Military Super scheme offers our Defence personnel good benefits, but it does not give them flexibility.
Changing to a new system will open Defence personnel to a range of new access options to their pensions, especially for those who are over 55, and more flexibility over their contributions and investment options. The current scheme has no portability arrangements for those who leave the forces, and access to the contributions is not available until preservation age. Perhaps the most significant change is the separation of the superannuation scheme from statutory death and invalid cover. This not only gives personnel more choice, but also offers those who have other superannuation arrangements access to death and invalid cover. These changes have the broad support of the Defence Welfare Association and the RSL, because it offers a modern superannuation scheme. As the new ADF Superannuation scheme will offer fully portable benefits, personnel can choose any complying fund. They will not be forced to contribute five per cent, as they currently do. This new fund will be fully funded and invested and available to members in a lump sum from the age of 55.
The new arrangements are also generous. The employer contribution rate for the Australian Defence Force Superannuation scheme is 16.4 per cent. Of the schemes currently available, only judges have a better pension arrangement. The Parliamentary Superannuation Accumulation scheme, which has been in place for almost 11 years now and which replaced an older and more generous scheme, is one percentage point lower than the contributions than the new ADF scheme. This additional contribution recognises the special place that Australian Defence Force personnel have in our society and is small thanks for their commitment and service.
It is 70 years since the end of World War II, 100 years since we landed on those fatal shores on Gallipoli, 130 years since the Sudan conflict, 40 years since the end of Vietnam and 60 years since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. We owe it to the men and women in our military to give back just a little when they have risked so much for us.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:30): I am pleased to speak on the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2013, the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 and the Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015. The provisions in this legislation, which was introduced on 25 June this year, establish a new military superannuation scheme for ADF members, to be known as ADF Super. As the member of parliament whose electorate contains Holsworthy Army Barracks, and with many of my constituents serving in the military, I am very pleased to be part of the government that bring this legislation to parliament.
At the outset, this legislation recognises that the military service in this country is unique. One of the hardest things I have done since becoming a member of parliament was to attend a funeral at Woronora Cemetery for one of our servicemen killed fighting to protect freedoms in Afghanistan. It tugs at our heartstrings to see a deceased soldier, a deceased digger, and his widow and his young kids.
It is perhaps apt that we are debating this legislation one day after the 49th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, which was brought up by other speakers. Reflecting on that important concept of the importance and unique nature of military service, I would like to quote a few passages from some of our soldiers who fought in the Battle of Long Tan. This is one from Private Jim Richmond, who was caught in that battle. He wrote:
I rolled over on my side hoping that the mud would dry out the wound and help to stop the bleeding. The artillery was still coming in and it was dark by now and I knew I'd get no help till the morning at least.
I kept hoping that the artillery wouldn't get me. I was worried about my mother, and I kept thinking if I died she would be up shit creek, so I prayed a lot and made a lot of promises, but I'm afraid I never really kept any of them after I got back home. It was the longest night I've ever known.
The artillery was still coming in and I can remember thinking, 'This one's going over, and this one's falling short, and this one's for you Jim.'… The other thing that I was really worried me was the thirst. He drank all my water during the night and I got painfully thirsty. I reckoned that if I could survive the Viet Cong troops and the artillery I'd probably finish up dying of thirst.
I just lay there helpless and praying and trying to stay awake and wishing to hell it would get light soon.
That is just a small example of the unique nature of military service. I would also like to quote Private Terry Burstall, another survivor of Long Tan, as an example of the unique nature of military service in this country. He wrote at the aftermath of the battle:
We recovered the bodies of our friends who had been laughing living beings the day before. Nothing takes the supposed glory out of war more quickly than the sight of dead mutilated friends.
Unfortunately it brings about a hardening of feeling toward your enemy that pushes normal human feelings of compassion to the back of the mind. It brings conflict down to a very personal level and gives you the licence to remain aloof from the suffering of others as long as your own little band is protected.
I personally do not care how many troops we faced at Long Tan or whether the body count is accurate or not. Jingoism is the last thing we need. I do not care who claims victory.
The only fact I care about is that a lot of good men from both sides died that day and I will be for ever saddened by that.
They are the words of Private Terry Burstall. And yet, one of the great shames of this nation is that when the servicemen returned home after the efforts they put up in Vietnam they were denigrated and ostracised and were even spat at and had red paint thrown over them. Of course, that left many of the returned veterans deeply traumatised. That was a shameful time for our country—something we should all be ashamed of.
If we learnt something from the past, we learnt that we must give our ADF members all the support that we can, and that is what this legislation does. It is fixes one of the longest running grievances of the veterans and ex-service community—namely, the lack of flexibility and portability of members' superannuation.
These reforms will improve the conditions and services for members of the ADF. The new military superannuation scheme will be a fully-funded accumulation scheme, and will be known as ADF Super. Most importantly all members will not be compelled to move to ADF Super, but they can chose to do so. For the first time ADF members will be able to join their superannuation fund of choice. So we are saying that your superannuation, and where those funds to ADF members go, is your choice. This is the first time, since the superannuation funds were put in place, that we are giving our service personnel a choice that they can make. They can either stay with the default fund or they can go out and put their superannuation in other funds.
Also, in recognition of the unique nature of military service ADF Super members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent regardless of the superannuation fund they choose. This is significantly higher than the rate available to the majority of Australians of 9.5 per cent through the superannuation guarantee but, again, the difference simply recognises the unique nature of military service in this country. We do not know what will happen in the years ahead, but we know it is highly likely that we in this parliament will have to call on ADF members to fight, and perhaps very soon we will be asking many more than those who are already serving in the Middle East to go and contribute to the fight against the evils of Islamic terrorism that are currently ravaging the Middle East. By doing what we are doing today we are recognising the unique nature of this service.
The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill establishes a new statutory death and invalidity scheme known as ADF Cover. ADF Cover ensures that all ADF personnel who are members of the ADF Super fund have full death and invalidity cover. ADF Super provides the same level of death cover as is provided to members of the current MSBS. The ADF cover will be provided regardless of the superannuation fund chosen by the ADF member and, importantly, ADF members will not be required to make any contributions to this ADF cover and all benefits paid under the ADF cover will be met from consolidated revenue. So there will be no additional cost for that ADF cover for our defence members.
Finally on the general issue of superannuation, one thing we need to remember is that superannuation belongs to the person who earned the funds in the first place. It does not belong to some union movement or some government body—it belongs to the person. As a personal opinion, I would like to see both sides of this House consider enabling young Australians to access funds that they have in their superannuation accounts for a deposit for a house. We have seen the figures—for the first time in our nation's history there is a significant decline in homeownership rates for young people. We need to take steps to address the supply shortfall, and that is being done, but we need to ask how we can help more young people get a deposit for their first house. When I first started work, like many other Australians of my age I was able to put aside a percentage of my salary—10 per cent—to save for a deposit for a house. Now we are asking young Australians to put aside that money but to put it in a superannuation fund. I would like to see young Australians being able to access their superannuation fund so they can get a deposit for a house. But there has to be some quid quo pro. Perhaps that could be that down the track the money they used to get themselves established in their own home has to be considered as part of their assets outside their house, as occurs when we do the assets and income test for the pension. We need to look at housing affordability in this country. It is important for our country that young Australians have the goal of owning their own home, and that includes members of the ADF.
This bill shows that the government recognises the importance of military service in this country. We are addressing a problem that has been raised and we are making sure that ADF personnel have flexibility in where they put their super. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (10:42): I am delighted to speak on the Australian Defence Force superannuation and cover bills. In the electorate of Macquarie I have two defence bases—RAAF Base Richmond and RAAF Base Glenbrook—involving around 2,399 personnel and their families. Today is important because this legislation recognises their contribution to our nation, the significant sacrifices they make and also the uniqueness of their service. The Australian government is absolutely committed to supporting Australian Defence Force members throughout their service and also, most importantly, in their retirement. As part of this commitment, today we have this landmark legislation that will work to establish a new military superannuation scheme for ADF members, to be known as ADF Super. As part of the government's recognition of the unique nature of military service, accompanying legislation will also be introduced to establish ADF Cover, a new scheme that will continue to provide members of the ADF with death and invalidity cover. This legislation will enable ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to defence capability requirements, as well.
ADF Super fixes one of the longest-running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community, namely the lack of flexibility and portability of a member's superannuation benefit, particularly for those who are under the MSBS. The government has worked with stakeholders such as the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Australian Defence Association in developing these policies, and all major stakeholders are keen to see these measures introduced.
The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill requires the minister to create a trustee by 1 July 2016, and this trustee will establish the ADF Super scheme. It will establish the ADF Super Fund and that fund will be vested in the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. It will also set out the functions and powers of the CSC and make rules for the administration of ADF Super.
The bill also sets out who is eligible to be a member of ADF Super on and after 1 July 2016. It is important to note who is eligible: new members of the permanent forces; new members of reserves on continuous full-time service; members of the permanent forces who are MSBS members who elect to transfer to ADF Super; members of the reserves on continuous full-time service who are MSBS members who elect to transfer ADF Super—and, importantly, former DFRDB or MSBS members who may wish to transfer lump sum amounts received from either of those schemes for the purposes of buying an account-based pension. For DFRDB contributing members who cannot become ADF Super members, the bill provides that a DFRDB recipient member who re-enters for a new period of service on or after 1 July 2016 will become an ADF Super member. The person will continue to be paid the DFRDB pension and will accrue a new superannuation benefit in ADF Super.
These provisions are very important given that many Defence and military personnel enter or re-enter the Defence Force or maintain service after they retire and move onto another job. They may also remain in the reserves or be re-employed in positions where their experience can be utilised, so these measures are very important.
The bill also sets out the two ways of becoming an ADF Super member: by choosing ADF Super and where ADF Super is the mandated fund, if no choice is made.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill also sets out the rate of contributions that Defence must make to ADF Super or a member's chosen fund. This will allow Defence to provide CSC with information to enable CSC to determine a person's capacity for civilian employment.
The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act will be changed to remove the requirement for elections and for the compulsory transfer to MSBS if an election is invalid or not made. The changes will also provide for the continued payment of pensions if the DFRDB pensioner is undertaking further service and accruing a further superannuation benefit in ADF Super. The bill also ensures that the DFRDB members who participate in flexible service arrangements pay contributions on their total salary and not the reduced salary they may be paid because they are not working full-time. This is important given that many Defence personnel, as I mentioned earlier, return to reservist positions where they may be operating or working on a part-time basis. These flexible arrangements are very important.
With regard to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, it is important to ensure that ADF Cover benefits are treated in the same manner as superannuation payments when determining the quantum of the compensation payments. It is also important to provide the chiefs of service or a delegate with the flexibility to allow members of permanent forces to render flexible service in lieu of continuous full-time service. It is also vital that members of the permanent forces are able to apply to the chiefs of service or a delegate to render flexible service. This is particularly important for many of our men and women who have served for decades. It is vital that we are able to maintain their future pension and superannuation benefits while offering them the opportunity to continue to serve our nation.
It is an absolute privilege to represent a community where our Defence Force serves not just in our local community, but also around the globe. With the arrival of the new C27s we will see our Air Force providing significant transport, particularly for our Army, and also to be able to be deployed to our region, given the challenges around natural disasters and the need for us to respond to emergencies in our region.
I would like to particularly acknowledge the RAAF and Army personnel who serve at Richmond and at Glenbrook. I am delighted to commend this legislation to the House.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (10:50): It is with great pleasure that I join the debate this morning on the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 and cognate bills. I note the contribution by the member for Macquarie, who, like me and all members in this place I am sure, has just paid great tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who continue to serve our nation with distinction.
In this year of the Centenary of Anzac it is important that we in this place, as members of parliament, reflect on and remember not only the level of service and sacrifice for our nation that has occurred in the past—the 102,000 men and women who died and paid the ultimate sacrifice—but also on the fact that we still have people serving today and putting themselves in harm's way in the service of our nation.
It was a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and former Leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, who stood at the despatch box, in one of the early contributions I saw in the House, and made the comment that there is no greater service that an Australian could give to their nation than to put on the uniform of the Australian Defence Force and place themselves in harm's way to help those who cannot help themselves. I give great credit to Brendan Nelson for the work he has done not only in this place as a former minister and a former leader, but also in his post-parliamentary career at the Australian War Memorial.
In many ways, I sense that Brendan Nelson's contribution to our nation might be more significant in his post-parliamentary career than even his contribution in this place. His ability to pull together the threads of service of the Australian Defence Force and provide a narrative to people through the Australian War Memorial, through the Last Post ceremony and through the many public speaking engagements he is involved in around the nation are a great contribution and a real credit to him. I pay tribute to him, particularly in this year of Centenary of Anzac commemorations, where he has played such an important role in educating the next generation of Australians about the service that has gone before them.
I note that we are considering this legislation during this week of all weeks, when we have in the parliament—as you may have seen, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, in the corridors of this building—an increased presence of uniforms. We have 16 members of the Australian Defence Force here, serving in an unusual way: they are serving in members of parliament's offices this week. It is part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, which I am very pleased and quite proud to coordinate in my role as parliamentary secretary for defence. This is one of the great programs that operate between the Australian parliament and the Defence Force. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support. It started, I think, about 12 years ago, when it was recognised that there were not many members of parliament who had direct experience of the Defence Force. We do have a few members who have served; however, it was recognised about 12 years go that we needed to increase the opportunities for members of parliament to understand what happens in the Defence Force.
So, every year, members of parliament, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, have the opportunity to go on an exchange with the Defence Force. This year, I think we have had in the order of 30 members join the ADF—the Air Force, the Navy, the Army—on location, whether it be in training bases around Australia or, in a couple of instances, overseas, working alongside the ADF and getting a better appreciation of the work they do on a daily basis. The reverse of that is what is occurring this week, when we have these 16 members of the ADF coming to the parliamentary offices and getting an understanding of the work we do. I think the ADF personnel get the short straw when it comes to this exchange program! We get to spend time in helicopters, fast jets, Navy assets, Bushmasters in the Army; they get to spend time in our offices! That is just the way it works.
I have met with the 16 ADF personnel who are here this week, and they are really enjoying this opportunity. I thank them for making themselves available, for being willing to answer some of our questions, but I also thank the members of parliament who are hosting the ADF personnel. It is a terrific thing they do. The previous speaker, the member for Macquarie, is hosting one of our Air Force personnel in her office. I have a Navy captain in my office, Captain Mona Shindy. Captain Shindy has been very much part of my team this week and she has enjoyed that opportunity.
This year, I myself had the chance to go to the Middle East as part of the ADFPP—and I acknowledge the member for Lingiari as he joins us in here today. He was instrumental, I believe, in setting up the ADFPP many years ago and has been a regular participant in the program. I thank him for the work he did then and does now in continuing to support the program.
As I was saying, I had the opportunity to go to the Middle East earlier this year with a delegation of four other MPs. We spent some time in the UAE but also went across to Kabul and had a couple of nights in Afghanistan, getting a better understanding of the training that our troops are providing now for the Afghan National Army. I think that every one of the participating parliamentarians would have gone there with preconceived ideas, but they would have been completely changed by the time we left. We were able to go out on the base, walk around the hillside with our Army personnel and get a more practical understanding of the challenges they face on a daily basis in securing their own protection in what is still a hostile environment as well as passing on their knowledge to the young officer trainees in Afghanistan who are then going to go out and fight, this summer. They take their responsibilities very seriously, and their challenge is to try and make sure those young Afghani officers are ready to lead and take on the Taliban, and to try and keep them alive in that battle.
We in this place should always be mindful of the duties we impose on these young men and women in the ADF. Having the opportunity to go out there and walk the ground with them, share a meal with them, talk to them about their job but also about their life back in Australia is a really great privilege and something I am pleased to be a part of through the ADFPP. I commend all members of the House who have been involved in the past in the program and I encourage those who may not have participated yet to consider signing up to it next year. I note again the presence here of the member for Lingiari, who has been a very strong supporter of the program. I think he is probably close to having the record for the member who has been on the most deployments, but he has come back unscathed on every occasion.
The ADF Superannuation Bill and the other bills before the House today reflect the fact that the nature of serving our nation in the ADF is changing, and the government recognise that. We are making changes to provide more flexibility for our personnel so they can save for their futures beyond their years in the Australian Defence Force. I am very pleased to see that there is bipartisan support for the legislation. Members opposite and members on this side of the House are all absolutely committed to supporting Australian Defence Force members through their service and into their retirement years.
I digress again to point out that my family has a close relationship with the Air Force in my electorate. Obviously, I lived under the flight path of the RAAF Base East Sale, but I also married a RAAF brat—and that, I can assure you, is a friendly term. My wife's father spent more than 20 years in the Air Force, so we are very familiar with the trials and tribulations of a service career, the moves involved in the multiple postings and the unsettling effect it can have on young people and other family members, as well as the unique nature of service in the Defence Force.
This legislation, which was introduced on 25 June this year, provides for a new military superannuation scheme for ADF members which will be known as ADF Super. I will not go into all the details of the scheme, because I know many members have already spoken about the scheme and there are still others to speak, but it does fix one of the longest running grievances, if you like, of the veterans and ex-service community, namely the lack of flexibility in and portability of their superannuation benefits. The coalition government are committed to supporting our ADF personnel not just during their time of service but also, as I said, after they retire. Importantly, these reforms will improve conditions into the future for serving members of the ADF as well. So it is new, it is modern and it provides more flexible superannuation arrangements for people joining the ADF on and after 1 July 2016. So it does not impact on the current members; it is for the new recruits after 1 July 2016.
The legislation recognises the unique nature of military service, and ADF Super will provide a generous employer contribution of 16.4 per cent regardless of the superannuation fund the ADF members choose to participate in. This is a higher rate than the Australian Public Service rate of 15.4 per cent and it is significantly higher than the 9.5 per cent which is available to the majority of Australians through the superannuation guarantee.
I think it is a well-accepted principle on both sides of the House that there is something unique about the service provided by our ADF personnel. I go back to my earlier comments in relation to the former Liberal leader, Brendan Nelson, who made the point that there is no greater service you can give to your nation than to put on the uniform of the Army, Air Force or Navy and place yourself in harm's way.
I am very proud, as a member of the coalition government, to support the legislation before the House. I congratulate the ministers responsible for their consultation and for the work they have done in developing the legislation. I congratulate the members who have spoken in support, and I again congratulate members and senators who have participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program in the past and who are hosting officers in their offices this year. I encourage members to continue to support the ADFP Program and to do whatever they can to support our Australian Defence Force servicemen and women as they go about their difficult task.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:01): I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words and for his contribution to this debate on the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 and two related bills. I will deal in the first instance with the ADFP Program which he referred to. It was the former member for Wannon and I who thought this idea up, and I have to say that his advocacy was very important. To get the program started required a bit of educating—not only of parliamentarians but also of our friends in Russell. It quickly became apparent that it was in the mutual interests of the parliament and the defence community for parliamentarians to have a deeper understanding of the Defence Force and Defence Force personnel in particular. That was in part as a result of the fact that very few members of the then parliament, apart from Mr Edwards, were service veterans; whereas, in the periods post the Second World War and the First World War, a large proportion of the members of parliament had been serving personnel and had a deep and ongoing relationship with the Defence Force community. That is not the case in parliament today.
Setting up the program was a way of raising the awareness of members of parliament who are policymakers, decision makers and legislators around issues to do with the defence community, giving them an experience of what happens in the defence forces. The member sitting opposite me, Ms Ley, has been on the defence participation program. If my memory serves me correctly, she even went to the Middle East with the former member for Bendigo on one of our naval vessels. Those experiences do a number of things. They open up the eyes of members of parliament to the work which our Defence Force members undertake in all areas—not only those who are at the front line and carry weapons but also those who do the cooking, those who look after the health care of our serving personnel and those who work in the ACAT program currently in the Northern Territory looking at the civilian participation and looking at developing civil infrastructure in Aboriginal communities, which happens each year. There is not an area of Defence Force activity—apart from Special Forces—which has not been open to participation in this program. I credit the former Howard government, initially, and the subsequent governments for continuing the program; and I commend the defence community and the defence forces in particular for playing host to members of parliament and for helping them to overcome their ignorance, and perhaps their unfitness, to allow them to see what they do, how they do it and to work with them wherever they might be. I thank the parliamentary secretary for that.
This bill is the culmination of a lot of discussion. In February 2007 there was a policy proposal from the then Howard government which announced a review of military superannuation arrangements. I want to thank the Bills Digest for reminding me of this. A review was undertaken, commonly known as the Podger review, and it made a number of recommendations that did not come to light even though the report was finished in March of 2006, I think. I cannot quite recall the date, but it was not released by the government, so it was not until the Rudd government was elected that the report was released. I was then the minister responsible and released that Podger report, and then we undertook a further period of discussion and consultation. Then in 2010, we made it clear that, as a result of those communications and the consultation across the breadth of the Defence and veterans communities, we would not be proceeding with the recommendations of the Podger report.
The new superannuation scheme which is being proposed brings about quite important change. It brings the ADF into line with the rest of the government sector, in not having a defined benefit scheme with its attendant long-term liabilities—and that is a huge responsibility. The unfunded liability that exists is enormous. For the first time, ADF members will be able to transfer their super scheme to new employment when they leave the ADF, and it is now possible for ADF members to move in and out of the service without incurring costs and rigidities in their superannuation. For example, employer contributions can be carried across to new employment, which would not be possible under the old defined benefit scheme. That was a real issue, because people legitimately said: 'Look, I've been serving in the Defence Force for 10 years. I'm leaving the Defence Force. I want to go to a new employer, and I can't take my superannuation with me.'
The bill contains arrangements for the establishment of the trust deed for ADF Super and the administration of the scheme by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. It provides eligibility requirements for the scheme and other provisions relating to the variation of the trust deed and legislation relating to ADF Super. Importantly, although not a provision of the bill, this is proposing a contribution rate of 16.4 per cent as an important element in assessing whether a new superannuation scheme is desirable balanced against the other changes. We strongly support the fact that the employer contribution rate is to be 16.4 per cent, which is higher than the general public sector rate. This reflects, as it should, the unique nature of military service, which arises from a number of factors, including: the liability for combat operations, the military disciplinary code, the regimented way of life, long and irregular working hours, statutory retiring ages well below the community norms, higher standards of physical fitness, frequent relocation and separation from family.
I recommend that young Australians think about having a career in the Defence Force, for a range of reasons. I note that the member for Leichhardt will shortly be speaking on this. He will, no doubt, tell of us of his proud record and proud history as a Defence Force member. I am sure that he, like me, would encourage young Australians to think about a career in the Defence Force because it offers enormous opportunity. Not only does it offer enormous opportunity in terms of careers; it places you in a position of great respect by the broader community. I think that the average length of service is around seven or eight years; it is not long. It is a young Defence community; we see young people sign up and do their service, and many have left by their mid-20s, but they have left with skills. That is very important. They have left with an experience of managing themselves in a team environment, of looking after themselves and those around them, and of seeing what good leadership principles may be. Of course, others stay in the Defence Force—particularly those who become offices or senior NCOs. Some stay in the Defence Force for their working life, and they are to be commended for it, because it is a huge obligation. It has great benefits, but it also has great sacrifices. That is why this legislation is important and that is why the contribution rate of 16.4 per cent is appropriate.
The ADF program that we spoke about earlier is so important. I do not think that there is a wide enough understanding in the general community of the sacrifices which are made by our Defence Force members as individuals and by their families. Whether you are on a patrol boat off the northern Australia coast, on a frigate in the Middle East, working at Al Minhad or one of the other bases for an extended period of time, flying fast jets into Iraq, looking after fuel tankers or whatever it is, it is a really important function. However major or however minor they might appear to those outside, they are very important things that are being done on our behalf.
Internationally, we have a tremendous reputation because of our Defence Forces. As much as we applaud what they do, as we should, we need to recognise far more the sacrifices which are made by their families—by their partners, by their children, by their mothers and by their fathers—sadly, those who, we know, suffer as a result of war casualties. We know also that, as a result of our experience in Middle East over the last decade or so, we have many young Australians who finish their service with real mental health issues. It is important that, when we think about this superannuation bill, we understand all of these things. We are not doing this because we want to just be beneficent. We are doing this because it should be a national requirement for us to do it—through this legislation, to give our men and women in uniform, and their families, the recognition that they so properly deserve.
I was what we called in the sixties a 'Saturday soldier'; I was in the CMF for a few years, but I have never been in harm's way. I have never been asked to do the dreadful jobs that our seamen have to do off the coast of northern Australia on patrol boats. I have never been asked to make a life-and-death decision about what should happen at a particular moment in time. I have never been asked to make those sorts of sacrifices, and very few people in this parliament have. And too few in the community understand what that actually means for us. So this Defence Force program which we spoke about earlier is important in enlightening us as legislators and making us aware of the obligations we have. But it is very important that we say to the wider Australian community that they should not only be very proud of our Defence Force members and what they do but, most importantly, they should also understand the sacrifices which their families are making for them to be able to do the job that we are so proud of. It is fundamental. So when we are looking at this sort of legislation we need to ensure that we say to everyone that this is just what they should be getting. Our Defence Force members are different from us; they are not like those of us in this House. They are different because they have agreed to put a uniform on and potentially sacrifice their lives for us. That alone should be enough to validate the importance of ensuring that their employer contribution to their superannuation is higher than for the general public sector rate and higher than for most other Australians. That alone should be the reason for doing it. I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (11:16): I thank the member for Lingiari for his contribution. His commitment to Defence Force personnel goes back over a lot of years, including when he had portfolio responsibility for our Defence Force. The Australian government is certainly very committed to supporting Australian Defence Force members throughout their service and into their retirement. This legislation is a reflection of that commitment that will be very much supported and greatly appreciated. As the member for Lingiari said, I served in the Defence Force myself. I was in the Air Force for a period of nine years up until 1978. That was a very formative time for me and has never been replicated in any other period of my life.
Recently I again had the opportunity of seeing firsthand the amazing work that is being carried out by our defence forces. I travelled with Senator O'Sullivan and Senator McGrath to the Middle East, where we spent some time with our troops there. We worked with them very closely in the work that they do in carrying out the commitments that have been made in this place. We travelled across to the Middle East from Darwin with a rotation crew that was going there. They generally go there for about six months. We spent a couple of days working with them doing the orientation work. We had the opportunity of going to the air base at which our Hornets and aerial tankers are based. From here they go up into the theatre area where they are operating. It is amazing to see. Those pilots strap themselves into the F18s knowing that they will be away for anywhere from eight to 12 hours and have no capacity to return home with the fuel that they have; they have to refuel not once but up to six times during the course of a particular operation. The work that they do is phenomenal. We participated in the refuelling of aircraft and met many of our troops over there. One thing I can say—and it is one of the reasons why we have to be very supportive of this legislation—is that I now understand comprehensively why middle-aged overweight men are not recruited to the front line in the Middle East. It is very hard work over there. All the time we were there, there were absolutely no complaints about personal circumstances. Everybody wanted to be there.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Major Stuart Roesler. He kept us in tow and provided a fantastic opportunity for us. He was our military escort and he did an outstanding job. I also acknowledge Brigadier Nagy Sorial, the Deputy Commander of the Middle East Area of Operations. He is another outstanding Australian. We greatly appreciated his company and his advice, and nothing seemed to be too much trouble for him. We also went to see HMAS Newcastle, which is doing fantastic work patrolling the Arabian Gulf and down through Somalia and so on. In four operations they have taken close to $2 billion worth of heroin off the market. It is amazing stuff. This is heroin coming out of Afghanistan and going into Pakistan and then being sold to fund the operations of Daesh.
The conditions over there were very difficult. The temperature was up to 55 degrees. When you have a shower, the water temperature is up to 50 degrees. These men and ladies do this with a great deal of enthusiasm. Coming back home, we were with a group that was coming out of there after doing their six months. While they were happy to be getting back to their families, they were equally enthusiastic in their commitment to the job they are doing. I cannot speak highly enough of them. The legislation that we are talking about today is a very small acknowledgement of the commitment that these men and women make when they sign up to the Defence Force. I think we should be very proud of them.
There are two others that I would like to mention. They are both originally from Cairns. Lieutenant Michael Holman is over there on a six-month deployment with HMAS Cairns. His family is still based in Cairns. Squadron Leader Michael Sciberros, who is Squadron Leader Engineer, is stationed at the refuelling base. His job is to keep those aircraft flying. He is from Innisfail originally but was educated at Trinity Bay State High School. It was great to go all the way over there and see these young people from home. One thing I have to say is that, as someone who served in the Air Force for nine years and who left in 1978, it is a very different military now than it was during the time in which I served. Yet, in many ways, it is exactly the same—the camaraderie, the sense of pride and commitment has not changed one little bit, and the only way you are going to get that is to be a member of these forces. It was something that was really driven home to me.
Given the uniqueness of this service, it is important that we acknowledge it through changes such as those we are making here in relation to superannuation. This landmark legislation was introduced on 25 June 2015. Its purpose is to introduce a new military superannuation scheme for all our ADF members, known as ADF Super. It is part of the government's recognition of the unique nature of military service, which I spoke of a moment ago. Accompanying legislation was also introduced to establish ADF Cover—a new scheme that will continue to provide members of the ADF with death and invalidity cover. This groundbreaking legislation will enable ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to defence capability requirements.
ADF Super fixes one of the longest running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community—namely, the lack of flexibility and portability of members' superannuation benefits. The government has worked with stakeholders such as the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Australian Defence Association in developing these policies. All major stakeholders support these important reforms. Again, it was great listening to the member for Lingiari's contribution. He was there very much at the beginning, working both sides closely together to develop this legislation. It is great to have a piece of legislation here that is embraced so comprehensively by all sides of the chamber. It is great to see, and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated. There is no doubt that these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the ADF.
The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 introduces new, modern, flexible arrangements for people joining the ADF on or after 1 July 2016. The new military superannuation scheme, which will be a fully funded accumulation scheme, will be known as ADF Super. The current Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme, the MSBS, will be closed to new members from July 1, 2016. Importantly, current serving and contributing MSBS members will not be compelled to move to ADF Super, though they may choose to do so.
For the first time, ADF members will be able to join a superannuation fund of their own choice. A default military superannuation scheme will also be established, as it is required under law. In recognition of the unique nature of military service, ADF service members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent, regardless of the superannuation fund that they choose. This rate is higher than is offered to Australian public servants, 15.4 per cent, and significantly higher than the 9.5 per cent available to the majority of Australians through superannuation guarantees. Again, that is very much in recognition of the unique nature of the service that is given by our people from all areas of the ADF, and I think it is important that we recognise that service. There will be no requirement for the ADF Super members to make an employee contribution to their superannuation and, as a result, serving MSBS members who currently contribute a minimum of five per cent of their salary and choose to become ADF Super members will immediately receive a five per cent increase in their take-home pay.
Importantly, current serving MSBS members will not be compelled, as I said, to move to ADF Super. After 1 July 2016, all DFRDB scheme retirement pay recipients who re-enter for further service will be able to choose which superannuation fund they belong to, noting that they will not be able to rejoin the DFRDB scheme, because that will be closed at that time to any further membership. Likewise, those members currently receiving an MSBS pension who re-enter for a further period of service will also continue to receive their pension during that period of service, while accumulating further superannuation benefits.
A single employer contribution rate simplifies the administrative arrangements, including for ADF Super members. ADF Super is being established to provide members of the ADF with a modern and flexible accumulation superannuation scheme. It is great to see that, as I said earlier, under this scheme they will be able to have freedom of choice as to which way they go.
This is certainly not a savings measure, nor should it be; it is just recognition of the uniqueness of the service. ADF Super has forecast a total cost of about $433 million over the forward estimates to 2018-19 and some $3.196 billion over the decade. Some are asking if anyone will be worse off, and ADF Super fixes one of the longest grievances of veterans and ex-service community members, namely the lack of flexibility and portability for a member's super. There are numerous benefits. Australian Government Actuary modelling confirms that ADF personnel who serve less than 15 years will especially benefit under the new superannuation arrangement. Approximately 80 per cent of ADF personnel separate after serving less than 15 years, this is generally the trend. The introduction of ADF Super does not affect the government's delivered election commitment to provide new indexation for DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions.
In summing up it is important to note that this is something that has been a long-time coming. I know there have been some issues as we waited for delivery of the bill, but it very clearly shows that this government and this parliament is steadfastly committed to supporting ADF personnel and these reforms will help boost Defence capability. More importantly, these reforms will clearly improve conditions of service for members and those members who leave the ADF. We need to be very appreciative of the outstanding service of these wonderful Australians.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (11:31): I rise to support the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 and cognate bills. I have spoken previously in this place about the contribution, the commitment and the dedication of our ADF personnel. I once again take this opportunity to thank them for their contribution to this nation. I also join with the member for Leichhardt in recognising the hard work of the deployed personnel in the Middle East. I had the pleasure of joining them in April this year and saw the conditions in which they operate and live, especially at the air base at Al Dhafra in the UAE, where the temperature was up to 50 degrees. I raise my hat to these young men and women for their contribution. I also want to acknowledge the ADF personnel who are participating in the ADF parliamentary program this week. It has been an honour to host Squadron Leader Chris Lowe, who is here with me today.
The Australian government is resolutely committed to supporting ADF members throughout their service and in their retirement. As part of this commitment, landmark legislation was introduced on 25 June 2015 to establish a new military superannuation scheme for ADF members, to be known as ADF Super. As part of the government's recognition of the unique nature of military service, accompanying legislation was also introduced to establish ADF Cover—which is a new scheme that will continue to provide members of the ADF with death and invalidity cover. As part of this legislation, we have also introduced groundbreaking legislation to enable ADF members to participate in part-time work subject to Defence capability requirements. ADF Super seeks to correct one of the longest-running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community—namely, the lack of flexibility and portability of member's superannuation benefits.
As part of the consultative process, the government has worked with stakeholders—including the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Australian Defence Association—in the development of this legislation and subsequent policies. As I understand it, all major stakeholders support these important reforms, as do the opposition, and I congratulate those speakers opposite for their support. The Abbott government is steadfast in its commitment to supporting ADF personnel, and these reforms will help bolster Defence capability. Importantly, these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the ADF.
The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015 was introduced on 25 June 2015. This bill introduces new, modern and flexible superannuation arrangements for people joining the ADF on or after 1 July 2016. The new military superannuation scheme will be a fully funded-accumulation scheme, and will be known as ADF Super. The current Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme will be closed to new members as of 1 July 2016. Importantly, current serving and contributing MSBS members will not be compelled to move to ADF Super, although the option is there if they choose to do so. For the first time, ADF members will be able to join the superannuation fund of their choice. A default military superannuation scheme will also be established, as is required by law.
In recognition of the unique nature of military service, ADF Super members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent, regardless of the superannuation fund they choose. It should also be noted that this rate is higher than that offered to Australian public servants, who currently receive 15.4 per cent, and significantly higher than the 9.5 per cent available to the majority of Australians through the superannuation guarantee. Further to this, there will be no requirement for ADF Super members to make employee contributions to their superannuation. As a result, serving and contributing MSBS members, who currently contribute a minimum five per cent of their salary, who then choose to become ADF Super members will immediately receive five per cent increase to their take-home pay. ADF Super will apply to those joining the ADF for the first time on or after 1 July 2016. It will also apply to MSBS and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits, DFRDB, scheme members who receive retirement pay and then later rejoin the ADF on a full-time basis or as a reservist on continuous full-time service on or after 1 July 2016. Importantly, current serving contributing MSBS members will not be compelled to move to ADF Super. Current serving and contributing DFRDB members are unable to transfer to ADF Super.
Those DFRDB members receiving retirement pay who re-enter the ADF full time or as a reservist on continuous full-time service must make an election to become an MSBS member, to not become an MSBS member or to once again become a DFRDB contributing member before commencing further service. Likewise, those members currently receiving an MSBS pension who re-enter for a further period of service will also be able to join a superannuation fund of their own choice—again noting that they cannot rejoin the closed MSBS. They will also continue to receive their pension during that period of service while accumulating further superannuation benefits.
As I previously mentioned, in further recognition of the unique nature of military service, ADF Super members will receive a generous employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent, regardless of the superannuation fund they choose. A single employer contribution rate simplifies administrative arrangements, including for ADF Super members. ADF Super is being established to provide members of the ADF with a modern and flexible accumulation superannuation scheme. ADF Super will, for the first time, allow ADF members to join the superannuation fund of their choice.
It should also be noted that this is not a savings measure. ADF Super has a forecast total cash cost of $433 million over the forward estimates to 2018-19 and $3.196 billion over the decade. The introduction of ADF Super has numerous benefits. Australian Government Actuary modelling confirms that ADF personnel who serve less than 15 years will especially benefit under the new superannuation arrangements. Approximately 80 per cent of ADF personnel leave the service after serving less than 15 years.
Importantly, the introduction of ADF Super does not affect the government's delivered election commitment to provide new indexation of DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions. The specific details regarding fees and charges will be worked out as part of the implementation plan for ADF Super and will be made available before the new scheme commences.
What is important is that ADF Super will, for the first time, allow ADF members to join the superannuation fund of their choice. Individual circumstances and preferences will determine which superannuation fund will provide the best value for the individual ADF member. ADF members will be encouraged to seek their own independent financial advice. Additionally, both the ADF Financial Services Consumer Centre and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation can provide lists of recommended financial advisers to ADF members. The recommended advisers are so named because of their understanding of and expertise in military financial matters. Defence is also developing tools that will explain the DFRDB, MSBS, ADF Super and ADF Cover to financial advisers to better equip them to provide relevant financial advice.
The Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 establishes a new statutory death and invalidity scheme to be known as ADF Cover. The government recognises that, as a result of the unique nature of military service, it is difficult for ADF members to obtain death and invalidity cover at a reasonable cost. ADF Cover addresses this issue by ensuring that all ADF personnel who are members of ADF Super have full death and invalidity cover. The ADF Cover provides the same level of death and invalidity cover as is provided to members of the current MSBS.
Additionally, ADF Cover will apply regardless of the superannuation fund chosen by the ADF member. ADF members will not be required to make any contributions to ADF Cover and all benefits paid under ADF Cover will be met from consolidated revenue. ADF Cover will provide benefits for ADF members who are medically discharged and whose capacity to undertake civilian employment is limited as a result of medical conditions that occur while serving in the ADF. If an ADF member dies in service or an invalid dies while receiving an invalidity pension, benefits will be paid to the dependents of that member or invalid or to their estate.
Accompanying the introduction of ADF Super and ADF Cover is legislation that will provide for significantly more flexible service for permanent ADF members. The government has introduced reforms that, for the first time, will enable ADF members to seek part-time work, subject to Defence capability requirements. These significant reforms will improve the ADF's workforce model and will provide additional flexibility for members of the military. It will also improve the ADF's employment offer, leading to improved recruitment and retention of personnel. Defence is a modern, flexible and responsible employer. The introduction of flexible part-time work for full-time ADF members will encourage skilled and experienced people to stay in the ADF longer .
The Abbott government is steadfastly committed to supporting ADF personnel, and these reforms will help bolster Defence's capability. Importantly, these reforms will improve conditions of service for members of the ADF. It is an honour to commend this bill to the House.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (11:43): In summing up the debate to implement a new superannuation accumulation scheme for ADF members on and after 1 July 2016, I will first thank all members for their contribution to the debate today, particularly the members for Forde, Ryan, Herbert, Gilmore, Bennelong, Lindsay, Hughes, Macquarie, Gippsland, Leichhardt, Dobell, Batman, Canberra, Moreton, Makin, Lingiari and Indi. I thank the whole House for the constructive debate.
I would also like to thank the Defence Force Welfare Association, the RSL and the Australian Defence Association for their valuable feedback on and support for this legislation. I again acknowledge the opposition for its support. I thank the opposition shadow ministry team for the constructive way in which we have worked together for the last 18 months to achieve what are some foundation reforms for ADF super.
The Australian government is resolutely committed to supporting Australian Defence Force members throughout their service and in their retirement. The introduction of ADF Super gives effect to the government's intent to introduce new, modern and flexible superannuation arrangements for people joining the ADF on and after 1 July 2016. Importantly, the bills also fix some of the longest running grievances of the veteran and ex-service community, namely a lack of flexibility in the current military superannuation scheme and the lack of portability of a member's superannuation benefit when they leave the ADF.
ADF Super will be a modem, fully funded accumulation superannuation scheme and it will, for the first time, allow ADF members to choose the superannuation fund they belong to. It will provide superannuation choice and enable ADF members to select any complying superannuation fund in which to invest their superannuation benefit, including self-managed super funds. The key is that they are complying super funds. ADF Super will apply to those joining the ADF for the first time on and after 1 July 2016; contributing Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme—MSBS—members who choose to join ADF Super; preserved MSBS members who re-join the ADF and choose to become a member of ADF Super; and MSBS and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme—DFRDB—members who receive retirement pay and re-join the ADF on a full-time basis or as a reservist on continuous full-time service on or after 1 July 2016.
For clarity, and so that there is no doubt, I reiterate that current serving personnel who are members of the MSBS may opt to join ADF Super, but they will not be compelled to do so; this is a personal choice. The government recognises the unique nature of military service, which is why the government will provide a single employer contribution rate of 16.4 per cent to all ADF Super members. This is a generous rate, and one that is well above community standards.
Also in recognition of the unique nature of military service, the government will establish a new statutory death and invalidity scheme, to be known as ADF Cover. ADF Cover will be consistent with the death and invalidity arrangements currently provided to members of the MSBS. It will ensure that ADF members are properly looked after, for the rest of their life if required, in the event they are injured during ADF service.
The package of bills also facilitates the introduction of significant reforms to the ADF's future workforce model, thereby enabling a new category of flexible service for members of the permanent ADF. The introduction of flexible service arrangements will better secure the ADF's capability by encouraging skilled and experienced people to stay in the ADF longer and by promoting greater consistency in the application of formal flexible service arrangements. The package of legislation facilitates the introduction of a new workforce model and will help to ensure Defence gets the most out of its people and, more importantly, people get the most out of their Defence career. The new flexible service arrangements will balance the ADF member's needs with Defence's capability requirements.
These bills will implement important reforms, and I again thank members for their contributions. Collectively, these bills recognise the unique nature of military service, address long-running grievances of the Defence and ex-service community and provide ADF members with peace of mind in the event they are injured while serving in the ADF. I commend the package of bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (11:49): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (11:50): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (11:51): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:52): I say at the outset that the opposition supports this bill, which contains four schedules. Schedules 1, 3 and 4 are non-controversial, technical changes with no fiscal impact. Schedule 1 provides tax relief for certain mining arrangements. Schedule 3 deals with income tax look-through treatment for instalment warrants and similar arrangements. Schedule 4 deals with certain categories of company losses.
Schedule 2 is the material schedule of the bill; it increases the statutory effective life of in-house software from four years to five years. This means that deductions will be claimed over five years for expenditure allocated to software development pools. The measure is recognition of the fact that software developed in-house has a longer effective life now than it had in the past. The saving is not inconsiderable—$420 million over the forward estimates.
It is a measure of Labor's constructive and bipartisan approach to budget savings measures that we support this bill. We believe it meets the key tests of being equitable and efficient by aligning the statutory life of in-house software with its practical life span. I would, however, contrast Labor's constructive approach to this particular measure with the approach that the coalition took in 2008, when the effective life of in-house software was last changed. In the 2008 budget Treasurer Swan recognised that the effective life of in-house software had risen and moved that it be extended from 2½ years to four years. The member for Cook, Scott Morrison, referred to that move as 'a completely fruitless and pointless exercise' and 'a grab for tax'. In 2008 the coalition displayed a lack of bipartisanship when facing exactly the same measure we are considering today. They chose the cheap political grab over sensible and constructive support.
The opposition will not be doing that today. We recognise that the depreciation of in-house software ought to reflect its practical life span; we recognise that the practical life span of in-house software has increased. Software is now doing its job for longer in the real world, and the tax laws need to keep up with that. We will not be suggesting, as the coalition did in 2008, that this is 'a completely fruitless and pointless exercise' and 'a grab for tax'. We do recognise that in-house software development is an extremely important part of innovation in a modern economy. It is supported through the tax deduction for software development itself and through the research and development tax credit.
