The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Recognition of the State of Palestine
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens and residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to the parlous situation currently being suffered by the Palestinians. It seeks to address the national and civil rights of the Palestinian people following years of failed diplomacy and Israeli belligerence. Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem now extends to 48 years and the relentless expansion of settlements calls into question the sincerity of Israel's negotiating position.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to formally recognise the state of Palestine.
from 10 citizens
Access to Electoral Roll: St Georges Terrace
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Concerned Citizens of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns at the accessibility of our private addresses, without our knowledge or permission, to any member of the general public from the computers based in the foyer of the Electoral Commission situated on the 13th Floor - 200 St. Georges Terrace Perth. The privacy, welfare and safety of ourselves and family is greatly jeopardised. This is unacceptable to us.
We therefore ask the House to act on having the computers removed from the foyer of the Electoral Commission and that anybody asking for information to complete a form providing photo identification and reasons for the request. A strict guideline must be met before this information is handed over by authorised staff. The completed form is to be registered and also forwarded to the citizen of whom the request was made against, so that they are made aware.
from 1 citizen
Residency Visas
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Parishioners of St Kevin's Catholic Church, HAMPTON PARK
Draws to the attention of the House: a matter concerning our views on the struggles and challenges faced by one of our parishioners - Sebastian Gomes [aged 41yrs],after the passing of his wife - Karolyn Gomes [aged 35 years] who lost her life to Cancer, leaving behind their two young [primary school aged] children, Benjamin and Christabel, to be cared for.
We therefore ask the House to: allow Sebastian's parents – Benu Gomes [aged 63yrs) and Jachintha Rani Gomes {aged 62yrs], currently residing In India, and who are the only living Grand Parents for these children, to be granted their visas to enter and remain in Australia, so that they can care for their grandchildren, thereby allowing Sebastian to return to his line of work, as a Chef. Both Benu and Jachintha, who are in good health, are now retired, and have no children to care for in India. During their working life, Benu worked as a Chef and Jachintha stayed at home to care for her two sons.
from 1080 citizens and 211 citizens
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of a concerned citizen of Australia draws the attention of the house to the monitoring, policing and prosecution of breaches of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution. As things stand at the moment the only way breaches of Section 44 can be prosecuted is for two electors in the seat of a politician who is suspected of fraudulently declaring to the Australian Electoral Commission that they comply with 544 to pay a fee and have the matter heard in the High Court within 40 days of an election being declared.
The Australian Electoral Commission can't ask about non-compliance with 544 and because of this the Australian Federal Police can neither ask about non-compliance nor prosecute for signing false declarations by an MP.
Should it be discovered after that 40 day period that an MP is in parliament in breach of S44 of the Australian Constitution a citizen has no way of having the matter determined other than hoping Ministers or the House will overcome party loyalty and prosecute one of their own in the JSCEM.
I would ask the house to determine which Minister has responsibility for monitoring, policing and prosecution of breaches of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and which government department, authority or commission will do that outside of the 40 day period mentioned earlier.
from 1 citizen
Resettling Refugees in Australia
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of a concerned group of Australian citizens who respectfully wish to draw to the attention of the House:
The plight of the vast number of refugees, currently in different parts of the world, who through no fault of their own, have been forced to flee their country of origin, because of violence, war and persecution. These people are merely seeking a safe place to live. We
draw the attention of the House, to the current International Refugee Crisis in Europe, which is the worst since the Second World War. In this crisis, tens of thousands of displaced people are surging across Europe every day. Many more people need new homes, than there are places in countries willing or able to take them, yet countries smaller geographically, poorer than our own, with much greater existing populations, are taking in and re homing many more refugees by percentage, than Australia is currently willing to do.
We therefore ask the House to:
Reconsider the "Turn back the boats" position that the Australian Government has previously taken on refugees, in the light of the extraordinary circumstances of the current International Refugee Crisis. To acknowledge that given the magnitude of this current crisis, the Government of Australia needs to take a significantly greater "fair share" of these people to safety on our shores; and to consider many more than it has currently agreed to, for rehoming in Australia.
from 54 citizens
Mental Health: Fleurieu Peninsula South Australia
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Fleurieu Peninsula residents and, certain citizens of Australia, draw attention of the House to the prevalence of suicide and the lack of mental health services on the Fleurieu Peninsula South Australia.
This petition comes on the back of a previous petition that was tabled in the House of Representatives on the 19th of June 2013 by the Hon Peter Dutton.