In this vein, the significant cuts to the research and development tax credit contained in the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 3) Bill puts in jeopardy the $9.3 billion of in-house software development carried out by companies with turnovers larger than $20 billion. The Parliamentary Library has estimated that research and development spending will be 0.56 per cent of GDP in 2014-15. That is the equal lowest level since records began in 1978-79. It is hardly surprising, given that this is a government that came to office without a science minister, a government which has been slashing jobs from the CSIRO and a government which has been cutting the research and development tax credit. It is hard to imagine how Australia goes forward as a strong and innovative nation when we have a government which is so anti-science—shutting down the Climate Change Authority, cutting back on funding to the CSIRO and the research and development credit. Many on this side of the parliament have a passion for research and development, for the development of new firms and for the ability of existing firms to innovate. But you do not get any of that when you cut back on research and development assistance.
This is a tax reform measure and so it is appropriate that we look at the government's overall record on tax. If we look at tax as a share of GDP and at tax receipts, we see that tax receipts are predicted to rise from 22.3 per cent of GDP in the current fiscal year up to 23.4 per cent of GDP at the end of the forward estimates. That puts tax considerably higher than it was under Labor. During the Labor period of office, the tax share of GDP sat around 20 to 21 per cent. So Australians will find it strange when they hear Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey bellowing about this being a low-taxing government. All you have to do is look at the budget papers—I am looking at Budget Statement No. 1, pages 10 to 12 and 10 to 13—to see that they give the lie to the suggestion that this is a low-taxing government. This is a government which aims to have a tax share of GDP considerably higher than Labor did. The last budget brought down 17 new or increased taxes, and when this government brings down taxes almost invariably they are taxes that hit low- and middle-income Australians.
We on this side of the House believe in serious tax reform. That is why during the first half of this parliamentary term we brought out a policy on fair taxation and multinationals—a move unprecedented, I believe, since the 1990 to 1993 parliamentary term. It is a policy that will raise over $7 billion over the course of the decade by allowing more careful treatment of hybrid instruments—by allowing the Australian Taxation Office to look at how other tax offices deal with hybrid instruments, rather than being blind to the tax treatment of hybrid instruments in other jurisdictions.
Labor's multinational tax package says that rather than allowing companies to pick their favourite debt deduction rule, all companies should have to use the debt deduction rule that makes economic sense. That is the worldwide gearing ratio, a rule that, put simply, says that if you owe a lot of money to the banks you can deduct a lot of money for your Australian operation. If you do not owe much to the banks you cannot claim large debt deductions for your Australian operation. It is economically sensible, it is grounded in work that the OECD has been doing in their Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, and it adds to the budget bottom line to the tune of $7 billion over the course of the next decade.
This year Labor has also announced a package curtailing excessive superannuation tax concessions. The government's own Financial System Inquiry found that 10 per cent of Australians receive 38 per cent of Australia's superannuation tax concessions; more than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians receive. Indeed, if we go further up the distribution we know that the top one per cent of Australians get more superannuation tax concessions than the bottom 40 per cent. This is why the government's own Treasury secretary, John Fraser, has said that we need a rethink of superannuation tax concessions. This recognises that the superannuation tax concessions are the fastest growing tax concessions in the budget.
As the shadow Treasurer has pointed out, our superannuation tax concessions are not fair and they are not sustainable. The forgone budget revenue from superannuation tax concessions almost doubles over the next four years, from $11.8 billion in 2014-15 to $22.4 billion in 2017-18. The forgone budget revenue, as a result of the superannuation tax concession, will soon exceed the total expenditure on the pension. The government's own tax white paper, the curiously ungrammatical Re:think tax white paper, suggests that superannuation tax concessions are an area that ought to be looked at. The government has eschewed that recommendation, saying instead that they will not change superannuation. When they say that, they are not saying that they will not take away the low income superannuation contribution, which benefits three million low-paid Australians, two-thirds of whom are women. No, they are willing to scrap that! They do not mean that they will not continue to increase the universal superannuation contributions, frozen at 9½ per cent. No, they intend to do that, despite the fact that they themselves benefit, as those who have served as parliamentarians in the House since 2004, receive a 15.4 per cent superannuation contribution. Nine and a half per cent is apparently good enough for the low paid—15 per cent is good enough for those who serve in here. We on the Labor side of the House are deeply concerned that the government is not willing to tackle the unfair and unsustainable superannuation tax concessions, as so many business groups, the head of the Treasury, and the government's own tax white paper have said.
The government's approach on multinational taxation has been to try to shield big companies from legitimate scrutiny. Extraordinarily, the Treasurer was out yesterday saying that we did not need the Senate economics inquiry into multinational tax, because the government was already requiring firms with a total income over $100 million to report total income, taxable income and tax paid. It might have helped if he had also told listeners to that program that that was the measure he was trying to wind back. That is right. It is such good measure that Mr Hockey is trying to shield almost half the firms that are affected by it.
Multinational taxation is a core part of the taxation reform agenda, which we are discussing in this bill today. Unless the government is serious about tax transparency, unless they are willing to take on Labor's sensible measures on multinational taxation, we are not going to get far with a constructive bipartisan debate that will add to the budget bottom line. The government's own multinational tax measures are so woolly that Treasury cannot cost them. The bits that can be costed raise a desultory $30 million, less than 1/60th of what Labor's package raises. Fundamentally, that is because this government is not serious about cracking down on multinational profit shifting.
When Labor brought a sensible multinational profit shifting package to the parliament in 2013—under the leadership of Wayne Swan and David Bradbury, who a couple of years later received the international tax award given to the 50 most serious tax reformers around the globe—the coalition voted against it. When they came to office the coalition failed to enact $1.1 billion of that package, effectively handing $1 billion back to multinationals. When Labor came up with our package, I have to be honest, given all the government's complaining about the budget emergencies I fully expected the them to embrace part of it. I thought, 'Well, that is a pity, we will not get to see a Labor government embrace it.' But, ultimately, what you want in this place is for your good ideas to be taken up. We were extremely surprised when the government decided instead to back the big end of town. Well, maybe we were not all that surprised after all, because, let's face it, they do have a bit of a track record on this. If on the one hand say that there is a budget emergency and on the other hand you are doling out a billion dollars to multinationals, it does not seem to fit.
Many Australians will be concerned about the sacking of 1,100 compliance staff in the tax office in the past year alone, including 270 from the specific section that investigates private companies. Labor's additional investments in the tax office's compliance program continue to provide dividends in the form of increased revenue for the tax office, significantly exceeding, in increased revenue, what we spend on it. That program is slated to come to an end, and the government has no plans to continue it. Unfortunately, what plan they have is to increase the goods and services tax. Prior to the last election Mr Abbott ruled out any GST increase 33 times. At one point he said:
Let me be as categorical as I can, the GST will not change. Full stop. End of story.
I know that this is going to make some members of the House fall off their chairs, but Mr Abbott does not seem to have kept that promise. When Mike Baird called for a rise in the GST from 10 to 15 per cent, the Prime Minister said that was a 'very sensible proposal.' So we have gone from the GST won't change, full stop, end of story in 2013 to increasing the GST by 50 per cent being a very sensible proposal. This increase in the GST seems to be entirely at odds with what is in the government's own Re:think tax paper. Chart 2.9 on page 25 is a very useful graph showing the government's best estimates of the efficiency cost of various taxes. That is an important economic question—you need to know how many cents of economic activity are destroyed when you raise a dollar of revenue. We know that state taxes such as insurance taxes and stamp duties have a very big drag on economic activity, and we know other taxes such as land taxes have a very small drag on economic activity.
The question is where do income taxes and GST sit on the spectrum. Thanks to the tax white paper we now know what the government thinks about that question. The government's own tax white paper estimates that when you raise a dollar of revenue from income tax you destroy about 20c of economic activity, and for the GST you destroy about 20c worth of economic activity. That is right—the government's own tax white paper says that the GST is about as efficient, or about as inefficient, as the income tax. So for all this talk about the GST being a fabulously efficient tax and income taxes being awfully inefficient, that is not what you find from the evidence of the best boffins in Treasury, signed off by the Treasurer.
So the GST is not more efficient than the income tax, but it is far less equitable. An article by Greg Jericho in The Guardian on 30 October 2014 compared how much different income quintiles spend on food. He found that the bottom quintile spend 18 per cent on food and the top quintile spend five per cent on food. We know that is true for other areas of expenditure which are fully captured by a GST. Across just about any category of spending you want, the poor are spending more than the rich. So the GST is inequitable and it is not particularly efficient either. The member for Wannon wants the base broadened—he wants the GST expanded to food, health care and education; he believes the GST should apply to school fees and to bananas, to dentists and to wheelchairs. If that were to be the case, we know from the analysis that is presented by Mr Jericho that in particular putting the GST on fresh food would have an adverse impact on the bottom quintile. The top quintile save about a quarter of their incomes; the bottom quintile spend all of their incomes. Expenditure taxes tend to hit the poor hardest, and an expansion of the base or an increase in the rate would be a regressive tax reform.
The tax reform conversation is important. A national reform summit has been pulled together by The Australian newspaper and The Australian Financial Review, and I have been struck in speaking to some of the participants and in looking at some of the early papers coming out that conversations around superannuation tax concessions are in the mix. The Prime Minister might be ruling out curtailing the fastest growing tax concession in the budget, but sensible business groups are not ruling this out. The Prime Minister might be ruling out doing anything on negative gearing, but sensible business groups are calling for a conversation around negative gearing. This sensible and mature conversation the Prime Minister calls for seems only to apply to his favoured policy of increasing the GST. Certainly it did not apply when we were having conversations about emissions trading schemes in Australia a couple of years ago. Going out and standing in front of rallies with offensive signs is hardly an indication of a sensible and mature conversation. Labor is committed to that sensible and mature conversation, very much in accord with the Hawke-Keating legacy.
I do notice there has been a bit of conversation this week about the degree of bipartisanship the Hawke-Keating governments enjoyed. An opinion piece by John Howard in the Financial Review on Monday suggested that the bulk of those reforms enjoyed bipartisan support. Paul Keating begged to differ, pointing out a reform or two not backed by the then coalition. Let me go through only a partial list of those tax reforms and other reforms of the eighties and nineties which were not backed in. Medicare was fought by the coalition, native title was fought by the coalition, the petroleum resource rent tax was fought by the coalition, the HECS scheme was fought by the coalition, capital gains tax was fought by the coalition, the assets testing of the pension was fought by the coalition, the fringe benefits tax was opposed by the coalition. They like to come in here and talk about the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments; they love to say they were halcyon days when Labor believed in reform and the coalition just backed it in. The fact is that so many of the reforms on which Australia has been built—from universal superannuation to Medicare—were fought tooth and nail by the Liberal and National parties. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to support good and sensible reform.
By contrast, we on this side of the House are today standing up and supporting the kind of reform that was opposed by Scott Morrison when he was standing at this very dispatch box in 2008. When we see sensible reform we back it in. When the coalition sees an opportunity to score a tagline, a headline, a cheap shot they will always go for it no matter whether it is sensible reform. Labor is going to be supporting this bill and I look forward to that sensible, mature conversation about tax reform that the Prime Minister seems to be praying for but is unable to do his part to deliver. I move the following amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government’s failure to ensure multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax.”
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Ewen Jones ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Perrett: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Moreton. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:15): Deputy Speaker, it is good to see you sitting in the chair rather than being cruelly thrown out!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Ewen Jones ): The member for Moreton should be very careful not to reflect on the chair!
Mr PERRETT: I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 to add to the very thorough contribution made by the member for Fraser. Aspects of this bill are not controversial—aspects of it. The only measure in this bill that has any fiscal impact is the measure that extends the statutory life of in-house software by one year. This was the previous Labor government's initiative. Labor, in its 2008-09 budget, moved to increase the life of in-house software by 1½ years. Software developed in-house could then be claimed as a tax deduction over four years, an increase from the previous 2½ years.
The measure in this bill will mean that software developed in-house can now be claimed over five years instead of the four introduced by Labor. It is a measure that will better align the average useful life of such software for businesses with its statutory life. Over the forward estimates this measure will raise $420 million. Such measures, as touched on by the member for Fraser, illustrate that Labor is always willing to be bipartisan and constructive when it comes to making sensible budget savings. This is consistent with the approach taken by Labor on this measure when we were in government.
The bill before the chamber is tinkering with the tax policy in a very small way. Sadly, it does nothing to address the major issues surrounding tax policy in Australia. It does nothing to address tax avoidance by multinationals—a huge issue at the moment in Australia and in other OECD nations. It does nothing to address the unfair allocation of superannuation tax concessions—something that the government's own advisers have indicated is a problem for the economy and a problem that will become a more pressing issue over the next few years. This is absolutely consistent with this government's inability to tackle major structural reform.
When it comes to economic reform, this Prime Minister and Treasurer are all pea-heart and sinew—there is no economic substance to them. In these difficult times this is not what our nation needs. The unfairness of our current tax structure is nowhere more evident than in the great divide between the haves and the have-nots. At the moment the three most wealthy people in Australia have more wealth than the poorest one million. I repeat: the three wealthiest Australians now have more resources than the poorest one million!
They say that when you study great civilisations such as the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire and the like, if you look at the reasons for the decline in such empires, the main reason is when a great chasm opens up between the rich and the poor—not that I am suggesting that modern Australia is anything like the Roman Empire! If you interfere with Australia's egalitarian organisational principles, you will undermine the very basis for Australian society. I know the member for Fraser has touched on this extensively in his book Battlers and Billionaires. I recommend reading that if you want to explore the topic.
It is interesting to look at the Abbott government's reform priorities and at what they have done and how they have interfered with those egalitarian principles. They have cut family payments for low- and middle-income families. They cut the superannuation tax break for those on low pay, a decision that had particular ramifications for women—two-thirds of the people affected are women. They cut pensions. They forced unemployed youth to have no income for a whole month. And they imposed a 'divorce tax' on people going through the stress of separation. After the Senate rejected it, they went out 14 days later and basically introduced the same tax, the same increase—and then the Senate responded again. This heartless government has one default setting, and it is a lazy one. It is to hit those in Australian society who can least afford it.
Labor knows that there is a need for real reform of tax policy in particular, as was touched on by the member for Fraser in greater detail. The Abbott government is not prepared to touch real reform unless it hits those who cannot afford it. People in my electorate are still talking to me about the Treasurer's first budget and how it targeted those who could least afford it. The greatest claim to fame for the second budget was that it was less bad. That is the great thing that the Treasurer has to cling to: 'My second budget was nowhere near as bad as my first budget'! We saw the other day the Prime Minister jump, like a seagull onto a sick prawn, at the proposal from Premier Baird of a 50 per cent hike in the GST. As we all know, the GST is a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. We saw those percentages mentioned in the member for Fraser's speech.
A fair, competitive and sustainable tax system is critical for the future prosperity of this nation. Australia's tax system raises the revenue that governments require to provide the quality public goods and services that are needed by the community. We can see in countries where they do not collect the same amount of tax revenue that there is no safety net. If you stumble or fall or even just get sick in places like the United States, before Obamacare was rolled out, you would basically be on the scrapheap of society.
A key area for reform, in these days where multinationals have challenged the nation state, is reducing multinational tax avoidance. Labor when in office put in place measures to ensure that multinational companies paid their fair share of tax. Those measures would have prevented $4.1 billion in revenue being moved offshore by multinationals—$4.1 billion buys a lot of hospitals, funds a lot of students and prevents a lot of pensioners from having a life of indignity.
It is not a hard concept to grasp. When large multinationals pay less tax, it means that families and small businesses have to pay more tax, especially if you have a government addicted to borrowing, like this one, which has borrowed over $100 billion in the last two years. I remember the member for New England, who is at the table, railing against government borrowing when he was in opposition. He is little bit quieter on government borrowing now, although it has hit record highs. Over $100 billion has been borrowed by this Treasurer, and our grandchildren will have to pay it off. The 19,000 small businesses in Moreton know this, but Treasurer Hockey does not seem to get it. Not only will this government not tackle tax reform at the big end of town; it intends to repeal the tax transparency measures that Labor put in place when we were last in government.
Unlike this government, Labor has proposals for tax reform on the table right now. Labor has proposed greater tax transparency and further anti-profit-shifting measures for multinationals. Before the budget, Labor put forward a fully costed package of tax measures relating to multinationals. Those measures are projected to bring in $7.2 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
The government should stop trying to protect big companies from scrutiny but concentrate on trying to create a fairer tax structure for all Australians. The actions of the government are not consistent with those of a government that is concerned about all taxpayers paying their fair share, rather than just those in pay-as-you-go systems and small businesses.
The government has orchestrated the sacking of over 1,100 compliance staff from the Australian Taxation Office in the past year. Almost a quarter of those staff members were from the section that specifically investigates private companies. The Treasurer was quick out of the blocks in being tough on new mothers, calling them rorters and double dippers, but raised the white flag when it came to the top end of town.
This is a government that cannot stand up to multinational companies, at a time when nation-states are challenged by accountancy practices—accountancy trickery, really—that allow multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share. The Australian people need and deserve better than that. We deserve a government that is committed to a fair, sustainable taxation system. I stress those two words: fair and sustainable. One of Treasurer Hockey's first acts was to roll back Labor's measures to tackle profit-shifting by multinationals. That flick of his pen effectively gave $1.1 billion back to multinationals. Just think what we could do for Australian families with that money.
Not only are the actions of the Abbott government weak on tax reform for multinationals; they are sadly out of step with the rest of the world. Who can forget last year's G20, that moment in the sun for Brisbane and Australia, when our Prime Minister, before some of the biggest countries in the world, bemoaned the fact that he could not bring in a Medicare tax? Talk about a great man of vision seizing the moment! Unbelievable. In Ireland, their finance minister has stopped what they call the 'double Irish Dutch sandwich'. That is an arrangement whereby companies transfer money between subsidiaries that are registered in Ireland and those in other European countries. Other countries are closing tax loopholes for multinationals, but our Treasurer, strangely, bizarrely, flying in the face of that, has reopened such tax loopholes.
Mr Hockey has also pushed back key global tax transparency measures negotiated through the G20 that were due to start in 2017. Australia will now be left to watch as the world's major economies start sharing information on company tax. The Treasurer is very strong on rhetoric. He said in September last year:
Supporting greater tax transparency and information exchange is our best weapon to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion right now.
Great words, hollow actions. He talks tough but walks very softly. He is no good on the follow-up.
The other area in which the government are completely impotent is superannuation reform. As we have seen from matters discussed in this chamber, at the cabinet table they have run out of ideas. They do not have a reform agenda or a vision for the future. After attacking the lowest paid in their first budget, with the effects then flowing through to small businesses and an extra 800,000 people joining the unemployment queue in the last two years, the government, after saying no to some Labor reforms, ran out of ideas. Yet our retirement income system is badly in need of sensible reform. It is unsustainable in its current state—as advised by the very people the Prime Minister appointed to advise him—especially in light of the revenue write-downs coming from the resources sector. Thankfully, there are a few little shoots going up in the economy, but the resources sector obviously has some challenges, particularly when it comes to coal and iron ore. So, as I said, we have record levels of unemployment, which also means households are affected by the problems associated with unemployment, such as bad role models and stress.
Australians deserve to have a comfortable standard of living in retirement, but this government is doing nothing about setting up the correct, sustainable system. By design, tax concessions are an integral part of the superannuation system. The great Labor initiative of universal super was not designed to be a tax haven for wealthy Australians. The government's own Financial System Inquiry found that 10 per cent of all Australians receive 38 per cent of Australia's superannuation tax concessions. The top 10 per cent are basically receiving 40 per cent of the concessions. In fact, there are 475 people in Australia with superannuation balances of more than $10 million each. These people earn tax-free incomes of $1.5 million each year. That is just not fair and not part of the Australian egalitarian system. How can this government continue to hit those who can least afford it—pensioners, youth, families—when the wealthiest are earning $1.5 million tax-free each year? This is unsustainable and unfair.
Thankfully, unlike the Abbott government, Labor has a superannuation reform plan. Labor will direct superannuation tax concessions to those that need them the most, which is how the superannuation system was designed to be used, by Paul Keating, and that is to provide retirement income for all Australians, sustainably. Labor's reforms would affect approximately 60,000 superannuation account holders, with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million. Earnings from those accounts above $75,000 would not be tax-free but would attract the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase. It is not the end of the world for those people. Hopefully, they would still be very comfortable in their retirement. This reform would make a huge difference to the retirement income system as a whole. It is estimated that the revenue from this proposed reform would collect $9.2 billion in the first 10 years. This is a sensible reform. It is the type of reform a good, sensible and brave government delivers. We are not likely to see this type of reform under Treasurer Hockey or Prime Minister Abbott.
The bill currently before the House is, as I said, not particularly controversial, but I would ask the government to step up and show a little bit of ticker when it comes to looking at the positive reforms that Labor has put forward. Good governments need to have the ticker to lead the Australian people. (Time expired)
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture) (12:30): Let me begin by thanking members who have contributed to this debate, especially those from the other side; however, I do need to draw their attention to a couple of things that need to be corrected. In 2015-16 the government will provide around $9.7 billion in support of innovation, science and research. This amount includes approximately $3 billion for the Research and Development Tax Incentive and $1.8 billion for the Australian government research activities, including through the CSIRO. I note that, in my own portfolio year, through matched contributions about a quarter of a billion dollars a year goes into research and development.
The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 is part of the government's plan to repair the budget, tackle the debt and get the budget back on track. This is vitally important for maintaining living standards into the future for our children and our grandchildren. We are committed to living within our means so that we can deliver prosperity into the future. This bill also implements a number of announced but unenacted measures that will help to provide taxation certainty to corporates, investors and superannuation funds.
Schedule 1 to this bill keeps our promise to the resource sector that the limiting of the immediate deductibility of certain exploration expenses would not impact farm-in farm-out arrangements or resource sector interest realignments. These arrangements will ensure that genuine exploration activities and other legitimate restructuring arrangements can continue, without any unintended tax consequences. This measure maintains the tax neutrality of a farm-in farm-out arrangement and provides tax rollover relief for an interest realignment in which the parties to a joint venture exchange interest in mining, quarrying or prospecting rights.
Schedule 2 to this bill will extend the effective life of in-house software from four years to five years. From 1 July 2015 taxpayers will claim the tax deduction for the expenditure on in-house software over five years. While there is no change to eligibility for the deduction, the measure ensures that the effective life of software for tax purposes better reflects the typical useful life of software for businesses. This change will save $420 million over the four years to 2017-18. This money will be redirected towards funding other priorities and paying back the debt left by the previous government.
Schedule 3 to this bill provides certainty for investors in instalment warrants and instalment receipts by clarifying the income tax treatment of these trust arrangements. Instalment warrants and receipts allow an investor to purchase an asset such as a share by paying in one or more instalments. Currently, industry looks through the instalment warrant or receipt for capital gains tax purposes. Although this is a longstanding practice, some uncertainty has arisen about whether the tax law supports this practice. This measure ensures that the investor is treated as the owner of the underlying asset for income tax purposes. This benefits investors as capital gains tax will not be applicable at the time of paying the last instalment. Equally, the investor rather than the trustee will be assessed on any dividends or income received from holding or selling the assets. It also provides long overdue certainty for individuals, businesses and superannuation funds.
Schedule 4 to this bill clarifies the company loss deduction rules. Companies make a tax loss when the total deductions they claim are greater than their income in a year. Companies are able to carry forward these losses to subtract from assessable income in future years. I feel like I am back at accountancy! To carry losses forward, companies must have either maintained the same ownership and control or carried on the same business since the loss was incurred. A number of tests are used to assess this. There are a couple of minor technical issues with these tests. These issues have been unsettled for some time. This measure fixes these technical issues and will ensure that the company loss rules operate as intended. Full details of each of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
In summing up, the measures in this bill are part of the government's plan to repair our finances and strengthen our country so that future generations can enjoy the same or a better standard of living than we do. In addition, the bill provides important certainty for taxpayers, supports mining exploration and reduces red tape. This bill makes further progress in reducing the number of unenacted taxation measures. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture) (12:37): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:38): The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 amends the Gene Technology Act. It is not often that this piece of legislation, or indeed this subject matter, gets debated in this House, so I may take the opportunity to go through the regulatory regime and the importance of having a firm but enlightened regulatory system in place in this area of public policy. The Gene Technology Act 2000 is the Commonwealth component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology in Australia. The object of the act is to protect health and safety of people and to protect the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings in GMOs. The act establishes a regulatory framework to provide an efficient and effective system for the application of gene technologies that operate in conjunction with other Commonwealth and state regulatory schemes relevant to GMOs and genetically modified products.
In 2000, a regulatory framework was established, with the Gene Technology Regulator responsible for making the majority of decisions relating to gene technology and GMOs. The regulator is an independent statutory office holder and is not subject to direction by anyone in relation to the performance of his or her functions—in particular, whether or not to grant a GMO licence with or without conditions. The regulator is responsible for the decisions on particular applications, is subject to guidance at a general level from the ministerial council and is ultimately responsible to this parliament.
In 2011, the Department of Health, formerly the Department of Health and Ageing, commissioned a review of the act on behalf of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, formerly the Gene Technology Ministerial Council. The review investigated three areas: firstly, emerging trends and international developments in biotechnology and its regulation; secondly, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the act consistently across the national scheme for gene technology regulation in Australia; and thirdly, the interface between this act and other acts and schemes for regulation of related entities throughout the Commonwealth.
The review found that, overall, the act and the regulator were operating very well. The Gene Technology Regulator was found to be performing its functions in a very efficient manner, but there were aspects of the act's implementation at state and territory level that required attention. The review also noted that current consultation processes in relation to applications under the act were working well. However, it did make 16 recommendations. Of those, 14 were accepted by the ministerial council. This bill seeks to amend the act to implement five of those 16 recommendations. Those five were all agreed to by the ministerial council. In our view, they are minor and technical amendments that do nothing but enhance the overall operation of the regulatory scheme, but I will go to them in a little bit of a detail.
The amendments improve the act's operation without changing the underlying policy intent, the overall legislative framework or the legislative scheme. The bill discontinues quarterly reporting to the minister. That does not mean that reporting to the minister is not required. Importantly, those things that were once subjected to quarterly report are now incorporated into an annual report. It clarifies which dealings may be authorised by inadvertent dealings licences, and it updates advertising requirements for public consultations. It also removes the duplicate information about GM products authorised by other agencies from the record of GMO and GM products. This will have the effect of no longer tracking the GMO products approved by the Gene Technology Regulator. In essence, what this section of the bill does is remove the duplication. There will still be a publicly available register of these items, but they will be found within the register of the respective regulatory agencies—for example, the TGA, APVMA, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand registry and the NICNAS registry.
The bill changes licence variation requirements to give greater flexibility to licence holders but not at the risk of public health and safety. It updates considerations required before dealings may be scheduled as notifiable low risk dealings. It requires that emergency dealings determinations be entered on the GMO record as soon as practicable, but it removes the requirement that information on GM products be entered as soon as practicable. It also clarifies some ambiguous wording within the act.
I will say a little bit about gene technology, because this is an area of intense public interest. I know that the member for Moreton, who will be speaking on this debate, will have something to say about these issues. Put simply, gene technology refers to a number of ingenious methods whereby genetic material, DNA, in the cells of target organisms is altered in very specific ways. Gene technology works because there is a remarkable similarity between the central biochemical systems of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. The potential benefits from the application of gene technology include: more efficient use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, savings in energy inputs to farm production, and the recovery of degraded land or being able to grow specific crops on land that would previously have been not viable. It also enables research into causes of diseases and improved biopharmaceuticals and bioremediation.
However, the very characteristics of gene technology which produce many of the benefits also cause concerns in the community. These concerns relate to potential unintended effects on the health of people or the environment. Some of the risks identified when the 2000 bill was originally introduced into the parliament go to this point. If you read the regulatory impact statement to the Gene Technology Bill 2000, it talks about the risks of allergic reactions to genetically modified foods—the concern that these genetically modified foods have a higher risk of allergic reactions. It talks about the unknown long-term consequences that may not be able to be reversed or fixed once GMO is widely used. And it talks about crops, for example, which may become so strong as to constitute a weed or pest within the Australian environment. Of course, there are also broader concerns in this area about using gene technology, including some of the ethical, social and moral concerns about the impacts of human beings effectively playing God.
Legal responsibility for gene technology regulation is vested in many regulatory bodies, depending on the intended use of the relevant genetic technology. For example, foods are regulated under state and territory food acts and therapeutic goods are regulated under the Therapeutic Goods Administration. And I do pause to say that this is a very exciting area of new technology in fighting diseases that were once certain death sentences. There is an enormous amount of very good research going into this area, particularly in relation to biologicals. Human gene therapy is also regulated by the TGA. Agricultural and veterinary chemicals are regulated by relevant authorities. There is a national scheme administered by the National Registration Authority. Industrial chemicals are regulated by NICNAS. Imports and exports of GM products and GMOs are regulated under the Quarantine Act and the Imported Food Control Act, amongst other pieces of legislation. As you can see from this, there is a complex regulatory scheme. But at the centre of it lies the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
Although the bill, on its face, seems non-controversial, given the subject matter and the keen community interest on this, when first appraised of it when it appeared before the parliament on the Notice Paper, we sought advice from a range of experts and stakeholders and asked that the Senate committee conduct a brief inquiry into it. That Senate committee has now reported. I am pleased to say that they received five submissions, including from CSIRO, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Australian Academy of Science, CropLife Australia and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. All five submitters to the inquiry supported the bill. There was no contra argument put to it. Notably, the Australian Academy of Science characterised the amendments as 'conservative and justified'. The CSIRO declared a strong support for the clear legislation of gene technology regulation. The bill enjoys the support of all Labor members on this side of the House. We will be supporting it.
I commend the legislation to the House. We commend all of those who have done the important work over many years to bring the matter before the House.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:49): I thank the member for Throsby for his support and that of the Labor Party for what are, essentially, a very minor raft of alterations to existing legislation. As with all things though, they should be overhauled and looked at in time. The Gene Technology Amendment Bill reforms were telegraphed in the autumn repeal day bills. Of course, one of the government's very great commitments to the Australian people is that we will reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation on the population. We will continuously reassess the impact of government regulation. With the repeal days, $1 billion a year is the aim. We believe that up until now, including the last autumn repeal day, that total is at about $2.45 billion—well on track.
These bills, as I said, are relatively small reforms. The member for Throsby has just run through the effects of them in some detail. Amongst other things, they convert quarterly reporting to the minister to annual reports, because information and technology does not change that fast. Once a year is often enough to report to the minister. Also, it creates flexibility between licence holders. It is essentially good legislation. It is a non-controversial bill tidying up legislation that is now 15 years old. It is about making a system that is efficient and delivers a minimum of government interference to business trying to get about its work. It gives me a chance to talk about a few other things, too.
I am the current Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. We have just announced a new inquiry into the role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity in Australia. Before my time in parliament—almost eight years now—I was a farmer. I am amazed at the speed of technological change in just those eight years with modern guidance systems, mapping and the ability to deliver fertiliser at variable rates, which was around when I entered parliament but has been adopted on a wide scale now. So there is much change afoot in the agricultural industry, and it is thirsty for new technologies. I am looking forward to that inquiry.
Another area where I have seen great advances is animal husbandry. The ability of modern sheep farmers and cattle farmers now to lift fertility rates through stock testing and weeding unproductive animals out of their flocks is making a remarkable difference. As we gear ourselves for the opportunities this century will offer in Asia with quality green, clean food, these technologies—in this case, this added fertility in livestock industries—is very important. In fact there is a conference in Western Australia today, in Perth, entitled Innovation in Agriculture—Opportunities and Constraints. I will be looking very closely at the contributions that are made on this day. Unfortunately I could not be there, because of parliamentary commitments.
This bill is about gene technology. Gene technology is not the only tool available to farmers but it is one of the sharpest tools. As a wise old farmer once said to me when we were talking about ways in which we could increase our agricultural productivity, 'You never want to underestimate the amount of technology in one little grain.' He was so right. The breeding of grains and new cultivars for our farmers is nowadays intrinsically linked with our ability to read the gene sequences and then try to reach an alteration in those sequences. It might be achieved by artificial means or it might be achieved, as has always been done, by traditional breeding techniques. I have always been very puzzled by the green Left's attack on genetic modification technology. It is like being opposed to explosives because you can make weapons out of them—but of course you can build bridges and mines, things that are good for humanity. It is like being opposed to motor cars because they kill people—but of course the motor car is essential to our modern existence. We are often lectured by groups from the Left who say to us, particularly on the issue of climate change, 'Listen to the science.' But when the science does not coincide with their point of view, of course, they come to the conclusion that those scientists would not know anything at all. They say, 'Just listen to us' in that case.
Obviously anything coming out of the gene technology pool should be monitored and approved on a case by case basis. That is why we have regulation. It is like a new chemical, for instance. We should approve the use of a good new chemical. If it is going to cause extensive environmental harm or kill the crops, obviously we will not approve it. I am given to reflect on quite a famous case in South Australia back in the sixties, when a new clover was bred for Kangaroo Island. It was bred by traditional means. There was no GMO technology in those days. It actually sterilised the flocks. It was a disaster. That shows that it can happen under any technology. Every item that is registered for use should be perused and properly checked, and of course gene technology is no different.
Dr Patrick Moore is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace is implacably opposed to the use of GMOs around the world. Dr Patrick Moore, after founding Greenpeace, actually quit the organisation because he became offended by Greenpeace's commitment to politics rather than science. The reason I raise that is that Dr Patrick Moore and others are champions of a GMO product called golden rice. Golden rice was developed with the support of Bill and Melinda Gates through the Gates Foundation, which is normally applauded around the world for the wonderful things it does for deserving and needy communities. Golden rice is a vitamin-A-rich rice. There are 250 million children in the world who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Each year between 250,000 and half a million of them become blind. Half of them die within 12 months. Golden rice has the ability, at least in the cultures that use rice as a staple, to address that issue. Yet it is opposed by champions of the Left who are just opposed to GMO technology. It is a disgrace of the first order. I wonder what they think GMOs are. Is golden rice developed using monkeys' livers? Is it developed using spiders' eyes? After all, it is to help you see better; perhaps spiders' eyes help. But, no, it is a gene lifted out of maize, another grass—from one grass to another. It is impossible to understand how people can with a clear conscience deny the half a million children a year who are going blind, the 250,000 a year who are dying, access to this commodity.
That brings me to some other GMOs that are enormously successful, now embedded in our society and accepted. Worldwide, including in Australia, the use of Bt cotton, or GM cotton, has reduced pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 per cent. This makes a significant contribution to looking after our environment. Given the debates that surround this place at the moment we might consider how many skinks and ornamental snakes may be saved by not pumping pesticides into the environment. Bt cotton is an outrageous success. It has been taken on worldwide and has had an enormous environmental impact. The cottonseed, the remnants, is used for stockfeed, and we do not have any problems in that area either. A Chinese study completed in 2012 found that the use of GM cotton, or Bt cotton, halved the amount of chemical application and—get this—doubled the number of ladybirds. It is a good-news story.
Another GMO that has gained widespread acceptance in Australia and worldwide is canola. Unfortunately my state has an attitude that I think belongs in the dark ages. It has categorically ruled out, at least for some years, the use of GM products in South Australia. I believe we should be looking at the products product by product as they are presented. There were all kinds of scare stories around canola at one stage: 'Countries won't buy your canola' and 'You'll be able to get a premium for GM-free canola'. In fact that is not the case. There is no premium. People are not prepared to pay extra for GM free, because it is a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly cultivar and so it has been adopted on a worldwide basis.
So I urge those who run unreasonable debates in this area to think about what it is they are opposing. So many people are influenced by low-grade and low levels of information that they make sweeping statements on. If you care about our environment, if you care about our society, if you care enough to lodge a protest vote, care enough to find out what it is you are protesting about.
With those remarks, I conclude my comments and come back to the original premise. I support the legislation of course.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:00): I rise to speak on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015, a bill that proposes some minor and technical changes to the Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gene Technology Act 2000, in concert with the corresponding state and territory legislation, established and controls the national gene technology regulatory scheme. The object of the Gene Technology Act is to protect human health and safety, and the environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with GMOs, genetically modified organisms.
As this is a national scheme, it is underpinned by the intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement, which, I suggest, is an example of the federation working effectively. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology has ministerial representation from the nine Australian jurisdictions, and the forum ordered an independent review of the regulatory scheme in 2011—very important as this technology is developing at an incredible rate. That review of the governance forum made 16 recommendations and 14 of those recommendations have been accepted by the forum. The bill before the chamber implements a number of those recommendations.
The amendments contained in the bill are of a minor or technical nature. While I did teach science for one year at Marcellin College in the early 1990s, I definitely do not claim to be a scientist. While I am here at the dispatch box, I do apologise to those kids whom I taught science to for that year. I was definitely an English teacher called in at the last moment, but hopefully I did not do them too much damage.
Labor has sought the views of scientists, industry, government and the regulator when considering this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Submissions to that committee reflect broad support in the scientific community. The Australian Academy of Science says:
The changes proposed … are conservative and justified on the basis of the OGTR's—
the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's—
accumulated experience of implementing Australia's system for the regulation of dealings with GMOs.
The Academy concurs with the Explanatory Memorandum's assertion that the changes, if approved, would improve the Act's operation without changing the underlying policy intent or overall legislative framework of the regulatory scheme.
The Acting Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Robyn Cleland, says:
I consider that the amendments would clarify and enhance the operation and administration of the Act and support achieving its object "to protect human health and safety, and the environment, from risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with genetically modified organisms". The amendments would not alter the policy settings of the regulatory scheme.
CropLife Australia in its submission—to hear an alternative voice—says:
CropLife fully supports the minor and technical amendments to the Act proposed by the Bill to make gene technology regulation in Australia more efficient, more effective and clearer.
There is clear support for this bill from scientists in Australia, those charged with regulating GMOs and those involved in the industry. The bill has been well considered and has been through the committee process, which heard from all of the stakeholders that a sensible government should listen to.
We should, however, be cautious when we are considering any legislation concerning the regulation of genes. As the member for Throsby touched on in his speech, science is a wonderful thing and our world has gained enormously from discoveries through science that no-one had dreamed of years ago. Lives have been saved; people have been fed throughout the Third World; diseases have been treated—all because of gene technology. But therein lies the problem. As a lawyer and a politician, I am all too aware of the unintended consequences that might flow from unregulated research in gene technology. As I said, whilst I did teach science before becoming a lawyer, I was never a scientist at all, but I have watched with much wonder and a little horror at the development of patent law over genetic materials. The concept that materials that form part of our own genetic make-up can be patented by somebody else is quite difficult and challenging to comprehend. We are literally talking about our own DNA—the essence of me; the essence of us. All sorts of consequences can flow from that, including limiting the availability of the use of patented genes for life-saving health procedures, something also touched on by the member for Throsby in his speech. We must balance appropriate remuneration for private research—if we do not, the research will not occur—with public good and public ownership where appropriate.
The Full Court of the Federal Court last year handed down a judgment in the case of D'Arcy and Myriad Genetics Inc. The joint judgment in that case held:
In Australia, there is no statutory or jurisprudential limitation of patentability to exclude "products of nature". To the contrary, the High Court has specifically rejected such an approach.
In contrast, a similar patent that was challenged in the United States was found to be invalid. D'Arcy and Myriad Genetics Inc. has been appealed to the High Court and special leave has been granted. It will be interesting to watch how this case plays out. I refer to that case specifically as an example of the way science is evolving far faster than our laws can possibly keep up—so all strength to the oversight committee to the forum. We do need to be ever vigilant and constantly alert to any unintended consequences of this rapidly evolving area of science.
The bill before us today, as I have said, is well supported by all of the peak bodies and by the stakeholders, including the scientists that Labor has consulted with, and the community's voice has been listened to. Labor supports this bill.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:07): This bill, though short in title and length, is long on impact. The proposed changes to the Gene Technology Act are: removing a restriction on licence variations to broaden the circumstances in which stakeholders can vary licences rather than apply for new licences; updating the considerations required for declaring a GMO dealing to be a notifiable, low-risk dealing to enable more low-risk dealings with GMOs to be downgraded to the notifiable category instead of requiring licences; discontinuing quarterly reporting to the minister on activities under the Gene Technology Act; elaborating on activities allowed under an inadvertent dealings licence to ensure reasonable activities are explicitly authorised; updating newspaper advertising requirements for notifying the public of consultations on licence application assessments; removing the requirement to include genetically modified, or GM, products authorised by other agencies on the Record of GMO and GM Product Dealings—the GMO Record; and clarifying wording.
This bill continues the work of the red tape reduction mission as epitomised in the two previous red tape repeal days. Moreover, it is consistent with the economic plan, as articulated in 'Our plan', which is the document we put before the people at the federal election in 2013. That plan is elegant and effective. It is to cut waste, cut the red tape and let business get on with business, thus creating the conditions for more job growth and opportunity.
The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 will make amendments to the Gene Technology Act 2000 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the gene technology regulatory scheme. The amendments will not make any significant changes to the framework or policy settings of the act. In line with the government's deregulation agenda the amendments will decrease regulatory burden for regulated organisations and help ensure that regulatory burden remains commensurate with risk into the future. This bill is part of the response to an independent review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 conducted for the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology.
'Gene technology' is the term given to a range of activities concerned with understanding gene expression, taking advantage of natural genetic variation, modifying genes and transferring genes to new hosts. We use gene technology in crop and animal research, to improve the sustainability and productivity of agriculture and to protect plants, animals and humans from disease.
Today, only a small proportion of research funding and investment related to gene technology comes from the private sector. Involving companies and industry is important to get commercial uptake of new products and ensure the intended benefits are realised. Private investment is important and we need more of it. Hence, this Gene Technology Amendment Bill must be viewed as a part of a holistic strategy where all parts of the legislative program work to a common end. This bill is about making Australia a better place to conduct and invest in research. Indeed, it is impossible to mention research in this place without drawing attention to our government's announcement of a world-first, $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. This is truly a world beater and world first that demonstrates that Australia and the Abbott government are serious about science.
The benefits of genetics to vaccine production are manifest and real. Vaccines produced by genetic engineering offer an advantage that the microbial strains from which the proteins are extracted do not contain complete viruses. Thus, there are no risks of accidental inoculation with live virus. Cloning directly into vaccinia virus DNA holds great promise, although vaccines so produced are not yet on the market.
Recombinant vaccinia viruses—for example, a gene from the genital herpes virus within its DNA—can multiply and subsequently be inoculated into humans. The vaccinia virus produces mild infection, expresses some of the herpes virus protein and produces immunity. This is very similar, in a way, to what Edward Jenner did centuries ago when he introduced the first vaccination scheme which eventually led to the extinction of smallpox. Vaccines can be produced using recombinant DNA technology or using cell culture. Vaccines of common use are usually produced by cell cultures or animals. Such vaccines contain weakened or inactivated pathogens.
Crop plants can bear cheaper bioreactors to produce antigens to be utilised as edible vaccines. These edible vaccines are said to be a cheap alternative compared to recombinant vaccines. The transgenic plants are treated as edible vaccines, and consumption of these transgenic plants via, for instance, transgenic banana or tomato, cure diseases like cholera and hepatitis B. Foot and mouth diseases can be cured by feeding them transgenic sugar beet. In the near future these vaccines can be used as conventional vaccines. Humulin was the first therapeutic product to be made commercially by genetically engineered bacterium.
Recently a genetically engineered malarial vaccine, SPF66, has been produced. Genetic engineering promises to have an enormous impact on the improvement of crop species. Genetic transformation can boost plant breeding efforts for developing disease-resistant varieties.
Australians bring unique strengths to the scientific table. Our lateral thinking and novel ideas allow us to solve worldwide problems. In particular, Australians are great team players. It is our scientific teams that form the engine rooms which fuel our major discoveries, from astrophysics to biochemistry.
This is a really exciting time in genome and epigenome research. The cost of sequencing a human genome is over one thousand times cheaper than it was just a few years ago. One can now sequence one's entire genome for just $1,000. In the coming years, this genomics revolution will become much more apparent to us as it brings transformative advances in agriculture and medicine. This will touch everyone and have major economic benefits, so it is a perfect opportunity for Australia to play a leading international role in the area of genomics.
Being serious about science means having a long-term vision and a workable, affordable, costed plan. We must, as a nation, invest in the cheap end of the innovation pipeline and invest in the cheap end of the health equation. This means putting further money into research and preventative medicine. Concomitantly, the same is true for our climate challenges. Australia must invest more in energy research and remove the artificial barriers and legislative restrictions. As we move up the value chain the increase in labour costs makes red tape and compliance costs even more expensive. That is why this bill, which seeks to reduce the red tape requirement, is so important.