We therefore ask the House to increase funding for mental health services and their accessibility on the Fleurieu Peninsula and/or build a government funded mental health facility that will service the entire Fleurieu Peninsula with no age, gender or race barriers.
from 106 citizens
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution
To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives
This petition of a concerned citizen of Australia draws the attention of the house to concerns of many thousands of social media users with regard to Mr Abbott's right to sit in parliament. Mr Abbott was born in UK to a British father and got automatic British citizenship under UK laws of that time. In June 1981 Mr Abbott applied for and got Australian citizenship by descent from his Australian mother. On October 17th 1981 he entered Oxford University as a British citizen. Documentary proof in this web link:
http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/documentary-proof-for-petition-to.html
There is no record in Australia or the UK of Mr Abbott having renounced his British citizenship. Under section 44 of the Australian Constitution a member of parliament must not be under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power. Mr Abbott must have renounced his British citizenship by filling in a UK Home Office form RN and paying a fee.
I ask the House to instruct Mr Abbott to show he has renounced his British citizenship and complies with the constitution, failing that for the House to remove Mr Abbott from parliament.
from 1 citizen
NBN: Mt Hotham and Dinner Plain
To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the MT Hotham and Dinner Plain community
Draws to the attention of the House that there is a need for high band width telecommunications within the resorts of Mt Hotham and Dinner Plain to ensure the standards of a world class tourist destination are enabled to access WiFi and internet services within the resorts.
We therefore ask the House to ensure the NBN network is provided to the resorts, recognising their remote location and significance as tourist destinations for the North East and Gippsland regions of Victoria
from 209 citizens
Manus Island and Nauru Detention Centres
To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Rural Australians for Refugees Queanbeyan and other concerned citizens draws to the attention of the House:
The conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres. These conditions are unacceptable, being unable to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of people held in these centres. This has been demonstrated through a number of incidents.
We therefore ask the House to:
Abide by Australia's obligations, both legal and humanitarian, and close the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres now.
from 53 citizens
PETITIONS
Statements
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:02): In this, my penultimate petitions statement this year, I will provide an overview of petitioning trends in 2015.
In the 2015 calendar year, including petitions presented today, there have been 64 petitions presented by the chair of the Petitions Committee—me—during this Monday morning timeslot. That figure is, uncannily, the same total number of petitions presented during the chair's presentations for the 2014 calendar year.
For the same period, there have been 34 member presentations to date—six less than in the 2014 year, which had 40 separate member petition presentations.
That translates to 98 petitions presented to date in 2015, compared to 104 in the full period of 2014. That is a remarkably similar overall number of presentations dealt with in each of two successive years. Incidentally, if we also include the full calendar year for 2013 in our comparisons, a year which spans an election period—and thus considerably fewer presentation opportunities—the total number of petitions presented was 84.
Of course there is one further chair's presentation on 30 November this year, at which the committee is expecting further petitions to be presented, and at least a further two member presentations before the House rises in the week ending 3 December. But at this point in time the expected presentations will not shift the current trend.
While the overall numbers of in-order petitions presented mirrored each other in 2014 and 2015, the total signature counts appear to tell a vastly different story. This is because the total number of signatures attaching to all petitions presented in 2014 was a remarkable 1,440,270, while in 2015 the total to date is 198,936. However, we must adjust for a significant outlier petition which was presented in early 2014. This was the biggest signature count petition to be presented in the House's history, with a total of 1,210,471 signatures. If we adjust for this figure, the overall signature counts in each of the two years are very similar, with 229,709 signatures on all other petitions in 2014 and 198, 936 on all petitions in 2015.
One might suggest that analysing the number of petitions presented in the House is a pointless exercise given the multifaceted reasons which lead people to petition. For example, in 2011 there were 195 petitions presented in the House—the highest number since the committee was established—but this fell to 120 presentations the following year. Irrespective, it is worth considering the overall trends. The current statistics indicate a consistent level of petitioning activity over the last few years. It reflects a desire by the Australian people to continue engagement with the House in this traditional, although often very time-consuming and physically demanding, way.
Similarly, the number of valid signatures on petitions is dependent on many factors, not least the time frame the petitioners allowed the petition campaign to run. But there is no doubt that to gather thousands of signatures—counts exceeding the population of small regional towns—is a considerable triumph. There has been a great deal of effort to organise, mobilise and coordinate resources to collect many handwritten signatures.
Finally, the other statistic—that of the number of petitions responded to via a ministerial response—shows that 85 petitions have received a ministerial response in the period, with the expectation of more being presented on 30 November. Given the standing orders allow for a three-month response time frame, plus the mechanics of presentation, this means that the ten petitions presented today will only be referred for a response this week. So the response rate applies to no more than 88 petitions—and in reality even fewer, as petition matters already referred are not automatically re-referred when another petition on the same matter is presented. This, therefore, crudely translates to approximately 97 per cent of all petitions presented in the period receiving a response. This is a slight increase on the previous year's already impressive response rate.
Overall we can conclude from the year-to-date statistics that the pattern of petitioning has been consistent across 2014 and 2015 with, on average, similar sized petitions being received in each year. We can also conclude that the ministerial response rate has also been a consistently high and stable ratio of petitions presented in each period.
BILLS
Credit Repayment (Protecting Vulnerable Borrowers) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There would be few people in Australia, let alone in this parliament, who would not be aware of what is taking place in rural Australia. When I say 'rural Australia', there are 4½ thousand empty houses in Mackay, so there are going to be a lot of people sold up there. Between Dysart, Moranbah and Charters Towers there are another thousand empty houses. The south-west, without any coal seam gas operations now, will probably be in a worse state, so there will be foreclosures—to quote the bard—'hell, west and crooked'.
Having said those things, I made a public statement that, on the figures I had, there was a person—and I do not like using this term these days, but I will use it here; I cannot avoid it—committing suicide in one of the cattle areas every three weeks. When the figures were published at the end of the year before last, it was actually one every two weeks. And do not think this is always confined to cattle farmers. There are contractors and employees who fall into this category and some of them will fare much worse than the cattle station owners. No-one in this place seems to worry about that; no-one has done anything about it. So it is naive to raise such matters in this place. There is a grave lack of humanity—except with respect to my colleague Mr Wilkie here. It seems only to be Independents who react to the pain of the people out there.
I asked Jimmy Geaney of Geaney's Real Estate and Livestock, a stock and station agent in Charters Towers and one of the biggest private stock and station agents in Australia, about forced sales—we agreed to define that as a sale within two months. I asked him what percentage of market value, bank value if you like, you would get in such a sale. He said: 'I do not know whether you would get 40 per cent. Yes, I think you could get 40 per cent'—this was two or three years ago—'Even in the collapsed cattle market after the dreadful live cattle decision you would get 40 per cent.' I asked, 'What if you have time in which to sell it?' He asked me to define 'time' in that context. I said, 'Let's say two years.' If you are trying to sell a cattle station—an asset of maybe $3 million, maybe $11 million or maybe $20 million—you are not going to do that overnight. It is not like a house in the city where there are thousands of buyers walking around. You do not find that in this area. He said, 'I think you would get 80 per cent.' 'Even in the current collapsed market?' I asked. His answer was yes and he gave three examples—two stations he had sold and one someone else had sold—where they had achieved 80 per cent of market value. So there is a huge difference between a bank forcing a sale within a two-month period and a bank giving the people time to offload at a decent price.
So this bill has a provision for a notification. When the bank claims there is a default—and, in our experience, often there is not a default; the bank just claims there is a default—they put that in a notification that is registered. The bank must communicate the claim of default to the person concerned so that he then has a clear understanding that he has two years to fix things up—or else. We are not going after the banks. I have never been a bank basher and I do not intend to be in the future. Having said that, my staff—and I must thank them—advise me that we should get them to maintain the payment of interest. If this were back in the eighties and early nineties, when the cattle industry was paying 22 or 23 per cent interest, we might take a different view on this. But we hope that governments in the future will not show the irresponsibility that was shown in those years.
Let me be very specific. We have a case on our books—and I will fudge the figures a little bit to protect the people concerned—where the property was sold in six weeks. It was a property with a market value near enough to $13 million—and it was sold in six weeks. You can find a buyer in six weeks? There were 20 parties who showed interest. In six weeks the bank chose a party—any party—and flogged off the station. They got $6 million for it. The cattle on that station, which is on one of the biggest rivers in Australia, are now worth nearly 100 per cent more than $6 million. If only this person had been given two years! Well, he wasn't. His son committed suicide and his wife suffered great trauma, as any decent person would in that situation. The bank's performance in this case has been absolutely appalling. I would not like to be that bank when the lawyers go after them.