As an aside, this bill provides an opportunity to comment on the face of parliament. Today there are far too few scientists in this place. Such is the dearth that Labor members reading this bill may take gene technology as being the name of the denim department in their local mall. As a polity, we must decide how we view and value science and scientists. We must also ask the question in earnest, 'What type of members do we want in parliament?' The trend may be for a new breed of professional politician, but what we know from genetics is that diversity in the gene pool gives you long-term success. So too must it be the case in the Australian parliament.
Australia must compete in the global economy by creating high-value-added goods and services. Science is exactly the industry where we can excel and have done so many times in the past. CSIRO is a beacon institution that points the way for Australia as a world beater.
In terms of gene technology and the benefits that accrue, I have a very personal story to tell here. I had two second cousins who both had cystic fibrosis. Anyone who has come across people who have cystic fibrosis knows it is a terrible disease. I remember my second cousins struggling for breath. They lived to comparatively old ages for cystic fibrosis sufferers—one lived into his mid-thirties and one to his early forties. That is way too short and the quality of life is way too low. Genetic engineering gives you the potential to solve some of those problems by, for instance, having a genetically modified virus that you either ingest, as I have mentioned previously, through eating, or take through something like a nasal spray, which can then modify the genetic structure within the lungs to prevent the problems that you have with cystic fibrosis. There are numerous other diseases that have similarly debilitating effects and are enormously expensive to treat medically. Cystic fibrosis is hugely expensive, particularly when you need to have lung transplants or even heart and lung transplants and so on. It is enormously expensive. How exciting it would be for us to be able to give a cure to a young child who is desperately struggling for breath.
I will finish by quoting Carl Sagan. He once said:
Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact.
Clear and simple laws allow for hard but fruitful research.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:20): Mary Aldred, the CEO of Committee for Gippsland—
Mr Tudge: Outstanding woman!
Mr BROADBENT: both of the honourable members at the table are acquainted with her—said last night or the night before, when she was a speaker before Professor Chubb, that her standing there as she was with Professor Ian Chubb and speaking before him was like Al Gore introducing the then President Clinton and saying that he was there as the precursor to Elvis Presley or, in that case, the president of the day. Mary's dream was to be the warm-up act for Ian Chubb, speaking on the general theme of science at the Gippsland campus of Federation University at Churchill. I am a great admirer of Professor Chubb myself and an admirer of his passion for science and the important role that it plays in so many aspects of our daily lives. It is sad that he is retiring at the end of this year, so today's discussion is a good opportunity to take a few moments to pay tribute to Professor Chubb's enormous contribution to every part of our nation. There is hardly a member of this House who has not interfaced with Professor Chubb at some stage on some aspect of health and the social surrounds of health and all its intricate parts. Professor Chubb's speech the other night paralleled the topic of today's debate. Last night or the night before Professor Chubb talked about 'patience capital'. By that he means the investment of patience and time. Some might call it the long road in the long haul. It calls on us to understand that the results of science sometimes take a long time to mature but, in the end, they can reap enormous dividends for the community. One of Professor Chubb's living examples of this goes all the way back to 1971, when President Richard Nixon spearheaded the war against cancer bill. Professor Chubb reminded us of the patience capital when he said that only in the last year or two 19 new cancer drugs have come on the market as a result of the legislation in 1971.
For those two younger members sitting at the front bench today—the member for Aston and the member for Canberra—think of what your age was and where you were in 1971. Think of what you were doing, in 1971, when the American government made this decision and understand the enormity of the dividend from that ambitious investment.
Too often, governments of all persuasions bear criticism for a lack of interest in or lack of support for science. Professor Chubb rightly said that shining a light on the role and rewards of science is a responsibility we all share—that is, government, industry and the education sector. Having said that, it is not all positive. A perfect example, Professor Chubb gave last night, is when John Howard came to office and was very interested and supportive of science. Mr Howard wanted to invest and initiate. Professor Chubb said that in response to this he set off to gather the support of 21 captains of industry who could co-sign a letter commending Howard's interest and encouraging him to pursue it.
It was not a letter to 'have a go' at Howard, in any way. On the contrary; it was a letter designed to have Australia's business leaders say to the government of the day, 'We stand with you on this. We will work with you on this. We will go with you.' Professor Chubb said he could only get one person to sign the letter. The moral of the story is that science and its proliferation is everyone's responsibility—even those, like me, who are not tertiary educated. It is about government, it is about industry and it is about community. That is patience capital, and it reaps due rewards for our nation.
There have been some difficult issues in this parliament on embryonic stem-cell research and this has been an enormous struggle for many members in this place. In that address, I said to the House that I came from a conservative position but I had a staff member who was determined to take me down a different path and show me what benefits and rewards could be reaped. I was finally convinced when I sat with a professor, a surgeon, in this area of immune technology. He said:
Mr Broadbent, I want you to do me out of a job. The research and capacity that this legislation will enable may do me out of a job. I am the person who looks after the drugs and enables the transplants for those who have diabetes. I enable that part we put into their body not to be attacked by the immune system.
He put it in my language. That changed my whole approach.
Since that great debate—and the slippery slide we went through over embryonic stem-cell research—the debate has moved on. There was meant to be a re-inquiry about it three years later and then five years later. Those who then, I believe, opposed that issue are now great proponents of stem-cell research and the benefits it is providing to this generation and will provide to the next generation and the one after that. Here we are, the product, in this place, in this parliament. We were able to take it through the parliament and get that legislation in place. It allowed the opportunity for our scientists and those amazing people who work around them and with them to make a radical difference to the lives of people throughout this nation and probably the world.
The legislation today allows for the fact that we need to, whether it be in the natural process of gene technology—which I remind everybody our farmers have been doing for yonks, forever. They have been improving their breeding stock, improving our wheat stocks, grain stocks and sugar stocks, and all of those issues. They have been doing that. That is what our parents and grandparents did. Our scientists today are born with the knowledge, training, money and skills to enhance what our parents and grandparents were already doing—to pick the best lamb, to pick the best bull, to pick the best cow, to get the greater milk output. Now we are using science to do that.
Exactly that process—the science and education that have come into agriculture and all facets of my electorate—is being celebrated in every area of activity by the VFF and the National Farmers Federation. Everybody understands how important it is for this science to be implemented for the betterment of our rural communities. What will they then do? We are already feeding the world. We can feed the world some more. We can feed the rest of South-East Asia and have an input into that.
The worst part about this is that I know there are at least five members—I am looking at—who could speak on this subject for an hour without stopping and on how important the new technologies are for rural communities across this nation and for every other aspect of our lives and the benefits they give.
You are about to cut me off, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. That is a great disappointment to me, because I was thoroughly enjoying what I was saying to you. I understand that you will have time limits in this place but one thing we do not have a time limit on his brilliance. We do not have a time limit on the people who are able to achieve for this nation in a way that members of this House can never do. And that is the science community. Professor Ian Chubb, we pay tribute to you and all that you have done and every opportunity that you have taken—even the instructions you gave me about my personal life, which I was not prepared to accept at the time.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Marriage
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:30): Just last week I had a visit in my office from two constituents who are also very good friends of mine—Julie and Cas. They came to talk about how important marriage equality is to them and also to share the very exciting news that they had just gotten married in the United States. Cas was born in America, and they had just returned from Florida, where the wedding took place. It was wonderful to hear all about the planning and the actual wedding day; it looked like such a beautiful ceremony. One of the most exciting aspects for them was the fact that they received a congratulatory message from President Obama. They have asked me to read that message:
Congratulations to you on your wedding day. May this special time be blessed with love, laughter, and happiness. We wish you all the best as you embark on your journey together, and we hope your bond grows stronger with each passing year.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama
This meant so much to them—the President of the United States endorsing and congratulating them on being married.
They contrast this with the current situation in Australia and simply cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not support marriage equality and their right to marry here. This is a very important issue in my electorate, and one that I have been clear about. I support marriage equality and will continue to fight for my constituents and, indeed, all Australians to have the right to marry the person they love. If the White House can turn rainbow, then surely this House can do it too.
Jobs and Infrastructure
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (13:31): The communities of Mackay, Bowen and throughout Central and North Queensland welcome the announcements by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General that the government will repeal section 487(2) of the EPBC Act to end the ongoing warfare being waged by extreme green groups against major job-creating developments in the north. The recent setback with the Carmichael mine has alarmed many eager job seekers and business owners in the region who were looking at the opening up of the Galilee Basin and the expansion of the port of Abbot Point as a shot in the arm for our local economies. The successful green challenge against the mine approval has been devastating for them. It has gone from being like a shot in the arm to being like a shot to the head. The project is being reassessed and, given that nothing has changed, I assume that we will have the approval issued. But the mine will again be held up in the courts for the better part of two years if nothing is done about the ongoing litigation campaign by the extreme greens.
The Liberal-National government is proposing a way forward: restrict legal objections to only those directly impacted by a development. And here is the challenge for Labor: will you support our moves to secure jobs and opportunities for workers or will you support your green mates who want to see an end to coalmining? Make no mistake, we in the Liberal-National coalition have chosen a side: we are on the side of Aussie jobs; we are on the side of Aussie workers.
Renewable Energy
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:33): Talking about Aussie jobs, last night the irrepressible team from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency presented their extraordinary wares to parliamentarians. The real eye-opener for me was Ecoult, who are delivering the rebirth of the old-fashioned lead acid battery as a new funky 21st century energy storage solution. This is a great story of Australian science: a CSIRO project funded by ARENA and spun-off to the private sector. The lead plates are coated with carbon and 'eleven secret herbs and spices'. Together with the incorporation of a super-capacitor, this has created a hybrid that modifies the chemistry of the lead acid battery and radically enhances its capacity, making it a real long-life goer for electric vehicles and the storage of renewables. We also met the team at Fotowatio Renewable Ventures, who are attracting huge foreign investment and want to roll out a big solar project in WA so that we do not have to spend WA's dollars on purchasing eastern states credits. Mr Barnett, please get on board. And even the WA utility Synergy was there with an energy storage pilot, showing how traditional utilities are now getting on board with this new frontier. The ARENA crew, under the inspired leadership of Greg Bourne, are doing this country a great service—and we all appreciated Minister Macfarlane's unequivocal support.
Calare Electorate: Industry Skills Fund
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (13:34): I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a local Bathurst business, Ray Morcoms Auto Body Repairs, which has recently benefited under the $664 million Industry Skills Fund. They have been operating in the Bathurst community for 35 years offering smash repairs, fleet work and restoration services. Ray Morcoms has received $12,000 under the ISF. The funding will be spent on specialised training tailored to their business needs. This ensures jobs in regional areas. The Morcoms have 15 staff, including two apprentices. I would like to congratulate the business owner, Andrew Morcoms, for delivering a great service to the Central West for more than three decades. Ray Morcoms established the business back in 1977 and his son Andrew took it over 10 years ago. Family businesses are the backbone of regional communities. I would like to take this time to recognise the Morcoms for their hard work and dedication in building a trusted business in one of our communities. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the role small businesses play in regional communities. There is always a friendly face and somebody you can trust. There are some incredible locals business in my electorate of Calare and I am proud to be able to support them.
Australian Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:36): This morning I was alerted to some concerning statistics about how the Abbott government's Public Service job cuts are affecting Canberrans. The Canberra suburbs of Kambah, Greenway, Oxley and Wanniassa have been listed as the most at risk of mortgage default in the country. The list was compiled by consultancy firm Digital Finance Analytics, which mapped the postcodes across the country where people could face financial collapse when interest rates start to rise. The study states that the most difficult thing for a mortgage holder is to suddenly lose their job. And that has been the case for 8,500 Canberrans public servants—and 17,000 across the nation—since the Abbott government came to office. This was the case for me in 1996 when, along with15 ,000 other Canberrans and 30,000 public servants throughout the country, I lost my job as a result of the cuts by the Howard government to the Public Service.
What did that do to Canberra? Non-business bankruptcies jumped sharply in 1995-96 by 38 per cent and again in 1996-97 by 17 per cent, while business bankruptcies jumped in 1996-97 by 38 per cent. Shops closed down, house prices plummeted, people left town and our population fell. It had a devastating effect. That is my fear for Canberra again, and these mortgage default statistics are proof of how hard the Abbott government's public sector job cuts— (Time expired)
Banks Electorate: St George Athletics
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:37): Today I want to address an important issue today regarding a lack of infrastructure in my local community. The St George area does not have a professional quality athletics facility. There is no professional athletics track and no high-standard facilities for other athletics events. In my view this is unacceptable and it needs to change.
Most parts of Sydney have a quality athletics centre, including all of the areas that neighbour the St George area. If it is possible for the Sutherland Shire and Bankstown to have quality athletics facilities, it should be possible for St George too.
I am pleased that Hurstville Council has now agreed to investigate this issue and to look at the potential for such a facility to be built. In my view, the council needs to develop a clear plan to improve our athletics facilities. If it does so I will strongly support it and seek federal funding to help make the plan a reality
We have a strong local athletics community, with hundreds of families participating in Little Athletics at Olds Park in Penshurst. While Olds Park has for a long time been the home of Little Athletics in our area, the fact is that the facilities are not up to the same standard as those in other parts of Sydney.
I would like to thank Lisa Rios, the President of St George Little Athletics, and all of the committee for the work that they do for our local families. I attended the Little Athletics AGM earlier this year and was very impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the association members.
I believe that it is important that this matter is resolved, and I look forward to the outcome of the council planning study
Environment
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:39): We now understand the government is intent on further weakening Australia's carefully established framework of environmental protection. In response to a court decision setting out the government's own technical and administrative shortcomings in relation to the Adani Carmichael proposal, the Abbott government now wants to change the rules. It wants to ensure that legitimate challenges to projects with wide-ranging, long-term, and severe environmental impacts are silenced.
My first concerted political involvement came as a coastal campaigner in the south-west of WA. I know how hard it is and how much work is involved for a community campaign made up of ordinary citizens, volunteers, farmers, law students, scientists and activists to examine and contest a huge development project in the interests of our shared social and environmental wellbeing. It is difficult, frustrating, and often thankless work—but it is essential. To describe such people as vigilantes is ridiculous and offensive.
Let us be honest: the imbalance is stark already between these community efforts and the well-funded and well-connected corporate interests that pursue development proposals. There is absolutely no good reason for sharpening that imbalance. You can be certain that the changes this government has made and is now contemplating to weaken environmental protection will result in disasters.
This is a government with no regard for the rule of law and no regard for the importance of due process. It is a government that decides the outcome it wants in advance and throws a tantrum when the process, the law or the people take a different turn. Silencing and excluding the participation of legitimate environmental advocates is dangerous and it is wrong.
Parkes Electorate: Local Sporting Champions
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:40): During the winter break, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the successful recipients of Local Sporting Champions grants. I think this is one of the better proposals that the government, and also the previous government, undertook to encourage young people in their sporting endeavours.
The Parkes electorate received a large number of applicants from right across the one-third of New South Wales that is my electorate. It was a very competitive process, and I understand that there were far more applicants than there were successful recipients, but I would like to congratulate the following people: Jordy Andriske, swimming; Jacana Powell, athletics; Tristan Sulter, swimming; Georgia Goodhew, netball; Blake Greaves, athletics; Darcy Carroll, golf—I might say that Darcy Carroll at Moree plays off scratch, for those of you who are golfers; Wilmie Van Schalkwyk and Louisa Van Schalkwyk, netball; Macy Morley, swimming; Nicholas Tomlinson, swimming; Richard Knight from Coonabarabran, equestrian; Amelia Raidaveta, basketball; Ben Griffiths, soccer; Izayah Swan, touch football—a young lad from Moree High School; Madelon Griffiths, swimming; Eloisa Purtell, hockey; and Jacob Clarke, athletics.
Indi Electorate: Government Programs
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:42): As we all know, government programs can have a real impact at a community level. Parklands Albury Wodonga, in partnership with Wodonga Urban Landcare Network and the Green Army, are doing great work in Albury-Wodonga.
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting participants of round 2 on a brisk, wintry day by Felltimber Creek, seeing the excellent work being carried out by participants—Brendan, Chris, Jimmy, Chris, Kylie, Kim, Alisha and Bethany—and communications ranger Anne Stelling. A warm 'thank you' to the volunteers who provided such a delicious morning tea, to the board of Parklands and the urban network, and to all the community members who support this very important local program. The focus of the program is skills development, building community leadership skills, learning about working as a team and the practical application of environmental science and plant identification.
Applications for round 4 of the Green Army are now open, and I encourage all environmental groups to consider putting in an application for heritage projects, remote areas, Indigenous communities or to protect threatened species. I would particularly like to acknowledge the strategic approach that Parklands and the urban network have taken in Wodonga. Thank you for your great work, and I wish you luck in the next round.
Leichhardt Electorate: Mainie
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:43): On 7 August I had the privilege of helping to launch a new Cairns-made fashion label called Mainie, which is the work of Charmaine Saunders and Denis Keeffe. The label marries the ancient art of Indigenous women from the Tanami Desert in the Northern Territory with silk from one of China's fabled Silk Road cities, Nanjing. The maiden collection of 12 unique designs is manufactured in China and demonstrates how small Australian businesses are taking advantage of better relationships between our two countries.
In June this year Australia signed a groundbreaking free trade agreement with China, laying the foundation for the next phase of the economic relationship between our countries. Today I brought with me a beautiful Mainie scarf, which I will be presenting to our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, in recognition of that relationship. It is absolutely wonderful to see a start-up fashion business from Cairns identifying an opportunity in the market and going for it. I look forward to seeing Mainie grow into a globally-recognised brand from these humble beginnings in Cairns, and exploring other inspirations such the designs of the rainforest Aboriginal people of Yarrabah. Charmaine and Denis put in everything, including their house, to build this business, and I wish them success with it. I hope that other local Indigenous and non-Indigenous entrepreneurs will see the foundations that have been laid and be further inspired to take Aboriginal art— (Time expired)
Rankin Electorate: Calamvale Special School
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:45): Even the member for Aston would agree with me that one of the great things about being a member of parliament is being visited in this place by your local schools. For the kids, it is an excellent opportunity to see what happens in this place as we try to make our communities better right around the country. And for us, because we spend so much here, it is terrific to have friends from home come and visit us.
Today I wanted to talk about the Calamvale Special School. I have joined them over the last couple of years at their Anzac Day ceremonies, their Bunnings sausage sizzles and their tree-planting ceremonies. It is a terrific group of young people and teachers, and they are here today visiting the House of Representatives. As you can imagine, there are extra costs and organisation involved bringing this special group to Canberra, and I know they have been planning and fundraising for this trip for more than 12 months. I want to congratulate and acknowledge and thank all of the teachers and parents who are here today, including Mandy, Tom and Kevin. I also want to thank everyone in my community who donated so that the group could come here and experience our parliamentary democracy, including the Australian Workers Union and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, who donated substantially.
Most importantly, to Ricky, Joshua, Kylie, Tayla, Laura, Hamdiya, Leticia, Jamie, Rhyce, Jed, Morgan, Trent, Taylah, Daniel, Miracle, Jack, Joseph, Aiden, Tony, Raymond and Elysha—welcome to the people's house and thank you for the privilege of representing you here.
Brisbane Electorate: School Events
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:46): I rise today to update the House on a number of school events across my electorate that highlight the history and the community spirit of Brisbane. Over the course of three days, four separate events were held to raise funds and to celebrate a year of achievements for three schools and a kindergarten.
On Friday, 24 July, Windsor State School held a parade for their 150th birthday. I was absolutely delighted to join with the principal, Mr Stephen O'Kane, to celebrate the achievements and the proud history of one of our oldest schools. On Saturday, 25 July, I attended the 33rd annual Red Hill Kindergarten fair, held in the heart of Red Hill at Woolcock Park. It was filled to the brim with the local community, who had come out to support the Red Hill Kindergarten. On Sunday, 26 July, New Farm State School hosted the school and wider community at their fete. I was delighted to join principal, Ms Carmel McGrath, on the day. Along with my two fellow judges, I adjudicated at the 'Best of New Farm' bake-off and jam judging competition—very stiff competition—with very careful consideration. On the same day at St Rita's College in Clayfield, they hosted their annual grand traditional fair and carnival—one of the college's premier events. I would like to commend the principal, Mrs Dale Morrow, on the hard work the college has undertaken to ensure such a successful event. I would like to congratulate all of the parents, staff, teachers and all of the P&F— (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: Eid Celebration
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:46): I rise to share with the House today an event that occurred in my electorate recently. On 17 July, I joined the Muslim community from the Werribee Islamic Centre and the Virgin Mary Mosque to celebrate Eid. It was a fabulous occasion. There were over 2,000 people gathered who originated from dozens of countries from around the world. After prayers, I joined families to break their fast and begin their gift giving. It was a very exciting morning, with children dressed in their best clothes, lots of national dress, lots of gift giving and lots of smiling children. I would like thank the Werribee Islamic Centre for the invitation to join them and for opening their celebrations to both me and members of Wyndham council.
It is a pleasure to serve in a multicultural, multifaith community like Wyndham, with open doors and open hearts. They celebrated this year at the Encore centre and I would like to congratulate Wyndham council for opening our brand new centre as the mosque would not have held the 2,000 people who gathered this year. Congratulations to Wyndham council for their support for our multifaith, multicultural community. It is a pleasure to represent the people of Lalor.
Tyrell, Mr William
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:49): I rise to bring to the attention of the Australian Parliament the recently established 'Where's William? Help Bring Him Home' campaign. As many people would be aware, nearly 12 months ago the quiet village of Kendall in my electorate was turned upside down with news that the young three-year-old toddler William Tyrrell had disappeared while he was at his grandmother's home. Despite a massive search of the area by police, emergency services and the community not a trace or a sign of William was found, leading authorities to believe that something must have happened to him. The idea that a young toddler could just simply vanish while he was playing in his grandmother's yard in a quiet little village in the country has been devastating for William's family and our community.
The 'Where's William? Help Bring William Home' campaign is working in collaboration with the New South Wales Police, Bravehearts and Crime Stoppers. My electorate, my people, have not given up on the search for young William. Somebody must know something. The campaign to find William Tyrell continues. Somebody must have seen something, somebody knows something or somebody can help bring William home—is that somebody you? I would encourage anyone with anything new that they may know or think they know to contact police because that small bit of information might be the final piece in the puzzle that the police need to find William and bring him home to his family.
Workplace Relations
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:51): I support the cleaners at Parliament House. This week the cleaners here at Parliament House are taking industrial action. They are not cleaning the toilets or the bathrooms. Why have they taken this step? Because they have not had a pay rise for three years. They are currently on a pay freeze. It is not like when an MP does not get a pay rise. These are the lowest paid workers in this building. Costs are going up, yet their wages are not. This has come about because this government scrapped the Clean Start Guidelines to Responsible Contracting—the clean start guidelines that ensured these cleaners would get a fair deal.
It is not just the pay rise that these cleaners are concerned about; they are also worried about their job security. If the contract goes out to tender, there is no guarantee that the cleaners will keep their jobs. They could also be hit by big pay cuts, like we have seen in the Department of Defence where the cleaners have had their pay cut by $6,000 a year. There are not too many pollies who are putting their hands up to cop a $6,000-a-year pay cut, yet they expect their cleaners, some of the lowest paid people in this community, to cop one. When this building was opened in 1988, there were 100 cleaners. Today it is down to 40. Workloads have increased, yet their pay continues to be low. It is time that this government got behind the cleaners and supported their Parliament House cleaners too.
Moore Electorate: Lake Joondalup Baptist College Sports Centre
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:53): I was honoured to attend the opening of the sports centre at Lake Joondalup Baptist College on 24 July 2015. It represents a $6 million investment. The landmark two-storey building, located prominently on the corner of Shenton Avenue and Joondalup Drive, features: two indoor sporting courts; six teaching spaces; gymnasium and change room facilities; and staff and seminar rooms, with storage and catering facilities. The sports centre features a modern architectural design, a superb interior fit-out and use of natural light.
I acknowledge the work of: a very distinguished educator in Principal Dawn Clements; Deputy Principal Penny Houghton; the Chairman of the College Board, Pastor Stephen Nosworthy; the Chair of Finance, Mr Alf Binks; and the Chair of Projects, Pastor Wayne Belcher. Lake Joondalup Baptist College is a kindergarten to year 12 school with an enrolment of 1,436 students. The college has developed a reputation for providing its students with a well-rounded education, balancing academic achievement with artistic, sporting and cultural endeavour, equipping students with essential life skills through excellent pastoral care The staff of the college and the school community are to be commended for their dedication to education and particularly for investing in a modern facility which will improve learning outcomes for all students.
Women in Science
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:54): This week is National Science Week, the annual celebration of the contributions of Australian scientists to the world of knowledge. Science supports jobs in health, education, construction, ICT, mining and agriculture, and we know that science will be a vital part of our jobs of the future.
Today I would like to recognise the contribution of women in science and highlight the importance of breaking down the barriers to increasing women's participation in the upper echelons of STEM and the jobs of the future. Research shows that women account for half of PhD graduates but only 17 per cent of senior academics at Australian universities. Remarkable work is being undertaken by women in science, but it is not always translating into greater involvement in the sector.
National Science Week is helping to draw attention to this through 'The League of Remarkable Women in Australian Science' exhibition, showcasing the achievements of 40 highly successful female scientists who have followed their passions, staked their claims on the frontiers of science and made some remarkable discoveries.
One of these remarkable women in Australian science is from my electorate of Newcastle—Dr Nikola Bowden. As a molecular biologist working at the University of Newcastle, Dr Bowden was the first to report on the relationship between DNA repair and chemotherapy resistance in melanoma. Since this groundbreaking discovery, Dr Bowden has moved into researching ovarian cancer, developing better ways to diagnose and treat patients. (Time expired)
Trade
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:56): Last week we joined together here in federal parliament to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Singapore's independence. Since 1965, when they were a small, undeveloped country with almost zero natural resources, they have become one of the richest and most prosperous nations in the world. How did they do it? They encouraged free trade. They encouraged foreign investment. They had zero tolerance for corruption, kickbacks and secret commissions. They had a government that was small and efficient. Singapore is just another example that trade is the engine of growth.
Trade means jobs. More trade means more jobs. But, shamefully, we have the union bosses and those on the other side of this parliament running a xenophobic campaign against free trade. Shame on every single one of them! There are already 200,000 jobs in this economy that directly rely on exports to China. That is up more than 100,000 in just a few years.
I have trust and confidence in the future of our nation. We should look for free trade agreements. They are the key to our future prosperity. I say to those who speak against free trade agreements and allow disgraceful union campaigns to continue, shame on every single one of you. (Time expired)
Trade Unions
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (13:58): I want to follow the excellent member's contribution by talking about my disgust at revelations that the Australian union movement is importing workers under 457 visas into Australia and employing them. Not only are unions in this country taking dues of low-paid workers—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: Every day in this chamber we have been subjected to the member for Bendigo's voice, talking about cleaners and lowly paid workers. Revelations include that the union United Voice are using 457 visa holders. So perhaps the member for Bendigo could make a phone call from her suite to her friends in United Voice and say, 'I've got a job for Australian workers. I can give you a job straightaway at the Australian unions that take your dues.' It is an absolute disgrace for us to find this out.
Not only are the unions employing 457 foreign workers; they are employing them as workplace relations advisers about the Australian workplace system. For shame! Considering the Australian Labor Party has union bosses all across its benches, members opposite should go back to their suites and take a shower, because they are dirty. They are employing foreign workers. They are on TV attacking foreign workers at the same time that they have been employing foreign workers under 457 visas. For shame! It is a disgrace. We do not want to see you again, Member for Bendigo, talking about this issue. (Time expired)
Trade Unions
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:59): What an absolute disgrace the previous member is! How dare he stand up and criticise people who spend every single working day standing up for workers. This government has something to hide. It is not paying the cleaners of this place, this parliament, a fair deal. This government has something to hide when the cleaners who are cleaning the Department of Defence copped a $6,000 a year pay cut.
The SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Schultz, Mr Albert 'Alby' John
The SPEAKER (14:00): I advise the House that last night members concluded their tributes to the late Alby Schultz. I now ask all present to rise in their places as a mark of respect.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): I can inform the House that the Minister for Justice will be absent from question time today and tomorrow while he attends bilateral discussions with his Indonesian counterparts on counter-terrorism and law enforcement. He will also be hosting an official event to mark the 70th anniversary of Indonesia's independence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Abbott Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right will not interject while the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr SHORTEN: My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that government ministers have been directed to say that cabinet is 'functioning exceptionally well' when asked about cabinet leaks? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government is functioning so exceptionally well that cabinet ministers immediately leak this document?
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): What I am not going to do is accept lectures on cabinet solidarity from a Leader of the Opposition who backstabbed two prime ministers. He backstabbed two prime ministers because they could not run an effective government.
Dr Chalmers: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Rankin on a point of order. The Prime Minister is 20 seconds into his answer. I am going to warn the member for Rankin in advance, and other members: I will not tolerate frivolous points of order.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned! I call the member for Rankin.
Dr Chalmers: Understood, Speaker. It was a very specific question about a very specific leak out of cabinet.
The SPEAKER: It was a very robust question, and if you ask a robust question you can expect a robust answer in the free-flowing debate in this parliament. I call the Prime Minister, who is completely in order.
Mr ABBOTT: The Leader of the Opposition backstabbed two prime ministers. The former government's Deputy Prime Minister sent a former bodyguard to National Security Committee meetings. Their cabinet was so dysfunctional that it was replaced by a gang of four.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order, bearing in mind there has been a point of order already on relevance.
Mr Burke: Given the answer the Prime Minister is giving, it matches the document. Why doesn't he just table it?
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member for Watson will resume his seat. The Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that, on Monday night, cabinet made a very important decision that was endorsed by the party room on Tuesday morning, and that was to take the steps necessary to enable the Carmichael mine to go ahead. We are taking the steps necessary to protect 10,000 jobs, to protect a $20 billion investment and to enable 100 million people in India to get coal and power for the best part of 50 years. That smirking phoney over there, that assassin, the two-time Sussex Street assassin—
Ms Butler: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith on a point of order.
Ms Butler: The Prime Minister has been here a long time and he knows he ought not reflect on members in that way.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is using robust political language that has been used by both sides.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Those on my left and right will cease interjecting.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is now raising a second point of order.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, the word 'assassin' has to be a reflection on a member. If that word is not a reflection on a member, there is not much left. You can only do it by direct resolution of the parliament.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, I am not taking another point of order on this. My hearing of what the Prime Minister said is that it was said in a political context. It is language that has been used many times before. It is robust. The Prime Minister is in order. And I allowed some robust questioning yesterday. The Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: Twice this Leader of the Opposition led the Sussex Street death squads to assassinate politically two prime ministers, and then he was caught out telling lies about it on the Neil Mitchell program. That is this person who now seeks the trust of the Australian people at the next election. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition: what we decided at cabinet on Monday night was to do what we could to preserve 10,000 jobs in Queensland—to do what we could to ensure that we got a $20 billion—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr ABBOTT: investment, because we support jobs and growth. We support the workers of this country. Where does this man stand? I tell you: when it comes to dudding workers, that man has form. He wants to dud the workers of Adani, he wants to dud the workers who will be employed under the free trade agreement, but, worst of all, when he was charged with protecting low-paid workers, he ripped them off to help himself. Shame on him. (Time expired)
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the benefits to the economy of the free trade agreement between Australia and China? Are there any threats to the jobs and growth that will be created by this agreement?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:08): I do thank the member for Hume for being amongst those at the Bellvale cattle yards near Yass this morning in his electorate. They were there to talk about the benefits of the China free trade agreement—benefits the agreement will bring to hundreds of thousands of businesses right around our country. Let me just remind the House, and particularly members opposite, that under the China free trade agreement tariffs on Australian beef will drop to zero within four years. Already, in the process of trying to do this free trade agreement, we have seen enormous improvements in our beef sales to China. China has gone from 12th to third as an export market for Australian beef. Meat and Livestock Australia estimates that the China free trade agreement alone will be worth $11 billion to that particular sector by 2030.
We understand that trade means jobs, and more trade means more jobs. Once upon a time even the Leader of the Opposition appeared to believe that, because, when President Xi was in this chamber late last year, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'We believe in open markets and liberalised—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr ABBOTT: driving economic growth, expanding the middle class, raising living standards and eradicating poverty. We believe—
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: in bilateral agreements.' Not only did he support the free trade agreement, but then he tried to claim credit for it. But his mates in the labour movement—there's the CFMEU going around trying to sabotage a deal that will set up this country for the future. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition and his mates in the CFMEU: under this agreement there are no changes to Australia's labour relations laws and no changes to 457s. Investment Facilitation Agreements mirror the provisions of Labor's—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume.
Mr ABBOTT: Enterprise Migration Agreement. A campaign of xenophobic lies is being master-minded by the CFMEU and this Leader of the Opposition is silent in the face of racism—silenced in the face of racism by the CFMEU. I say—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: the Leader of the Opposition should be a bit less two-faced on this free trade agreement. He was two-faced on the North American free trade agreement; he tried to sabotage that one as well. This is an opposition which needs to say where it stands. This government knows where we stand on jobs and growth. Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting.
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year the Prime Minister promised to retain labour-market testing. Can the Prime Minister explain—
Ms Scott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned.
Ms PLIBERSEK: why the memorandum of understanding between the Chinese and Australian governments on his new investment facilitation arrangements states 'There will be no requirement—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite is warned.
Ms PLIBERSEK: for labour market testing to enter into an IFA.'
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:12): Because it goes on to say that there will be labour market testing before people are actually employed.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left and on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr ABBOTT: This from a shadow foreign minister—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: who wants to create a terrorist picnic in Syria by dropping food parcels. She does not understand this agreement, which is absolutely vital for the future of our country. I have a very simple challenge for the opposition: do you support the China free trade agreement? It is a very simple challenge: do you support the China free trade agreement? When President Xi was in this country—
Mr Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide.
Mr ABBOTT: they supported the China free trade agreement. Do they support it now? Or, yet again, is the Leader of the Opposition two-faced?
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: He says one thing in one context and a different thing in another context. He doesn't have the guts to tell President Xi that he is ripping off Australia. Now he is trying to say to the CFMEU: 'Go for it. Go for it, CFMEU!' The campaign from the CFMEU—
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons.
Mr ABBOTT: is a campaign of racist lies—
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: the Leader of the Opposition should be man enough to disown it.
Ms Plibersek: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the treasurer update the House on how the free trade agreement with China will benefit jobs and growth throughout Australia?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:14): There is no doubt, as the member for Grey knows, that as a result of the free trade agreements we are negotiating, and have negotiated, there are going to be more jobs and better paid jobs for more Australians. There is no doubt about that. If we can open up the markets and if we can get other countries to remove the taxes they place on our goods and services, it means that we can get more of our produce over into their markets and that creates more jobs and greater prosperity for everyday Australians. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement ultimately means more jobs for Australian producers in agriculture, more jobs for Australian engineers, more jobs for Australian health workers, more jobs for Australian financial advisers and more jobs for Australian manufacturing workers.
I ask myself: why are the Labor Party opposing this? Why would the Labor Party so emphatically oppose something that is going to create more jobs and better paying jobs for everyday Australians. Their record is terrible at job creation. Do not forget under Labor 200,000 jobs were lost in just six years.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned!
Mr HOCKEY: And do not forget that under Labor job growth—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton is warned!
Mr HOCKEY: when we came to government, was a pathetic 3,600 a month. Last month we had 38,000 jobs created in Australia.
What is the motivation of the Labor Party? I look no further than Penny Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Penny Wong has been putting out a number of press releases saying that the government is being misleading on the China free trade agreement and she says, 'There is no requirement for labour market testing.' I am a bit perplexed by this. Penny Wong is now the chief critic of the China free trade agreement, but I was sitting next to her down the road when the China free trade agreement was being signed. She was so excited she was throwing a bread roll in the air. She was cheering on the China free trade agreement and she recognised how important it was for the future of Australian workers, but now her language has changed. Why would that be so? I went to her CV and I saw that while Penny was studying she was working for the CFMEU.
Government members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: She was admitted to the bar, she continued her work with the CFMEU and she was elected an organiser and industrial official. The old CFMEU—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr HOCKEY: has tentacles everywhere.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite has been warned twice!
Mr HOCKEY: The union leaders are more concerned about their jobs than the jobs of everyday Australians. We are standing up for the workers— (Time expired)
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the unemployment rate higher today than when the Liberal government got elected two years ago?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:18): There are 335,000 more Australians in jobs now than there were when you were ignominiously tipped out of office.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: You are sensitive, aren't you? You are sensitive about your record—
Mr Shorten: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance: why won't the Prime Minister admit the real rate of unemployment in this country?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. He is confining himself to the topic of unemployment.
Mr ABBOTT: There are 335,000 more jobs in our economy now than there were when members opposite were ignominiously turfed out. Job creation is now four times the rate that it was when—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned!
Mr ABBOTT: members opposite were in office. If members opposite were as concerned about jobs as they say, why won't they join this government—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned!
Mr ABBOTT: to make it easier for 10,000 jobs to be created in the coal industry in Queensland? If members opposite were as concerned about jobs as they claim, why would the Leader of the Opposition not have stuck by his commitment to the East West Link? I do not know whether I am allowed to call him 'two-faced Bill', so I do not.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr ABBOTT: Yet again he was in favour of the East West Link, and then he changed his mind on that and 10,000 jobs in Victoria are not being created because—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor is warned!
Mr ABBOTT: he was not game to stand up to the CFMEU dominated government of Victoria. Yet again, this Leader of the Opposition, this Labor Party, are in thrall to the union bosses and doing the wrong thing by jobs. He always does the wrong thing by workers. We know this because we have seen it in the royal commission that he wants to shut down: example after example after example of this Leader of the Opposition ripping off workers to help himself, ripping off workers to advance his political career. Well, frankly, I think decent, honest members of the Labor Party are awake to this bloke, and decent, honest members of the Labor Party are coming to appreciate that this government are serious when we say that we want to create more jobs. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is not too late to redeem yourself. Support our legislation that will make it so much easier for 10,000 jobs to be created in the coal industry in Queensland, for $20 billion worth of investment in coal jobs to go ahead, and for 100 million Indians to get the power, the electricity, the life and the prosperity that they surely yearn for.
Mental Health
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:21): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health. Mental illness affects one in five Australians every year, often in dreadful ways and especially in Tasmania. Clearly a better approach is desperately needed at both federal and state levels, yet the National Mental Health Commission's review of mental health programs and services has been shunted off to another committee. Minister, what is going on and when will the community see some big changes for the better?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:22): I thank the member for Denison—I appreciate his ongoing engagement with me on these very important matters. It is correct that more than half of us will suffer some form of mental ill-health over our lifetime. Last week I released a report into child and adolescent mental health which revealed that one in seven children and young people suffer from a mental health disorder and one in 10 teenagers have attempted some form of self-harm. On coming into government we promised a review. The National Mental Health Commission, appointed by the previous government, was tasked by us to conduct this review, and it found an alarming and disturbing picture of the patchwork of mental health services, poorly targeted and, most importantly, not producing the goods for the consumers and their families. There were three key themes to this report—that early intervention and community-based service make a real difference; that stepped care is the most appropriate form of care, with the level of severity being matched to the form of care that is available to the patient; and that a local regionalised approach works best—as we know only too well, Canberra does not always know best and local solutions provided by good groups in the community can make a real and lasting difference. The government heartily endorses these three key themes of the National Mental Health Commission's Review.
Recently I tasked Kate Carnell and an expert reference group to conduct not another review—with great respect, member for Denison—but a task force about implementation, about how we translate these important recommendations into government policy, and a funding mechanism that makes sense through two levels of government. That, of course, is a very complex process. That is a time-limited process. I keep in regular contact with Kate Carnell— a very good person in this space, as we all recognise. We also all recognise, as members of parliament, that there are important changes to be made. We all see people with mental health conditions come through our door and we all know it is really hard for someone who is perfectly well to navigate the system let alone somebody who is struggling. Kate Carnell's group will be reporting to me soon. The government and I will make some strong statements about policy reform before the end of the year, and I look forward to the parliament's support. These reforms, as well as our key measures in the area of the NDIS, will make a positive difference to those experiencing mental ill-health, their families and their carers.
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on responses to the campaign of misinformation being waged against the landmark free trade agreement between Australia and China? How will the agreement create jobs and growth for the people of Petrie and for all Australians?
Mr ROBB ( Goldstein — Minister for Trade and Investment ) ( 14:25 ): I thank the member for Petrie for his question. Of course Moreton Bay Seafoods, in his electorate, already exports to China a large number of prawns. The 10 per cent tariff on prawns will come down to zero under this free trade agreement. The member is doing much to promote these agreements within his electorate.
Mr Perrett interjecting —
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Moreton that he has been warned twice.
Mr ROBB: I was asked how the agreement creates jobs and growth. I will give one example. Just last week I met the managing director of Fresh Select, John Said, a supplier of fresh produce to the Australian supermarket trade. John told me how Fresh Select is working with China Merchants, which is a major transport and distribution company in China, on a new business model for sending high-quality Australian food and beverages directly from growers and manufacturers to families in China. Produce will arrive from Australia direct into a massive warehouse in Shenzhen , which is already being prepared. Customers by the thousands will order online and be given an electronic access code. Their order will be robotically filled and couriered directly to their apartment block to be put into lockers on the ground floor for secure accessing by the code. Once accessed the locker is then available for another customer. The system provides an assurance of true Aussie provenance for purity-conscious Chinese consumers. It cuts out the middle men, who soak up margins, and it delivers a higher price to the farm gate. All through the supply chain this new premium market creates jobs and jobs and more jobs, not just in production but in packaging, transport and logistics, storage, finance and insurance—the list goes on. What excited me about this story is that a new major Australian business is being created today in the expectation of the free trade agreement passing and coming into force in January.
I was asked who is standing in the way. Just two nights ago we witnessed in the chamber the member for Bendigo declaring that it was alarming for consumers to think they could call an electrician to their home and not know whether that person knew what they were doing. This is a disgrace, this is recklessness—you are not in university anymore; this is real politics that has real consequences. Of course the member was following the instruction of the ETU, who robocalled my electorate passing on the same message. What happened?
Mr Hutchinson interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons.
Mr ROBB: The next two days I had many seniors ringing my office frightened about electricians they had had to their house in the last few weeks. What a shameful thing to have done. The facts are that NECA, the organisation representing 50,000 electricians, have said:
Based on our discussions … NECA is satisfied there will be no dilution—
(Time expired)
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned!
Employment
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when was the last time more than 800,000 Australians were unemployed?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:29): Australia's population has grown and continues to grow and workforce participation is increasing, which is fantastic! It shows that people have the confidence to participate in the workplace. As a former Treasurer, the member for McMahon would know that we have a great record of success in creating 334,000 new jobs in less than two years. In the last month alone, we have created 38,000 new jobs in Australia. The average in the last 12 months under Labor was 3,600 jobs per month. In the last month we had the fastest rate of job growth out of the G7 and most of the G20—one of the fastest rates of job growth in the world. So that is a good story. But there is much more work to be done.
I know he is very fond of reflecting on the past, because he has just written a book called TheMoney Men: Australia’s Twelve Most Notable Treasurers.
Ms O'Neil: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is on relevance. This was a specific question about 800,000 Australians on the dole queue, and you are making a joke—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will resume her seat. The Treasurer has been talking about the topic of the question in his answer. I will ensure that he remains—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I do not need the member for Moreton to interject when I am addressing the House. He can leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I will listen to the Treasurer carefully. He is coming to a new topic.
Mr HOCKEY: I was asked about the history of jobs, and I wanted to reflect on the job of the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. I discovered something when I opened up the chapter on him. His name is Wayne Maxwell Swan—not very 'Smart'! The member for McMahon is so proud of the achievements of the previous Labor government, which he asked me to reflect on, that when he referred to what Wayne Maxwell Swan is doing now—
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I do not need the acting Leader of the House to interject.
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order—
The SPEAKER: There has already been a point of order on relevance. What is the point of order? On what subject?
Mr Bowen: The point of order is that the Treasurer appears unaware that the answer is '20 years ago'.
The SPEAKER: Member for McMahon, that is a frivolous point of order. You are warned! The Treasurer will continue and he will remain relevant to the topic of unemployment.
Mr HOCKEY: That is right, because Wayne Maxwell Swan oversaw the loss of 200,000 jobs in just five years compared to 334,000 jobs created under us. Of course, Wayne Maxwell Swan had such a great history as a Treasurer—he just missed delivering a surplus by this much! How did that happen! It was really that much! The job losses were that much as well.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will confine himself to the topic of unemployment.