Clauses 22(2) and 22(3) of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 refer to imbalance of power. If you are a very powerful party in a transaction and the other party is in a very weak position, then you must not take advantage of that power. You must act as if you do not have that overwhelming power. I would not be able to buy groceries to feed my family next week without a banker's permit if I were down the hole. I could not even get a feed without their permission! That is how powerful they are. On the other side you have the cattle farmers, the sugarcane farmers and others. But for anyone who thinks this is confined to the cattle industry: I only know five out of the top 22 growers in the grains industry, and three of them are gone. One of the most outstanding and prominent figures in the sugar industry in Queensland over the last 25 years, Max Menzel, was rolled by the banks. He was chairman of his mills for nearly 20 years—a very august position. He held many representative positions over a long period of time. So this is not confined to the cattle industry, I can assure you. The imbalance of power is being completely ignored by the banks—completely and utterly ignored. Clause 22(1) deals with unconscionable conduct. Do you think its conscionable to go out and flog a bloke's property out from underneath him on the basis of six weeks notice, giving him no say in the sale whatsoever and leaving him completely destroyed financially? If that is not unconscionable conduct, I do not know what is! We will see you in court on that one. We have dozens of these cases.
I will give you another example of what has taken place out there—in this case a person who questioned the bank's right to do this. The bank was in flagrant breach of clause 22, and they applied inducements. I will give you an example. The bank might say: 'We don't want to kick your family out of your house in town and onto the street. They would have nowhere to go. We don't want to do that.' Well, that is duress. The implication is: 'If you do not sign here and allow us to do whatever we want to do, then that is exactly what we are going to do.' There is the inducement of leaving the family in the house. So you have a very clear-cut example of inducement and duress, which may amount to fraud. But that will be a problem for the banks, when they are dragged into the courts. These people are not allowed to speak. They are forced to sign a document saying, 'I won't say anything to anyone about this.'
This place is not interested in this issue. This place has done absolutely nothing to help us. But we will remember. Do you think that the people of Australia are not interested? Well, David Pascoe's letter got 3½ million hits on the internet. People are interested. (Time expired)
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:19): I second the motion moved by the remarkably honourable member for Kennedy and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Privacy Amendment (Protecting Children from Paparazzi) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I will speak briefly on the bill; it is pretty self-explanatory. It is called the 'gladiator bill'. I will not take up a lot of the House's time. It is pretty simple, I think. There are a lot of people in this place who would like the protection of this bill. I think a lot of people would, at one time or another, have had their families dragged into things that it is very unfair that they be dragged into, even if it is only by way of a photograph in a newspaper. As my chief of staff rather aptly put it, we take the decision of going into the public arena. Whether it is Russell Crowe or Nicole Kidman in the movies or people who come into this place, we put ourselves in the public arena. We are prepared to get into the arena and do battle, but that does not require our families to put themselves in the same position. In fact, it is highly undesirable that they are put in the same position of prominence as that can be, particularly in the case of children, very harmful.
I do not like using extremist examples, but one can never come to this issue—and I remember the Americans moved this bill. It is a duplicate of what was done in the United States. Their most favourite son, the aviator, and his family came into great prominence and his child came into great prominence and the child was kidnapped. It is one of the more appalling cases in recent American history, but there would be numerous other cases—nowhere near as dramatic as that, but unpleasantness has been foisted upon families and no-one should have the right to do that.
I do not like moving legislation. In my years in state parliament, the legislation we moved was very small indeed. The actual acts themselves and the number of acts that we passed was very small indeed. Although we are not calling for throwing people in jail or anything of that nature—we have removed the clause to throw people in jail—we have provided for very hefty fines. If people want to make money out of that sort of appalling behaviour, then they will be punished for that sort of appalling behaviour. It behoves this place to make that situation very clear to people who are out there greedily placing people that they have no right to place in a most unpleasant position.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Business
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:24): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of start-ups in driving innovation in the Australian economy;
(2) notes the critical role that start-ups will play in creating the industries and jobs of the 21st century;
(3) acknowledges that in order to be internationally competitive in the future, the Australian economy must be agile and fast moving;
(4) welcomes the close engagement between the Government and the start-up community through events such as the recent policy hackathon; and
(5) encourages the Government to further build upon its existing innovation agenda through the implementation of additional policies to create a vibrant start-up environment in Australia.