Mr HOCKEY: The problem is: Labor never learns from its lessons. Labor was the architect of job losses. We are the architects of job creation. We are proud of the 38,000 jobs created in Australia last month. We are proud of the 334,000 jobs created since we came to office—and we recognise there is more work to be done.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will cease interjecting. He has already been warned twice.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:33): On behalf of the House could I welcome a delegation from Saudi Arabia, who have joined us on the floor of the House today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Trade with China
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:33): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on how the free trade agreement with China will help boost jobs and growth for Australian farmers and businesses in my electorate of Page?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is very aware of what it is like to work, because he started his first job in a bakery working part-time. He then went on to work on—and he still owns—a cattle property. He has worked also in the finance sector. He is a person who understands all the issues pertaining to how you make a business work.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide has already been warned.
Mr JOYCE: It is not surprising that the member has a strong interest in how we are going with the Chinese free trade agreement. He has a strong interest because of the industries in his area that are involved in it. He knows that with the Chinese free trade agreement, with our work on the agriculture white paper and with the hard work from abattoir workers, dairy workers and people in the transport industry, we have the capacity to deliver real returns to his electorate.
People can see the work that has been done. The Casino meatworks, with over 1,400 employed, has increased production and increased return and has the prospect of expansion. Norco has been receiving record prices for milk because of the deals that they are doing with China and because of the way they are tapping new markets and driving through to get a better return back through the farm gate. To the south of the member, at Oz Berries, we now have 2,000 employees in one of the biggest blueberry farms I think in the southern hemisphere. To the west of him, in the seat of New England, there are 350 to 400 people working on a new farm in an area around Drake, where there had been no employment or jobs. Now there are jobs and there is a prospect of a fair return. This is the work that our government is doing to make sure that those opportunities are rolled out.
But there are things that stop those opportunities being rolled out—that is, when people decide that we are not going to go forward with the Chinese free trade agreement and they create a disturbance such that these things are questioned. We have so many people now investing money in the agricultural sector. We have been receiving record prices for cattle and sheep. We are now getting a substantial turnaround in both sectors of the wool market. We have been having record exports of fruit and nuts—and these are labour intensive industries. All of these things are labour intensive industries, and that is why the agricultural sector and our prospects of jobs are strongly linked to our capacity to deliver on the Chinese free trade agreement. We have worked on the premise that this would be a no-brainer—a free kick in front of the posts. But what is happening, unfortunately, is that all this hard work is being put at risk by the Australian Labor Party.
Mining
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:37): My question is also to the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, do you support the Shenhua coalmine project, notwithstanding any impact it might have on the agriculture sector, or does your support for Australian mining jobs only apply when the project is not in your own backyard?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his question. Might I remind him that what we now have is a process that is before the state government. We have done everything within our power to make sure that there is proper oversight of environmental issues. But he does bring to clear light the jobs of people in Queensland, which he referred to—the jobs of people in Central Queensland as attached to the Adani mine, which I am sure the member for Dawson is very interested in and which I am sure that other members from Central Queensland, the member for Flynn and the member for Capricornia, have a vital interest in, because it is the Australian Labor Party that is standing in front of the prospect of these—
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: everyone in the House, including the minister, knows why I am on my feet—relevance. I asked him a very specific question about his support for the Shenhua mine, and he has not gone to that question whatsoever.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call. The question had two parts, and the minister remains relevant to the question.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari is warned!
Mr JOYCE: That is one question I could never answer—why the member for Hunter is ever on his feet!
The SPEAKER: The minister will focus on the answer to the question.
Mr JOYCE: What I can say is that he has referred to other mines, and the other mine that is topical at the moment is the Adani mine, which we are trying to do everything in our power to get going because we want people to have jobs. We want the prospect of the economy of Central Queensland being driven ahead. But it has been stymied. When the Labor Party are challenged to actually stand up for jobs, to actually deliver for the people of Central Queensland, to stand behind the people of Capricornia, to stand behind the people in the seat of Flynn, to stand behind the people in the seat of Dawson, to stand behind these things, they are found lacking.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned!
Mr JOYCE: In fact, they would prefer to stand behind a snake and a skink than stand behind the working people of Central Queensland, and I think that is an abomination. That the priority of the Labor Party is now snakes and skinks, and not the working men and women of Central Queensland, is an abomination.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:40): I welcome Mr John Haslem, a former member for Canberra, who joins us in the gallery today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Trade
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House how the government's economic diplomacy strategy is delivering jobs and growth to Western Australia; and are there any threats to this approach?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:40): I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. Given that Western Australia accounts for almost half the total value of Australian exports, the issue of growth and job opportunities through trading in overseas markets is important to Western Australia and, therefore, to the nation.
The government are delivering jobs for Western Australia and all Australians through our unwavering focus on seeking new markets and enhancing existing markets for Australian industries and businesses so that they can export their goods and services overseas through the free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China that we have negotiated in our first term of office under our focus on economic diplomacy. Combined, these three free trade agreements are worth almost $24½ billion in total additional income to Australia.
But let us put the impact of the historic China free trade agreement in context. Australia and New Zealand commenced negotiations with China in 2005, with New Zealand finalising its agreement in 2008. Since that time, New Zealand's dairy industry has grown by 864 per cent, while our dairy sector grew by 150 per cent. New Zealand's free trade agreement with China has been an enormous boon for their economy. But Western Australian dairy farmers had to wait out the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years for the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against our competitors across the Tasman.
The Leader of the Opposition trumpeted last November:
Labor supports freeing up global trade because it drives growth, generates jobs, improves living standards and reduces poverty, both at home and abroad.
That is true. But then he went on to say Labor 'have been the party of trade liberalisation for more than four decades'—not true. The fact is the Labor Party never had any intention of concluding a free trade agreement with China. When it came into office in 2007, Labor slashed 75 per cent of the DFAT funds that were committed to continuing the trade negotiations with China.
The Leader of the Opposition is now in lockstep with Labor's union masters, who are running a campaign of economic treason against our nation's interests by making dishonest and untrue statements about the China free trade agreement, directly undermining Australian jobs and Australia's future prosperity. It is astonishing to see a Labor leader campaigning against jobs and against the national interest, and he should be condemned for his failure to stand up to the militant union bosses who put their self-interest ahead of the interests of their workers. The China free trade agreement is about jobs for Australians. Why is Labor against jobs? The coalition support jobs through the free trade agreement, jobs for Australians. Labor opposes them.
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline the exact process and time line the government took in appointing Dyson Heydon as royal commissioner?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:44): I certainly can inform the member who asked the question that Dyson Heydon has a marvellous record as a judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: He was appointed by the Labor government of New South Wales. He was appointed by the Labor Attorney-General of New South Wales to be a judge of the Court of Appeal. Yes, he was appointed by the Howard government to be a judge of the High Court. Dyson Heydon has served with great distinction as a judge and he is doing valuable and necessary work as a royal commissioner into union corruption. He is doing valuable and necessary work.
Ms Butler: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. To be relevant, the Prime Minister needs to address the question.
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dobell will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Dobell then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith on a point of order.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will cease interjecting. She has been warned twice.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Perth, you are interrupting the member for Griffith.
Ms Butler: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To be relevant, the Prime Minister needs to come to the issue of how Mr Heydon was appointed to the present royal commission.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has only just begun his answer.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I would like to address this without interjection from either side. It was a question that I considered not allowing, given that no minister would carry every single detail with them. But I allowed the question for the Prime Minister to address it.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: You will cease interjecting.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will leave under 94(a). He has been warned three times. You have decided to eject yourself.
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will come back to the answer and address the question.
Mr ABBOTT: The honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC is doing very valuable work, pointing out—
Mr Conroy: For the Liberals!
Mr ABBOTT: Let's understand—
Mr Swan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will cease interjecting.
Mr ABBOTT: Let's understand what members opposite are saying here. Members opposite are trying to suggest that because Dyson Heydon AC QC agreed to go to a Liberal event—not a fundraiser but a networking event—once he was no longer a royal commissioner that somehow he did the wrong thing.
Opposition members: Yes!
Mr ABBOTT: That's it, is it? Okay.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon and the member for Bass are warned!
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith!
Mr ABBOTT: They agree that is the charge against ex-Justice Dyson Heydon. All right. Michael Kirby addressed the Society of Labor Lawyers while a judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Mary Gaudron addressed the Society of Labor Lawyers while a High Court judge. Michael McHugh addressed the Society of Labor Lawyers while on the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Did any of them do anything wrong? No, they did not. Did any of that attack their integrity or impugn their integrity? No, it did not.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Barker!
Mr Swan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley is warned!
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Lalor, the Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: In November last year—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin will leave under 94(a)
The member for Deakin then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: a serving New South Wales judge agreed to deliver the Frank Walker memorial lecture for the New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers. The only people who have done anything wrong here are members opposite, who are smearing a decent man to cover up— (Time expired)
Mr Danby interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Melbourne Ports, you have been warned twice. That is your last warning.
Economy
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:49): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House on how the government is working to create a strong and prosperous economy. What threats are there to boosting jobs and growth?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for Durack for the question; I really do. Her electorate is a massive contributor to Australian exports. Over the last few years, we have seen a massive amount of infrastructure investment in her electorate that has helped to facilitate that export growth and help us through some of the toughest days in the wake of the global financial crisis. As I said before, 38,000 new jobs were created in Australia last month—38,000! That is more than 10 times the number of jobs created in one month as were created on average when Labor was in government: 3,600 a month under Labor; 38,000 new jobs created last month under us. You can get that by changing the economic settings away from the protectionist rantings of Labor and away from the focus of Labor on increasing taxes such as the carbon tax and the mining tax and all the other tax changes they made. Obviously, what we have been focused on is getting rid of that regulatory red tape burden faced by so many businesses. Tens of thousands of pages of regulation have been torn up by this government in dedicated repeal days. So when it comes to the recent decision of the Federal Court in relation to the Adani Carmichael Mine in Central Queensland—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will cease interjecting
Mr HOCKEY: the message comes back that a fringe environmental group located 600 kilometres from the mine is able to challenge the construction of the mine in the Federal Court and win. Six hundred kilometres away, an environmental group funded by a fringe group of lawyers is able to stop 10,000 new jobs being created in Australia—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Perth, that is your last warning.
Mr HOCKEY: and stop the provision of enough energy to power the lights of 100 million impoverished Indians for up to 90 years. You would think the Labor Party would say: 'We want to see the jobs in Australia. We want to see poverty alleviation.' This morning the President of the Labor Party, the member for Port Adelaide, the spokesman for the environment, Mark Butler, came out and said:
… for the life of me I can't see where the particular problem is.
For the life of me, he cannot understand what the problem is: stopping the mine creating 10,000 jobs, stopping a mine that is going to help 100 million impoverished Indians, stopping a mine—
Mr Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide!
Mr Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide!
Mr Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide is warned.
Mr HOCKEY: that is going to deliver investment of over $20 billion. Why? Because he is more interested in supporting the Greens and more interested in backing environmental groups than backing the jobs of Australians. Shame, Labor! Shame! (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the speech delivered to the Centre for Independent Studies by Dyson Heydon AC, QC shortly before his appointment as royal commissioner. Prime Minister, was this the independent speech of a retired judge who was above politics or a job application for a partisan role? Will his commission be withdrawn?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:53): No and no to both of the questions posed by the Manager of Opposition Business. I have seen the report of Dyson Heydon's speech to the Centre for Independent Studies, and, my God, I think it was extraordinary! He said that the Rudd government had done 'non-substantive' things. Frankly, that is the best thing that has ever been said about the Rudd government. If there is any bias, it is bias in favour of the Rudd government. He is the least critical person of the Rudd government of anyone in Australia. The Rudd government was so non-substantive that the Leader of the Opposition executed the Prime Minister. The Manager of Opposition Business went on television to re-enact his role in the political assassination of Kevin Rudd.
Really and truly, the idea that Dyson Heydon's statement that there was a tendency by the Rudd government to do non-substantive things is somehow evidence of bias—that is evidence of gentle tolerance of the most incompetent government in Australian history. Let me say this to the Manager of Opposition Business—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton.
Mr ABBOTT: if it is okay for Michael Kirby, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, if it is okay for Mary Gaudron, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, and if it is okay for Michael McHugh, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, why is it wrong for an ex royal commissioner to address Liberal lawyers? You know, as soon as he realised that it was a Liberal badged event, he pulled out.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton will remove himself under 94(a). He has been warned multiple times.
The member for Charlton then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: Yet again, Labor members are verballing a distinguished former High Court judge. It is actually a criminal offence to attack a serving royal commissioner. It is actually a criminal offence. Now I am sure that former justice Dyson Heydon is big enough to deal with the vicious slander from members opposite to which he has been exposed. He is an honourable man. He should be allowed to get on with his job. Members opposite should stop trying to protect and defend the indefensible. (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:56): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister advise the House on how the government's $50 billion infrastructure program is providing jobs and growth across the country? Are there any obstacles to delivering this?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:56): Anyone following question time over recent weeks or, for that matter, since the coalition came to government would know that there is one side of this House that concentrates on jobs, on creating jobs and on building a stronger economy. The other side is more interested in covering up corrupt behaviour by union bosses while we get on with the business of building a stronger economy. In Western Australia, the honourable member's home state, we have implemented a number of projects and we have construction jobs underway that are making a real difference to the Western Australian economy. Our Perth Freight Link will support 2,400 jobs.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will leave under 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: For the Gateway Western Australia project in Perth, there are another 1,300 jobs that are working on that particular project. We have committed $1.2 billion to the NorthLink project in Western Australia; the Great Northern Highway, $390 million; the North West Coastal Highway, another $220 million. These are all job-creating projects that will deliver important infrastructure for Western Australia for future generations.
The honourable member asked me, 'Are there any obstacles to this job creation?' Well, there is an obstacle, and that is Labor. There is an obstacle—that is, Labor. We have already heard today that when Labor were last in government, 200,000 jobs were lost. Many of those jobs were lost because Labor introduced a carbon tax and introduced a mining tax. You might have thought—when they looked across at what has been achieved under this government, with 340,000 jobs created after the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax—that they would have learnt a lesson. You would have thought that they would have learnt a lesson, but they have not. They have not. They are promising to bring back the carbon tax—a bigger carbon tax than ever with more jobs lost than ever! More jobs will be lost because of Labor's plan to bring back a carbon tax. They are going to bring back the mining tax as well. How will that help the economy of Western Australia? A failed tax, but they are going to bring it back bigger and worse than ever, destroying more jobs in the Australian economy.
So it is not bad enough that they are giving their tacit support to the Green tactics of legal exhaustion and legal sabotage of new mining projects—and probably the next one of those will be in a state like Western Australia; they are actively proposing policies that will destroy jobs and will continue their appalling record in employment, which they had when last in government.
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his last answer, where he talked of defending the indefensible. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that, and I quote:
Kathy Jackson is speaking up for the right and she deserves a bit of support from the leader of our country.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned. I call the Prime Minster.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:00): It is interesting that, having tried to get the royal commission into union corruption shut down a few minutes ago, now they are actually utilising their work; that is what they are doing. It is the ultimate hypocrisy from members opposite: they try to get the royal commission close down when it suits them and then they use it when it suits them.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: I am pleased that this government established the royal commission into trade union corruption.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will not interject again and remain in the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: I am pleased that we established that royal commission, under one of Australia's most distinguished former judges—a judge appointed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal by the New South Wales Labor government and appointed by the coalition to the High Court of Australia.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber .
Mr ABBOTT: I am very pleased that this royal commission is getting to the bottom of bad behaviour by union officials. Whatsoever they may have done, if it is bad behaviour they are being exposed by this royal commission—and that is the way it should be. Members opposite, if they were fair dinkum for a moment about honest workers and honest unionism, would support the work of this royal commission. I remind the House that already 30 individuals, including 26 union and ex-union officials, have been referred to 11 agencies for possible charges. That is as it should be, because if people have done the wrong thing and broken the law they should be prosecuted, and members opposite should not try to close down this royal commission.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Mr Burke: I know he has concluded, but how is it possible to be relevant to that answer without once mentioning Kathy Jackson?
The SPEAKER: the Prime Minister did indeed make reference in the answer if you look back. You can check the Hansard when it comes through later on. I call the member for Herbert.
457 Visas
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the 457 visa program for the provision of skilled workers for Australian businesses? How does this program provide more jobs and more growth for all Australians?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:02): I thank the member for Herbert very much for his question. He is a great local champion for Adani and for mining jobs in North Queensland. He stands up for people in his electorate. I was up in Herbert just the other day. People up there are saying: 'Why is Bill Shorten two-faced? Why does Bill Shorten say one thing on AM and another thing on PM?'
The SPEAKER: The minister will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title.
Mr DUTTON: You need only look at the issue of 457 visas to understand the duplicity when it comes to this Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench. The importance of the 457 visa program cannot be overstated, and it has been responsible in part for helping us to build this great country. Australians understand that, where you cannot fill a position with an Australian, we need to provide support to somebody to come in and do that job. It was supported by Labor when they were last in government.
I noticed earlier that the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, was getting a little teary when the talk was of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. I could not hear what he was saying, but I thought he was mouthing to me, 'Rudd, Rudd, Rudd.' It made me think of John McTernan. Of course, he is the most famous 457 visa migrant to our country. He was employed by one of the mentors of the member for Lilley, the former Prime Minister Gillard. He was of course a great success as a 457 visa holder. He was not the greatest success that our country has ever had, but he has provided some support to Labor and he has also provided some analysis on Labor. I think John McTernan is critical—not that I want to quote him directly—of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is laughing—and so he should. Because people would say: 'Why would the Labor Party oppose the free trade agreement with China when China is a great trading partner with our country—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: 'They sell out Aussie workers,' you say. What, the Chinese do? What a disgraceful position you adopt! And you have been found out yet again because in this place you say one thing in the morning and something else in the afternoon—
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I refer to page 516 of Practice, which says it is disorderly for somebody to 'put words into someone else's mouth'. There have been two occasions during this answer where the minister has done exactly that. He is a repeat offender.
The SPEAKER: The minister responded to an interjection. The minister has 40 seconds to go, and he will confine himself to the topic.
Mr DUTTON: I quoted the member for Kingsford Smith directly. He should withdraw because it was a disgraceful interjection; it was beneath even him. All I would say of this racist attack by the Labor Party is that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Forty one 457 migrants have been employed by unions across this country, and yet, at the same time, these hypocrites, these former union bosses, come in here and try and convince the Australian people of something different. They do not stand for anything, and the Australian public is seeing through this phoney bleat of the opposition. (Time expired)
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. In the interests of transparency, will the Prime Minister tell the House what it is costing taxpayers to engage Dyson Heydon? Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr Heydon's salary is more than the $3.3 million being paid to counsel assisting the royal commission, Mr Stoljar? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Howard government disclosed the salary for Commissioner Cole?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:07): This issue has been extensively canvassed in Senate estimates and it has been dealt with in the same way that questions of this nature have always been dealt with.
I can say that this particular royal commission is well under budget. It is being run prudently and frugally, as you would expect. Again I ask: what are members opposite so scared of? Why are they so terrified of this royal commission which is designed to get to the bottom of rorts, rackets and rip-offs inside the trade union movement? Why is this Leader of the Opposition so terrified? Is he frightened he might be called back before the royal commission to answer—
Mr Giles: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. Rhetorical questions of us have nothing to do with the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: All that members opposite are doing, with this increasingly shrill, hysterical and hypocritical attack on the royal commissioner, is demonstrating how much they have to hide. Based on the evidence before the royal commission so far, there is a very great deal to hide. The Leader of the Opposition himself has been exposed as someone who was supposed to represent workers, but he ripped off the workers to help himself. I say to members opposite: if they have got a problem with the royal commissioner, there is a procedure that can be entered into before the royal commissioner. It is the procedure that was advised to them by the head of the Law Council of Australia. I suggest to members opposite that if they do not like the person who is presiding they can take an appropriate action. That is what they should do. In the meantime, do not smear someone who was a distinguished judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, who was a very distinguished judge of the High Court of Australia and who is doing the right thing by the workers of our country—unlike members opposite.
Shipbuilding Industry
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House of the opportunities available for Western Australian shipbuilders following the government's recent commitment to a continuous shipbuilding strategy? How does this promote jobs and growth in Australia?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Defence) (15:10): I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I commend him on his ongoing strong representation of the people in the northern suburbs of Perth, and I note that he is a former distinguished member of the Australian Defence Force. The decision to implement a continuous naval ship build will benefit the whole country, because, firstly, it provides certainty for the Australian Navy in terms of meeting its future capability requirements; secondly, it provides growth for Australian industry; and, thirdly, it provides jobs for Australian workers—a trifecta of capability for the Navy, growth for industry and jobs for Australian workers. Hence we are bringing forward a number of projects, including the offshore patrol vessels and the future frigates, and that is good news for Australia.
The competitive evaluation process for the offshore patrol vessels will start in October of this year, and that means opportunities for shipbuilders right across Australia, including in the honourable member's home state of Western Australia. In addition, there are supply chain opportunities for businesses right across this country and, of course, huge opportunities in terms of the sustainment of these vessels once they are produced.
This announcement about the offshore patrol vessels is in addition to the recent $2 billion announcement that Australia will build 21 Pacific patrol boats for our neighbouring Pacific nations, and of course they will be built here in Australia and will be sustained for their lifetime in this country.
So what does that mean? It means more long-term, stable jobs for workers in Australia: more boilermakers, more electricians, more welders, more painters, more people who are involved in every aspect—engineers, et cetera—of building ships in Australia, and that is good not just for Western Australia but also for these industries and workers right around Australia.
It is no wonder that a distinguished, prominent Western Australian, the CEO of Austal shipping, Mr Andrew Bellamy, said that there are great opportunities for Australian shipbuilders, including in Western Australia, the honourable member's home state. When I visited the Henderson shipyards in Western Australia recently, there were two frigates up there on the base being repaired by BAE. HMAS Sirius is currently alongside of Henderson. And, of course, we have two high-speed foreign naval vessels being built as well as two Cape class vessels being built by Austal for Australian border protection.
Western Australia has a significant and impressive shipbuilding industry. These decisions will aid that industry and the industry right throughout Australia has been widely welcomed by everybody except the opposition.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker's Panel
The SPEAKER (15:13): Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Boothby to be a member of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER ( 15:13 ): I present Report No. 31 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 7 September 2015. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Defence) (15:14): Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Today in question time the Prime Minister claimed that I wanted to 'create a terrorist picnic in Syria by dropping food parcels'. What I have said on the record is that about 11½ million people, just under half the Syrian population, have been forced to flee their homes, including millions of women and children. Australia can and should be doing more to help victims of Daesh in Syria and in neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. To say this is calling for food drops to Daesh is a threadbare lie, which I corrected yesterday.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Employment
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to protect and invest in Australian jobs.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): This is the worst government in Australian Federation history. Those opposite are addicted to a simple policy: they believe that the mindless, simple repetition of certain words will hypnotise the Australian people into believing that it is actually happening. And nowhere is the lie from this government greater than when it comes to them pretending to be about jobs and growth. Labor will never take a lecture from this mob about the creation of jobs. We will not take a lecture from them, and nor will Australians, about their faux commitment to employment when, since they got elected 700 days ago, unemployment is now at 800,000. Did you see how the so-called leader of Australia could not answer a straight question about how many people are unemployed? Did you see how his mouth went dry, his throat constricted and his eyes darted around the chamber when asked, 'When was the last time there were 800,000 people unemployed in this country?' He knows that it has not been since 1994. This is the worst anti-jobs Prime Minister we have seen in a very long time.
Mr Hockey is fond of saying what unemployment was in the Howard years, but I will remind Mr Hockey about jobs when he took over. Unemployment had a 'five' in front of it; it now has a 'six' in front of it. There are now 188,000 people who are long-term unemployed. There are 800,000 people who are unemployed full stop. There are over one million Australians who regularly record that they would like more hours of work. There are 800,000 people on the disability support pension, people who this government constantly malign and put in the too-hard basket. We see youth unemployment much higher than it should be. We see record highs of unemployment in Western Australia. Since Mr Abbott and his Liberals were elected in Australia, unemployment in Western Australia has gone up by nearly 30,000 people.
Jobs are a problem in this country and the government has no answer to it. Yet on Saturday in Adelaide this Prime Minister got up and said to the party faithful—which is a dwindling number, I recognise—that the government had had 'two great years in government'—that is his summary.
Mr Bowen: I would hate to see two shockers!
Mr SHORTEN: It fills me with horror to imagine what this Prime Minister imagines two bad years of an Abbott government looks like!
But the real problem, if we want to talk about jobs, is that the masterminds of this so-called jobs and growth mirage that this government keeps talking about have been in chaos all this week—and it is only Wednesday. Look at the dysfunction of this government. This week the Prime Minister got out his well-dusted riot act and read it again to his colleagues and he worked strenuously, tirelessly, through an empty cabinet agenda—it was not quite empty though, was it? There was an important note for the team at the bottom of the empty box, the folder box—presumably it was from the ministry of truth, or whatever they are calling the Prime Minister's personal office these days—that said, 'If asked about cabinet leaks, respond that the cabinet is functioning exceptionally well'. How do we know it is functioning exceptionally well? Because they leaked it to us! Who needs Sky to find out what is going on when we have the cabinet ministers.
They are a government that are fond of creating division in this country. Everything that goes wrong for this government, everything they mishandle, they blame on a new confected set of enemies. The unhinged attack on the environment over the last two days has been remarkable. The Prime Minister's latest anti-environment rant saw him say of the EPBC: 'We've got to change the law. The law's bad; the law is a terrible law. I, Tony Abbott, will step up with my shining cross and I will change it and save the people and take them to the promised land on the environment.' The problem is that the law he wants to change was introduced in July 2000. 'Uh oh', you think, 'July 2000? Was that when the socialists were running the government or is that when the communists were running it?' It was actually John Howard running it. Since John Howard introduced the very protection for the environment, the good process, that the Prime Minister is so desperately trying to get rid of, there have been 5,500 projects go through that process. Clearly the Prime Minister is justifying not fixing up the mistake in the ranks of his own ministry. You would conclude that to justify this wholesale onslaught on the so-called law-fare crisis in the environment, to justify this great big new crisis, which demands—probably they will be wearing uniforms next to deal with the crisis. What we have seen is 5,500 successful projects—
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Listen: you have been at Reclaim Australia, enough from you.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will cease interjecting!
Mr SHORTEN: and we have seen 33 Federal Court challenges. Is that the number you just heard me say? Out of 5½ thousand projects under this great epidemic—this conspiracy of the Green-Left-John Howard alliance to ruin Australia—only 33 have gone to the Federal Court, and they have been against a total of 22 projects. That is 33 applications against 22 projects out of 5½ thousand projects—there is a clear crisis here. That is 0.4 per cent for those of you opposite who cannot count.
I will take you through the 33, because, after all, the government said: 'Stop everything, we're the champions of jobs. We're going to clean up this terrible scandal.' I do not know why they do not have a royal commission into it. They say four were discontinued or resolved with the consent of the parties. Okay, well there are still 29. They said six were legally successful, in the sense that the application received a judgement; all the others were unsuccessful. So in fact there have been six successful claims on 5½ thousand projects on a change introduced by John Howard in 2000—this is a crisis. You can see how this has made the otherwise very busy people stop their leaking and drop their pencils and everything else. In fact, in 15 years of this massive jobs crisis, which only Tony Abbott can save Australia from, there has been one project cancelled.
An opposition member: What?
Mr SHORTEN: What did you say? One project.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their proper titles.
Mr SHORTEN: The current Prime Minister. As grand conspiracies go, this has been about as systematic and effective as the CIA's exploding cigar in Castro's face.
This is not about jobs. We know that the Prime Minister simply and utterly does not have a plan for jobs. What you do when you do not have a plan for jobs is start creating false bogeymen and saying, 'We better be careful. We better be scared. Don't get out of bed in the morning because the Greens are under the bed with this terrible section of the act crafted by John Howard.' The government do not have a plan for jobs. They could have fixed this whole issue without spending months going through legislation simply by asking the department to resubmit the document to the minister. The minister could have just checked, because he made an identical mistake some months ago.
When we talk about the jobs plan of the government, firstly, we know that the numbers are horrific under this government.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Are you still here, Member for Dawson?
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will cease interjecting.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson is warned.
Mr SHORTEN: Secondly, we have seen this false conspiracy about the Greens. Then they talk about the failure of jobs and growth. The problem with the government and jobs and growth is that they have had two years to do something about employment. When I listen to this government talk about jobs and growth, I close my eyes and ask, 'Who has been helped by this government?' Is it the auto workers at Holden and Toyota?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: Is it the refinery workers at Gove?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: Is it the shipyard workers in Williamstown and Newcastle?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: Is it the Alcoa workers in Geelong?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: Is it whole communities such as Queenstown on the west coast of Tassie?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: Is it the 100 dock workers at the Port Botany terminal who were sacked by text the other day?
Opposition members: No!
Mr SHORTEN: How does this government care about jobs? What does Senator Abetz, the minister for 'Work Choices lite', he of Dolce and Gabbana fame, have to say? He says, 'Fair enough. Why not sack people by text?' He wishes he had thought of it first.
If we want to talk about the lack of commitment to jobs of this government, let's have a look at renewable energy. Last year the world added 1.2 million jobs in the renewable energy sector. You might think, 'Fair enough. We must have got a portion of that.' No. We have gone back 13 per cent in the last year in renewable energy jobs. Only under this incompetent leader and his incompetent, divided administration could Australia go backwards on renewable energy jobs when the rest of the world is going forward. We know there is only one job that matters in Australia to this Prime Minister—his own.
The government talk about ChAFTA and attack Labor and tell scurrilous lies about Labor's opposition to it. We do believe in trade liberalisation. We do believe in the benefits and that it brings new markets. We get that. But a free trade agreement does not mean signing a blank cheque. By rushing into a free trade agreement, this government is planning to dud Australian workers. It is clear that when it came to land purchases which might be facilitated by ChAFTA this government held the line. They created a new standard. But when it came to labour and people, they sold them out in a heartbeat. They said, 'Don't worry about the fine print. We'll just trust everything. Let's get rid of the safety net. Let's get rid of labour market testing in these IFAs.' This is a government who we know care only about some jobs and not other jobs. Labor like all the upside of this agreement; we just not will not sign on to all the downside of this agreement.
This is a government who have no plan for workers and no plan for quality jobs. They have no plan for skills, no plan for schools, no plan for TAFEs, no plan for universities, no plan for research, no plan for manufacturing, no plan for renewable energy, no plan for good jobs and no plan to attract good jobs in the future. They have no plan except to save their own worthless jobs.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:25): I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment. Once again we hear the Labor Party making all sorts of charges against the government and making all sorts of claims about how the Chinese FTA is going to be bad for Australian workers and about how Labor are so genuinely concerned about the unemployment rate and about jobs for Australians. Once again with Labor, there is a difference between what they say and what they do. Labor, time and time again, come in here and wring their hands and claim the sky is going to fall in, that the government has sold out Australian workers and that only Labor can be trusted with the future of Aussie workers. In reality, there form is so very different. In reality, the facts never actually back up the hollow rhetoric that we hear from the opposition leader or, more broadly, from the Labor Party.
The fundamental facts prove in a comprehensive way that Labor's form when it comes to looking after Aussie workers is pathetic. Labor's form in government saw the unemployment rate go up, not go down. Labor's form in government saw them preside over the loss of some 200,000 jobs. That was Labor's track record after six years. That is before we even start on the situation that Labor left us with with respect to debt and deficit.
This MPI today is about jobs. That is a measure the coalition is proudly benchmarked against every single day of every single week. Our track record of standing up for Australians—I have news for the Australian Labor Party—is so much better than theirs. Unlike the Labor Party, unlike Bill Shorten when he was in the role of government minister and presided over a loss of 200,000 jobs, the coalition government in the two years or thereabouts since we were elected have presided over 330,000 new jobs.
Mr Craig Kelly: How many?
Mr CIOBO: There have been 330,000 new jobs created under the coalition.
What is more, when you compare our track records on governing the nation, we have provided steady economic stewardship. When you talk about creating the right environment for Australian businesses to get out there and employ people, this is a government that have recently invested $5.5 billion in the biggest small business package this country has ever seen.
This government believes in the ability of the small business sector to drive the Australian economy—so much so that it has been able to create a job creation rate that is four times the level that was created under the Australian Labor Party. This is a government that has a job creation rate that exceeds that which has been achieved in every single G7 nation. This is a government that has achieved a job creation rate that has been stronger than that of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is a government with form on creating jobs. I say this to the Labor Party: the simple fact is that Aussies know that as a government we have delivered, and we have delivered in spades. We have delivered 330,000 jobs against Labor's loss of over 200,000 jobs.
The Labor Party do not want to even look at the facts. They come in and run a nationwide scare campaign on the China-Australia FTA. We see the Labor Party in cahoots with the union movement. Every single one of them sitting opposite are all former members of trade unions, all former union hacks that have gotten themselves into parliament as a direct consequence of preselection votes delivered by Labor union members. That is the reason why the Labor Party supports this xenophobic campaign that is being run by the union movement.
It simply comes back to the fact that the Labor Party are so desperate to stand up for the trade union movement that they will fabricate absolutely any charge against the FTA purely for the simple fact that they want to stand up for their union masters. Every single one of these people opposite is in here because of trade union delegates.
Mr Champion: That is right; that is exactly right!
Mr CIOBO: I am glad that they agree so heartily, because we know who pulls the strings on that side of the chamber. When the CFMEU says, 'Jump,' they collectively say, 'How high?' When the AWU says, 'Jump,' they collectively shout, 'How high?' When the ASU shout, 'Jump,' they collectively shout, 'How high?' The fact is that every single one of them is nothing other than union puppets in this chamber that pretend that they are concerned about the national interest.
When it comes to the FTA, you can forgive the fact that the government is a little bit concerned, perhaps even little bit confused, about the fact that the Labor Party like to talk out of both sides of their mouth. We hear that most strongly from the Leader of the Opposition. He is so prone to speaking out of both sides of his mouth that it has actually become his approach to life. We can see the Labor Leader of the Opposition speaking out of one side of his mouth to Julia and a different side of his mouth to Kevin Rudd: 'You've got my support. I am on board with both of you.' And we see it now with respect to the FTA.
The simple fact is that the China-Australia FTA provides every single safeguard that has always been in place under every FTA and that continues to be in place today. When the Australian Labor Party stand up and the opposition leader claims that there are not requirements for there to be labour market testing, that is a complete and utter fabrication. When the Australian Labor Party claim that Australian workers will lose their jobs in order for foreign workers to come into the country, that is a complete and total fabrication. When dishonest members like the member for Bendigo claim that, for example, when electricians come along to fix issues in their homes, Aussies cannot trust the quality of the workmanship, that is a complete fabrication as well.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr CIOBO: Let me explain something to the very ignorant shadow parliamentary secretary opposite, because clearly the Labor Party do not understand the way the China-Australia FTA works or the way the IFA works or the way the 457 visas work. So let's make it really straightforward. I will spoonfeed it to Labor members opposite. The fact is that under a 457 visa, in order for someone to come into the country as a foreign worker, they have to satisfy labour-market testing rules.
Mr Champion: Yes, because we put them in.
Mr CIOBO: Oh, yes—now he says it—because the Labor Party implemented it. So we actually have the Labor Party now saying, 'Yes, we concede that there is labour-market testing.' We have the Labor Party now saying that they concede that there is labour-market testing. Well, why don't you tell the truth with respect to the claims against the China-Australia FTA? The simple fact is no-one, no foreign worker, can come into this country unless labour-market testing has been put in place under a 457 visa. So wake up to yourselves, Australian Labor Party, because the scare campaign that you have been running is hollow, it is false, and the Leader of the Opposition's claims are nothing more than a fabrication.
This government will continue to stand up for Aussie jobs and, most importantly, for Aussie investment. What we know is that the Labor Party will walk away from Australian workers, just like they walked away from the Adani project—a $20 billion project that will create 10,000 jobs, that will provide electricity to 100 million people. Labor walked away from it because they are more concerned and focused on doing what they can to drive a scare campaign, to keep their Greens colleagues onside, to make sure that they do not jeopardise their opportunity to secure preferences in forthcoming elections. Those are the principal drivers for the Australian Labor Party—not the future for one hundred million Indians, not $20 billion worth of investment, not 10,000 jobs. It is all about the Labor Party and their union mates. The simple fact is that Australians know that an investment like Adani—$20 billion, 10,000 jobs—is an investment that requires leadership and protection, and that is what the coalition government will continue to do, in exactly the same way that we will continue to drive investment into this country because we know that investment into Australia creates jobs. For the same reason, we will support with robust policy the strongest small business package and the lowest company tax rate for more than 30 years, because we believe in a bright future for this country, unlike the Australian Labor Party.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (15:35): Well, I barely know where to start. This is a government that has got unemployment with a '6' in front of it, 100,000 more people out of work, 300,000 of them young Australians without any prospect of a future with this government in charge, and we have the parliamentary secretary giving us a lecture on Adani. We know what the true story of Adani is—it was an approval by the Newman government under a Howard government act. So, if this is anybody's omni-shambles, it is yours—it is the Liberal Party's omni-shambles. We know this because Lenore Taylor wrote an article in The Guardian yesterday headlined, 'Abbott government war on green "saboteurs" is Laurel and Hardy slapstick'. That is what we just got from the parliamentary secretary—slapstick, an alternate reality which we are all supposed to subscribe to while those opposite go about their business of chaos and confusion.
I know through bitter experience this government's attitude to jobs and investment. I remember the headline from last year, on 11 December, 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. What happened when they rejected that billion dollars' worth of investment? I can tell you and the member for Corio can tell you what happened: 50,000 jobs in Victoria and South Australia were flushed down the toilet. We are now seeing the consequences of that in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and in the suburbs of Melbourne and Geelong. We are seeing the rejection of a billion dollars' worth of foreign investment from General Motors, from Toyota.
What else have we seen in the southern states? We have seen them export jobs to Japan. How do we know this? The National Security Committee of cabinet signed off on the press releases and on the decision to build submarines in Japan. With that, thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs, white-collar jobs, engineering jobs and design jobs will disappear. That is the reality. Don't trust me—look at the headlines: 'Shipyard closures start with job losses'; or from the ABC, 'Adelaide shipbuilding company ASC expecting more job losses, Senate inquiry told', which went on to say,'266 jobs had been lost from the company in the past three months.' It goes on. The ABC news again: 'Twenty-six shipbuilder workers at ASC told not to come back'. And then there is Williamstown. This is from The Age: 'Abbott government under fire as 125 jobs axed at Williamstown shipyard'.
That is this government's record; it is a miserable record. What are those people—those who are being thrown onto a labour market that is poorly adapted to meet their needs, because this government is asleep at the wheel—told? 'Oh, things are great. Things are terrific. It's wonderful.' They should be doing handstands about how great this government is. Talk about delusions of grandeur! It is also a government that leaks; it is full of inaction. There are attacks on wind farms, the appointment of a wind farm commissioner. Then we get them railing against a Howard government environmental act. There was the decision by the Newman government—they were the ones who stuffed up Adani, not the Labor Party. Don't come in here and point the bone at us: it was your people, your state government, who did it. Why did it fail? It failed under the Howard government test.
Where are we left? I will tell you: we are left with a government that is not functioning—as the cabinet has been told—'exceptionally well'. We have now reached the levels of farce with this government, and we all know it. When your lines leak—and trust me I know this—when people start joking about the lines leaking and everybody is laughing, 'Oh, yes, we had another leak today,' then it's all over. I wish those opposite well with their deliberations on who might replace the Prime Minister. We all know the clock is ticking on him. Sooner or later someone is going to get the majority in the party room, and the 39 will grow to 61 or something like that. And then it will all be over for this Prime Minister, and well should it be, because he has failed on this fundamental question of jobs. That is why this government is descending into chaos and confusion. That is why they should fail.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:41): It is very hard to follow that comedy act. It is very hard to follow all of the show that was the contribution from the member opposite. I am simply going to have to rely on substance here, because substance is what wins the day when we are talking about growing our economy and strengthening jobs in this country.
My colleague who spoke earlier talked about the fact that Labor's record when in government was not very strong. We saw a loss of over 200,000 jobs when they were in office. Contrast that with our record, halfway through our term: we have seen the creation of more than 330,000 jobs. Labor likes international comparisons, so how does that compare with countries overseas? It compares very favourably when compared with the UK: we are ahead of the UK in the number of jobs created. When you compare us to the US, we are ahead of them; when you compare us to Canada, we are ahead of them, too. In fact, when you compare us with any other G7 nation, we are creating jobs—
Mr Champion: Where?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield.
Ms O'DWYER: more strongly than they are. That is our government's record. Job creation over the last year is in fact more than four times the level of Labor in their last year in office. It is the highest level in five years. Why is this job creation so great in this country? It has to do with the fact that we have a plan. We have a plan to increase jobs in this country by creating new opportunities. Those opportunities come in the form of FTAs. We have created the China free trade agreement, the Korea and the Japan free trade agreements, which increase the markets available for our goods and services.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms O'DWYER: If you listened, you might learn something. The goods and services that we export overseas have new markets because of these free trade agreements that we are putting into place. When we are able to export more, we are increasing the jobs available to people back home. Let me give you an example. In my electorate of Higgins there is a manufacturer of infant formula. Under the Korean free trade agreement we will see duty-free quotas for infant formula. This means there will be new markets or increased markets to sell in Korea. Under the Japanese agreement, there are duty-free quotas for these manufacturer milk products. Under the Chinese agreement, we will see a decrease in tariffs on dairy products of up to 20 per cent. This means that the manufacturer of infant formula in my electorate of Higgins will be able to increase their sales and grow the economy and jobs here.
It is not only through the free trade agreements that we are increasing jobs; it is also through our other policies—our small business policies, the company tax cut for small business in the last budget of more than 1.5 per cent. This means that there is more money in these small businesses to grow small businesses. When you grow small business you create new jobs, and that is what is being done right now. We are also cutting red tape, more than $2 billion worth of red tape, which again means that we are focusing on making sure that when businesses are spending money they are spending money on employment, not just spending money on simply trying to get through the morass of red tape that currently exists, and that increased under the previous Labor government.
Finally, we have a $50 billion infrastructure plan where the construction that will take place under this government will lead to new jobs. The real risk comes from those opposite who refuse to put in place protections for workers through the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which will in fact—
An opposition member: Are you talking about protection for workers?
Ms O'DWYER: Protection of workers from the thuggery and intimidation we have been seeing and we have heard about through the royal commission. That has been going on under Labor and it will continue to go on under Labor, which threatens jobs. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:46): This is a very important motion because employment security underpins the wellbeing of a nation. Indeed, it is a key indicator of a strong economy. On that score, members opposite and their government have failed miserably, and the Australian public know it and are saying it in spades. Let me just give you a quick contrast between the previous Labor government and this government. The Labor government managed this country during a period of global financial downturn worse than we had seen since the 1930s, and yet we kept the Australian economy growing, we kept unemployment at modest numbers—indeed, much better than in most parts of the world—and we even kept the national debt to a fraction of what it was in other parts of the world. In contrast, when this government came to power it inherited a stable economy, but while other countries like the UK, New Zealand and USA are rebounding from the global financial crisis Australia is sinking downwards. We have seen that with unemployment now hitting 800,000, with 300,000 of those being young people. We see consumer confidence across the country worse than it has been for years, we see an economy at below trend growth of 2.3 per cent and we see the budget deficit doubled in the last year alone.
The Abbott government has mismanaged the economy, destroyed national confidence and imposed short-sighted austerity measures which are, in fact, failing the Australian people. We have seen billions of dollars cut from programs that go to the heart of jobs growth, productivity gains and efficiencies, scaring consumers and business alike. Indeed, we have seen $2 billion cut from skills programs alone. We have had $3 billion cut from science, research and innovation programs across Australia. That includes $846 million in industry support programs, including successful programs like Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia. One of the worst and starkest stupidities of this government is its rollout of the NBN; a slower, more costly and behind schedule rollout than we would have had under Labor. Everyone in Australian knows that the NBN is vital infrastructure to productivity and jobs growth in this country except members opposite. Indeed, I get it all the time: 'What dopey ministers does this government have that simply do not get the importance of a high-speed NBN rollout to Australia's future?'
Mr Husic: Pretty much the entire cabinet.
Mr ZAPPIA: Absolutely. But it gets much worse than that. We have a government that believed there was no future for the car industry in Australia, killing off not only Holden but also Toyota and hundreds of component suppliers in one fell swoop. Then they destroyed the renewal energy industry, cutting investment in that industry by 88 per cent in 2014 alone. I can tell members opposite that I have spoken to people in my electorate who were affected by those cuts.
And we have seen the Australian government also trashing the reputation of the Australian Submarine Corporation, Australia's largest naval shipbuilder. The previous defence minster said that they could not be trusted to build a canoe. He did not even allow them to participate in the competitive evaluation process for the submarines, and sent the supply vessel contract offshore. There are going to be another thousand jobs lost by Australian naval shipbuilders in this country over the next three years. I have heard the remarks of the Minister for Defence about how they have brought forward contracts to 2018, but 2018 is three years away. People need jobs now, and in the meantime there are going to be another thousand of those jobs lost—particularly in my home state, where those jobs are crucial given that they come on the back of the closure of Holden in 2017.
Again, it does not stop there. We now have a free trade agreement which jeopardises the jobs of Australians, albeit those members opposite are in denial about that. The reality is that it does. Even worse than that, we have legislation that wants to send offshore Australian jobs in relation to Australian coastal shipping. Another clear example of this government not caring one iota for the jobs of Australian people but simply trying to secure jobs for people elsewhere by sending our contracts offshore, by allowing offshore labour to come in and do jobs that we could otherwise be doing and by cutting out the skills training to ensure that our young people could do the jobs that will be coming up in the near future. We have 300,000 unemployed young people in this country, and in my part of Adelaide those figures are around 20 per cent. This government needs to have a good hard look at its policies because its policies, when it comes to unemployment, are failing the Australian people. (Time expired)
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:51): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI on jobs. Politics is an adversarial profession—each side of the chamber works against the other, the idea being that we test each other's ideas and policy through spirited debate and arrive at the best possible outcome for those we represent. The system only works when everyone operates within the same rules, and those rules include telling the truth. The CFMEU has well and truly crossed the line in their xenophobic and mendacious—a term they like over there—campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In bringing them to account for this I need to be careful, because here in this place I am bound by another rule, which is that I cannot, no matter how plainly obvious it is, call anyone a liar. Let me see how else I can explain what has happened.
Many of my constituents have found this flyer in their letterbox over the last few weeks. This flyer was authorised by Michael O'Connor of the CFMEU. On this flyer there are three key points, and each one is stated to be a 'fact'. None of the three points on this flyer are indeed facts. They are not even close to the truth. There is no interpretation of this agreement which could possibly lead anyone to draw the conclusions which Mr O'Connor and his union have presented as facts. I would like to talk the House through these three points of fiction which are being dumped into the letterboxes across the my electorate. The first says:
Chinese companies who invest $150 million or more will be able to bring their own workforces to Australia without having to offer jobs to Australian citizens and residents first.
The CFMEU would have us believe that there will be boatloads of cheap foreign labourers arriving to push Australians out of their jobs. There is absolutely nothing in the China free trade agreement which would allow this to happen. The 457 visa system will remain in place—Australian workers will always get first dibs at jobs in Australia. The CFMEU go on to claim:
Chinese companies will be able to bring in Chinese-produced products with no safeguards to ensure they meet Australian standards.
Pure fiction! There is nothing in this or any other free trade agreement that would allow undercutting of Australian import regulations and nothing that would change Australian safety laws. They go on:
Chinese companies do not have to meet the same labour and environment standards as Australian companies—undercutting our jobs and conditions.
No free trade agreement allows any offshore company to operate in Australia outside Australian law. There is no possible legal instrument, no legislation this parliament could pass, which would allow that to happen. This is not just an exaggeration; this has been pulled from the realms of fantasy. It is not only not happening; it is absolutely not possible. The allegations in this flyer are absurd and unbelievable. It is a discredit to the union movement of Australia. However, this nonsensical pamphlet is not all bad. In fact, I owe the CFMEU a vote of thanks. I am truly grateful that they have included a nice picture of me in this pamphlet, and they have put my name there—you can see there is an arrow there, along with my office phone number. I am very pleased about that. It is great that they are putting their money into raising my profile in my electorate, so I just want to say thank you.
The Australian people know that Labor is against jobs. Australians know that this is a truly xenophobic campaign being run by the unions, and they know that Labor has a choice—they can support the unions or they can support Australians and make sure that we take the opportunity to implement this free trade agreement that can build on jobs and build on growth. The choice is theirs. They can oppose the free trade agreement and risk thousands and thousands of jobs, they can support this xenophobic behaviour of the unions, or they can support real jobs and real growth in this country? (Time expired)
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (15:56): We have heard from my colleagues this afternoon about the enormous impact that the Abbott government has had on jobs in this country and their failure to protect jobs and invest in jobs. We have heard from my colleagues from South Australia about the thousands of jobs that have gone in the shipbuilding and auto industries. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition about the 800,000 who are now on the unemployed queue as a result of this government's complete disdain for workers and its complete lack of a jobs plan for this country. We have heard about the thousands of jobs lost in South Australia and the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost throughout the country, but nowhere has been more affected than here in Canberra. Since this government has been in power, 8,500 public service jobs have been cut in Canberra alone. In the two years that this government has been in power, 17,000 public service jobs have been lost across the country. The government have complete contempt for Canberra, complete disdain for the public service and complete disdain and disrespect for public servants—the servants of democracy. We have seen today the impact that that is having on my community. The government wears those 8,500 jobs as a badge of honour. There have been 8,500 jobs cut in the public service but they do not care about the Canberra community. To them the Canberra community is just a bunch of double-dippers, just a bunch of fat-cat bureaucrats. Canberrans are doing it tough and the figures today in the Financial Review underscore the fact that they are doing it tough. Of the top 100 postcodes at risk of mortgage default there are a number in my electorate: Kambah, another is Tuggeranong, another is Greenway, another is Oxley, another is Wanniassa, another is Erindale—people in my community, in Canberra, are suffering as a result of 8,500 public service jobs being cut by this government. That is just the beginning. There are so many reviews going on right across the public service, who knows where that figure will stop.
Coalition governments have form. We saw in 1996 what they did to my town. I was one of the people who lost their job—one of the 15,000 public servants who lost their job here in Canberra, with 30,000 losing their jobs across the nation. What did that mean for Canberra? It saw us go into an economic slump and it took us five years to dig ourselves out of the hole that was created by a coalition government in 1996—the same hole that they want to create for this community again by cutting 8,500 jobs in Canberra and 17,000 throughout the country. It is an absolute disgrace. They just do not care for the servants of democracy—the people who serve this government; the people who write the ministerial representations, the people who represent you overseas, the people who write your question time briefs and ministerial submissions. The government have shown complete disdain for these people. How do you repay them? You sack them! Eight and a half thousand of them! As I said, it is just the beginning.
I go back to my point about what happened in 1996. Fifteen thousand jobs were lost in this town. We went through an economic slump for five years. We saw business bankruptcies go up. We saw non-business bankruptcies go up. We saw house prices plummet. We saw the population fall. We saw people leave town. As I said, it took us five years to get out of the economic slump that was created by a coalition government. That is the same direction that this Abbott government wants to take Canberra in. Its 8½ thousand public service job cuts are just the beginning.
What does this mean? Look at the figures in the Financial Review today from a review on mortgage defaults by Digital Finance Analytics, whose principal said:
The most difficult thing for a mortgage holder is suddenly losing your job because income goes from a certain level to a lower level and it's quite hard to manage. …
Events across Australia impacting on employment are probably the best leading indicator of the probability of default.
What we are seeing now are these figures playing out in my electorate—in Kambah, in Greenway, in Oxley, in Wanniassa, in Erindale. They are all doing it tough as a result of the Abbott government. It is not likely to get any better in the near future while this mob is still in government. I say to Canberra: get rid of this Abbott government. They mean nothing but bad for you. They have nothing but contempt and disdain for you. Get rid of them!
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (16:01): What a hide the opposition have to come in here and talk about jobs, when all week all we have heard is Beltway stuff. We just heard a lot about Canberra then. That is all we have been hearing from the Labor Party for the last week. It is just Canberra, Canberra, Canberra! It is just insider politics from them, while the government is talking about job creation.
We are talking about something, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I know is close to your heart and close to my heart. We have been talking about trying to get the Carmichael mine back on track. This is a mine that, with the associated rail line, the Abbot Point expansion and the associated indirect jobs that would be created from the project, stands to contribute about 10,000 extra jobs in the North. Ten thousand extra jobs is no small target. But the Labor Party guys opposite have announced today that they are going to oppose measures that we want to take to try and streamline this project and to stop the Greens from waging warfare in the courts against this job-creating development and other job-creating developments. These guys are opposing these measures. They are sacrificing the workers of North Queensland for the cheap and nasty Green vote. That is disgraceful for the Labor Party—but it is true to form.
The Labor Party's national president, Mr Butler, went on the record to say that he does not believe there is a place for coal in Australia. This was the guy who thought that coal should go. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked to respond to one of his frontbenchers, Mr Shorten said:
Are you asking me something should always be the case forever?
in terms of whether coal will continue to be mined in Australia. He said:
I'm not in the position to use a crystal ball …
You do not need to use a crystal ball. You just need to have look at the International Energy Agency report from May, which notes:
Growth in coal-fired generation since 2010 has been greater than that of all non-fossil sources combined, continuing a 20-year trend …
The IEA is a reputable agency. It is backed up by data from the US Energy Information Administration, from our own Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, from Japan's Institute of Energy Economics, as well as from respected private forecasters Wood Mackenzie and the Salva Report. Even gas producers and oil producers like BP and ExxonMobil would say that coal has a bright future. The Leader of the Opposition himself went down to Cessnock about a year ago and told the miners there that we were a mining nation! Yet they come into this place and say they are going to back the Greens and sacrifice the mineworkers of North Queensland for these cheap and nasty Green votes. Shame on them!
That is not all they are going to do to job-creating industries across Australia. They are going to bring in a 50 to 60 per cent renewable energy target.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: That is the policy that was voted on at your national conference. I wonder, Joel, which way you voted, mate! Which way did you vote? Did you cast your vote in favour of the greenies or in favour of the workers? It would have been with the greenies, mate, because you guys are all talk!
If you want to hear from reputable Labor people about this, let us go to former Labor senator John Black, who said that this will play out worse amongst traditional Labor voters in provincial areas where people tend to dig up coal—and I have to tell you: it will. I know, because I represent that kind of area. He said it would be viewed favourably by inner-city green professional people in secure, well-paid jobs—those who are living in the 'goat-cheese circle'. That is now the Labor demographic: the welfare system and the goat-cheese circle! You can stick to the goat-cheese circle, because we will be the ones representing the workers. We will be the ones representing the mineworkers. We will be the ones representing job creation in this country, while you guys block progress.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I want you talk about sugar just once!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: We can talk about sugar, Joel! We are working through free trade agreements and the TPP to get results for the sugar industry—and jobs there as well. I wish you guys would do something about jobs!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (16:06): I am very happy to be contributing to this debate. It is a very important debate. It is really about which side of this chamber cares about jobs. We have a very strong record—a good legacy. When confronted by the global financial crisis we responded—in a way that those opposite would not have responded—to support and defend jobs. There is no doubt that without the response to the GFC by the former Labor government we would have seen up to 200,000 people lose their jobs. Indeed, that is always the case. When it comes to defending workers in this country, it is always Labor that does so. So it is not entirely surprising—it is not surprising at all—that we now have the highest number of unemployed in Australia since 1994. The last time we saw unemployment figures hit 800,000 was 21 years ago. We have an unemployment rate of 6.3 per cent, a very high unemployment rate.
What is also quite disturbing is that what was once the engine room and the powerhouse of our economy, Western Australia, has a unemployment rate higher than the national average. I think it would come as a surprise to many Western Australians they have an unemployment rate higher than the national unemployment rate. That is as a result of the government not having a plan to deliver jobs when there is clearly a transition taking place in our economy. There are significant changes occurring in our economy, not least of all in the mining sector, yet the government has failed to anticipate that change and partner with business and industry to ensure that the people who are soon to lose jobs in that sector will be able to find other opportunities in the labour market. I think that is the concern that workers have. Whether they are in the electorate of Dawson, in regional Queensland or in other parts of this magnificent country, there are people who are really quite concerned about their job prospects.
There are almost 300,000 young people who are unemployed, not earning or learning—almost 300,000 young people. In some areas of this country, we have a youth unemployment crisis. When in excess of 20 per cent of young Australians, more than one in five, are not earning or learning, I would say that was a crisis, because, if you are not in a position to find productive opportunities for young people, what chance do they have in life? What will it mean for their communities, for their families, when those young people are unable to find work?
This government needs to deploy better policies, it needs to engage with industry, it needs to have regional policies in place in areas of high unemployment, it needs to have some local, targeted areas deploying proper policies and it needs to invest in local employers to ensure we see a turnaround in some of those regions. But we see none of that from this government. We were promised a jobs and family budget this year, yet that budget's own forecast says that unemployment will rise to 6.5 per cent. It has already hit 6.3 per cent, but it is forecast to rise even further, and the primary cause of that increase in unemployment is the confidence-killing approach of this government.
Last year, a contractionary budget and rhetoric that was killing confidence—killing business confidence, killing consumer confidence—basically flatlined our economy. Wage growth in this country, wage growth amongst its 11.8 million workers, is at its lowest since figures was first collected. There is almost a wage recession. In some sectors of our economy, the CPI is running in excess of wage growth. That has not happened for more than 20 years. So we have a flat economy; we have very few job prospects and we have, in some parts of this country, a youth unemployment crisis. The government is failing on its watch. The Prime Minister is obsessed with one job, one job only, and that is his own job. And that is the problem. This government is focused on itself, it is divided, it is dysfunctional and it is letting the Australian people down.
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (16:11): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance so that I have a chance to make the good constituents of Barton, and all Australians, understand the fallacy embedded in the statement put by the opposition.
The coalition have always stood up for jobs because we stand by the hardworking people of this country. We believe that, rather than going on welfare, people should work when they are capable of doing so. We believe in hope, opportunity and reward, which is why we were elected in 2013, after six years of Labor waste and sabotage of the country's economic and employment credentials.
The Australian people have had a gutful of the opposition's waste and carelessness. Labor took a wrecking ball to the solid foundations left behind by the Howard government, including a balance sheet with a surplus—a term that is foreign to the opposition. It only took six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government to get us into a financial mess that is costing taxpayers $1 billion a month to repay just the interest on a record debt, with a projected debt of $667 billion and accumulated deficits of $123 billion.
For just under two years, the coalition has consistently worked hard to clean up this mess so that current and future generations of Australians can continue to enjoy our excellent living standards and world-class healthcare system and to contribute to our great country.
Since September 2013, 330,000 jobs have been created and Australian jobs have grown at a rate that outpaces the US, the UK, Canada and every other G7 nation. Job creation over the last year is more than four times the level of job creation in Labor's last year in office. Rather than acknowledging the much-needed work required to fix the mess it created and then shifted elsewhere, the ALP is in complete denial about its failed policies, including school halls, which has become an international policy study of what not to do; the disastrous pink batts scheme that killed people; the world's biggest carbon tax; a huge mining tax; and the billions of taxpayers' dollars wasted on securing our borders against illegal maritime arrivals which created chaos in the seas and led to the lives of men, women and children being lost. I could go on, but I would rather focus on the positive things the current government is doing to protect and invest in jobs.
Since just the beginning of this year, 163,000 new jobs have been created, and the labour market has continued to perform strongly in the first seven months, after a strong 2014. We can expect this to grow even more, as the coalition completed a trifecta of wonderful free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan that will see a surge in trade and commodity exports. Of course, the ALP would rather insist this was a negative thing, even though they tried—and failed miserably—to achieve this when they were in government.
I digress. A recent report commissioned by the government estimates that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement will, when combined with trade deals with Japan and Korea, create an average of almost 9,000 jobs per year and create 178,000 jobs by the time the agreements come into full force in 2035.
Asia is in a phase of unprecedented growth, and the coalition has been able to see this as something for all Australians to partake in so that those who take the risk of creating opportunities are rewarded. Unlike the opposition, the government is encouraging Australians to take on these unique opportunities, which will generate jobs and harness ongoing prospects of doing more business with our regional partners. So it is truly disappointing to see the ALP and unions engage in a xenophobic campaign designed to create false alarm.
In addition, the government has released a historical Jobs and Small Business package in this year's budget, which will see incentives for businesses to reinvest and employ workers. Our measures include a 1.5 per cent cut for small companies, immediate asset deductions for $20,000 or less, measures in place for organisations to hire job seekers, and red tape reduction. For the 13,000-plus small businesses in Barton, this is a most welcome relief to help them stimulate growth and employ locals. These are the kinds of things that protect and invest in jobs. What are the solutions of the opposition? Tax and more tax? Punish entrepreneurs who take a risk, encourage multinationals to go abroad and spend taxpayer dollars frivolously on cheques to dead people?
Under this government, Australia is open for business, and part of that is removing uncertainty for investors. Trade means more jobs. More trade means more jobs. Freer trade means more jobs. The actions of the coalition will result in literally hundreds of millions of dollars of extra benefit to businesses across Australia—businesses which employ Australians. That is how the government is protecting and investing in jobs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The discussion has concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Export Market Development Grants Scheme
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (16:16): Today I table the 2015 review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. Over 40 years, the scheme has helped smaller exporters cover their promotional costs offshore. It is worthwhile recalling that bipartisan agreement across the floor allowed it to proceed, providing invaluable support to development of globally competitive industries.
The scheme has helped grow our economy and increase prosperity.
In 2014-15, Australia's total exports were worth $319 billion.
That is a lot of jobs and a lot of GDP–and not just in the resources and energy sector.
Our service providers, such as the international education and tourism sectors, make very significant contributions to our economy; as evidenced by a nine per cent increase in services exports this year on the previous year.
A four per cent increase in manufacturing exports to $44 billion this year.
We are seeing increases across the board.
International business is increasingly complex and the EMDG Scheme is flexible enough to service this changing landscape.
Global Value Chains
Emergence of e-commerce and digital communications
Complex sales and distribution networks
This complexity is a good way to remind ourselves of why we have negotiated free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. It also explains the significance of trying to ensure that our businesses can work with these emerging trends and developments to our advantage. These things are good things: global value chains, e-commerce and digital communications. They are opening the world, especially to SMEs, in ways that were not even thought possible in the recent past. We need to ensure that businesses have these sorts of tools to exploit them. EMDG is one of those tools.
I appointed Mr Michael Lee as the independent reviewer of the EMDG Scheme in December 2014. A successful career in business has given Michael a unique insight into the challenges of exporting. At my request, he considered the effectiveness of the EMDG in two ways:
Does it increase the number of new exporters, in particular sustainable exporters?
And does it develop an export culture in Australia.
In his review, Mr Lee spoke with a broad range of stakeholders—a very extensive consultation. The breadth and depth of this consultation is evident in this excellent report. He found the scheme remains true to its name: still encouraging the development of markets overseas. He advised it should therefore continue.
I am glad to acknowledge the presence of Mr Lee here today, and Mr Dan Barton, who is also present here today, who was the head of the secretariat. I would like to thank both of these men, particularly Michael, who headed up this review, and of course the team that made up the secretariat.
Over four decades, EMDGs have supported more than 45,000 Australian exporters. Some of them are now household names: Resmed, The Wiggles, the Sydney Bridgeclimb and Casella—exporters of the famous Yellowtail wine. More than half of the finalists in the 2014 Australian Export Awards, for example, were beneficiaries of this scheme—half of the finalists in last year's export awards.
So, thank you, Michael Lee, for a timely review. The government will consider the recommendations carefully and respond to them in due course. I do feel that this report will stand the scheme in good stead for many years to come. It has been a great scheme because it has been bipartisan; it has also been under review constantly during its 50 years. That is the mark of the success of this scheme.
I present a copy of the 2015 review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme entitled Certainty and Confidence—Exports and Jobs for a Changing Global Economyand a copy of my ministerial statement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:21): I call on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak in response to the minister's statement for 4½ minutes.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:21): Labor welcomes the tabling of the 2015 review of the Export Market Development Grants scheme. The Export Market Development Grants scheme encourages small and medium Australian businesses to develop export markets. It was, of course, an initiative of the Whitlam government, in 1974. Like many initiatives of the Whitlam government, the Export Market Development Grant scheme has endured. Fortunately, the Export Market Development Grant scheme has endured with bipartisan support. It has strong support from both sides of politics because it is good for business and it is good for the economy.
The shadow minister for trade has noted before that Labor is disappointed that the Abbott government has not pursued reforms to the scheme which were proposed by the former government. Labor, in government, sought to realign the Export Market Development Grants scheme to support small businesses exporting to East Asian and frontier and emerging markets.
Michael Lee was appointed as the independent reviewer of the EMDG scheme in December 2014. In the course of his review, Mr Lee received submissions from a very broad range of stakeholders. He convened public meetings attended by businesses and individuals, he consulted industry organisations and he met with representatives of state and federal governments. I join with the Minister for Trade and Investment in acknowledging Mr Lee's presence and thank him for his review. I acknowledge also the public servants who worked on the review.
The review contains a number of very important recommendations, and we look forward to hearing from the government about whether it will accept the recommendations that have been made in the course of this review. We will look carefully at the review itself and very carefully at any government response, which we hope will be substantive and timely.
BILLS
Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:24): The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 addresses a classic case of unfinished business which is finally coming to conclusion. This issue of gene technology regulation has bounced around the parliament since 2011 and 2012, and I am pleased to see that this amendment bill is finally putting into effect recommendations that have floated in this space since then.
Gene technology is very important because it is at the forefront of improving agricultural productivity, medicines development, chemicals development and products for our foods. So it is a very regulated space. To put things in perspective, there is a whole network of legislation and regulation—both at the state and federal level—and an intergovernmental agreement which controls this. There was a Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, which was mandated by the intergovernmental agreement. That started back in 2011 and 2012. Here, we are now putting effect to its recommendations.
As well as the Gene Technology Regulator and his office, which is a federal body, there are other federal bits of legislation and bodies with their own sets of legislation. These also form part of the matrix governing gene technology regulation. These are: the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and associated legislation; the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its relevant legislation; Food Standards Australia New Zealand; and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. So, as you can see, it is a highly regulated space. As you know, the coalition government are committed to red tape reduction and efficiency manoeuvres that we can employ in the federally-regulated space. This is part of our red tape reduction, and it follows the recommendations from the forum.
There are very substantial duplications between all these various authorities and the regulator. There are a variety of amendments which address many issues in this space. First of all, they cover issues such as how to manage inadvertent dealings and facilitate the removal of genetically modified organisms and products—whether they were with the intention to be released, incidental observations or without the aim or intention of releasing the products into the agricultural or food space. It looks at the issue of licence variations, low-risk work, the reporting requirements, inadvertent dealings, the requirements for public consultation and how much of the GMO record has to be duplicated. These interventions are very inefficient. They are a direct cost to the departments, which require buildings, staff, and lots of web and bureaucratic activity to do work which is already delivered by other bureaucracies that are in place—namely, the ones that I mentioned earlier. So, if we can streamline that process, happy days for the people that rely on these products, because the space that they occupy requires cost to comply with all of these things. It also reduces the cost to taxpayers, because there are less bureaucrats involved double-regulating the one issue or the one product. So—whether it is vaccines; things like insulin; or genetically modified cotton, canola or soy beans—this space will be much more efficiently administered.
In the licence variation space, this legislation still maintains the requirement to meet your regulatory confines but it simplifies it so that the person applying for a licence variation cannot unreasonably extend the coverage of the existing licence. It also still requires a risk assessment to be made, but it allows existing risk assessments for similar products that would intersect with that variation so that it is not duplicated. You will still have to assess the GMO safety to environments and humans. That goes without saying. The annual reports will be simplified from quarterly to annually. All of these manoeuvres, again, reduce costs. So far we have achieved almost $2½ billion in red-tape reduction manoeuvres over our red-tape reduction program. That is real efficiency for our economy, and for the people who rely on government regulation to get their products to market or into market.
The future of this bill is encouraging, because, I understand, there was bipartisan support and involvement at the state levels and by the other bureaucracies in the forum. So, all in all, it is a sensible bit of legislation which is technical and, essentially, pretty straightforward. I cannot see it as being controversial. I recommend this bill to the House.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (16:31): The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 is a very interesting piece of legislation. I just want to affirm that I support the concept of genetic modification of plant life. We have, over the course of our civilisation, been very actively engaged in the breeding of plants. Indeed, to a very large extent it is that work that has driven civilisation and the whole notion of the production of surplus and the freeing up that that does so that labour can create many other things—some negative but many, obviously, positive.
I certainly do not want to put myself in the anti-GM camp. Nevertheless, I do want to say that I would not be wholeheartedly embracing this legislation at this point. In my view, the legislation contains some potential to reduce the amount of information and understanding we have about genetically modified crops. If we are going to get support for genetically modified crops, I think it is incredibly important that we ensure that there is a very transparent process and that the use of genetically modified crops is able to be properly tracked and analysed. I think there is enormous potential to increase the nutritional value of food through genetic modification. I am also particularly interested in the work that has been done in taking the genes from plants in very arid areas in Africa and marrying those with our crops. As our climate dries, particularly in southern Australia and the south-west of Western Australia, this could be a very positive modification. But I am disappointed that much of that work, from the research that I have seen, seems to be tied up with the herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant genetic modification. Those are the areas that have created concern.
Some of the concerns are, in fact, legal in nature. I am not confident that we really have our legal institutional framework right concerning GM licensing, the impact of the spread of GM into non-GM areas and the rather bizarre and perverse consequences that can occur to a non-GM farmer. Not only does a non-GM farmer find their ability to market their goods as 'GM-free' compromised but also they might find themselves, inadvertently, on the receiving end of an action by the GM seed grower in that they have improperly utilised that seed without a licence, even though it is quite unwitting and, indeed, something that they would not want to have happened. I still think that we do have a major problem around this area.
I have been to some presentations regarding some of the alleged biological problems that might emerge from using, particularly, some of the insect-resistant GM and the impact that this might have on our biology and the biology of the plants. I am not in a position to judge whether the scientists who are putting these views out are totally legitimate. I have certainly had some very vigorous correspondence from people in my electorate on both sides of the story. It may well be that in the case of a scientist such as Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Purdue University his science is not as rigorous as one might like. Nevertheless, I do think we have to keep an open mind here. I am very mindful of a piece of research I read in the last week about the impact that lots of our current plant breeding has had on the nutritional value of crops. In our quest to make fruit and vegetables less bitter, sweeter, because we have not fully understood the biological mechanism and the chemical actions that are precipitated by eating fruit and vegetables, what we are doing has inadvertently resulted in a very significant drop in the nutritional values of those foods. We have been breeding in order to make these goods superficially more desirable but in the process have inadvertently compromised the nutritional value of those foods. So, while people are very quick to jump on the work of Professor Huber, I caution that we must in this area be constantly prepared to research these matters and to keep a watchful eye on the implications of the modifications that we are making.
It is very important for us to ensure that the science is not compromised by the power of the seed companies. As I said, I find it somewhat disappointing that, from what I can see, the vast majority of the genetic modification that is going on is very much led by companies like Monsanto that are also sellers of the herbicides that are being made more usable by these genetic modifications. We accept that genetic modification can be a very positive way of improving the crops that we have available to us, particularly at a time of rapidly changing climate and rapidly increasing populations. As the amount of agricultural area available is contracting and populations are growing, quite clearly we have to do something better and smarter. But I would be very concerned if we were too readily scaling back keeping track of what we are doing. We need to make sure that we do fund independent—truly independent—research into genetically modified products and the impact they may be having, whether it is on our gut flora or on the nutritional value of those crops. And of course we need to ensure that we have a fair legal framework in place so that farmers who do not want to be GM farmers are not finding themselves inadvertently caught up in the legal process. I think it is important at this stage that in our community we ensure there is some reasonable labelling of GM food, because there are people out there who believe that this is important. Just as there as people out there who believe that it is important that halal be notified on products, there are consumers for whom GM is equally important. I think it is good business practice for us to ensure that that market is provided for.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (16:41): I thank the member for Perth and others who have spoken on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 for their very careful submissions. I am very pleased that I am here to sum up on this bill. As we have discussed, it amends the Gene Technology Act 2000 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the genetically modified organisms regulatory scheme. The amendments do not significantly change the framework or policy settings of the act. These amendments were recommended by an independent review of the regulatory scheme, which concluded that the gene technology regulatory system is working well but that a number of changes would improve the operation of the scheme. The amendments decrease the regulatory burden for regulated organisations and help ensure that the regulatory burden remains commensurate with risk into the future. Australia's gene technology regulatory scheme is recognised throughout the world for its rigorous science-based risk assessments and open and transparent approach. The scheme also provides an efficient and effective system for the application of gene technology. These amendments maintain the scheme to ensure that these high standards continue into the future. I commend the bill once again to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (16:42): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:43): I am pleased to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 in continuation from what is now, I think, a couple of months ago. Here is an interesting story about passports. My wife's grandfather—I think the correct term would be grandfather-in-law—came to Australia as a young man after the First World War. He is now deceased. He was originally from England. When he was in his mid-80s his son, my father-in-law, who is also now deceased, decided it would be a good idea to take him back to England to visit the homeland where he was born. They decided to go through the process of trying to get him a passport.
So they went to the passport office to make the normal applications. Having lived here for 65 years since he was 20, having worked and paid his taxes and having been on the electoral roll all those years, when he went to get a passport they could not actually find any record of him entering Australia. They said to him, 'How did you get to Australia in the first place?' He said, 'After the war, I came in on a ship. The ship arrived in Circular Quay, I walked down the gangplank, there was no-one there and I just went on my way.' So he entered Australia just after the First World War without a passport or any documentation and lived his life most successfully here in Australia for, as I said, over 65 years.
But times have changed. We need to ensure the integrity of the close to 12 million passports issued here in Australia. We need to have integrity and security around these documents, and that is what this bill does. Unfortunately, in today's world we have people who wish to harm us and our nation. If we are going to continue to allow the freedom of movement that we do between countries, with the quick and easy movement of people through airports and through customs, we need a passport system that has all the mechanisms in place where passports are issued and maintained to ensure their integrity.
Another thing I would like to discuss on the subject of passports is the increase in the number of Australians who have passports and are using them. If we go back to the year 1976, the first year that the Australian Bureau of Statistics took statistics of the number of Australians making overseas trips, there were 656,000 overseas trips made by Australians. In the last 12 months, that number has increased, from just over half a million, to 9,236,700. So, even if we account for the larger population, an Australian today is eight times more likely to need a passport and to make an overseas trip. I think that is a truly remarkable figure. If we want to provide opportunity to Australians, today you have eight times more opportunity to travel overseas than you did in 1976. I was looking online only a few weeks ago, and today you can fly to Singapore—admittedly from the Gold Coast—for $275. International air travel has never been more affordable, I would suggest, at any time in human history. That gives many more Australians the opportunity to travel and see the world. I believe this is a very, very good thing.
If we look at the change in business travel patterns, our ABS figures measure numbers of people who travel overseas from Australia for either business or conferences. In 1991, the first year the figures were available, there were 328,000 trips made by Australians overseas for either business or a convention purpose. In the last 12 months, that number was 1,122,900. So, since 1991, 3½ more times Australian citizens are travelling overseas for business and conferences—again, a remarkable figure. The number of foreign businessmen travelling to Australia has also increased remarkably. In 1991, 264,600 foreign businesspeople arrived in Australia for either business purposes or a convention. In the last 12 months, that number was 832,500. Since 1991, that is a 214 per cent increase in the number of businesspeople travelling into the country.
What does the future hold for the demand for passports? One thing that is going to drive this economy and drive the demand for international travel is the growth of China. We know that in the last 12 months the Chinese economy expanded by $876 billion. That is the growth, more than twice the GDP of Australia, in the last 12 months. If we as a country are going to provide the opportunities for jobs, for travel and for wealth creation for future Australians, we have an obligation to make sure that our people can tap into that Chinese growth. That is, thankfully, what the free trade agreement that we are in the process of finalising with China will do. We see that total direct trade with China now contributes 5.5 per cent to Australian GDP. In fact, one in 58 Australian workplaces is directly involved with exports to China. We look at the enormous growth in our exports. Many people walk around Australia and it is a common thing for people to think that everything is made in China, from clothing to computers to footwear. We bought $50 billion of imports from China in the last year. However, although we have imported an amazing amount, $50 billion worth, of goods and services, we have actually exported twice as much. We Australians export twice as much to China as we import. In the last 12 months, $100 billion of goods and services were exported from Australia to China. We see, in a paper by the Australian National Bank and the Australian Business Council, the growth in the number of jobs that that has created. I will give some of the numbers. In 2004, 60,000 Australian jobs were directly due to exports to China. In 2011, the last year figures are available for, that number was 194,000. That number now would be well over 200,000 jobs.
It cannot be more simple. The free trade agreement that we have signed with China, as all the economic modelling shows, will create more jobs, create higher wages and create more wealth and more opportunity to this country. It is simple, as it has always been. Trade means jobs, and freer trade means more jobs. Unfortunately we have seen in this country—and it is currently continuing—the most disgraceful, xenophobic, union-led campaign. It is a campaign that has known economic vandalism and is verging on treason against this free trade agreement.
We note the costs of delays with the Labor Party sponsoring this union-led campaign. There are risks and I will provide some of the numbers. The National Farmers Federation says that, if it is delayed beyond one year, the cost to rural communities will be $300 million. The red meat industry stands to lose $100 million. The dairy industry will have an $80 million loss. The wine industry will lose $50 million. The grain industry will lose $43 million. The coal industry—and I note the member for Hunter, who represents a large area of the coal industry, is here —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): Order! The member will resume his seat. I give the call to the member for Hunter.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I certainly am, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very strong supporter of the coalmining industry. I have been very patient, as have you—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Fitzgibbon: On relevance. Obviously we are on a passports bill, and the member has spoken about nothing else but free trade agreements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order has been heard. I ask the member to return to his seat. I would ask the member, who only has a minute and a half left, to move back to the principles of the bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will abide by your words. The demand for passports—and that is what this bill is about—specifically relates to our relationships with overseas countries. If we open up and give our people the opportunity to take advantage of the growing Chinese economy, there will be greater demand for passports. Therefore, this is exactly relevant.
I know the member for Hunter, who represents a coal area, would be interested to know that a delay in this free trade agreement would cost $4.6 million a year. I know the member for Hunter might be embarrassed about it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to return to his seat. This better not be a point of order on relevance. We have already dealt with that. I give the call to the member for Hunter.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, did you say, 'It had better not be'? Is that what you just told me?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said that it had better not be about relevance. We have already dealt with that.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the member is defying your instructions to return to the point of the debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. I believe the member has adjusted his speech quite appropriately. I give the call to the member for Hughes.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know it is a great embarrassment to the member for Hunter. I would hope that he would at least show some leadership on his side of the House and condemn this CFMEU-led union campaign, this xenophobic campaign, that actually is treasonous to our nation. (Time expired)
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:55): I will speak to the point of this topic and to the bill that is being debated before the parliament at the moment, the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015, and offer that Labor and I support the passage of this bill. The bill comes about as a result of a review of Australian passports legislation, and it amends the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security Act) 2005 and makes some minor consequential amendments to a number of other acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005.
Labor, of course, welcome legislation that strengthens and improves the integrity of our passports and visas system, and we believe that this bill does that. Labor, in government, made a number of changes to the passport system including the introduction of the N Series of passports which feature the additional forward countermeasures of the ghost image, a retro reflective floating image and images of Australia printed throughout the document, which made every passport page and every visa page unique. This resulted in a passport which was very difficult to falsify through page substitution or through tampering.
We are all aware of the fact that, in recent times, people have been attempting to tamper with passports, and have been attempting, through some very sophisticated measures, to tamper with and, indeed, counterfeit passports. There have been quite highly sophisticated and well documented cases of this occurring. Even highly sophisticated documentation and safeguards will not stop brazen fraudsters from attempting to tamper with these documents. On 18 May of this year the Herald Sun reported that, in the past three financial years, 65 Australian passports had been suspected of being forged or tampered with and 114,000 passports had been reported as lost or stolen.
On occasion a person reports a passport lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled in order to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. There are people who attempt to manipulate the travel document and passport system in the country so as to disrupt the travel plans of another person. Unfortunately this is most often the case of separated parents where one parent is attempting to travel overseas, in particular to take a child of the relationship overseas, and the other parent seeks to disrupt those legitimate travel plans. That is something that will be dealt with by these reforms. It is a sad fact of the system and a sad fact of circumstances when parents try to manipulate the system for their own personal gain. Under this legislation and under this amendment, which came about as a result of a review of the operation of passports and travel documents, this was one of the issues that was raised in that review. Under this amendment, making a false or misleading statement in respect of a travel document or a passport will be an offence if the statement is made on or about an Australian travel document or an application for an Australian travel document.
Another 24 passports in the last three years were alleged to have been used by people attempting to impersonate the identity of a genuine passport holder. In circumstances that we are currently witnessing throughout the world, particularly in respect of the rise of Daesh in the Middle East and individuals seeking, for reasons unknown to me, to travel to the Middle East and participate in some of the activities of Daesh, we have seen cases of not only Australians but also other nationals throughout the world attempting to use either counterfeited or fraudulent documents, or indeed to impersonate others, in order to leave the country for those purposes of travelling to the Middle East to be involved in fighting or at least to be involved in the activities of Daesh.
We saw a dangerous example of this just last year, when Ahmad Saiyer Naizmand left Australia on his brother's passport after his own passport had been cancelled for security reasons. Here we saw someone who this legislation is specifically aimed at attempting to stop leaving the country. It is a sad case, because we all know that that person did go on to the Middle East to attempt to work with Daesh and become involved in so-called foreign fighting. This individual used his brother's passport. His had been cancelled some months earlier, for good reason, it now appears. He was exactly the person police and security authorities were attempting to target as someone who may be susceptible to these sorts of activities and may seek to leave the country for these activities; yet he got around the system. He did that by using his brother's passport and basically faking his identity.
These reforms are aimed at ensuring that that cannot occur. That is why they have the wholehearted support of myself and the Labor Party. The integrity of our passports is crucial for individual Australians who rely on them for safe travel and as an important means of verifying their identity. In these days of heightened security concerns and increasingly sophisticated international criminal syndicates, Australia's passport security is paramount. I have mentioned some of the cases of counterfeiting and tampering with documents and also attempting to imitate others.
This bill does a number of other things. One of them is that it aligns the definition of parental responsibility more closely with that of the Family Law Act to provide more certainty surrounding the issue of who is required to consent to a child's passport or travel document. This goes to the issue that I mentioned earlier in my remarks about parents attempting to manipulate the system by attempting to stop or tamper with the efforts of others to travel overseas with children. It came about as a result of a review of the operation of these provisions.
As a result of these reforms and this bill, the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: firstly, parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who, under a court order, have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons with guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child under an Australian law. Persons or individuals who have a court order to spend time with or enable access to a child, but who do not have parental responsibility, will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. Again, this came about as a result of the review and is attempting to deal with those cases of people with 'spend time with' orders or 'access to' orders attempting to disrupt the travel plans of those who may seek to leave the country with a child.
It is also important to note that these amendments do not remove the requirement contained in the Family Law Act for a person taking a child overseas to seek the consent in writing of all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to the child or all other parties to proceedings for the making of a parenting order in relation to the child. That aspect of the operation of the law in respect of consent by parents regarding the travel of children overseas will remain the same.
The bill bolsters Australia's strong passport security protocols and it also ensures that the minister retains power to issue travel-related documents and specifies the circumstances in which a document can be issued. The explanatory memorandum goes through those circumstances in which the minister may issue a travel document. The power to issue the travel document is still retained by the minister, but the bill expands the circumstances in which that travel document can be issued. Those circumstances are the lawful extradition of a person to or from Australia; the lawful deportation or removal of a person to or from Australia; and the lawful prisoner transfer of a person to or from Australia. This reform is meant to deal with circumstances in which a person may be under an extradition order with a country with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The person may be subject to a deportation order because of a criminal conviction or the like, but that person refuses to sign for or make an application for a travel document. Currently, the power for the minister to issue that travel document, to ensure that the transfer occurs, is somewhat limited. This amendment will deal with that, granting the minister, in those circumstances, the power to issue those travel related documents.
Importantly, all of the powers of the minister are merits reviewable, principally by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An important element of an administrative review of executive decision, with respect of the cancellation of a passport or travel document or the issuing of a travel document in circumstances to facilitate an extradition or transfer, will be reviewable by the courts.
In summation, these reforms come about as a review of the operation of the Passports Act. We believe they strengthen the integrity and operation of the issuing of passports and travel documents. They do not affect the operation of the family-law provisions, in respect of parental consent, but they do bolster circumstances in which the minister can cancel or review a travel document and order or issue travel documents for the deportation or extradition of Australians to or from Australia. On that basis, we believe that they strengthen our security protocols and ensure that our system of operation of passports and travel documents is strengthened. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (17:09): I rise to speak briefly on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 and, in so doing, endorse and echo the comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith and thank him for his support. This bill is the result of a standard 10-year review of Australian passports legislation. Passport technology has progressed since the Australian Passports Act was enacted in 2005. E-passports are now common, with an embedded chip storing basic personal information, such as a passport holder's name, sex, date of birth, nationality, passport number and passport expiry date. They also store a digital photograph of the passport holder's face.
The introduction of ePassports has made Australian passports among the most difficult in the world to counterfeit. In addition to ePassports, automated SmartGate border checks have been introduced at most international airports, in Australia, that utilise the information contained in ePassports to facilitate faster and more efficient border processing.
With the passage of time and changing technology, amendments contained in the bill are evolutionary—not revolutionary—and seek to update and clarify existing legislation. Broadly, and in addition to minor amendments, to the bill makes amendments in respect of four areas. Firstly, it will provide that a travel document may be issued to a person on the minister's own initiative in certain circumstances. Secondly, it will align the definition of parental responsibility more closely to that of the Family Law Act. Thirdly, it will provide that the minister may refuse to process a passport, on reasonable suspicion of fraud. Finally, it will clarify and extend offence categories relating to fraudulent conduct, in respect of Australian travel documents.
The first set of amendments addresses a scenario in which a person is to be deported from Australia, extradited to Australia or subject to an international prison transfer. Currently, an individual must consent to the issue of an Australian travel document, and there is an unclear legal basis for the government to issue a travel document on an individual's behalf without their consent. Consequently, it is possible for Australian citizens subject to such orders to delay proceedings, which places Australia in breach of its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation. The amendments contained in this bill allow, in these limited circumstances, for the minister to issue travel documents on behalf of an individual. This will allow Australia to meet its international obligations and will reduce procedural delay.
The second set of amendments relate to consent in the issuing of passports to children. This can be a complex matter in circumstances of family break-ups and divorce. Under existing laws, parents who do not have parental responsibility under the Family Law Act but who do have a court order to spend time with or have access to a child are required to consent to a child having a passport. The effect of existing arrangements is that such a person is afforded more parental responsibility under the Australian Passports Act than they are under the Family Law Act.
This bill ensures that persons who do not have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for a child are no longer required to consent to the issuing of a passport to that child. This will make it easier for children in difficult family environments to be issued with a passport. Deputy Speaker Whiteley, I am sure you, like me, have many constituents panicking in the Christmas holidays when they realise they have not made the necessary arrangements. A key point to note is that it remains an offence under the Family Law Act to take a child overseas without consent from all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to a child.
The third set of amendments relate to cases in which it is reasonably suspected that applicants have engaged in fraud or dishonesty in the process of applying for an Australian travel document. In such cases, this bill provides that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application.
The provisions in this bill send a very clear message that fraudulent activity in the application for Australian travel documents will not be tolerated. The decision will be reviewable, and a refusal to process a passport application does not necessarily prevent a person from being issued with a travel document. However, in such cases, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.
I turn now to the fourth category of amendments. Although advances in technology have made counterfeit of travel documents more difficult, it remains vitally important that the integrity of the Australian passport system is maintained. To this end, amendments in this bill clarify existing offences and add an offence to target the making and providing of false Australian travel documents.
One amendment specifies that the existing offence for damaging or destroying an Australian travel document be extended to include the manipulation or tampering of a travel document, with specific reference to the chip embedded within the document. This amendment will make it clear that it is an offence to tamper with the chip of a travel document, improving our ability to track down and prosecute people suspected of fraudulent activity.