We need to build a start-up society. Good start-ups change economies and the world. They solve problems that the rest of us have not even thought about yet. They create high-wage jobs. Start-ups make us more entrepreneurial, more global, more interesting. We need more of them.
I spent the 14 years before I entered parliament in and around start-ups. I have seen the Australian start-up scene evolve during that time and strongly believe that its future and that of our broader economy are closely linked. An Australia with a world-leading start-up economy is likely to be a world leader in its overall economy. That must be our aim.
The great disruptive innovations usually come from start-ups. Of course big companies can innovate, but economic history shows us that major change is usually brought about by challengers, not incumbents. The boldest, most radical, most profound economic changes are rarely brought about by incumbents. They are brought about by outsiders who have nothing to lose.
There are several reasons why start-ups, not big incumbents, tend to make the breakthroughs that create new industries. Incumbents, by definition, are already successful. They have real world profits to protect today. Those real world profits will generally get more attention at board meetings than the potential projects of the distant future. Usually, the impact of disruptive change is negative for incumbents, even if they succeed in embracing it. The disruptive world of tomorrow usually looks worse for incumbents than the more certain world of today. So it can be hard to marshal enthusiasm for a process that is likely to lead to a worse overall outcome. When cars were introduced, the winners were start-ups—not horse-and-buggy manufacturers. Candle makers did not create the electricity industry. Railroad companies did not create the aviation industry.
There have been examples in more recent years that demonstrate this same point. Around the world, yellow pages businesses had far more relevant assets for internet search than anyone else did. They possessed huge databases of commercial and household information and, logically, should have been better placed than anyone to lead in the new world of providing information online. But fresh-faced innovators completely outdid them and now the yellow pages business model barely exists. In retail, incumbents had incredible advantages: brands, stores, warehouses, distribution systems and millions of customers. Yet the most valuable retailer in the world, Amazon, is an internet start-up that did not exist until the mid-nineties. Amazon is now worth more than US$300 billion, more than US$100 billion more than its closest competitor—the giant traditional retailer Walmart.
Of course big companies can innovate, and the research and development that takes place in them is not to be underestimated. But revolutions are rarely initiated by royalty—and revolutions matter because not all kinds of economic activity are equal. When new industries are created, the value they generate cascades down through the generations. Companies that create new industries are generally far more valuable than companies that simply participate in long-existing ones. The value that these start-ups generate means wealth that can be invested into further development—and lots of jobs.
When start-ups create new industries, they tend to bring with them follow-on opportunities. Think of the enormous industry that has sprung up around Google, servicing the needs of its advertisers and people who want to appear in its search results. Successful start-ups create new industries and the supporting infrastructure that needs to go with them.
Start-ups have always been essential to economic success, but they are more essential now than ever before. The economy is always changing. A century ago, one in three working Australians worked in agriculture. Now it is about one in 40. So change is nothing new. What is new, though, is the pace of change. The internet means that everything in the global economy happens at a much faster pace than ever before. That is a challenge but a huge opportunity as well.
The biggest issue we face is the need to change our culture towards one which better embraces risk. If you were to describe Australia's business culture in one word, that word would probably be 'pragmatic'. There is nothing wrong with pragmatism, but 'pragmatic' is not the first word you would generally associate with great entrepreneurs. I think that our pragmatic business culture has a few sources, some of them linked to our broader national personality and some of them a practical response to the historic realities of the Australian market. As a nation, we do not take ourselves too seriously and we are not given to grand boasts or outlandish pronouncements—and that is a good thing. But sometimes start-ups need to embrace radical or seemingly over-the-top goals in order to crash through the existing orthodoxy. So we need to develop a culture where it is okay to say, 'We are going to be the best software company in the world'—because if you cannot say it out loud you are unlikely to pursue it as a goal.
Our reluctance to fully embrace a start-up culture also has some solid grounding in the traditional realities of the Australian market. We have a small population and we are isolated. Our small population has tended to lead to industry structures with two or three big players and limited room for challengers. As a result, our business culture is overweight in the establishment. But that is starting to change, as technology lowers the cost of entry for new businesses, and small overseas players enter our market. The old certainties about a few big businesses dominating each industry will gradually fade away.
Because we are geographically isolated, with tough time zones for the US and Europe, Australia has historically not been the most logical place on the planet from which to launch a global business effort. But that is changing too: barriers to trade are, thankfully, breaking down; communications are instantaneous; and consumers are looking for the best product no matter where it comes from. So the geographical constraints of Australia are less significant than in the past.