The bill addresses cases in which a person has maliciously reported a passport as lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. It also addresses cases in which a person fraudulently collects someone else's travel document using false identity documents. Such behaviour will now be classified as an offence.
Other amendments of a minor nature are also made. As an example, the bill tightens restrictions on the names and signatures that appear on travel documents. It will now be clarified that unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive names or signatures can be refused by the minister. Examples include names or signatures that are obscene, a racial or ethnic slur, a political slogan or could mislead people into believing that the bearer has been conferred an award, title or decoration.
Australians love to travel, and currently there are more than 10 million issued passports. The amendments proposed in this bill reflect the changing nature of international law, the changing nature of family relationships and the changing nature of passport technology and attempts to circumvent or replicate it. Collectively, these amendments strengthen the robustness of Australia's travel document system and reinforce Australia as a world leader in passport control. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:16): Is there a more important debate than this debate about the provision of identity documents for Australian citizens in the current climate of international unrest and uncertainty. In particular, we have the battle against extremism and we have a significant number of Australians who are engaged in parts of the world and committing a criminal offence. For those reasons, we have a very rigorous debate about the integrity of the Australian passport system. While we have some of the best technology in the world, there is still no doubt that the issuance of identity documentation to Australian citizens remains a matter of great concern to the Australian people. Obviously, not everyone has a passport. Obviously, people who are single nationals may still find that, when they are travelling around the world, their passports can be cancelled. But our international agreements mandate that we issue identity documentation for those who wish to return to their nation of citizenship. That is probably the most controversial area that we are currently debating. The issue of dual citizenship has had plenty of ventilation. There is plenty of controversy in how we and other developed economies deal with dual citizens engaged in these types of activities. This debate brings us to the individual who has single citizenship, a single nationality, who is in possession of a passport that may well be cancelled for a number of reasons and to our obligations to bring them home. I would like to talk a little more about that later.
This bill has a few common-sense amendments, and one area of great interest to the Australian people is the issuance of a passport to children in situations where there are dual carers and people with dual responsibility but not travelling as a family. This has consistently been a problem. We need to identify who the primary carer is and whether the second parent has a legitimate caring role and whether they can refuse the issuance of a passport. This has been an area of great concern to families in my electorate, and I am glad to see that this bill starts to clarify the obligations to obtain parental consent for both parents, including the one who is not the principal carer. The bill also gives the minister increased powers to refuse to process a passport on the reasonable grounds of fraud. Those improvements have been vitally necessary.
I would like to move back to the issue of greatest concern, which is the proof of identity documentation that is currently issued. This is effectively a form of passport, but it is used for a single trip home for someone who has had a passport cancelled; it is often used where, for a range of offences, someone needs to be brought home to the country. We know that, right now, this is not an endemic problem around the world but one specifically pertaining to nations bordering Syria and right. We know that, even as we speak, there are people approaching consulates and embassies in those neighbouring countries seeking to return home but obviously also well aware that they may have contravened Australian law during their travels. Without going into individual cases, we know that these individual's number in the hundreds.
We have spoken before about the challenges for law enforcement officials and Border Force and border protection officials in being able to ascertain the degree of risk in bringing these individuals home. If you can mount a case prior to their return, it is a fairly simple matter. In those sorts of cases, you will often find that individual obtaining legal representation, approaching an embassy and dealing with Federal Police at the time. But the far greater concern, the much larger security concern, is Australian citizens who have travelled to these proscribed areas and are now attempting to return claiming that they have not been involved in anything that breaks Australian law. We have a significant risk of radicalisation in allowing these individuals to come home without every power being given to our Border Force officials to identify exactly what they have been doing. In many cases you simply need time. Proof of identity documentation is often provided a few days after a passport has expired and it is clear that a significant case cannot be mounted against these individuals.
But I think in these circumstances that we are facing it is a way more important issue than that: Australians should not have to move amongst those who have been radicalised if there is a way of further establishing exactly what they have been doing overseas. In many cases, that is going to require bilateral arrangements with neighbouring nations, most of whom are our allies in the fight against terror. We need to ensure that those Australians are fully investigated before they return home. It is a simple request. This is not a refusal to issue that documentation; it is merely a delay while adequate information is collected. In many cases, that does not involve going into a proscribed area and collecting that data. In many cases, it is going to require other refugees crossing the border into Turkey, Syria and other nations and providing some of that corroborating information or former combatants having their stories matched to make sure they are giving a full account of their time overseas. This will probably be the most significant challenge that we will face in passport and proof of identity legislation, and I hope that that will be looked at in the case of single citizens.
Going back to this bill, the highest integrity of the Australian passport system is absolutely vital. These legislative provisions have to meet the user and operational needs. They have to be of the highest quality—world standard—to reduce, where we can, the risk of forgery and make sure that outdated references are addressed and the policies are kept up to date.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Defence) (17:22): Australian passports are among the most secure and trusted travel documents in the world. The government is committed to maintaining the integrity and security of Australian passports in the interests of all Australians. This ensures that Australians are accepted at borders across the world and gives other countries the confidence to provide visa-free access to facilitate Australians' travel. To achieve this, Australia continuously strives to improve all aspects of the passport system through innovation and administrative and legislative change. This is essential, with more than 1.8 million Australian passports issued last financial year—the most ever—and with 54 per cent of Australians having a passport.
Australia is a leader in passport innovation. In 2005, Australia was one of the first countries to introduce the ePassport—a passport with an electronic chip. This was a quantum leap forward in the security of the passport system. In 2014, the government released a new generation of Australian passports, the P series. The P-series passport includes a number of security enhancements: a new, state-of-the-art, colour floating-image laminate, with several optical and physical security features and a new stronger, lighter, faster chip. These innovations mean our passports are more resilient and impossible to forge without detection.
The security of the Australian passport owes as much to the strength of the passport-issuing process as to the security features of the passport booklet. We have in place stringent identity-proving requirements, to the highest international standards, and we are leaders in the use of facial recognition to help prevent the acquisition and fraudulent use of Australian passports.
In addition to the amendments in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015, a number of separate reforms to the Australian passport system are being progressed to achieve deregulatory savings for Australians and further protect the integrity of Australian passports, including removing penalty fees for lost and stolen passports to encourage their immediate reporting and cancellation, to help prevent fraud, and simplifying passport application forms.
As part of our continual efforts to improve the Australian passport system, we have proposed a number of amendments to the passports legislation in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. The bill seeks to refine and clarify the legislation and to strengthen the government's ability to respond to unlawful activity in relation to Australian travel documents.
The bill includes four principal amendments and various minor and technical amendments. First, the bill provides for the issue of a travel document to a person, on the initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to facilitate a lawful requirement to travel. This provision is limited to the following circumstances: to effect the lawful removal, deportation or extradition of a person to or from Australia or to effect international prisoner transfer.
Second, the bill will align the definition of 'parental responsibility' more closely to that in the Family Law Act 1975. Those persons who do not otherwise have parental responsibility for a child but under a court order can spend time with, or have access to, a child will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport.
Third, the bill provides that the Minister for Foreign Affairs may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application. This provision does not prevent a person from being issued a travel document if they submit a fresh application with the correct information.
Last, the bill modifies the existing offences framework in the Australian Passports Act and adds a new offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. The new offence will target persons who make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that those documents may be used as if they were genuine. These amendments are necessary to deter and respond to increasing fraudulent use of travel documents and the wider implications of such activity in enabling serious crime such as terrorism, drug smuggling and people trafficking.
The government is also tabling two amendments to the bill. The first amendment addresses a drafting error. The bill currently excludes from merits review a decision to refuse to issue a travel related document on the minister's own initiative to facilitate a lawful requirement for a person to travel. The amendment removes that provision and instead excludes from merits review a decision to issue a travel related document on the minister's own initiative, consistent with the policy intent as set out in the explanatory memorandum for the bill.
The second amendment enables a merits review for a decision to refuse any name or signature of a person that the minister considers to be unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive. It is appropriate that this decision is subject to merits review, as it is discretionary and affects the interests of a person.
In conclusion, this bill seeks to refine and clarify the existing passport legislation that has stood us in good stead for the last 10 years. It seeks to protect the Australian community by preventing and deterring the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents and related crimes. The Australian passport is unquestionably the most important identity document in Australia. It is held in high regard around the world. It is critical that the government ensure that this does not change. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Defence) (17:28): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
Mr ANDREWS: I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 51, page 13 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item, substitute:
51 Paragraph 48(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) a decision to issue an Australian travel document, other than:
(i) a decision made under paragraph 9(1A)(b); or
(ii) a decision to issue an Australian travel document to a child;
(2) Schedule 1, item 52, page 13 (lines 16 to 24), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 8), after item 55, insert:
55A After paragraph 48(h)
Insert:
(ha) a decision under subsection 53(4) to refuse a name or a signature;
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Defence) (17:29): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule3A—Finance
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013
1 At the end of Division 2 of Part 4 ‑1A
Add:
105BA Future submarine project tender process
(1) This section applies if the Commonwealth (including a Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth) proposes to enter into a contract (a submarine design and building contract) for the design and building of a submarine, or a substantial part of a submarine, as part of the future submarine project.
Note 1: The future submarine project is designated SEA 1000 in the Defence Capability Plan as in force on 1 December 2014.
Note 2: This section does not apply to contracts for research, concept or preliminary design, planning or other preparatory work that does not involve the building of a submarine or a substantial part of a submarine.
(2) The submarine design and building contract must not be entered into other than as the result of a limited tender process conducted in accordance with the Defence Procurement Policy Manual as in force on 1 December 2014, subject to this section.
Tender process
(3) The future submarine project is taken not to be an exempt procurement for the purposes of the Defence Procurement Policy Manual.
(4) A person or body is not eligible to bid for the tender unless the person or body gives the Commonwealth an undertaking that the submarine building, maintenance and sustainment will take place in Australia.
(5) The Commonwealth must not enter into a submarine design and building contract in relation to the future submarine project unless the Commonwealth is satisfied that the contract includes guarantees that:
(a) the majority of work on the submarine build will be undertaken by Australian labour; and
(b) the majority of the materials used in the submarine build will be sourced from Australian suppliers.
(6) This section ceases to have effect at the end of 30 June 2020.
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:31): The Labor Party support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015 and we will facilitate its passage through this House and the other house. We support this bill because this bill facilitates Australia joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Labor Party have said consistently that Australia should join this bank. We were saying this consistently way before the government. While the cabinet was in meltdown, while the foreign minister was arguing with the Treasurer and while the Prime Minister was dithering about whether to join this bank, the opposition was saying very clearly that it was an easy decision—Australia must join. Australia should join this bank because it is the right thing to do. Australia should join this bank because China has shown leadership in setting up this bank and the rest of the word should join. But the government dithered; the government could not make its mind up. The foreign minister said we should not join, for reasons known only to herself. The Treasurer, to give him credit, knew that we should join, but he could not carry the day in the cabinet. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I were of one mind immediately—this was an easy decision. This is a great opportunity for Australia. It is a good opportunity for the world to come together to deal with the infrastructure gap in Asia and to work together on the development of Asia. But, no: while the Labor Party was lending bipartisan support to this from last October, the government could not make up its mind.
I was amused to see in the second reading speech the Treasurer boasting:
On 29 June this year, I gave effect to the government's commitment to join the AIIB by being the first person in the world to sign the bank's articles of agreement in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. My signature was followed by those of representatives of 49 other countries.
He was boasting that we were first. Well, he was the first to sign because Australia comes first alphabetically. That is why his signature was first; it is nothing for him to boast about. We could have been one of the first countries to join the bank when China invited the rest of the world to join. We could have been a leader, but instead under this government we are followers. We had to wait for other countries to join and then we decided to join afterwards. We joined after the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, India and Singapore—all of these countries showed leadership. Australia could have been in at the ground floor. It could have been in working with these other countries, setting the bank up, but, no, we had to wait to see what other countries like the United Kingdom would do. I thought we stopped letting the United Kingdom make Australian foreign policy decisions about 70 years ago, but under this Prime Minister and this government apparently we still wait for instructions from Westminster. We know this government is dysfunctional but its dysfunction impacts on policy. Here we had cabinet dysfunction impacting on policy and Australia missing a golden opportunity to come in at the ground floor and join this very important bank.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will fulfil a very important role. There is a significant gap in infrastructure around the Asian region—around $8 trillion over the next decade is the widely agreed figure, which is a figure I certainly agree with. The bank represents an opportunity for countries of the world to come together and pool funds, and to provide authorised capital so that the bank can facilitate infrastructure investment. We will have a very substantial shareholding of about US$3.7 billion. I note that the second biggest shareholder in the bank is India at about US$8.3 billion and a share of 7½ per cent. Our shareholding is substantial, as is appropriate. This is not a matter that will be reflected in budget figures, but it is an appropriate shareholding for us to have as a very significant economy in the Asia-Pacific region. We certainly support Australia's involvement and we will facilitate, in every sense possible, Australia being as involved as is possible because we should be. But we should have shown much greater leadership than we did. We should have shown the leadership of a nation that understands the opportunities of Asia.
There has been a lot said about China in recent days in this chamber and in the public debate. There has been a lot of lecturing going on from the dispatch box opposite about China and how we need to work better with China. We are not going to take any lectures from a government which for months got this key strategic decision on China so wrong, a government which could not even make a simple decision to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They have the gall to come in here and lecture the Labor Party about how to do business with China when you have had the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, consistently saying since last October that this is a no-brainer, this is an easy decision. If we were in government, if we were in the cabinet, we would have signed up straight away because it was an opportunity to take. Members opposite need to understand what a strategic error they have made and the leadership this captain's pick of a Prime Minister has made waiting for other countries to show leadership and sending a signal to China that we just do not care about their development.
Mr Simpkins: What is your position on the FTA?
Mr BOWEN: Our position is that we should be joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is a position we adopted last October and that the government were dragged kicking and screaming to. The government showed such lack of interest and such a lack of foresight that they could not make a decision to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is the sort of economic leadership we are seeing from this government.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! The member for Cowan should not interject.
Mr BOWEN: China did not need to create this multilateral institution. China could have said, 'We are developing a bank and we are going to invest in ourselves,' but China made the decision to work in partnership with the rest of the world and to invite other nations—and not just Asian nations but nations from the rest of the world, such as the United Kingdom, France and others—into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is a good thing.
Countries from the rest of the world have noted and supported this development. Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are joining this particular bank—as they should. We welcome their participation. But it would have been a whole lot better if this government had shown more leadership and had realised the opportunities available from joining the bank rather than dithering for months and missing the opportunity to invest in infrastructure in the Asian region.
We all know about the opportunities of living on the edge of the world's fastest growing region. We know about the burgeoning middle class in Asia. We know about the increased demand for protein and Australia's agricultural goods in particular. We know about the opportunities in services—financial services and others—being exported to Asia. We know we have the skills and the capacity in Australia to export so many more services. Australia's financial services are highly developed. The fourth largest pool of funds under management in the world is in Australia, but we do not manage the funds of Asia. Around five per cent of the funds under management in Australia come from overseas. We could be doing so much better. Australia could be a financial services hub. But it would take complete engagement with the Asian economy to be so. You do not reach that sort of engagement when you have a cabinet which cannot even decide to join an important multilateral institution such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This government are so dysfunctional that they spent months arguing about whether to take up the golden opportunity to participate in a new multilateral institution.
This is not to say that the other institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank, are not worthy of continued engagement. They have different tasks at hand, as does the International Monetary Fund. They have different tasks to conduct. But the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank fills a gap. It fills a hole. It is right and proper that the fastest growing region in the world have its own institution devoted to infrastructure investment. It is right and proper that we, such an important economy in the Asia-Pacific region, be involved and a member.
So of course the Labor Party will give wholehearted support to this bill. We will give wholehearted support in the other house as well. But we will take the opportunity to point out that these are opportunities which were presented to Australia last year which the government was dragged kicking and screaming to embrace. We are not going to have the Treasurer boasting that he was the first person in the world to sign the articles of agreement. By virtue of the serendipity of the alphabet, the Treasurer was given the honour of being the first to sign. He has come to the dispatch box and said, 'Look at me: I was the first person in the world to sign!' But he was almost the last person in the world to sign up. He may have been given the honour of being the first person in the world to sign the articles, but he was the last person in the world to sign up to the bank. That is because he was hamstrung.
I am not critical of the Treasurer in this regard. Sometimes I am critical of the Treasurer, but I am not critical of the Treasurer in this regard, because he knew we should sign. He saw the opportunities. But he could not carry the day in the cabinet. He was nobbled by his Prime Minister. He was undermined by his foreign minister. He was not allowed to pursue and progress signing up to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. He was not able to deliver what he knew was in our national best interest.
We have heard a lot of flummery about how we need to have better conditions and better governance. That is just flummery and an excuse—a dishonest one, at that—for months of inaction. The government have not progressed changes to the governance. To suggest otherwise is just wrong. What they have done is buy time, and they have been shown to be lacking in leadership. They have allowed other countries with much less to do with Asia than us to join before us. The United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy all signed up before Australia. They all indicated their support before Australia.
When these institutions are being developed, the early days are very important. People who are members early are able to influence the development of the institution. Australia lost that opportunity. We lost that opportunity on the watch of the Treasurer. It was not his fault but the fault of his Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the rest of the cabinet, who showed a singular lack of leadership on this matter. So let us not have any lectures from members opposite in their remarks which will follow about Asia and China and the importance of the Chinese economic relationship, because they have completely mismanaged this matter. They missed the opportunity for us to join this bank as an early adopter. This government completely got it wrong.
We welcome the backflip. We welcome the fact that they have finally signed and have finally taken up the leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me on behalf of the Labor Party. They have finally got it is that this is a development which is good for Australia and good for Asia. We welcome the fact that they have finally understood the opportunities presented by this bank.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (17:43): I rise to speak in support of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015, which is the enabling legislation for Australia's membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The bank is an international financial institution initiated by the Chinese government and is supported by 57 nations—37 regional and 20 nonregional—which are signatories as prospective founding members. The objective is to assist in funding major infrastructure projects throughout Asia and the Pacific.
Australia is not alone in supporting this multilateral international financing initiative. Representatives from the 57 prospective founding member-states gathered at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on 29 June 2015 at a signing ceremony for the bank's articles of agreement. The Treasurer became the first signatory of the articles on behalf of Australia, and he was followed by the representatives of 49 other nations who signed the articles, which I will name for the record: Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Luxembourg, the Maldives, Malta, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. This represents a truly international venture. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will focus on the development of infrastructure and other productive sectors in Asia, including energy and power supply, transportation and telecommunications, rural infrastructure and agricultural development, water supply and sanitation, environmental protection, urban development and logistics.
Prior to entering parliament, I was involved in a multimillion dollar international financing contract with Chinese investors for a successful commercial development in Western Australia. Today, more than 100 people are employed from within the buildings that were constructed as a result of this international investment. Investment in infrastructure creates long-term sustainable jobs.
The recent experience of many developing countries in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century indicates that short-term export-driven domestic consumption development models favoured by mainstream neoclassical economists have not achieved successful results, giving rise to the notion that long-term economic growth can only be achieved through massive, systematic broad based investments in infrastructure assets. Accordingly, it is estimated that an infrastructure funding gap of US$8 trillion exists in the Asian region in the current decade. With initial authorised capital of US$100 billion, the AIIB will be part of the solution to closing this gap.
The AIIB will complement and cooperate with the existing multilateral development banks such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to jointly address the large-scale infrastructure needs in Asia. Investment opportunities within the emerging economies of the Asia-Pacific region are expanding, in infrastructure as well as in new technologies, new products, new business patterns and new business models. The establishment of a multilateral trading system within the Asia-Pacific free trade zone, together with comprehensive regional economic partnerships, will serve to boost economic and financial cooperation, promoting economic development through industrialisation and regional integration.
Joining the AIIB presents Australia with opportunities to work with our regional neighbours and trading partners to drive economic growth and jobs. Australian expertise in funds management, engineering, construction, architecture and legal services could be widely applied to projects financed by the AIIB. There will be open procurement processes which Australian companies can participate in and a channel to connect Australian equity and industry superannuation funds to bankable projects overseas.
The government, working closely with the private sector, will allow Australian businesses to take advantage of the growth in infrastructure in our region. Australian companies will benefit from opportunities to participate in developing and building new infrastructure financed by the bank, as well as having access to improved infrastructure which facilitates trade in the region. For example, Australian iron ore may be utilised in the construction of railways and bridges, and these more efficient transportation linkages will in turn service the logistics of distributing Australian sourced goods into export markets.
Participation within the AIIB will improve trade relations with other nations and provide valuable commercial intelligence and market research information for Australian firms to utilise in entering the marketplace. A more diversified Australian economy will be less susceptible to the cyclical effects within sectors of the economy. The economic development of Asian nations will promote prosperity and in turn generate new consumer markets for Australian goods and services as wealth and spending increases. We are witnessing the phenomenon of the rising Asian middle class seeking to purchase premium quality Australian exports, sending their children to Australia for an education, and visiting Australia as tourists.
Participation in the AIIB is complementary with the coalition government's white papers on developing northern Australia and agriculture, as the existence of demand-driven emerging markets is essential. The development of roads, rail, bridges, ports, refineries, smelters, factories, water treatment plants, electricity generation and transmission infrastructure will see living standards rise. Overall, this strategic investment is positive for Australian mining exports, energy exports in the form of coal and liquefied natural gas, agricultural exports, agribusiness and food manufacturing.
The development of Asia will also generate more demand for professional services in architecture and design, engineering, construction, project management, quantity surveying, legal services, contract administration, transport and logistics. It will create opportunities for the development of domestic tourism, international education and health care.
Australia's participation in the AIIB has been generally endorsed by a number of industry leaders. Peter Collins, Chair of Industry Super Australia said:
The resources of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will increase scope for pension and sovereign wealth funds to invest in long term, productive assets in the region.
Similarly, Jennifer Westacott, CEO of the Business Council of Australia said:
As a founding member Australia can play a key role in setting the direction of this body and the decisions it will make to finance projects that address Asia's infrastructure gaps.
Innes Willox, CEO of the Australian Industry Group said.
... the AIIB's objective of financing infrastructure development in the Asia-Pacific region will foster greater trade and economic development in the region of Australia's closest and most important economic partners.
The government's decision to join the bank has been made after key governance conditions have been satisfied as to world's best practice. The government will continue to work with other bank members to establish a governance framework that is effective, accountable and transparent, meets prudential standards and complements the work of other multilateral development banks. Consultation has also occurred with the states and territories, which are broadly supportive and did not raise concerns.
As a result of contributing approximately A$932 million in paid-up capital to the bank, to be paid over a period of five years, Australia is expected to become the sixth largest shareholder in the AIIB and secure a seat on the board. As a member, Australia will have input into key investment decisions. The articles of agreement will form the legal basis for the bank. The bank's governance structure is composed of a board of governors as the top-level and highest decision-making body; the board of directors as the middle level; and the management team which is at the bottom of decision-making pyramidal structure. No single member will control the bank, with major decisions requiring a super majority.
Upon membership Australia will be obligated to provide a capital contribution reflecting Australia's total shareholding of US$3.7 billion, which equates to approximately A$4.6 billion based on the exchange rate, comprising US$738 million or approximately A$932 million in paid-up capital. Paid-up capital will be made in five equal annual instalments with the first payment of US$148 million expected to be made on 1 January 2016. The remaining US$2.9 billion, equating to approximately A$3.7 billion, will be classified as callable capital, which represents a contingent liability against the Commonwealth. There will be no direct impact on the underlying cash balance, fiscal balance or net debt, as using cash reserves to purchase shares represents a change in the composition of the Australian government's assets.
Australia's participation as a founding member of the AIIB complements our nation's free trade agreements, particularly those in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia has nine FTAs currently in force with New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, the United States of America, Chile, the Association of South East Asian Nations, Malaysia, Korea and Japan. The countries covered by these free trade agreements account for 42 per cent of Australia's total trade. Australia is currently engaged in six other free trade negotiations—two bilateral free trade agreements with India and Indonesia and four multilateral free trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Pacific Trade and Economic Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. The additional countries covered by these negotiations account for a further six per cent of Australia's total trade.
In summary, Australia is part of a group of 57 nations participating in the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This initiative is designed to fund much needed infrastructure in the emerging economies of the Asia-Pacific region, for which it is estimated there exists an US$8 trillion infrastructure funding gap in the current decade. This initiative will drive economic growth and jobs in our region by delivering much needed infrastructure, providing great opportunities for Australian trade and businesses.
Passage of this bill is required by 3 December 2015 to ensure that Australia is able to formally participate in the management of the AIIB, when it commences operations by the end of 2015. If the bill is not passed by the end of this year, there is a risk the AIIB will begin operations before Australia formally becomes a member, which could result in Australia being unable to participate in key decisions taken by the management of the AIIB in its formative stages. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:58): I am delighted to get up to support this legislation. We on this side very much welcome this deal and we welcome the government's support for the c. Sadly, it comes a little late in the day. In fact, on 31 October last year, Labor put out a press release saying:
Labor believes Australia should be actively engaging China on its proposal for an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Of course, governance and transparency arrangements, as well as environmental, social, and labour matters will need to be worked through.
There is an enormous need for increased infrastructure investment in the Asia Pacific, and we welcome additional investment from China.
The real mystery of this is the fact that we did not sign up earlier. Of course, it is important for transparency and governance arrangements to be clarified, but 27 nations in our region signed up before we managed to, because they were able to reassure themselves on exactly the questions we had.
Australia needs to be a strong advocate, I believe, for room to be made for China in the architecture that was developed after the Second World War for making decisions on issues between states—the relationships between states. If the institutions that were established after the Second World War cannot be flexible to see the changing economic weight of countries in our region, I think there is a role for Australia to advocate for those changing economic relationships to be recognised.
China has sought and failed to gain a role in the existing architecture that is a little bit more commensurate with its very fast-growing economy. Although China has the second largest economy in the world, by some measures perhaps the largest economy, it holds only 3.8 per cent of the voting shares of the IMF. That is less than one-quarter of the voting shares the United States has and just over half of the shares that Japan has. Of course, the IMF has made an effort to change this, but it has been frustrated by the US Congress refusing to pass reforms around the IMF. Naturally, it would be better, I believe, for China to have been part of one of the larger global institutions like the IMF or the Asian Development Bank in a more substantial way. If these organisations are not able to adapt to China's willingness and desire to be a greater investor in infrastructure in the region, then you see what happens—there is in fact a new body established by China. China could have got a loan; it could have just made bilateral arrangements with countries and become a supporter of infrastructure development in countries bilaterally. Instead, it has chosen to go down the route of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and I think it is better for China to be part of a multilateral institution like this. It is critical that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank lives up to the aspirations that it set for itself, to be 'Lean, clean and green': to be efficient, to be corruption free and to be environmentally responsible. Australia's involvement with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank certainly allows us to make sure that these goals are being pursued and are being met.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will play a very important role in reducing the infrastructure gap that so many institutions and individuals have identified. In 2009, the Asian Development Bank found that Asian countries will need to invest $8 trillion domestically between 2010 and 2020 just to keep pace with their expected infrastructure needs. Of that investment, 68 per cent would be for new capacity. According to the ADB, when you break that down by sector, 51 per cent of the investment would be for electricity, 29 per cent would be for roads, and 13 per cent would be for telecommunications. A further $300 billion would be needed for regional infrastructure construction. The infrastructure investment is crucial to keep the global economy strong and growing, and to prevent what the G20 has identified as a potential infrastructure gap of tens of trillions of dollars that could potentially cripple emerging and developing countries and reduce the pace of growth.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has the potential to boost infrastructure investment in our region by more than $100 billion. That is why, for many months, Labor has been calling for the government to become involved in the AIIB. We supported Australia's involvement from the very beginning, not just so that this funding would be released but also so that Australia could have a greater say in the governance mechanisms and transparency and environmental objectives of the bank.
Of course, it is not just Labor that has been calling for this in the Australian context. The previous speaker mentioned a number of business groups that called for Australia to be involved in the AIIB. There are also a number of academics. For example, Andrew Elek of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU says:
This new development bank can help fill the vast unmet demand for productive economic infrastructure …
… … …
All Asia Pacific governments should welcome the initiative to set up the AIIB and the opportunity to participate in it.
Another academic, Peter Drysdale of the ANU's East Asia Forum, said:
It is a wrongheaded idea that China can be contained from participation in multilateral development finance …
… … …
Ironically, there was the same hesitation when Japan moved to establish the ADB in the 1960s. There should be none now. If these countries—
he is referring in this instance to Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea and New Zealand—
do not engage China on these positive initiatives they both stand to frustrate entirely positive regional and global economic outcomes and lose the opportunity forever to shape the terms of China's regional and global engagement. In so doing, they would be choosing to act against their national and collective regional interests.
We say that the announcement made by the government that Australia will be involved in the AIIB is welcome. We say that the $930 million paid in capital with a further commitment of $3.7 billion in callable capital is welcome. As a party, we certainly believe in the importance of multilateral institutions and regional and international cooperation. We say that our involvement as a nation of 20-odd million people gives us the ability to shape those institutions in a positive way. You saw our willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, for this type of engagement from the very early days of the founding of the United Nations, where it was Labor's view that we should shape it to be more than a club for the powerful nations; in our campaign for Australia to have a seat on the UN Security Council, which you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, your own party was very opposed to; and in seeing the potential for the G20, rather than the G8, to become the world's most significant economic forum. So I say again that we welcome our participation in the AIIB. We are very sorry that it has come after so much dithering and infighting. We were shocked in one sense when reading the leaks from cabinet about the foreign minister doing her very best to stop Australia signing up to the AIIB, but it is good to see that that position has been overcome by other more sensible ministers in the government. I believe the Treasurer is a supporter of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
As I have said, it is very disappointing that 27 nations in the Asian region signed up to the AIIB before Australia did. We know that the Chinese economy's links with Australia are very important to our future prosperity. We need to look at what China is saying about not just the size, the scale and the speed of its economic growth but the character of its economic growth and what opportunities that provides for Australia in the future. The Chinese government has spoken at some length about the new silk road and the maritime silk road, which in many ways will reshape the economy of our region—and the economy of the world. In November 2014 Xi Jinping announced plans to create a $40 billion US development fund for the silk road. The annual trade volume between China and the countries along the routes that he has described may surpass $2½ trillion dollars within the coming decades. It is not just the size of this growth that is important; it is the changing character of the growth. The third plenum of the CPA said in 2013 that the Chinese economy will change to provide markets with a much greater role, and administrative reforms to enhance effective governance and greater judicial independence will be supported. We are seeing the effects of those changes, announced at the third plenum, in the character of Chinese economic growth.
When China considers how it will grow it thinks not years ahead but decades ahead. It is one of the shortcomings of our system of government that we get very caught up in the day-to-day and the week-to-week and perhaps the month-to-month—
Mr McCormack: Hour by hour.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Hour by hour, sometimes. It is important when we are considering big questions like should Australia be involved in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that we think not about the short-term politics of these questions but about what is in our interests in the decades to come. We need to have a road map to make those decisions wisely. When Labor were in government we put a lot of effort into the Asian century white paper to give us, as a nation, the sort of road map we need to think decades ahead. Sadly there has been an electronic book burning of the Asian century white paper. If the government is serious about engagement in our region and particularly about making the most of the economic benefits of being part of the fastest growing region on earth, then they need, similarly, a long-term road map—a strategy for engagement in our region which, sadly, I do not see at the moment. There needs to be a plan not for how we are responding to the politics of this week or this cabinet meeting but how are we positioning ourselves for the decades to come. Australia and China do have very complementary economies. Many people have spoken about this in the past. We have benefited greatly from China's fantastic success in raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We know that the Chinese economy is changing to be more focused on consumption, and that gives us opportunities for the services industry in particular but many other economic opportunities as well. Because of the changes in the Chinese economy, it has to be part of our long-term thinking, not part of our short-term politics.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (18:12): I find myself in furious agreement with some aspects of the speech of the member for Sydney and deputy opposition leader. Her speech was quite good, and certainly she is right, she is very much correct—and I wish she would please stay and listen—
Mr Ripoll: An outbreak of goodwill!
Mr McCORMACK: And there should be an outbreak of goodwill on so many aspects of how we govern the nation. It is a shame that the Australian Labor Party does not get on board more often with government policy, because we could take this nation forward in so many ways—including so many ways involving jobs, and the emphasis has certainly been on jobs this week. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015 is all about jobs, and I do find myself in agreement with the member for Sydney when she talks about having a vision for the future—not just for the days and weeks and months ahead and not even for the years ahead but, as she said in relation to Chinese politics, for decades ahead. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will do just that. The governance and transparency aspects of the AIIB were very important to make sure that everything was the way it ought to be before Australia got on board. Certainly there were certain aspects that we needed to guarantee ourselves on. We were always going to be a part of the AIIB but you have to make sure there is clarity, that there is transparency, and that governance is absolutely crystal clear before you sign up. There was a process, and we followed that due process—and that is a good thing.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill will enable Australia to become a founding member of the AIIB, which is expected to become operational later this year. The bank will boost economic growth; it will create jobs and promote trade in our region by financing much-needed infrastructure investment. That last sentence talked about jobs and how important they are. It mentioned trade. The China-Australia preferential trade agreement is so important—not just to our two countries but to the entire Pacific region.
This bank will create opportunities for our region and Australia by investing in areas such as transport, energy and water infrastructure, ports, logistics, environmental protection and information and communications technology, as well as agriculture. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know just how important agriculture is to my electorate of the Riverina. ChAFTA is going to open up trade opportunities for the Riverina that we could only dream of not that long ago.
Australia's prosperity and economic growth is tied closely to Asia—the member for Sydney acknowledged that—and a stronger Asian region underpins a stronger Australian economy. It is a win-win for everyone. That is why the Australian government is investing in this bank, having followed due process before signing on: because we are committed to reaching out to all corners of the globe to stimulate economic activity and growth right here at home.
The bill, once enacted, will provide an appropriation for the payment of Australia's financial investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Australia's initial shareholding will be about US$3.7 billion. This includes US$738 million in paid-in capital over five years and US$2.9 billion in callable capital, which is a contingent liability against the Commonwealth. Australia will be the sixth-largest shareholder. Australia's contribution will have zero direct impact on the underlying cash balance, fiscal balance and net debt, as we are purchasing a shareholding in the bank. That is important.
The bill will also authorise the Treasurer to issue promissory notes to the bank to discharge Australia's financial obligations. Again, that is very important. Additionally, this bill will enable regulations to be made to extend necessary privileges and immunities to the bank and its staff, and experts and consultants performing services for the bank.
The bank will initially have US$100 billion of total authorised capital and is expected to start operating by the end of 2015. This US$100 billion will be used to help address the Asia-Pacific region's acute infrastructure needs, which are estimated to reach US$8 trillion this decade. That is a significant sum. Australia will benefit from improved infrastructure throughout the Asian region, which should provide greater opportunities for Australian businesses through increased demand for our services and our exports, amongst which are our agricultural products—for example, Australia's exports will be able to reach new markets and expand existing markets through investment in new ports, roads and railways in member countries.
Additionally, Australian businesses will be able to sell services, including finance, engineering, building and construction and consultancy, to these new markets. Talking of new markets, I congratulate the New South Wales Premier Mike Baird on what he is doing to open up new markets. The New South Wales and federal coalition governments are doing everything we can to make sure that we open up new markets and keep them. Australian companies can also directly benefit by tendering to deliver these projects through the bank's open procurement model.
Another positive feature of the bank is that it will provide this infrastructure by bringing together private sector investment and co-financing projects with other development banks and private sector financiers. As the sixth-largest shareholder of the bank, Australia will be able to influence the bank's decisions and strategic direction. Australia will continue to work with China and other members to establish a bank that is effective, accountable and transparent. We will be asking the bank to complement the work of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
I went to the Asian Development Bank's 48th board of governors meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan from 2 to 5 May this year.
Dr Leigh: I remember.
Mr McCORMACK: I am glad you remember that. No doubt you followed me very closely and the good work that I did on behalf of the government—and the good work the government is doing in conjunction with the Asian Development Bank right throughout the Pacific region.
I made a number of points to that forum in Baku. I told them that the development of the Asia-Pacific region is fundamentally important to Australia. The ADB's priorities closely align with our own, and I am sure that the AIIB's priorities will align with Australia's. The ADB is there to help reduce poverty in Asia and in the Pacific through economic growth and private sector development, just as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, when formed, will be. The ADB has shown itself capable of comprehensive structural reform in the face of changing economic circumstances, and falling commodity prices and the slump in iron ore prices were a feature of discussions in Baku. This commitment will ensure that the ADB remains at the centre of international development in the future, along with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The merger of the Asian Development Fund's loan assets and operations with the ordinary capital resources is just one example of the ADB's commitment to addressing long-term financial challenges and its financing challenges. The merger is an innovative way to enhance the ADB's capabilities while recognising the fiscal constraints of many donors. That is an issue that has to be considered. It is also in line with the call by G20 countries for multilateral development institutions to use their balance sheets more effectively. Australia strongly commends and continues to support that particular initiative. We are also encouraged as a government by the broad support the initiative has received from ADB member countries.
At last year's ADB annual meeting in Kazakhstan, Australia shared our ambitions at the time for our G20 presidency. When I was in Baku, and when I represented Australia at the G20 in Istanbul, Turkey, from 8 to 11 February this year, I felt very proud of the high esteem in which our Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, is held within world financial circles.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCORMACK: 'Hear, hear!' I hear from the other side. And he is. We have continued that fine tradition of Australian treasurers—there you go; I am giving both sides of the House a compliment now—of standing tall in world financial terms.
The G20 have agreed to a range of initiatives which will deliver benefits globally, particularly to the rapidly expanding economies of the Asia-Pacific, thanks largely to Joe Hockey's initiatives when Australia was G20 president. Importantly, Turkey as the current G20 president has committed to follow through on the initiatives that the member for North Sydney put forward. The Brisbane Action Plan of November 2014 finalised the ambitious goal of lifting the G20's collective gross domestic product by more than two per cent above the business-as-usual scenario, and that is expected to have significant flow-on effects for global growth in all countries, delivering more jobs—there is that word again, that very important word—and higher incomes, and a better quality of life all over the world.
Our G20 presidency focused particularly on infrastructure development, something that is obviously of critical importance to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and we supported a range of initiatives to assist in the establishment and successful completion of infrastructure projects globally. One of the very important aspects of our G20 presidency was the establishment of the Global Infrastructure Hub in Sydney to help facilitate knowledge and information sharing between governments and the private sector in order to improve processes for the establishment and successful delivery of infrastructure projects which is so very important.
I am pleased that, this Thursday, I will be catching up with New Zealand politician David Bennett, the member for Hamilton East since 2005; former chair of the New Zealand parliament's Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and chair of the New Zealand parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee. Mr Bennett is coming to Australia and he is going to be catching up with the National Party. He is a National Party person. It is great that we can share many of those infrastructure goals, those finance goals, and help boost both countries' objectives across the Tasman. Certainly, I will be reaching out to David Bennett when I meet up with him again on Thursday—tomorrow, in fact. I am looking forward to that.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Indeed they do. The AIIB will drive economic growth and jobs in our region by delivering much-needed infrastructure. I know it is important for Australia and it is important for the Pacific Rim. It will provide great opportunities for Australian trade and businesses. It has received glowing endorsements from people such as the Chair of Industry Super Australia, Peter Collins; the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott; and the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox. It has received support from industry and, certainly, from businesses. It is going to make a whole world—excuse the pun—of difference to the Asian region by building the sort of infrastructure and the sort of confidence that is desperately needed in the Pacific rim. It complements the work of the Asian Development Bank, which has been around since 1966. The ADB, because of its origins, is largely Japanese run. The nine presidents of the ADB have all been Japanese.
Now that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is bedding down the governance and transparency issues that are so important to its establishment, Australia very much looks forward to being part of the overall framework and part of the establishment of this very necessary organisation.
I am glad that Labor is on board with this, and it has been supportive from the outset. I appreciate the remarks made by the previous speaker, the member for Sydney. I am sure the member for Fraser is going to have more to say about Labor's support for this bill. I commend this important bill to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (18:27): As the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, noted, Labor will be supporting the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015. On 29 June 2015, the government signed the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank's articles of agreement in Beijing. That put us alongside 56 other founding-member countries. Fifty countries have formally signed the bank's charter. At the time of that signing ceremony, seven more were waiting for domestic approval before signing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will launch with capital of $100 billion, three-quarters of which will come from Asia.
Nobody doubts the need for investment in infrastructure in the Asian region. A study by the Asian Development Bank in 2009 estimated that Asia's infrastructure needs amounted to $8 trillion between 2010 and 2020, of which 68 per cent would be for new capacity. Fifty-one per cent of the spending would be for electricity, 29 per cent for roads and 13 per cent for telecommunications.
The terrific growth that the Asian region has seen, with the movement of hundreds of millions of people from poverty into the middle class, is one of the great developments of my lifetime and has brought with it a demand for high-speed railways, quality broadband, good roads, ports and airports. All of these things will potentially be funded through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
China will have a voting share of 26 per cent, contributing around $30 billion of the bank's launch capital of $100 billion. Australia is making an initial contribution of $930 million, but I understand that the anticipated contribution is US$3.7 billion, making us the sixth largest shareholder, behind India, Russia, China, Germany and South Korea.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has been opposed by the United States from the outset. The political dimension is worth exploring in considering the need for the bank. As TheEconomist magazine noted in an article on 21 March: there are three reasons why the United States should have been more receptive to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The first is the need for infrastructure, to which I have already referred. The second is that those countries who have concerns about Chinese lending standards should join the bank and improve it from the inside. Third is the suggestion that existing institutions ought to be reformed has been made impossible by the fact that the United States congress has stymied the very modest reforms of the IMF.
I spoke on the IMF reforms when they came before the House a number of years ago and was struck at that time by the degree of bipartisan commitment to the IMF reforms. I noted the irony that bipartisan support was going to IMF reforms which would see Australia increase our contribution and decrease our voting share. We voted for the IMF reforms, however, because they recognised the shifts in the global weight of China, in particular. But while the G20 in 2010 agreed to reform IMF quotas to transfer six per cent of voting power to emerging market economies, those reforms need the approval of all countries. The United States is the country which is failing to support these reforms, despite support from the Obama administration. In that context, it is reasonable to understand that the Asian region's investment needs might well be met by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
When the proposal was announced, on 24 October 2014, the Prime Minister said:
What we are not prepared to do is to sign onto something which is just an arm of one country's foreign policy.
That stood in contrast with Labor's initial response to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said on 23 November 2014:
We understand that if China wants to build multilateral trade institutions and financial institutions, Labor says in principle; this is a good thing. We had this crazy situation where the Abbott Government treated the Asian investment bank, the infrastructure investment bank, as a security issue and all the reports showed they got their National Security Committee to reject the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
It took until the 29 March 2015 before the coalition finally announced that Australia would sign the MOU for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In so doing, we found ourselves playing catch-up. Australia joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank behind South Korea, behind India and behind Singapore. But we also committed to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank after New Zealand, after Germany, after France, after Italy and after Britain. Indeed, it was probably only the British government signing onto the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that led Australia to be embarrassed into signing.
The issue was raised in the coalition party room, reportedly. Phil Coorey, in an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 2014, noted that the Prime Minister had been taken to task over his early statements suggesting that joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be a mistake. The split within the government was reportedly between the Treasurer and the trade minister, who favoured joining, and the Prime Minister and the foreign minister, who were holding out against joining.
As the Lowy Interpreter article by Philippa Brant noted:
It is revealing that the second debate was conducted in cabinet's NBC, where strategic rather than financial arguments became paramount. Ms Bishop provided scenarios of how China could convert financial power via investment loans into direct military advantage in vulnerable nations close to Australia.
That perspective reflects zero sum thinking. It reflects a sense that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank proposal was something which would force us to loosen our ties with the Asian Development Bank and with the World Bank. That is not the case. Singapore, very much in a strategic position similar to Australia, recognised that we did not need to see this as zero sum game. As Philippa Brant noted at the end of her article:
By seeing the AIIB as purely 'an instrument of China's national interest' (and therefore not in our national interest) Australia has lost a valuable opportunity to participate alongside other Asian nations and influence the direction China's financial engagement. And the strong overtures from US representatives feeds the Chinese perception that Australia doesn't make independent foreign policy decisions, making it harder to convince China that we're not just America's 'lapdog' when it comes to China's role in the region.
Geoff Raby, writing in the Financial Review on 12 April 2015. said:
By delaying for so long before joining the infrastructure bank, Australian forfeited much of the advantage of membership, while perplexing China and still annoying the US.
He points out that we joined at the tail end of a queue of Europeans, behind Luxembourg and just ahead of Norway—neither of them prominent actors in Asia Pacific affairs. Geoff Raby points out this is not simply a coalition Labor difference. He notes that, in the past, Australia, under a Labor government, was central to securing the Cambodian peace agreement and that under the Howard government Australia created the regional process on people-smuggling and stood firm against US based IMF conditionality for financial rescue packages for Indonesia and Thailand, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Those independent foreign policy stances ultimately served Australia well. Geoff Raby describes fears that the AIIB will be an instrument of China's domination in the region as those that:
… verge on the hysterical.
He argues that Australia ought to return:
… to our past traditions of regional active diplomacy …
And that:
… using our policy creativity will enhance our security.
The decision that has been made by the government is ultimately the right one. As Churchill once said of the United States, 'She can always be relied on to do the right thing once she has exhausted all the other alternatives.' I am not sure that we can say that the Abbott government can always be relied on to do the right thing, but in this case it certainly did attempt to exhaust all the other alternatives before signing on. Had the government recognised that this was an economic issue, rather than using zero sum national security considerations, we would have had a more powerful role in influencing the shape of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The bank's governance arrangements will now see a board of governors, with each of the 57 founding members having a seat on the board. The board will meet at least once a year. It will have a board of directors, nine of which will be members from Asia and three of which can come from outside the region. Members have been asked to form constituencies to elect those directors.
I do hope that Australia is able to play a significant leadership role on the board of directors, because infrastructure investment within the Asia-Pacific region is vital not only in helping to alleviate poverty and improve income growth in the region but also because of the benefits that it brings for trade and national security. A growing, prosperous Asia-Pacific is in the globe's interests and it is in Australia's national interests. I commend the bill to the House and simply wish that the government had acted with more alacrity on this important issue.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (18:39): This is a topic that interests the people who live in the electorate of Mallee, because we understand the value of infrastructure and we understand the value of trade. It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker talk extensively about how the opposition stand by this decision and, in fact, lament that they think we took a little long to get there. That particularly contrasts the discussion after question time, where there was so much rhetoric about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We are demonstrating to the Australian people that we believe in trade, as opposed to the Labor Party which are obviously against trade.
If you think about the products that are produced in my electorate, they provide a very interesting case study for this. In a good year, we produce $5.3 billion in exports out of the electorate of Mallee. If you went to Mildura, you would be shocked to see trains two kilometres long that are full of shipping containers full of horticultural products that are going straight into Asia. We have infrastructure constraints ourselves. It was very pleasing to see the announcement of the Murray Basin rail link infrastructure to take product from Mildura to the port. Of course, from there the product has to travel by boat and go through the South China Sea. That is an issue of defence; everything that goes through the South China Sea needs to go through safe waters. Then it needs to get to the port of the country that is receiving it.
What we have seen, particularly with the growing wealth in Asia, is that that wealth is now filtering its way out away from the capital cities in Asia. You might go to Jakarta. Traditionally, most of the wealth in Indonesia has been in Jakarta. With the rise of Indonesia, we see that wealth is filtering its way out. You might go to Shanghai, but we are also seeing that, as the inland cities of China develop, the infrastructure constraints to get the product that we produce in Australia to the consumer are a challenge. We also know that as standards of income increase so do the demands on food products. Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you will know that once a person goes from earning $2 a day to $5 a day their demand for protein in their diet substantially increases, their capacity to afford that increases, their standard of living and health increases, and child mortality decreases. So the infrastructure constraints that we find ourselves in in the Asia-Pacific region are our great challenge.
Australia's does sit within Asia. This is our great advantage. I was in Washington a number of weeks ago. I said to some of the American congressmen there that Australia sits in Asia. It had not actually dawned on them that Australia sits in Asia. That is a bit of a worry. It is probably no surprise that they have been a little bit reluctant to sign on to this, because they do not quite have the understanding of Asia that the Australian government and the Australian people have. If you think about the constraints in taking our product from the port inland into the Asian nations, they are going to need finance. This is what this legislation is all about. It is about providing finance to build the infrastructure so that the wealth that hits the port, the food that hits the port and the product that hits the port can make their way through to the general population.
I was in Jakarta last year. Indonesia has 250 million people and a rising economy, but there are still 100 million people who are living on $2 a day or less. I went out to Bandar Lampung and had a look at some of the feedlots there. I have to put on the record: having seen the feedlots in Indonesia, we should be very proud of Australia's contribution to lifting animal welfare and lifting live exports. The trucks that are transporting those live cattle have to travel down roads would normally take us two hours to travel in Australia, but it is taking the trucks eight hours simply because of the sheer lack of infrastructure in that city. For example, Jakarta is a parking lot after 5 o'clock rather than a town that you can get around. There is no real public transport. So access to finance through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will allow the governments and the builders in those areas to build infrastructure, which will go a long way towards addressing opportunities for us to get our product from the Mallee all the way to where the customer wants to take those products.
This also has a humanitarian bent to it because there is no doubt that, if you can get commerce into areas, you can also get medicine into areas. I will give an example. A number of weeks ago I was in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. I travelled only four miles but, because of the state of the road, four miles was too far for children to be able to access education, four miles was a challenge for them to access medicines. Whilst this is part of commerce—and we can see this very much from the shallow perspective of how we ensure that we can get our products into the marketplace and to more customers and address the infrastructure constraints in Asia—this is also about being a good neighbour and also humanitarian needs. In opening up those roads, in opening up that infrastructure, you allow better access to medicines, you allow better access to doctors and you allow better access for more serious health cases to come down to the major hospitals in the capital cities. It really is about standing by the Asian countries as they seek to lift their standards of living through their hard work.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is, relatively speaking, a small cost to the Australian budget over a number of years. It will add up to roughly $932 million over a five-year period. That would make us the sixth largest shareholder and it would afford us the opportunity to tender for some of the projects that will need to be built. With the rise of Asia, there are great opportunities in protein products, mechanised starch products and counter-seasonal horticultural products. There are also great opportunities in the service industry—and that is something I think we have not captured enough. It has huge potential to create more jobs for Australians. So being a good neighbour ultimately translates into jobs.
I will take this opportunity to touch on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It has been very popular in my electorate. We have heard a lot of rhetoric in this place that, somehow, people are going to be undercut in the wage market. But on Sunday, at the Robinvale Almond Festival, I was talking to people who were table grape growers. They cannot believe the opportunities and optimism that are out there simply because we have stitched up the Japan free trade agreement, the Korea free trade agreement and now, hopefully, the China free trade agreement. They want us to get it up and going quickly. If you talk to them, they say this is generating jobs—low-skill jobs and high-skill jobs—in areas where there has traditionally been high unemployment. And now it is getting to the point where it is about finding the people.
That is the interesting part about this. We on this side understand that growing the whole economy, growing the whole marketplace, ultimately grows opportunities for Australia. I think Australians get that and know it. Certainly, people in my electorate get that. They are probably shaking their heads at the moment over the Labor Party's discussions in this place about free trade agreements. Surely, we have learnt that lesson now; surely we have come to a point where we know that we are in Asia, that we have opportunities in Asia. We have infrastructure constraints that we want to address through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, but we want free trade agreements with Asia because we know that the world has moved on from the protectionist and xenophobic views that the Labor Party are trying to put into this discussion. People are saying: 'Get on with it. Sign the free trade agreement and capitalise on the opportunities. Get our products from where they are grown down to the railway, on to the port, through the South China Sea and into the marketplaces in those developing countries and develop that infrastructure.' I am glad that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is welcomed by both sides of the parliament, but I just cannot believe that the Labor Party is choosing to play politics on trade opportunities with our biggest partner. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (18:49): Like other speakers before me, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015. I am really pleased to support this bill. I am proud to support the bill.
Mr Robert: Excellent, sit down then!
Dr CHALMERS: It provides the legislative basis for Australia's membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The member opposite suggests that I sit down now, having made that point. Even if I did sit down now, my speech would be of a higher standard than the one I have just had to listen to! As my friend the member for Mallee leaves the chamber, I remind him that, while it is great that the government now supports the AIIB, they did not support it for a long time, when we did. We were first on the cart for this; they were dragged, kicking and screaming, onto the cart. That is great, and welcome to the party—better late than never—but let us dispense immediately with the absurd notion that those opposite have always been supporters of this great initiative. But we have been. It is a credit to the Leader of the Opposition, it is a credit to the shadow minister for foreign affairs, it is a credit to the shadow Treasurer and it is a credit to our frontbench, who have supported this arrangement since day one. We are proud to have done so, proud to vote for it and proud to speak in favour of it today.
Probably the greatest economic phenomenon of our lifetime is the middle-classing of Asia. Members on both sides have mentioned it. We on this side have always recognised the growing importance of Asia to our economy and our culture—all the way back to Whitlam and his engagement with China, to the way Hawke and Keating opened up our economy and more recently, in the Rudd-Gillard period, to the production of that really high-quality strategic document Australia in the Asian Century. In another role in this place, I was proud to have the opportunity to contribute to that document. It was disappointing, though not entirely surprising, that when the new government came into office they removed that white paper from all the government websites. I thought that was—to be fair—a pretty petulant sort of act. If they had taken the time to go through the thing, they would have seen that there was an opportunity for them. If they had wanted to build on it or update it, great, but it was a pretty petulant act to just delete the Australia in the Asian century white paper and pretend that anything that had been produced by the former government was not worthy of their consideration.
If they had read it and if they had kept it, they would have come across some pretty stunning statistics. For example, in two decades, the Asian middle class more than doubled, from 21 per cent of the global population in 1990 to 56 per cent 20 years later. The OECD estimates that the Asian middle class will make up two-thirds of the global middle class by 2030. In just four years, from 2005 to 2008, the number of people below the poverty line fell from 903 million to 754 million. Just one more statistic: in dollar terms, just 15 per cent of the world's GDP fell within 10,000 kilometres of Australian shores. It has doubled today and is expected to double again to 60 per cent by 2030 with the continuing expansion of China and India in particular. So never before has Asia's regional economy been more important for our own domestic economy's future.
It is self-evident that with this growing middle class and growing wealth comes a growing need for infrastructure, both basic infrastructure and advanced infrastructure, throughout our region. The Asian Development Bank, another institution, has estimated that about 1.8 billion people are not connected to basic sanitation services at the moment; 800 million people do not have electricity; and 600 million do not have access to safe water. It is not only these basic facilities; there is also a need for more roads, railways and telecommunications infrastructure to bolster economic growth so that that growth is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating because it has the right infrastructure foundations. That is so that countries in our region—developing countries in particular but all the countries—can have the productivity growth that they need and the economic growth that they need to provide for their citizens. At the same time, there needs to be investment in the policies, regulations, systems and institutions that enable the infrastructure to be rolled out and used effectively.
All up, the Asian Development Bank has estimated that there is a need for investment in the order of $8 trillion before 2020. It is expected that Asia will make up 60 per cent of total global infrastructure investment over the next decade.
Here is a bit of history and a bit of context when it comes to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which was proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang in 2013 to address some of these funding shortfalls. The idea of the bank is to promote interconnectivity and economic integration in the region and to cooperate with existing multilateral development banks. The bank will focus on the development of infrastructure in Asia, of course, including energy and power, transportation, telecommunications, water supply, sanitation and urban development. After a year of negotiations, representatives of 57 countries gathered in Beijing on 29 June this year to formally sign the articles of agreement of the bank. Now that that is done, the bank is expected to start with a capital base of US$100 billion. That is considerable when you compare it to the Asian Development Bank, which has around $153 billion in capital, and the World Bank, which has about US$223 billion in capital.
Australia, as honourable members will understand, having read the background to this bill, will contribute about $930 million to the AIIB over five years. That makes us the sixth-biggest capital shareholder, so as a consequence of that we get the sixth-biggest block of voting rights. Ahead of us are only China, India, Russia, Germany and South Korea. I think it is something to be proud of that a country of our size can be the sixth-biggest contributor. I think that it speaks volumes about our capacity to participate in the region that we are prepared to kick in something of that magnitude. It is pleasing to see that we get in return a substantial amount of influence over the institution itself.
A lot of thought has gone into the design of the bank. The three principles are that it be lean, clean and green: lean in the sense that it will only have a small, efficient management team and highly skilled staff; clean in that it will be an ethical organisation with zero tolerance for corruption; and green in that it will be built on a foundation of respect for environmental considerations. On its own, the bank does not have the capacity to bridge Asia's infrastructure funding gap, when you think about some of those enormous numbers I mentioned before, but it really is an important part of the story. It will make a crucial contribution to building infrastructure in our region.
There are huge benefits for Australia. If you want to be transactional about it, there are huge benefits for us from greater investment in Asian infrastructure. We get that seat at the table that I mentioned already when it comes to these important infrastructure investment decisions. It makes us more than just a bystander to the economic development of Asia. It is crucially in our national interest to be part of that conversation. We also get to help shape the bank. We get to build even better connections with our regional partners. And, importantly for our private sector, for our companies, they will get the chance to compete for work in industries all across Asia as a consequence. This could mean huge opportunities—big opportunities for industries like mining and construction and for services sectors in Australia.
It is also very good economic diplomacy for Australia in our region. I agree with the member for Mallee in what he said about Australians understanding how important it is that we engage with the region. If you just take a couple of examples, the Lowy poll is the authoritative poll about Australians' attitudes to the world—I congratulate the team at Lowy for the work they do—and in the 2015 poll, released a couple of months ago, 77 per cent of Australians said that China was more of an economic partner than a military threat. That is a very important consideration. And more and more Australians see greater economic engagement with China as being in our country's interest.
That is why I believe in a high-quality China FTA. That is why I want to see the best possible China FTA. I want to see one that maximises Australian jobs and minimises the risks of exploitation. I will not be lectured by the other members about our relationship with China. Labor is the party of engagement with China and engagement with Asia. That is why we want to see a really good China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We want to make sure that when it comes to creating Australian jobs we are doing all we can to maximise the opportunities for Australians and minimise the exploitation of Australian workers—after all, the whole point of an FTA is to create Australian jobs. Those opposite who chirp away with their usual talking points, which have probably been leaked out of their cabinet or leaked by someone on that side of the House, can bang on all they like, but I think the Australian people appreciate there is at least one side of the House that wants to maximise Australian jobs out of these agreements and minimise exploitation of Australian workers. There is no bigger believer in free trade in this parliament than me, there is no big believer in engagement with China and Asia than me, and I am proud to say that we do want a China FTA and we want a good one. We want one that does not dud Australian workers.
We welcome the government's support for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—better late than never when it comes to this particular issue. That is why Labor has been so keen to support Australia's engagement with the bank since the idea was first floated. That is why for a month Labor called on the government to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the government engaged in their usual internal fights and cabinet bickering about the issue. Extraordinarily, we had leaks out of the National Security Committee of the cabinet about the arguments over the bank. We had the foreign minister oppose it one day and support it the next. We saw all of this play out in the national media in the usual way and in full view of the rest of the world, which must have confused them when it came to understanding our position on this issue. That delay was costly, as my colleague the member for Fraser was right to point out earlier when he was quoting former ambassador Geoff Raby. He talked about the costly nature of that internal confusion and that internal bickering as other countries jumped the queue on us, got to the table before us and were able to have a greater influence on the process. Infighting is not unheard of on that side of the House; it is a characteristic of this government. This cabinet has largely ceased to function as an effective institution in this country, so it is not surprising that the infighting was costly for Australia.
Government members interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: Mr Deputy Speaker, they can laugh all they want. The only item on the cabinet agenda the other day was a line that said, 'When this cabinet leaks, say that it is performing "exceptionally well".' The only item on the cabinet agenda was a talking point to say that cabinet is working well. Do not tell us that cabinet is working well; actually make the cabinet work well.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: How do we know that?
Dr CHALMERS: The only reason we know that, as the member for Gorton points out, is that it was immediately leaked. Somebody in the cabinet, somebody on the frontbench over there—given both of those opposite are unlikely to ever reach the cabinet, they should listen—immediately leaked the instruction to say that cabinet is working effectively, so spare me this rubbish.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Let me remind members that the bill is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015.
Dr CHALMERS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking about the costliness of the delay as the National Security Committee bickered over whether or not to support the thing that Labor supported all along—that is what makes it crucial to this conversation.
Mr O'Dowd interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Flynn will stop enjoying himself.
Dr CHALMERS: The member for Flynn always enjoys himself. Many of our friends like the UK, New Zealand, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, India and Singapore backed the bank months before this government resolved their own internal conflicts on it—that is a fact. Labor thinks that Australia needs to embrace a vision that extends well into the future and we need to solidify our place in the Asia-Pacific regional economy. That is what this bill is about.
Labor will support the legislation before the House today. We welcome those opposite in their late conversion. We supported it long before the government did. We support committing $930 million to the AIIB. We see our nation crucially as a part of Asia into the future and this will be aided by our involvement in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (19:04): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015, an important bill which will enable Australia to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In the time available to me this evening I would like to focus on three key issues. Firstly, I want to make the point that infrastructure is a priority for governments of every nation. Secondly, I want to speak about some of the challenges involved in financing infrastructure. Thirdly, I want to speak to the way in which the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will help to address some of these issues facing nations across the Asian region.
Let me turn first to the proposition that infrastructure is a key priority for governments in every country. It is certainly a key priority for the Abbott government here in Australia. For example, the Abbot government has made a $50 billion commitment to improving Australia's road and rail network. That commitment involves a range of projects all across the country with new roads in most Australian states and territories, bridge upgrades, and a new freight rail link in Western Australia. Major work has commenced on the $3 billion NorthConnex project, which is expected to create 8,700 jobs for New South Wales—the second missing link to be started by this government after the M5 West widening. Early works on WestConnex also commenced this year, a project which is expected to deliver $20 billion in economic benefits and create around 10,000 jobs. We have also seen planning for the Western Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek commencing, and that reflects and follows a decision made by this government after the important issue of Sydney's second airport was kicked down the road by a succession of governments.
The Abbott government has established the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility that will be available for major infrastructure projects like ports, railways, pipelines and electricity generation. In addition to our plans announced to invest in Australia's north, the government has other programs to develop regional Australia, including through the $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund. The Asset Recycling Initiative is freeing up states to invest in a range of productive infrastructure. Two agreements have been signed so far—with the governments of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory—and these are expected to generate more than $15 billion of additional infrastructure activity. There are a range of infrastructure priorities for the Australian government, as there are for governments throughout our region.
Another important infrastructure priority is the National Broadband Network, which is being delivered by the Abbott government more quickly and at less cost to taxpayers than the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Since September 2013 the NBN has more than tripled the number of homes and businesses that can receive a service. As at the election date, the NBN was available to some 275,000 premises. By September 2016 it is expected that the NBN will have passed or construction will have commenced in a very substantial number of areas. We are already at over one million premises which are now able to connect to the NBN fixed line network.
These points illustrate the policy importance of infrastructure here in Australia and the policy importance of infrastructure in countries around the world and certainly throughout Asia. It is worth reflecting for a moment on why infrastructure is so important. There is a clear connection between the quality of a nation's infrastructure and the economic and productivity spin-offs from that infrastructure. Indeed, the link between infrastructure and productivity has been very well studied within economic literature and is very well understood.
One of the classic examples which is often quoted is the investment made by the US government in the interstate freeway system in the 1950s. That was justified at the time on the grounds of responding to defence and national security challenges, but it had an enormous economic benefit. The productivity spin-off was very substantial. For example, it reduced delivery times and increased the geographic area within which any one company could effectively supply customers, in turn increasing the intensity of competition and increasing the efficiency with which companies in the economy supplied their customers.
The same economic logic applies to the infrastructure of many times. That is why it is a policy priority for the Abbott government, as it is for governments in many countries, to support the construction of infrastructure as a means of, in turn, supporting economic growth, creating jobs and assisting businesses to link with their customers and to supply markets around the country and, in turn, internationally.
As well as the economic justification for infrastructure, there are also very important equity and quality-of-life justifications for investment in infrastructure. The US economist John Kenneth Galbraith—he was, in fact, born in Canada but carried out most of his career in the US—in the 1950s coined the term 'private affluence, public squalor' to convey the idea of a rich society which underinvests in its public infrastructure. He was the ambassador to India in the 1950s in the Kennedy administration. He was notorious for sending long memos full of advice to President John F. Kennedy. There is some suspicion that many of those memos went unread. But I will return to the essential subject of the remarks I want to make this evening. He was responsible for coming up with the notion of 'private affluence, public squalor' to convey the idea of a rich society which underinvests in its public infrastructure. The point that Galbraith was making was that this harms social cohesion and results in a society which fails to meet its full potential.
If congested roads mean you face a longer travel time to work, you are wasting time sitting in traffic rather than being with your family or pursuing other activities meaningful to you. Certainly that wasted time has a substantial economic cost—particularly when multiplied by the millions of people in the same position—but it has a very real social cost as well. One of the most important things governments can do to improve the quality of life of the people they serve is deliver or facilitate the delivery of good, quality infrastructure.
That brings me to my second point, which is the challenge of financing infrastructure. Asia is estimated to face an infrastructure financing gap of some $8 trillion over the current decade—an enormous challenge and one which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is the subject of the bill before the House this evening, is designed to help address. Similarly, here in Australia there is a strong need for infrastructure financing. As I have mentioned, the Abbott government is working to address that need with our $50 billion infrastructure package.
There are a number of factors which underpin the challenge of financing infrastructure. First, infrastructure is by its very nature capital-intensive. It is very, very expensive. The benefits are realised over many decades but the costs are incurred over a few years. This creates a challenge. In Australia we have the further complexity that it tends to be state governments which are responsible for most infrastructure, and state governments often face fiscal challenges. They have only a limited capacity to raise their own revenue and much of what they spend is dependent upon transfers from the federal government. They also face ever-growing claims on expenditure.
There are a number of levers that a government, at least conceptually, can pull when looking at funding infrastructure. Options include: increasing public debt; increasing taxes; requiring a 'user pays' approach—for example, tolls to fund roads; and selling poorly performing public assets to the private sector where they might be run more efficiently and, in turn, using those proceeds to fund other infrastructure. This latter approach and certainly the notion of asset recycling has very much come to the fore in Australia in recent years. The Premier of New South Wales, Mike Baird, and the federal Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, have been strong advocates of this approach. It is certainly delivering some significant returns and benefits.
It is fair to say that, over the years, some progress has been made in Australia towards having the private sector take on more of the infrastructure task. Private sector investment in infrastructure has risen as a proportion of GDP. This is in part due to privatisation over a number of decades, in part due to the competition reform process which commenced in the 1990s and in part due to the growth of privately funded infrastructure associated with the resources boom, such as railways.
A particular public policy challenge in Australia when it comes to financing infrastructure is how we might better tap into the superannuation savings pool. As many have observed, the characteristics of returns on economic infrastructure projects—long-term, stable returns at reasonable rather than spectacular rates—are in many ways attractive to those saving to provide for their retirement. Nevertheless, the proportion of the Australian superannuation savings pool which is invested in infrastructure is quite low. One of the paradoxes is that it tends to be pension funds and superannuation funds from other markets which are more prominent investors in infrastructure in Australia than Australian based superannuation funds.
Yale University economics professor Robert Shiller has written extensively about the social value of economic and financial innovation. For example, he argues that there should be a market in futures contracts tied to an index of house prices, as this would allow people who did not own a house to hedge against the risk of house prices jumping sharply, locking them out of the market. More broadly, he has argued about the social benefits of financial innovation. In my view those arguments carry weight when it comes to the question of how best infrastructure ought to be financed. The public policy pay-off from financial innovation in the financing of infrastructure could be very significant.
I turn to the specific nature of the measures in the bill before the House this evening, which is to authorise the participation by Australia in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I would make the case that when we take a perspective across Asia, there is certainly a need for greater financial innovation in the area of financing infrastructure. I think the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is a good example of precisely the kind of innovation which ought to be encouraged. It is of course proposed to be a multilateral development bank and is expected to become operational from later this year. Australia will contribute some $932 million in capital over five years towards the expected authorised capital base of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank of US$100 billion.
The measures in this bill provide an appropriation for the payment of Australia's capital contribution to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Importantly, as the sixth largest shareholder, Australia will be well positioned to influence the bank's decisions and strategic direction. There is also a broader economic benefit in which our nation will share if there is to be improved infrastructure throughout the Asian region, which in turn will provide greater opportunities for Australian businesses and increase demand for our services and commodity exports.
New ports and railways in countries like India, Indonesia and Korea will mean that Australia's exports have new opportunities to reach new markets or expand existing markets. Australian firms will be well placed to benefit from infrastructure projects which are funded in whole or in part by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. These projects could lead to work for Australian engineering businesses and construction management businesses and could lead to opportunities for Australian providers of finance, consultancy services and so on. The benefits of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for Australian business look promising. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank also looks to be a promising vehicle to stimulate much-needed infrastructure across Asia, in turn stimulating economic growth and productivity in the nations of Asia. As a nation which is part of the Asian region, we clearly have an interest in greater prosperity throughout Asia and we therefore clearly have an interest in participating in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a policy tool designed to stimulate the achievement of that greater prosperity.
As I have argued, infrastructure is a key priority for governments in every country. Certainly here in Australia the Abbott government is delivering a number of major projects around the nation as part of a policy emphasis on stimulating improvements to our infrastructure. In the broader Asian region there is a very significant infrastructure financing task. The measures contained in the bill before the House this evening authorising Australia's participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank form part of the suite of policy responses which will help to meet the need for infrastructure in Asia to the benefit of the Asian region, to the benefit of countries in Asia and to the benefit of Australia.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (19:19): I am pleased to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015. Labor welcomes the introduction of this bill. I cannot understand why it has taken the government so long to be involved in what will be the biggest shake-up in global finance since Bretton Woods. It is something that Australia must be part of. For many months now, those on this side of the chamber have argued strongly for Australia to become a founding member of what will be a very promising global institution aimed at developing infrastructure within our region. We have watched as the rest of the world got on board—firstly the United Kingdom, then New Zealand, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, India and Singapore. They all joined some time ago, while the Abbott government dithered, remained paralysed by fear and indecision.
It is not just this policy issue that the Abbott government seemed to have difficulties making decisions on; there are many others. Over the course of the last week, we have seen that in the case of same-sex marriage and other issues. They are completely paralysed, with no plan—particularly around economics—for Australia's regional development. They got rid of the Asian Century white paper, which was our country's road map, if you like, for engagement with Asia, particularly our highest trading partner, China. There is now no plan to deal with China and to make sure that we grow that very important economic and social relationship. All in all, the saga has really been an embarrassing display of disunity that is rife within this government, much to the detriment of Australian people and businesses.
Australia should participate in this fund and use its world-recognised expertise in infrastructure planning and financing to help ensure that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank matches the established transparency, human rights and environmental standards of other major multilateral funds. Our involvement can ensure that the right governance structures are put in place and that the bank delivers the best outcomes in our region, particularly in the Asia-Pacific area.
In the Asia-Pacific area there is enormous opportunity and a very large infrastructure deficit, as many speakers in this debate have mentioned. There is opportunity for growth, for improvement in living standards and for lifting people out of poverty. While the AIIB is yet to include any Pacific nations, this is an area in which Australia can be a vocal campaigner for bringing increased multilateral backed infrastructure investment to the region. We all know of the disadvantage that many in the Pacific face; we all know of the low living standards and the fact that many Pacific nations do not meet their millennium development goals. They include some of our nearest neighbours, such as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. This bank, we believe, will be an opportunity for multilateral institutions and nations within the region to concentrate on some of those infrastructure deficiencies and to lift living standards. That is ultimately why Australia should be involved.
It is proposed that the AIIB will be a new multilateral fund to focus on projects in areas such as energy, telecommunications and transport for Asia's underdeveloped countries. The idea is to harness some of China's vast financial resources and reserves, along with the expertise acquired in recent decades of its own massive infrastructure development in order to improve and develop projects within the region. Beijing will provide at least 50 per cent of the capital needed for the bank, which is estimated to be between $50 billion and $100 billion. With these sorts of funds, the AIIB will already be nearly two-thirds the size of the Asian Development Bank, which is valued at about $165 billion. We are not talking about a small institution here; we are talking about one of the largest shakeups of international finance and infrastructure since Bretton Woods, as I have already said. President Xi Jinping has stated that the AIIB will follow multilateral rules and procedures to ensure the best practices of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
The bank was officially launched in Beijing last year at a ceremony attended by 21 of those founding countries, including Thailand, India and Malaysia. Australia was invited to be one of those founding partners and initially showed some interest, but then went mute on the idea of becoming a founding partner. Despite the encouragement and the support of this side of the chamber, the government was wracked with indecision, became frozen on the idea and was not one of those founding partners. Thankfully, it has now made the right decision and found its voice on involvement with the bank and on greater involvement in the region, and Australia will now become a member of the bank. And that is the right decision.
The bank can play an important role in promoting infrastructure development and growth in our backyard, the Asia-Pacific. This also provides Australia with a terrific opportunity to play an active role in regional development and trade. There is a large infrastructure deficit in Asia. The existing institutions seem unable to meet the real needs for infrastructure across Asia, both currently and into the future. There are estimates that from now until 2020 Asia needs some $8 trillion worth of infrastructure development to meet the growing populations and to improve living standards. Indonesia alone is said to require $230 billion worth of that investment. The Greater Mekong Subregion, linking less developed parts of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, needs $50 billion. That gives you an idea of the magnitude of the task and the importance of the role of the AIIB in providing and dealing with some of the infrastructure deficit. The AIIB will play a vital role in financing and coordinating many of those much needed projects within our region.
A view has been put, certainly by the United States, that Australia should not be involved in this body, and they have encouraged other nations to take a similar view. My belief is that in joining the AIIB it is not necessarily an either/or dichotomy—it is not a simple decision of either/or. It is definitely within our capacity to foster close relations between the United States and China. In fact, I think Australia has a great opportunity to play a role in promoting and fostering relations between those two economic powerhouses on the Pacific rim—two very important partners for Australia. There is also an opportunity for Australia to be involved in the bank and to promote development in our backyard, particularly in the Pacific region. Essential infrastructure, such as new hospitals, new education facilities, women's shelters, new roads, new dams, new bridges, boosts living standards. Such projects can connect communities, generate economic activity and boost GDP. Australia has a wonderful opportunity to promote all this through the bank.
The other area in which Australia can play an active role through the bank is in tackling climate change. We all know that China has over the last couple of years has become very serious about tackling climate change. It is the world's largest investor in renewable energy. Over the course of the next 12 months, they will bring online a national emissions trading scheme. I was looking today at the exchange for what will be the largest carbon market in the world—in terms of both dollars and emissions—to be established in Beijing. Think about this, Speaker: up until the election of the Abbott government, which nation in the Asia-Pacific region held the expertise on carbon reduction schemes, on carbon trading and on emissions trading schemes? It was Australia. We have missed one of the most important economic opportunities for future generations ever. The biggest carbon market in the world is going to be established in our backyard over the next 12 months. Australia could now be advising China on the establishment of the world's largest carbon market. We could also be talking to them about linking schemes and providing an opportunity for the world's largest carbon market exchange to be here in Australia, ensuring that we are developing the expertise in carbon trading and research and development of renewable energy, in financing projects and the like.
Debate interrupted
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): Order! It being 7:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Australian Hearing
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (19:30): In 1949 in Ben Chifley's election speech—it is some 65 pages long, but you will be happy to know I will not be reading every page out tonight—
The SPEAKER: You have only got five minutes!
Mr CHAMPION: he said:
Following the passing of the Acoustic Laboratories Act in 1948, the Commonwealth has set up acoustic laboratories in five States and is about to establish a laboratory in the remaining State. These Laboratories are concerned, on behalf of the Department of Repatriation, with the provision and servicing of hearing aids for ex-service personnel whose hearing has been adversely affected.
They have conducted experiments with school children affected by deafness.
And so was born Australian Hearing. It is very interesting in that the Australian institution has been going quietly about its work since 1948. When Ted Holloway, the then member for Melbourne Ports and the minister responsible, put forward the bill to this House, he said:
A Commonwealth-wide acoustic laboratory service will be of great value as part of a national health service in providing advice and assistance, with all the technical equipment which is necessary for measuring degrees of deafness, and for the maintenance of efficiency in hearing aids.
Here we have two visionary politicians who, amongst postwar planning, set up an institution which has served Australia to this very day. We know that the foundation stone was added to by former Prime Minister Holt and by former Prime Minister Howard. This has not been a partisan institution, it has been a great Australian institution. That is why we are so concerned that the National Commission of Audit has come up with the harebrained idea to privatise Australian Hearing. We are even more concerned that this government has adopted that recommendation and announced a scoping study, not to be done by the Department of Health but by the Department of Finance.
One of the very good bits of work that the Senate health committee has been doing is to have hearings into this proposed privatisation, because it is of great concern to those who know something about deafness, know something about hearing issues and know something about Australian Hearing. Ms Margaret Dewberry, an adviser for the Deafness Forum of Australia, told the Senate hearing:
… the change will see the introduction of contestability. This is concerning as the private market is untested in the delivery of these services to these clients. The introduction of contestability introduces significant risks in terms of access, expertise, quality and standards.
She goes on to say:
If the sale proceeds and the new owner decides to withdraw from providing services to these more costly and challenging client groups then the safety net of the government provider will be lost.
This is all very, very concerning. It should be very concerning to all of us in this parliament. I am very pleased to say that the member for Lyne, during the private members' business debate on Monday, said:
With regard to hearing services, the Commonwealth does provide a wide network of Australian Hearing offices, and I would like to highlight that they do a fantastic job.
That is a good thing for the member for Lyne to say, and he went on to say:
We need to analyse this problem very clearly before we blow up a good service.
That is how he concluded his speech. A very good speech and very wise words from the member for Lyne.
This week I will be launching 'Australian Hearing: too important to privatise'. I know I am using a prop, Mr Speaker, but it is an important campaign. It is not a Labor campaign; it is a campaign for the whole community to be involved in. The member for Lyne is most welcome to be involved in it as well. We want to persuade the government, more than anything else, to put this privatisation in the bottom drawer and leave it there. Do not proceed with it, because it will damage an important Australian institution—one that serves people who need a service from birth. It is something that has made us world leaders in the treatment of deafness. Do not privatise Australian Hearing, Mr Speaker, and the government should be dissuaded from doing so.
Randall, Mr Donald James
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (19:35): Vale, dear Don Randall. I was on my way home from Alby Schultz's funeral when I received a very sombre and tearful phone call from my daughter Emily to inform me that Don had passed away. I do not actually believe I grasped what I had been told at the time. He had been sitting right here—where Mal, the member for Fisher, is sitting at the moment—only a week before in this parliament, in the House of Representatives. My thoughts went immediately to his daughter, Tess, whom I had met, and to his three mates: Andrew Southcott, he called him 'Southie'; Ken Wyatt, who sits over here, he called 'Kenny'; and Steve Irons, who he referred to as simply 'Irons'.
The worst part of it, Don, was I was just getting to know you. During all these years as we sat together, I heard of your hopes, your dreams, your wife, your plans for the future, your little shack on the beach and watching the sun go down; you told me all about it. One more term in parliament you were doing, one more term and all of your dreams would have come true. He always came in late—every day he came in late on purpose, just to let the whip know that he was in control of his own life and that he did exactly what he wanted to do. He did this just to give the whip a tickle up. Then he would say, 'I've been at lunch with an ambassador, or drinks with the friendship group, or meetings with the high commissioner.' He was always busy, busy, busy: politics, family, electorate, electorate staff, and he loved to pump up Julie Bishop, he loved to pump up Julie Bishop's side. He would sit there beside me and tell me how good she was. Every time she spoke at the podium, he would say, 'Look at that, isn't that'—and he would pump her up again.
Don was Western Australian first, Western Australian second and Western Australian third. He would come into the room with an outrageously politically incorrect remark, aimed at Andrew Southcott or Angus Taylor, just to get a rise. He had a cheeky grin, one like this photograph I have grabbed that a friend of mine pulled off the net. This photograph is of Don taken from the gallery here just after I told him, 'Mate, you have fallen asleep and the press are going to kill you.' Here he is, screaming back with a big grin on his face, and he said, Thanks, mate; thanks!'
Don was a big man. He was noticed in a room. He commanded a room. He was noticeable. And Don went out of his way to make sure he was noticed. For a long time Don Randall and I were at odds. Everybody knew why—he had a view on women and children in detention and I had a different view. He used to stand up in the party room and he would openly attack those 'chardonnay-sipping lefty Liberals from safe seats,' and then he would say, 'all except for Russell Broadbent.' We had a bond, something that made us close, that only a few in this place can share. You can, Mal. We have a bond between people who had been thrown out by their constituents and then had come back into the House to fight the fight on behalf of the constituents we then represented. There is you, Mal, there is me, there was Don Randall, and very few others. We were rejected by our own electorates—we wear the scars of defeat, we wear the scars of rejection, we wear the scars of our expectations. We both returned to this place, and until you have done that you do not understand what it is like.
Apparently in this House we do not take photos of committees—which I think is a great shame—because they are too expensive to frame. I said to Don's committee, which was the Procedure Committee, 'I will pay for the frame—I want a photo.' When I walk around the House and go to committee rooms I remember a lot of the people in those photographs—the House does not remember them, but I do. I remember the clerks in the photographs—I remember those days and they are important. I said I wanted a photograph taken, and I have here the last photograph taken of Don before he left the House and before he passed away. He was a great chair of the Procedure Committee and a great member of the Privileges Committee as well. In this beautiful photograph, would you believe, Danby, the deputy chair and member for Melbourne Ports, has his hand on Don's shoulder. That was the last time we saw him. Vale Don Randall. I loved him.
Women: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:40): Tonight I rise to speak about an important issue for our nation, and that is the issue of trying to get more women participating in STEM disciplines. I have said in the House numerous times that women remain significantly underrepresented in our universities; comprising just 20 per cent of enrolments in engineering and other related technologies, and only 14 per cent of enrolments in information technology. This disparity starts in our schools, early on, where boys are far more likely than girls to elect subjects such as physics, maths, earth sciences and chemistry than the so-called 'softer' sciences such as biology or the humanities. Over the very long term, this then filters into an underrepresentation of women in STEM in the workforce. In 2008, the participation of women in STEM jobs was 45.1 per cent, representing an overall increase of just 2.8 per cent since 1992. Many senior positions in STEM research disciplines, particularly in our universities and academia more broadly, remain largely unrepresentative of women.
Clearly, the sustained success of Australia's academic and innovative capacity is being hamstrung by an ongoing lack of equality in STEM disciplines. By failing to help girls and women elect into and succeed at science, technology, engineering and mathematics we are condemning ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past and not fulfilling our full potential as an innovative and thriving economy where new and exciting ideas are nurtured and fanned into the discoveries of tomorrow. The Australian Industry Group acknowledges as much in its report Lifting our science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills, saying:
A key way to meet the emerging challenge of developing an economy for the 21st century is to grow our national skills base …
What better way to do this than by encouraging and supporting more women into the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics? It is important to recognise the significant barriers that exist, including negative stereotyping and unconscious bias such as 'boys are better than girls at maths.' This affects not only the choice of girls to study STEM but also the results they can achieve. Addressing this unconscious bias has been shown to have an impact not only on women's and girls' choice to study STEM but also their results.
It is important to recognise that we have had some wonderfully successful women who have had wonderful careers in the STEM disciplines. Take Ruby Payne-Scott, a radio astronomer and pioneer responsible for some of the earliest discoveries in radio astronomy research. Or Dorothy Hill, a geologist and researcher most famous for becoming the first female professor at an Australian university. Not only must these women's contributions be celebrated; they must also be held up to young women and girls as role models. We must instil confidence in our girls that they can have a career in STEM. We need our scientific institutions to encourage and support women, offering them opportunities to advance their career, conduct effective mentoring for women in their workplace and make workplaces attractive places for women. We need to support these women in pursuing a career in STEM, maybe looking at their work arrangements or the way grant funding works to ensure that their work is more family friendly.
I am very pleased that Labor has announced a plan for STEM, and particularly I am pleased that Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has focused on ways we can boost women's participation in STEM by committing firstly with 20,000 STEM award degrees for five years, which will encourage and support more women in this discipline. That is very important. It is also very important that we on this side of the House are looking at how we can encourage our teachers to inspire primary school and secondary students in the STEM disciplines. I am very proud that my aunt won the Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching—she does a fabulous job, as she has done throughout her whole career. She is someone I have always looked up to, thinking that she had a passion for teaching but particularly a passion for teaching science. People like my aunt, Jane Wright, do a great job and they are people we can hold up as role models for our girls. I commend Labor's plan but also urge this parliament to really address the issue of women in STEM.
Mallee Electorate: Refugees
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (19:45): Mr Speaker, this is my first speech before you. I congratulate you on your new role.
It is time to see the benefit and not the burden. There are over 30,000 people who have been on visas that have been prohibited from working—a legacy of the Labor era. Many of those 30,000 people are living in regional Australia. Our government has created Safe Haven Enterprise Visas. A Safe Haven Enterprise Visa requires 3½ out of five years of work or study in a regional area in order to be able to apply for and eventually obtain residency. The Safe Haven Enterprise Visa creates hope for desperate people. State governments are required to sign on to Safe Haven Enterprise Visas to activate the program. The New South Wales state government is the only state government at this stage to have signed on to Safe Haven Enterprise Visas.
The Victorian Labor Andrews government, whilst giving in-principle support, is playing with people's lives just to get a few crumbs from the federal government Treasury. They are saying that they do not want to sign off on the visas unless there are some more federal resources going towards refugee support in regional areas. My area is appalled by that. How low can the Andrews government go? They are stooping to using refugees—desperate people who want to work—as ransom to try and extract some more federal government funds.
I love the people in my electorate. They are very fair-minded people. I have letters here from the communities of Swan Hill, Nhill, Mildura, Horsham and Stawell pleading with the Andrews government to get on with it and sign on to Safe Haven Enterprise Visas.
We recognise that there is no such thing as perfect policy when you are dealing with refugees and when you are dealing with desperate people. But the people of regional Australia, the people that I represent—and others right across Australia—can see that these refugees are a blessing. They are not a burden and should not be seen as such. And they should not be used as a ransom tool by the Victorian government.
We need workers to grow our horticultural industry. We need workers to grow our animal husbandry industry and our abattoir expansions. The opportunities that we have stitched up with free trade agreements will only be capitalised if we can turn those opportunities into reality with hands and feet on the ground—with workers. The cruelty and tardiness of the Victorian Labor government is in contrast to the compassion and optimism of the people of the Wimmera, Mallee and Mildura regions. A recent Deloitte report stated that Karen refugees who live in Nhill, in my community, have contributed and driven an additional $40 million into the economy. These people are a benefit. They are not a burden. It appals me that the Victorian government has not signed on to Safe Haven Enterprise Visas.
It is time, if I can use that great Labor phrase, for the Victorian government to do the right thing. Go and meet with these people. They care about Australia. They came here and they want to make their home here. They want a pathway to being here forever. They want to contribute to their society. We have jobs for them. We have a community that cares for them. We have the legislation that has been through this House and through the Senate, and all we need is the Victorian Labor government to stop being so damned cruel. There is just no excuse for their behaviour. All they are trying to do is ratchet a few extra crumbs, and they are playing with people's lives and opportunities. People are beginning to see that you cannot behave like this and call yourself compassionate. I simply say to the Victorian Labor government: it is time. Give these people a go. Let them work. There is work for them. They are a benefit to our regional communities and not a burden. Get on with it!
Shortland Electorate: Mental Health
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (19:50): Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you. I believe this is the first time I have spoken since you have been in the chair. Congratulations on your elevation to Speaker.
On Wednesday, 2 September, I will be attending the official opening of headspace at Lake Haven on the Central Coast. It has been operating for a couple of months now, but the 2nd is the day that it will be officially opened. I would like to congratulate all those who were involved in securing this headspace in the northern part of Wyong Shire.
A group came together and worked over quite a few months to secure a headspace for Wyong Shire. There were a number of organisations on the Central Coast that had identified the need for a headspace in that northern part of the shire because of the increase in the number of young people living in the Wyong Shire and of people needing support. There was an increased number of young people accessing LINKS youth service. At that stage, LINKS was allocated one day a week to transport young people to Gosford. There was a round trip provided by the LINKS youth service.