All of this means we have immense opportunities. We are a highly educated, prosperous, democratic nation with attributes that the world admires. The world is ready for us. We need to be ready for it. So what is the role of government? Let us not pretend that government will come up with winning commercial ideas—it will not and it should not. Those ideas will come from the restless energy of a new generation of entrepreneurs. But, in order for those entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into reality, they need strong underlying foundations in the surrounding economy. That is where government comes in.
For me, a critical area that must be addressed is access to capital. Across the entire period when I was involved with start-ups, the relatively weak domestic environment for raising capital was a constant issue. At times the environment improves for a while, but generally capital for early-stage ideas is hard to come by. I think there is a role for government in encouraging investments in start-ups through the tax system. I believe that all investments in start-up companies should be free of capital gains tax on exit. While there would be a cost to this approach, the PBO estimated it at $50 million over the forward estimates period—which is about 1/34,000th of estimated government revenue in that time. That change would mean that an entrepreneur who is trying to raise those critical early funds could say to a prospective investor, 'This may or may not work, but if it works there is no capital gains tax.' This would be a powerful incentive and help to encourage some investors to shift assets from classes such as investment property into start-ups. This tax exemption should be available to all investors in start-ups. Last week the Assistant Treasurer announced reforms which will enable crowd-funding to become a reality in Australia. This will enable entrepreneurs to access a whole new class of potential investors. I believe that those crowd-funded investments in start-ups should be free of capital gains tax.
Another area we must further develop is technical skills. We need to become a nation not just of technology consumers but of technology creators. We are great at embracing the latest devices but less great at inventing them. We want our brightest kids thinking about software, engineering, and IT more generally. It is noteworthy that, although there has been a strong demand for these skills in the workplace for some years, the local education system has not produced enough sufficiently skilled employees to meet all these needs. This suggests that there has been some market failure in this area and that government should take a long view in implementing policies to encourage greater take-up of these courses.
Directors' duties matter a lot too. Australia's laws are onerous for directors. Generally that is a good thing—we want directors to safeguard the assets of investors and ensure that businesses do not trade while insolvent. But there is an argument that Australia's laws are too strict, with the consequence that directors can be unwilling to support management in pursuing risky goals. It is worth reviewing this area to see if we can better encourage risk-taking in smaller companies while continuing to maintain strong safeguards against insolvent trading.
As a nation we need to build a culture that celebrates the radical idea, the big concept, the heroic failure. We should embrace policies that push our economy more down the start-up path. We all know that the jobs of tomorrow will come from industries not yet created. And we know that those new industries are likely to be created by start-ups somewhere in the world. Our goal should be for those industries to be created right here, with our expertise exported to the world. The opportunities are immense. We should seize them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Is the motion seconded?
Mrs Wicks: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:34): It is very good that we are right here on the floor of the Australian parliament talking about the value of start-ups to both the nation and to the economy. It is a discussion that is long overdue and I welcome it. To give you a sense of how much things have changed, at the start of the year, I had start-ups say to me that if you were a farmer or a miner and you knocked on a minister's door, you would get through quick smart but if you were a start-up or a small enterprise, you had very little chance of getting attention. Now the perspective is completely different. I think it is a good thing that both sides of politics recognise that this is an area that demands, deserves attention and that we should be doing whatever we can to make sure we have an environment where start-ups emerge because these are the enterprises that in the future will create the jobs and the wealth of this nation, and we need a longer term view of how to support them.
We have a lot to be proud about when you look at all the start-ups in this country that have achieved on a global scale, not just on a local scale. I think of Campaign Monitor, I think of ingogo, I think of Invoice2go, I think of Nitro, I think of carsales.com.au, I think of SEEK, I think of Atlassian and I think of Freelancer to name a few. We also have Catch of the Day, REA Group and 99designs. There is a stack of these companies that have emerged in the Australian environment that are doing tremendous things both here and overseas and they should be recognised. The reason I list them here is because they should be recognised on the floor of parliament and thanked for their contributions.
In this place, politicians tend to think that they change the world one page of Hansard at a time when in actual fact a lot of these entrepreneurs are changing the world one app at a time. We need to work out how we get more of them and it is critical. From the Labor perspective, from the federal opposition perspective, we get it. We have been in this space for a number of years consulting with start-ups about what it will take to ensure more of them emerge so that we see more green shoots. From there, the big companies, the big players that will create the jobs emerge. There is a sense of urgency on our part because we know technology is going to churn through jobs. It will have an impact on 13 out of 19 industry sectors in this country and we need to be prepared.