The Central Coast Regional Plan identified the needs of youth in the Wyong Shire area. The plan also highlighted the burden of mental health in areas of great socioeconomic disadvantage, which is exactly the kind of area the northern part of Wyong Shire is. The population is increasing. It is due to hit 160,000 by 2016 and it has an average growth rate of 1.5 per cent. There are a very high number of young people who are unemployed. There are a large number of young people who do not finish their schooling and, when they leave school, they are then dependent in one way or another on support from Centrelink. The proportion of jobless families in the northern part of the Central Coast, in Wyong Shire, is quite large; 26 per cent of working-age people in Wyong Shire receive some sort of support from Centrelink. Employment opportunities are very few. Issues around transport mean there is a heavy reliance on motor vehicles. There is a bus service that goes in and comes back once a day. A large number of families are not connected to the internet. As I said, there are very few opportunities for employment.
Accessing headspace in Wyong was difficult for these young people. One of the best meetings organised within the community that I have attended happened on 31 May 2013, when the then minister for mental health, Mark Butler, visited the San Remo Neighbourhood Centre—or, as it is now known, The Epicentre—and was blown away by the presentations from the young people there that day who shared their stories and told how hard it was for them not to be able to access mental health services when they needed them. We also heard from teachers from two of the local high schools and from the wonderful Jillian Hogan from The Epicentre, as it is now because it is the epicentre of that community. As a result, then minister Butler approved a headspace for Wyong Shire. It now does outreach to the San Remo Epicentre one half-day a week, and it is operating in Lake Haven.
I would like to thank the current government for continuing with the plan to build and fund the centre at Lake Haven. This would not have happened without the community getting behind it. This headspace was truly generated by the community. I would particularly like to put on record my thanks to the previous minister for mental health, Mr Butler.
Vietnam Veterans Day
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (19:55): Mr Speaker, I too congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. Clearly, the way you are already carrying out your duties demonstrates why you received the unanimous support of this chamber.
Yesterday I was delighted and honoured to be present at the Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial here in the nation's capital. The Vietnam Veterans Association vice-president invited us to participate in yesterday's Long Tan day, and I thank Peter Ryan for that invitation. It was a moving occasion, as they always are, but it was also a poignant occasion because it gave me the opportunity to reflect on not only the deeds of the service men and women during the conflict of 1962 to 1975—to 1972 for Australian forces—but also the work that Vietnam veterans do throughout the country to this day.
Mr Speaker, I take you back to that time of protests in the late sixties and early seventies, and the legendary, infamous stories of service personnel not being able to wear their military uniforms in public for fear of being spat on or having disparaging comments thrown at them. As I sat there yesterday, we were addressed by two particular former Vietnam veterans: one of them was formerly a young Lieutenant Peter Cosgrove; the other was formerly a young Captain Michael Jeffery. Who would have thought in the late sixties and early seventies—in all that turmoil, with the disparaging, unfortunate and disgraceful way in which some members of the Australian public spoke about and addressed our returned servicemen—that two of those young men would both go on to become Governor-General of our nation and serve our country so proudly. Major General Jeffery (Rtd), who spoke at the service yesterday, gave a magnificent speech, and I commended him for it at the time as well.
It was D Company 6RAR, led by Major Harry Smith, that was caught in that rainy day at the rubber plantation at Long Tan. I am very proud to say I was a member of that battalion, 6RAR, sometime later. I know just how deservedly their deeds of valour are remembered and richly valued.
Today, so many of those Vietnam veterans continue to play such an important part in our community, and I want to acknowledge some of them here tonight. First of all, Tony Dell, who was also a test cricketer for Australia, formed Stand Tall 4 PTS and campaigns for those who continue to suffer long-term negative impacts of their military service, particularly their active service. There are veterans like Ron Strong, up on the Sunshine Coast, who plays a pivotal role at the drop-in centre at Maroochydore, putting a hand out to other veterans.
There are three blokes who have been instrumental in opening the Mooloolaba Surf Club on Thursday mornings for Vietnam veterans. Tomorrow morning at seven o'clock, there will be Vietnam vets, families of Vietnam vets and, most importantly, young Iraq and Afghanistan veterans mixing as one in an informal environment, having a barbecue. Acka, or Ian Atkinson, Rick Brittain and Lewie Pattle are three of the key personnel who got that started, and I thank the Mooloolaba Surf Club for making the facility available. To see those veterans, in an informal, casual, Australian fashion, passing on their life experiences, their road—in some cases, to recovery—to the younger veterans is a thing to behold.
Up in the mountains, there is Steve Eaton, who only this year was awarded the OAM for services to the community. He is just one of many up that way, like Chris Brooker, who is also a recipient of the OAM, who keep the Vietnam veterans and service to community alive in everything they do. Barry Canton, a very good friend of mine and also a decorated Vietnam veteran, from Witta—who, sadly, has also known tragedy in his own family—are just some of the many people across the Sunshine Coast who lived duty first in the battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment, who lived service to country and who continue that service to country through service to community. Tonight I say thank you for what you did and thank you for what you are doing today.
Debate interrupted.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Hunt: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
Mr Hockey: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to foreign acquisitions and takeovers, and for related purposes.
Mr Hockey: to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the collection of information, and publication of statistics, about foreign interests in certain land, and for related purposes.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Sir John Monash Centre, Australian National Memorial Villers-Bretonneux, France.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown Redevelopment Stage 2 Project.
None.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Women in Policing
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (09:30): Earlier this month, police staff from Liverpool, Green Valley, Fairfield and Cabramatta local area commands took part in the baton relay in recognition of 100 years of women in policing. The baton relay was a national event which has made its way across every police command to commemorate the service of women in policing. Historically, policing has been a male dominated occupation, but, in 1915, the New South Wales police force advertised for its first positions of women in police. It drew more than 500 applications from women seeking to join the police force, but only two were accepted. Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes were selected and sworn in as probationary special constables. At the time, they were not allowed to wear a uniform; their main duties were specifically related to issues involving welfare for women and children. It was not until 1965—some 50 years later—that women were given full recognition as police officers and, as such, were entitled to superannuation, long-service leave and other benefits that had been previously denied to them. They were sworn in under the office of constable and were able to exercise full police powers, even though at the time they were largely tasked with duties associated with public relations and school liaison, together with specific investigative work.
But today the New South Wales Police Force is made up of nearly 35 per cent women and, importantly, there is no distinction between the allocation of duties between male and female officers. Women do not just make a great contribution to policing; they are an integral and central element of contemporary law enforcement. While women can be seen taking on more wide-ranging roles in the force, including tactical response units, the rescue squad and the dog units, they are also able to bring specific qualities to the table that help police better relate to the community needs.
The role of women in policing has come a long way, and this anniversary really puts the light to the fact that, over the last century, changes have occurred in the quality of representation within policing. Women have made, and continue to make, a great contribution to the New South Wales Police Force. On this occasion, on behalf of a very grateful community, may I say thank you to all who have the courage to wear the police uniform.
Men's Sheds
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (09:32): Men have a tendency to neglect their health. As a group, we generally do not visit the doctor as often as we should. We do not like talking about our problems; we particularly do not like talking about mental health—things like depression, isolation, anger and loneliness. There are some wonderful programs out there focusing on men's health, including some excellent campaigns by beyondblue, but one of those great grassroots men's health initiatives is the Men's Shed movement. At first glance, a local Men's Shed may not appear to be a health initiative, but, tucked away in industrial estates, down alleys and in old sheds, they are making a difference to the health of thousands of Australian men. Men's Sheds provide a space for men to make friends, talk about blokes' issues and learn new skills. They provide a safe, comfortable place for men to talk about issues that would often not be discussed in other settings. Men's Sheds reduce social isolation, particularly for older men and men living in rural and remote areas, enabling positive social interactions and enhancing health and wellbeing in the men who attend. It is not just men who benefit from the presence of a vibrant Men's Shed in the community. When men are physically and mentally healthier, families are stronger and our entire community benefits.
Men's Sheds also give back to their communities. Many Men's Sheds use the skills and equipment they have to support the community that supports them. The Grafton Men's Shed, which is located just outside the electorate of Cowper in the electorate of Page, recently manufactured 40 nesting boxes for native Australian animals that will be used along the new Pacific Highway upgrade north of Woolgoolga. I have visited a number of local Men's Sheds in the Cowper electorate over the years, and I have always come away impressed.
The Australian government recognises the value of the Men's Shed movement through the National Shed Development Programme. The outcome of round 10 has just been announced with about $400,000 awarded to 115 Men's Sheds around Australia. Three Men's Sheds in the Cowper electorate have secured funding. The Nambucca Men's Shed will receive $2,200 for the purchase of a new laser engraver and cutter to produce shapes, letters and pictures. I want to commend John Kent for his leadership of the Nambucca Men's Shed.
The Stronger Men's Group in Bowraville will receive $7,000 to help set up a new Men's Shed with a thicknesser, drills, tool boxes and safety equipment. The funding will also help with repairs to the shed and the installation of a disabled access toilet. The Woolgoolga Men's Shed has secured a grant of $6,000 to build a better work area with a new concrete floor, improved roofing and fencing and an upgraded electricity supply. I commend Ray O'Keefe and his team at the Woolgoolga Men's Shed. I know the men at that shed are excited about the opportunity to improve their facility.
I am pleased to highlight the great work done by Men's Sheds in the Cowper electorate. I encourage other sheds to apply for funding through the next round of the National Shed Development Programme.
Vietnam War 40th Anniversary
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (09:36): This year marks the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War and with it the exodus of an estimated one million Vietnamese people from their homeland. Of those who fled it is believed that about half a million vanished with many possibly dying at sea. Of those who survived over 57,000 landed in Australia with some 2,000 coming as boat arrivals. Their settlement marked a significant turning point in the Australian story. The Vietnamese were the first major wave of boat arrival refugees to reach Australia. They also represented the first major wave of non-European migrants and a major test for Australian immigration policy at the time. The integration of Vietnamese people into Australian society caused a major shift in Australian cultural thinking. It was a difficult period throughout Australia with mixed reactions to the Vietnamese arrivals.
Australia had been entrenched in the Vietnam War for a decade. Australians understood the fate of those Vietnamese who fled and there was sympathy for them. Simultaneously Australians were uneasy about having people of a different culture and background as their neighbours. I had personal experience of that. In the early 1980s Vietnamese people moved into my local area in substantial numbers and sought to build a major Vietnamese community centre. As a local councillor at the time I soon found myself in the middle of a polarised community. As history now shows any fears held at the time were unfounded. The Vietnamese community centre was built and caused no disruption to the local community. The Vietnamese people proved to be model neighbours and subsequently model citizens. It seemed that it was a similar story wherever in Australia Vietnamese people settled.
Having survived a dangerous journey to Australia after a 10-year long war the Vietnamese people were determined to make the most of their new life, and their sole focus was the opportunities Australia presented to them. They were grateful for what they were offered and were not deterred by the barriers that others may have succumbed to. In a relatively short time their place in the Australian story was secured. They integrated seamlessly into Australian life and through their incredible work ethic set about building not only their own future but also that of our country. Never did they deny or turn their back on their heritage.
The 40th anniversary was marked by a reception in the national parliament on 22 June, which I attended, and which was attended by Vietnamese representatives from around Australia. I was particularly proud that South Australia's Governor His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le and Mrs Lan Le were amongst those in attendance. As refugee boat arrivals themselves theirs is a truly remarkable and inspirational story.
Today, 40 years after the end of the Vietnam War, we not only reflect on the many individual stories of Vietnamese arrivals, but celebrate their presence. We also thank the Australian Vietnamese community for their outstanding contribution to Australian prosperity.
Cowan Electorate: Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (09:39): In Cowan the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex has hosted many sports with thousands of users each weekend. When I say 'thousands' I mean it, because during the netball season each Saturday more than 4,000 people use the facilities. Across the road at the Kingsway Football and Sporting Club they host Australian football and the ages range from Auskick to Seniors with hundreds of players, officials, volunteers and family members. In summer that field is used by the Kingsway Little Athletics Centre and, again, has around 1,000 users then.
One hundred metres away is the Wanneroo Baseball Club, and their diamonds are also used by the Viking Softball Club. In the other direction is the Wanneroo City Soccer Club and next to that is the Olympic Kingsway Sports Club and the Wanneroo Rugby Union Football Club. The northern conference of the WA gridiron competition also plays some of its games there. On a different part of the complex, the teams of the Wanneroo Districts Cricket Club play, and there is also hockey played on that field. The indoor complex hosts many sports and sporting groups, including Badminton WA. This is a very well used complex across the whole area. It includes literally thousands of users—not just on the weekends but also for training during the week.
And it is not just sport. The complex also hosts the Air Force cadets and the iconic bingo events at the Kingsway Football and Sporting Club and the Olympic Kingsway Sports Club. There are dog walkers and those who just enjoy the opportunity to exercise themselves—an activity which I count myself a part of.
The Kingsway sporting complex should be known for these positive pastimes, but unfortunately not all the activities conducted there are positive. As an open complex, others can enter the area and move around after dark and at other times and can create problems. Since 2013 there have been many incidents where the police have attended. These calls have been for general offences, found property, suspicious persons, burglary, traffic breaches, disturbances, noise complaints, wilful exposure, abandoned vehicles, fires, stealing, public disorder, building alarms, hooning, drugs, weapons, threats and other problems.
Although the good and legitimate activities far outweigh the negative and bad activities, the clean-up costs after incidents for clubs include increased fees, other costs and insurance charges. Generally, these problems make life for volunteers on club committees harder than it should be. I think they do enough without these additional challenges. Because I have such high regard for the clubs and legitimate users, I believe that additional security measures are required, such as CCTV, to make sure that those up to no good and abusers of the facilities are placed under additional pressure. I therefore thank Minister Keenan, the Minister for Justice, for his interest in this issue and I look forward to working with him for better security, including better law and order outcomes, for all clubs and legitimate users of the Kingsway sporting complex.
Denison Electorate: Arts Funding
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (09:42): Just about every medium and small arts organisation in my electorate has approached me with concerns about the decision by the Minister for the Arts to take $104 million in arts funding from the Australia Council for the Arts in order to establish the National Program for Excellence in the Arts. Under this new funding arrangements, only one arts organisation in the whole of Tasmania has been guaranteed funding, and that is the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. I certainly support the full and ongoing funding of the TSO, but the changes now leave all other Tasmanian arts organisations deeply worried about their futures. Take, for example, the Terrapin Puppet Theatre. Terrapin is a Tasmanian institution and has been performing for thousands of schoolchildren for the past 35 years. Indeed, pretty much anyone you speak to who has completed their education in Tasmania can recall seeing one or more of Terrapin's exceptional performances. But yet, despite this remarkable track record, the puppet theatre's viability is now in question because of the arts funding changes announced earlier this year.
I acknowledge that the arts minister's staff met with me last week to discuss this matter, and I am grateful for the time of the minister's chief of staff, Paul O'Sullivan. I note that Mr O'Sullivan assured me that under the new arts funding arrangement the process will in fact be more effective for smaller arts bodies, as such organisations will be better able to compete on merit for funding. In other words, the government is arguing that the new process will be more democratic. But I have to say that I am very sceptical of the government's position and will remain so until there is firm evidence that National Program for Excellence in the Arts is in fact superior to leaving all that money with the Australia Council for the Arts.
I think, for now at least, that the popular view that this change in funding arrangements simply creates a slush fund for the minister is entirely warranted. The challenge for him is to prove me wrong and to do so quickly, because I have countless arts organisations at my doorstep not being able to plan for the future and fearing that projects they have built up over the years are about to be lost.
The Tasmanian arts community is more vibrant and dynamic than ever, but it has not yet achieved its full potential, and that means the inherent value of the art is still to be realised, as is the arts-led economic revival it promises. Tassie arts need a better deal.
Solomon Electorate: Local Sporting Champions
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:44): I am delighted to announce the round 1 recipients of the 2015-16 Solomon local sporting champions grants. Each recipient will receive $500 towards their travel and accommodation costs to attend their national championship event. I congratulate 13 local sporting stars.
Darcy Elliston is a netball player who was selected to play in the under-17s netball championship in Sydney. She has been playing netball since she was eight years old and was very excited to be able to represent the Northern Territory. Who knows, we might have a future Diamonds player in Darcy. Matthew Cox from Gunn played in the under-15s men's national hockey championship in Hobart. This is the fourth year in a row that he has represented the Northern Territory.
Sophie Hatzismalis from Millner was selected for the first time to represent the Northern Territory as part of the under-15s netball championships. We may have another Diamonds star there as well. Badminton player Pitchaya Viravong has been selected to represent the Northern Territory in the Australian under-15 championships in a months time. We are wishing her all the very best.
Rugby union player Todd McManus was selected to represent the Northern Territory at the Queensland rugby union junior state championships. Tenpin bowler Jordan Harris was selected to represent the Northern Territory at the President's Shield Junior Tenpin Bowling Championships. Basketball player Alison Fleming was selected to represent the Northern Territory at the under-16 basketball championships in Tasmania.
Brodie Lake will represent the Territory in Adelaide later this year at the Australian Pacific School Games. I wish him and the rest of his basketball team all the very best. Molly Althouse was also selected to play basketball at the Pacific Games later this year, and I wish Molly and her team all the very best. Jenti White will represent the Territory in swimming later this year, also at the Pacific School Games, and I am sure the swim team will do us proud. Tjina Stoll will represent the Territory in soccer at the Pacific Games. Last year she was picked in the reserve squad, so she is pretty happy that she has been selected this year to play.
Congratulations to Jordon Ormsby who will represent the Northern Territory at the Australian calisthenics nationals and finally, congratulations to Alysa Holmes who represented the Northern Territory at the Australian gymnastics championships.
We have a fantastic array of sporting star across a wide range of sports. The next round of the Solomon sporting grants is open and people can go to my website and have a look.
I also thank my committee. It is great to have Shelley Haynes from Netball NT on board and I also welcome back Jarred Ilett and Lia Finocchiaro.
National Science Week
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (09:48): This week is National Science Week, and I kicked it off by attending St Mary's Catholic school in Shortland electorate last Friday. I was overwhelmed by the activities of the students, by their commitment to looking at alternative ways of doing things and by the fact that they were using stem technology and learning skills for the future.
Yesterday, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, visited Parliament House. That agency is looking at the future and looking at a very different future for Australia to the one that we have now. It is looking at utilising renewable energy. We are at that cutting edge as far as renewable energy is concerned in this country at the moment. I noticed that the minister made a commitment to ARENA and made a commitment to renewable energy and new technologies, and I thank him for doing that. The speakers at the event talked about the innovation, the knowledge and the professionalism of those involved in the presentation that we saw. They also talked about the fact that scientists, engineers, the CSIRO and a wide variety of professionals were involved in looking at new technology and looking at technologies that will secure the future, not only of Australia, but globally.
The organisations there included Sunshift, who have their factory at Tomago in the Hunter, I believe. They are involved in hybrid solar. In addition to that, there were representatives from the Moree Solar Farm. Moree Solar Farm uses really cutting-edge technology and, I believe, has the ability to power a small city. There was Australian Renewable Energy Mapping. The University of New South Wales was present, as were SETuP and many other organisations. The thing that impressed me most was the fact that we have these companies working here in Australia developing new technology that will be beneficial not only to us here in Australia but also to countries throughout the world. I congratulate everyone who was involved with the activities last night and I embrace ARENA and the future.
Robertson Electorate: Medical Research Future Fund
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (09:51): I rise to commend the House for the successful passing of legislation last week to establish the groundbreaking $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, the largest of its kind in the world. This fund is potentially a life-saving, life-changing and life-sustaining piece of legislation. It will also strengthen Australia's standing as one of the global leaders in the field of medical research. The fund will receive an initial contribution of $1 billion from the uncommitted balance of the Health and Hospitals Fund and will eventually provide around $1 billion every year in additional funding for medical research and medical innovation. The remaining contributions will come from budget savings in health until the balance reaches $20 billion, with the capital of the fund preserved in perpetuity. I am advised that the first $10 million in additional medical research funding will be distributed this financial year, and over $400 million will go out over the next four years. That is in addition to our existing budget for direct medical research of around $3.4 billion over the next four years. This will deliver not only finances but also stability to the medical research sector.
The impact of this particular piece of legislation on the people of the Central Coast cannot be overstated. I had a look at 10 of the best research projects that were announced last month—projects that will have real impact for people living in my electorate of Robertson. I looked at Professor Mark Cook's research. He is from the University of Melbourne, at St Vincent's Hospital. Professor Cook and his team have developed a device that can detect seizures as they are happening and rapidly respond with a counter-stimulation to stop the seizure in its tracks. They hope to eventually create a portable device that can be implanted in people with epilepsy to help prevent them from having seizures in the first place.
At the University of Melbourne, Associate Professor Phillip Darcy has been undertaking research that has helped close a loophole that cancer cells have exploited. By modifying white blood cells, he and his team have found a way to train the immune system to identify and attack cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed. This approach is now being tested in clinical trials. It is an outstanding potential breakthrough.
Landmark research like these two examples can truly unlock breakthroughs in preventative care, potential cures and better treatments for Australians and people living on the Central Coast so they can live longer and healthier lives. But it has also enabled a fantastic new vision for the Central Coast to be a base for world-class health care and medical education and research, potentially located on the grounds of Gosford Hospital. I will say again how proud I am of the proposal outlined by the University of Newcastle and its partners to develop this plan—a globally connected, fully integrated Central Coast health and medical research institute and a co-located Central Coast medical school. I have said many times that this particular proposal has potential to transform the Central Coast, and I am very proud of this legislation that has been passed.
Lalor Electorate: Centenary of Anzac
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (09:54): I rise today to share with the House an event that occurred in the electorate of Lalor on 17 July. That day I joined Senator Ronaldson, Professor Janet Butler, author of Kitty's War, an historian from La Trobe University, Wyndham Mayor Peter Maynard, Colonel Jan McCarthy and Mrs Pat McIntyre from the Returned Nurses Club of Victoria, Les Sanderson, proud President of the Little River Historical Society, family and friends of Sister Kit McNaughton and Sister Sadie McIntosh of Little River. We joined and gathered to unveil a commemorative statue honouring nurses who served in World War I. The statue pays specific tribute to Kit McNaughton and Sadie McIntosh—cousins, who left Little River to serve their country.
On 17 July it was 100 years since the Sister Kit McNaughton sailed on the Orsova for Egypt. Janet Butler shared some facts with us about their travel overseas and their war service. Sisters McNaughton and McIntosh were in the thick of things, though their experiences again were typical of all the nurses who served. Both travelled first to Egypt where they nursed in hospitals created in converted hotels. Sadie McIntosh then moved to care for soldiers suffering from what we would now see as frightening infectious diseases at the Military Infectious Hospital in Egypt. This was a time when there were no antibiotics, and it was nursing that made all the difference. Kit meanwhile travelled to Lemnos Island near Gallipoli where, in tents, in a hospital camp where women were not expected to be, and in harsh conditions, she nursed the Gallipoli wounded and ill.
In 1916, after the evacuation of Australians from Gallipoli Sadie stayed on to nurse the soldiers, including the light horsemen, in the desert campaigns in Sinai and Palestine, while Kit travelled with her hospital to the Western Front. After a stint in England Sadie would follow her. In different hospitals both experienced the rush and horrific casualties of the battle of the Somme. Kit would serve at a clearing station during the Battle of Passchendaele a year later when she came under fire, and Sadie's own hospital would come under threat during the German advance a year later. Through it all the nurses made it a point of honour not to complain. The Australian nurses' service was recognised with 388 decorations, including 42 Royal Red Crosses, military nursing's highest honour, which Kit was awarded on her way home in 1919.
I was proud that day to be part of the community while we acknowledged the contribution made by these courageous, compassionate women who served so professionally and, in doing so, changed the world. They were, as history teaches us, changed by war but were equally change agents in the theatre of war and on their return to civilian life. I am pleased to see that we have a memorial in the electorate of Lalor and in Little River in particular.
Kokoda Challenge
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (09:57): It has been said that Gallipoli created a nation, but Kokoda saved a nation. At Gallipoli we fought for the British Empire, but at Kokoda we fought for Australia. The men who fought on the Kokoda Track showed courage, mateship, endurance and sacrifice. It is these enduring attributes that form the core values of the Kokoda Youth Foundation. The foundation aims to inspire young Australians, particularly those from a disadvantaged background, to reach their full potential.
The foundation was established by Vietnam veteran Doug Henderson who was motivated to do so after listening to a talk about the Battle of the Kokoda Track. Doug wanted to keep the Kokoda spirit alive and believed this could be done by incorporating Kokoda values into life-changing experiences for young Australians. Ten years on, one single youth program and event has now turned into a wide range of youth programs, events and camps across several states. While the focus is on youth programs, a significant part of the foundation's funding comes from the Kokoda Challenge which is a series of kilometre-long walks throughout Queensland and Victoria.
The Brisbane challenge is held annually in Brookfield in my electorate of Ryan, and I was very proud to recently send off the 1,200 competitors. The event is now so popular that it is sold out four weeks in advance with more than half the teams comprising of local school groups. The challenge began early on a Sunday morning with competitors completing the 15- or 30-kilometre walk through the hills of Ryan electorate within nine hours. The funds raised to go towards the Kokoda Youth Foundation's programs, which take place over 12 months, with six months of physical training and mentoring and six months of community service.
Another worthy program is the Isurava Youth Boot Camp, which is an early intervention program operating in partnership with the Queensland government aimed at troubled young people who are not reaching their full potential and are at risk of entering the justice system. The aim is to empower them with the knowledge to make better decisions and to set them on a more stable path.
The Kokoda Youth Foundation is contributing to local communities, including in my electorate letter of Ryan, with money raised by the challenge events going straight back into local youth programs. This creates a vital flow-on effect with supported youths going on to support their siblings, parents, families and the wider community. Importantly, the foundation also gives back to the people of Papua New Guinea, whose ancestors supported Australian servicemen all those years ago. Each year the foundation recognises the role they played during the Battle of Kokoda by donating money and resources to communities and villages along the track. These resources go towards improving local schools and hospitals, medical teams and building and maintenance teams. Living by the core values of Kokoda—courage, mateship, endurance and sacrifice—keeps the Kokoda spirit alive and encourages our young people to be the best they can.
Throsby Electorate: Steel industry
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:00): Australia needs to be a country that continues to make stuff. As one of the world's largest exporters of iron ore and metallurgical coal, I say that Australia needs to be a country that continues to make steel. In my region, the Illawarra, steel has been an integral part of our economy since 1928. It has shaped the region, it has shaped our infrastructure and it has shaped our landscape but it has also shaped our workforce. It has been one of the largest employers and one of the largest capital contributors to the region.
At its height, it employed close to 30,000 people. Of course, we have been through many challenges since 1928. I remember, very vividly, the impact on the region when, in 1982-83, the steelworks went from 23,000 employees down to 13,000 employees in a very short period of time. It changed the region; it changed the aspirations and hopes of everyone who thought their future careers might lay within the steelworks.
I have grave concerns that we may go through a similar process again, unless we are able to put in place a plan which saves our steel industry and ensures our steel industry continues to be a profitable industry and a good employer for years to come. The problem is this. Since the global financial crisis, the Australian steel industry has faced very difficult trading conditions, indeed—from the high Australian dollar to high input costs and many other factors. The heart of the problem we face today is the fact that China has gone from a rapid growth phase into a more moderate growth phase. Over the last decade it has gone from a country that is a net importer of steel to that of a net exporter of steel, much of which is subsidised. With that rapid slowdown, 800 million tonnes per annum are about to hit the world market.
Many countries around the world are responding by putting in place strong antidumping measures and local content requirements for domestic infrastructure and spending projects. These are policies that Australia must consider. Today I will be meeting with representatives of BlueScope, the unions, and the Leader of the Opposition. I know there are many other meetings that are going on within the House as well. Labor is committed to ensuring that at the next election we have a steel industry policy, which ensures we continue to make steel in this country. Of course, we do not have to wait until the next election. When we were in government, we put in place tough antidumping rules to ensure that subsidised steel did not flood our local markets. The problem we have is this government has stripped resources from the Anti-Dumping Commission. We can act now by increasing the resources. We also put in place the Australian Jobs Act to ensure that local businesses and government contracts offered the work to local companies. The government is not serious about it. They can act now and ensure the Australian Jobs Act is enforced.
Deakin Electorate: Melbourne traffic congestion
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (10:03): A couple of weeks ago I was very pleased to have the opportunity to address a very spirited group of people who gathered—in their hundreds—outside state parliament in Melbourne. It was to, once again, draw attention to the crippling impact of traffic congestion in my home town of Melbourne and to condemn Bill Shorten, Dan Andrews and Labor for their reckless and outrageously short-sighted decision to tear up the contracts to build the East West Link. Those in attendance at the rally came from all parts of our great city with many from my electorate of Deakin. It was fantastic to see so many people coming together to send such a strong message to Labor. As I have repeatedly said in this place, congestion on our roads in Melbourne is continuing to act as a handbrake on economic growth and productivity in Victoria. According to a recent report by Infrastructure Australia, this cost to the Victorian economy will soon reach as much as $9 billion per annum.
The same report also confirmed that the worst congestion hot spots are the roads between the Eastern Freeway and City Link, followed by the Eastern Freeway itself. The East West Link project would have clearly gone a long way to repairing these bottlenecks and creating 7,000 jobs in the process. It would have provided relief to motorists in Melbourne's west, the inner city and of course, close to my heart, those in the eastern suburbs, particularly commuters in my electorate of Deakin. Indeed, research has shown that the completion of the East West Link project would save motorists in my electorate who use the Eastern Freeway daily up to three hours per week in travel time. As our population in Victoria grows by over 100,000 people per year, the need for the East West Link will just get greater; it will not diminish.
I want to say thank you to everyone for being at our Build the Link rally. Clearly, we have missed an opportunity because of Labor. Labor have decided instead to pander to the inner city Greens and to spend $640 million of taxpayers' money to cancel a large road project—the largest single infrastructure project that has ever happened in Australia. But this government continues to be committed to the East West Link and $3 billion remains on the table for Victoria to build the East West Link. I was therefore pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues, including Allan Tudge, the member for Aston, a whole host of state members of parliament and the deputy leader of the Victorian opposition, David Hodgett, again ensuring that we are showing our commitment to this important project. I want to say to Labor, as I said to Labor on the day: this is not going away. We will get louder and we will continue to fight for the East West Link— (Time expired)
National Science Week
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (10:06): This week we are marking National Science Week, which celebrates and acknowledges the contributions of Australian scientists, not only on the global stage; it also aims to get more young Australians involved in science. In fact, this is one of the critical challenges our country faces in the decades ahead. We need to make sure that more of our students have computational literacy skills and that we have teachers that can effectively convey that. That is why I was really happy and really proud last Friday to join Melissa Dobbie from the CSIRO at the McDowall State School, with the principle, Mr Fogarty, and 40 excited young students, exploring all of those critical skills for the future. We had a lot of fun. The students got involved in counting exercises, learning about how to compile and segregate data and we even got to test some paper planes—mine unfortunately did not go too well, but the students were very successful.
Science Week is all about getting young Australians engaged and interested in science. If Australia wants to stay ahead of the pack in the Asian century, then we have to do much better when it comes to what is called STEM. Australia has fallen behind in STEM, in those critical skills that we require to make sure that we are innovative and competitive in our region. As our economy restructures and responds to technological change, it is vital that all Australians are skilled and able to participate with these critical skills. Three out of every four of the fastest growing occupations will require skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. What we need to do immediately is provide targeted investment in our school system to increase participation and to improve skills; we need to upskill our teaching profession in particular. For example, we know that there are many teachers out there. There are 20,000 teachers in science, maths and IT classes who have never studied these subjects at university. We do need immediate targeted investments to ensure that primary and secondary teachers are upskilled, and we are looking to provide additional scholarships in critical areas and additional financial support for professional development. But most particularly, critically, we need a huge boost to scholarships in this area in the near future if we are to meet the challenges of the Asian century. Our trading partners are moving right past us when it comes to these critical skills in the educational system. We have to catch up quickly. That is why Science Week is so important. (Time expired)
Coalmining
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (10:10): If you were putting a pool in at your house in Canberra—let us say a pool, although I do not know why you would—and you had to have a pool fence, would you accept that someone in Townsville could object to that fence? Of course you would not. But this is exactly what we are seeing with the objection to the Adani Carmichael Mine—that someone hundreds and thousands of kilometres away, for whatever reason, can raise an objection to something that is so vital to the prosperity of our region and the people in it.
Make no mistake: the environmental conditions around the operation of and transport around the Adani Carmichael Mine, outside Townsville, are the strictest ever in Australia. Why is that? Is it just pure luck? Is it green activism? Or have we grown as a nation—just as the previous speaker was talking about—with science? Have our science, our knowledge and our environmental protection grown over the hundreds of years in which we have been operating in this country? Would you expect that we would still be operating under laws from the early 1900s in 2015? No, you would not.
The more than 300 conditions around the operation of Abbot Point, which were laid down and adopted by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, are backed by the science of what we can do here. The wetlands about which all the green groups were up in arms were actually man made. These people who are making these objections to our region know so very little about our region and our people. These big projects are not about India; they are not about how we look internationally. These big projects are what we need to develop our small businesses. Whilst it is vital for Adani to get this mine going so that they can lift hundreds of millions of people in India out of poverty, it is about the builder in Townsville, and it goes all the way down to the school tuckshop in Townsville. Those are the sorts of things that we have to do. Those are the jobs. That is where our prosperity as a region, as a people, as a state and as a city comes from.
If we can get the macro right in these things—and we are getting the macro right—then we have to deliver on the micro. The people who are using these technicalities and section 487 of the EPBC Act are doing it because they have a philosophical opposition to coalmining. The initial objection was around the reef, and that was taken care of. So now they have moved to endangered species, which are all well and taken care of but are not in a briefing note somewhere along the line, and that is enough to do that. The people of Townsville want to make sure that our region will be taken care of.
Hurndell, Mr Cecil Henry
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:13): Rank-and-file members are the lifeblood of the Australian Labor Party. Of those nearly 500 members who faithfully and energetically serve our party, the life members occupy a truly special place. So, when we lose one of their rank, we pause to remember and respect their contribution. Today, I seek to do this for Cecil Henry Hurndell. To people delighted to know the man, he was known as simply as Cec. Cec left us on 21 July—an event that deeply affected many. Softly spoken, modest, good humoured, yet passionate about his beliefs and his politics, Cec left a mark on many. It is why so many rank-and-file members gathered to mourn his passing. They were joined by the present Mayor of Blacktown, Stephen Bali; past mayor Councillor Charlie Lowles and other councillors; my friend and predecessor Roger Price; and former state MP Richard Amery and his successor, Edmond Atalla. And there were friends from times past—former member for Banks Daryl Melham and former state MP Alan Ashton also made their way to the ceremony to pay respects to a true believer. It speaks of the great esteem in which Cec was held. That day, those gathered heard beautiful words from those that loved him deeply.
Among Cec's greatest passions were his family and his extended family in the Labor Party. Intensely interested in politics and its inner workings, he joined our party in 1960. His interest in politics was sparked after hearing the words of a firebrand of the time, Sydney MP Eddie Ward. After moving out of Panania and transferring to Rooty Hill, Cec quickly established himself as a regular attender of branch meetings. An active participant in discussions, he served on the Rooty Hill branch executive for nearly all of the time that he was in that branch.
In 2003—at the annual conference of the New South Wales Labor Party—Cec was awarded life membership, following 40 years of dedicated service. He was proud of this award and wore his life membership badge at all Labor functions. Nephew Geoff Nicholls concluded his eulogy by remarking on how Cec was a great man who put everyone else ahead of himself. This was echoed in his service to the Labor Party and in his consistent raising of issues that affect people in our community. Always striving for a better go and a fairer society, he always saw elected representatives as expressing the will and wish of members—and he made sure he kept us all very well grounded.
I mentioned Cec's membership of the Rooty Hill branch. It meets every second Friday of the month, and Cec would invariably sit in the same spot: on the table that ran parallel to the far wall of the meeting. Some nights, elected representatives would receive a volley of tough questions and you would always have to be quick on your feet. Some nights you would think you were lucky and reckon you could get away with no tough questions, but just as you went to resume your seat you would see a slow arm and a crooked finger raise to get the attention of the chair. It was Cec, primed with a cheeky smile and a lateral question. Physically absent, but vividly present, with fondness and respect, remains Cec Hurndell. Vale one of life's true gems.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Community Events
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (10:16): Last Sunday I participated in the Cold Plunge for Those in Need, which was organised by the Rotary Club of Glenelg. I joined over 130 people who braved the cold, icy waters of Glenelg—luckily it was a beautiful winter's day. The event is for a great cause: raising money for Vinnies SA and Uniting Care Glenelg, to support those experiencing homelessness in our community and those in need in Adelaide. As I have said in this place on previous occasions, almost 6,000 people are experiencing homelessness in South Australia, and funds raised and blankets donated will go a long way to supporting these people in need.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and acknowledge the Rotary Club of Glenelg for organizing this terrific event. To event organiser, Jesse Cumming, presidents Peter Sage and Wayne Dyson, and to the many volunteers and members, well done on a fantastic event and initiative. I would also like to congratulate the West Adelaide Football Club and Glenelg Football Club. Both SANFL clubs were well represented, with players using this event as a great opportunity for a postmatch rehab to sooth those sore spots and support this great cause.
A number of community organisations also need to be thanked for their involvement on the day: Mary's Kitchen, St Andrews by the Sea Uniting Church of Glenelg and, importantly, the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club that went out into the cold icy waters and made sure that we were safe and protected from any marine life out there that we would not want to come across.
Another surf lifesaving club in my electorate that has had great success in the last year has been West Beach Surf Life Saving Club, winning the Overall Champion Club and Club of the Year at this year's Surf Life Saving SA Awards of Excellence. West Beach president Peter Zuill's leadership and contribution to surf lifesaving in South Australia was well recognised with the Volunteer of the Year award. It was a great effort by the West Beach Club, which my children are involved in, so it gives me great pride to speak about my family's club like this.
I was pleased to attend the annual awards of excellence on Saturday, 1 August at Surf Central in my electorate, where I joined lifesavers and volunteers from the clubs throughout SA to honour surf lifesaving members and their efforts in the last season. The evening was a wonderful celebration, and I would like to acknowledge the award winners from my electorate. They are: Thomas Hession, from Grange Surf Life Saving Club, winner of the President's Award for service to the Surf Life Saving SA Emergency Rescue Crew; Jim Dale, from West Beach Surf Life Saving Club, winner of the President's Award for service to Surf Life Saving SA Emergency Rescue Crew; the athlete of the year, Lewis Abdul, from Grange Surf Life Saving Club; the Female Nipper of the Year, Catriona MacLaren, from Grange Surf Life Saving Club; the Assessor of the Year, Dennis Hay, from West Beach Surf Life Saving Club—and I know that Dennis works with a number of migrants, helping them learn surf skills and the challenges of the waters, so it is a great effort by Dennis; and the Somerton SEALS, from Somerton Surf Life Saving Club, winners of the Community Program of the Year. Congratulations to all on their outstanding work for the community.
Gomboc, Mr Ron
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (10:19): Today I want to acknowledge the talent of Perth sculptor Ron Gomboc and to record how pleased we have been to have helped him with one of his projects. Many members may recall the fabulous Swan Valley showcase that we had in June, in Parliament House, where the great produce of the Swan Valley was on display. And of course one of the people displaying their talents and their produce was Ron Gomboc. At that event Ron showed me this beautiful little statuette which had been produced for the Australian Film Institute and the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts. This beautiful little object here is 22 karat gold plated and has Australian tiger iron, which is a gemstone mined in Western Australia and which really captures, along with the design, the spirit of Australia and the Australian outback.
I think it is important to understand that each of the statuettes is individually produced in order to reflect the individual talent of the recipients. Since 2011 this effectively has been the 'Australian Oscar'. It has been received by the likes of Jessica Mauboy, Cate Blanchett and Meryl Streep. Ron explained to us that he was having some small problems and misunderstandings that had emerged with the AFI over the production of the next set of these glorious objects. But I am very pleased to say that we have been able to sort these problems out, and I really want to acknowledge the helpfulness of AFI CEO Damian Trewhella in expediting this process. We have had a win all around—our Western Australian artist getting to lovingly craft his beautiful design and the brightest stars of our film industry being acknowledged with a fully authentic Australian artwork.
Riverina Electorate: Debutante Balls
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:21): I love debutante balls. Way back in 1983 I partnered by now wife of 29 years, Catherine, to her debut. She was then only 17. When I receive debs coming out at deb balls I always tell that story and say, 'Look closely at your partner, because you never know who you might end up with as a life partner.' Of course, that is all well and good; they all do that, and they all laugh. But one night at Leeton when I said that very thing the partner of one of the debs said, 'But she's my twin sister!' So, it does not always go down well.
Deb balls are more than just bows and ribbons, white dresses and tuxedos. In the Riverina, where it is certainly not considered antiquated and not considered old-fashioned, debutante balls do a very good job of raising funds for valuable causes. The Temora debutante ball is run by the Temora and District Education Fund, the president of which is the town's mayor, Councillor Rick Firman. This year's ball was the seventh annual black-and-white Debutante of the Year Ball. The ball goes back way further than that, but the Temora and District Education Fund itself has been running for seven years and raises up to $5,000 each and every year for that valuable fund. The fund enables youngsters to go out and get a great education, and many of them come back to Temora to put their newfound skills into play. This year the deb of the year was Courtney Wells, partnered by Josh Philp. Megan Castles, partnered by Malakai Hia, was the runner-up. It was a great night: 23 debs, and they all looked beautiful.
Then I went to the Leeton Debutante of the Year Ball. It is sponsored by Rotary, and of course we all know what Rotary does in raising valuable funds for worthy local causes as well as helping to eradicate polio throughout the world. Since Rotary had that wonderful vaccination campaign internationally, polio has been all but eliminated from all but three countries—Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan—and Rotary is working very hard to make sure that polio gets eradicated altogether. At the 64th Leeton Rotary Belle of the Ball, 16 beautiful debs and their elegant partners charmed a crowd of close to 300 at the Leeton Soldiers Club. The deb of the year was Gisella Mandaglio, partnered by Daniel Heath. What a great effort by organisers and all those people in the community, family and friends, who came out to make it such a special night.
I very much look forward to Saturday 3 October, when my wife, Catherine, and I will be hosting the Narrandera deb ball. Certainly I will tell my story again, and hopefully there will not be any twins there to get confronted by what I say!
Film and Television Industry
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:24): The film and television industry is a very important employer in my electorate of Sydney. There have been changes recently and a perceived lack of support, or diminished support, from the federal government that have greatly worried the people in my electorate who work in the film industry or are associated with it. The US feature film Unbroken spent $66 million in Australia, employing 3,141 cast and crew and engaging, in addition, 12,088 businesses. In my electorate itself, the film employed 717 of my constituents and engaged 155 of my local businesses. That gives an idea of the scale of economic benefit that can be brought to Australia by a thriving film and television industry. When Wolverine was filmed in Sydney I visited the set. It was a real treat to see people hard at work on this international blockbuster. There were 406 cast and crew and 226 vendors from my electorate specifically engaged in Wolverine. We see the growth of fantastic Australian companies like Animal Logic, which did the digital animation for The Lego Movie. Again, I was very fortunate to be able to visit Animal Logic when they were working on The Lego Movie. It won 65 awards and was nominated for another 57 awards, including a BAFTA for best animated film in 2015. Animal Logic was a tiny local company established in 1991 with 10 people. It now employs 500 people in Sydney and in Los Angeles.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics suggested that in the 2011-12 financial year there were 15,670 people employed in production and post-production services in Australia. In the 2013-14 year, a record year for drama production in Australia, there was $837 million of production expenditure and a further $43 million earned from projects that were shot elsewhere but came to Australia for post-production and digital visual effects work—films like the second SpongeBob SquarePants movie, where most of the work was done overseas but the live animation work was done in Australia. Of the $837 million that I mentioned was spent, approximately 65 per cent was foreign investment in Australia in Australian and foreign projects. The most recent film, Mad Max: Fury Road has been the most successful Australian feature film this year, taking over $510 million at the box office. We do great work in film and television production, and we need to make sure that federal support is there. (Time expired)
Inborn Error of Metabolism Program