From our discussions we have been thinking about what we need to do to make sure that we can create the jobs of the future. There is a sense of urgency, particularly for Labor representatives, because the people that we represent, by and large, are going to be affected by technology. We need to make sure that we are prepared. Instead of investing valuable energy and resistance, we need to embrace that change and see what we can do to look after those affected and those who are vulnerable on the way through. What we have done is think, 'Well, we have got an economy in transition. We do not necessarily get the same bang for the buck out of resources and the mining boom that we once did. We need to recognise the role of start-ups and champion their economic and employment potential. How do we do it?' It is all about flow. It is about the flow of people, skills and talent. It is about the flow of capital. It is also about the flow of ideas in an environment and in a culture that supports that type of entrepreneurial activity.
From our side of the fence, we have released two waves of policy starting with the budget in reply speech given by the Leader of the Opposition through to recent announcements as well. We have looked at: skills and the flow of talent; coding in schools to make sure we get young people already thinking about computational thinking; building the STEM teacher base; getting STEM graduates to put back into the community by teaching the ones that are coming through; establishing a national coding in schools centre; providing 100,000 STEM award degrees of which many students will have their HECS debt written off on graduation; a start-up year to address the low rate of start-up formation in this country to ensure that university graduates stay on an extra year, build an enterprise and be able to draw off an income-contingent loan from the government. We would get to see more start-ups created and, as I said, address this very low level of start-up formation in this country. These are all great ideas that we have put forward, inspired by the start-up sector, which said it wants to see this happen.
We have also encouraged visa reform with the creation of a start-up entrepreneur visa that would bring people to these shores with ideas and capital to support the local ecosystem, and a graduate entrepreneur's visa to make sure that overseas people who are trained in our universities have an incentive to stay on and build an enterprise here. We have also bound all of this through a proposal on the Labor side to establish a national digital workforce plan that will address the massive skills shortages that are affecting this sector, ensure that we get more women and more mature-age workers into a sector that is crying out for more support and also ensure that our small and medium enterprises get on the digital bandwagon and start changing their businesses as well. Again, we have put that forward.
On the issue of the flow of capital we have recommended, for example, the $500 million smart investment fund that would partner with VCs and licensed fund managers. We want to work with industry on start-up finance, which will be a partial guarantee scheme to improve access to finance for microbusinesses. We have also recommended an innovation investment partnership—in fact, we kicked it off in parliament two weeks ago—bringing together superannuation funds that represent the fourth largest pool of national savings on the planet to try to work out a way to build investment bridges between them, venture capital and early stage innovation to see the emergence of more companies. We did that here because we think innovation should start now; it should not wait for an election to happen. Culture is the most important piece. We need to have as a nation an ability to celebrate entrepreneurism, dilute the stigma around failure and be more accepting of a heightened focus by government and business in this area.
Politicians can play a huge role right here. I will go back to that miner or farmer example I mentioned earlier, where start-ups felt they were being ignored. They were also saying to us, 'It's great that both sides of politics are talking about start-ups, but how come you talk about it in different rooms? You're not working as one.' There is a hunger within the start-up community to see both sides of politics working actively together. They do not want to see one idea torn down by the other side, and vice versa. That is why Labor has said that we are prepared to work with the government on this agenda. We prioritise it on the national list of things that need to be tackled in this country in terms of supporting the economy, jobs and the future. We are prepared and we have demonstrated our preparedness, for example, to work with the government on employee share option reform. We have extended to the government a commitment to work in a bipartisan way on equity crowd-funding. The test is that we are prepared to do it because—as I said—innovation does not wait for a federal election. This is a long-term agenda and we need to start working on it now.
Obviously, we wait with interest—as do others—for the innovation statement that is being prepared with the government. We have extended our commitment to work cooperatively with the government on it. We are also interested to see in this statement if the government are prepared to work with us. If we are supposed to be leaving by the kerbside the old politics, and if we are supposed to be able to work together, I would make this modest recommendation to the government: if they want to innovate in this statement, demonstrate in the statement the list of things we have put forward as a result of our consultations with the start-up sector. We extend this invitation to the government: in the innovation statement, when you list your ideas, also list what you are prepared to work with the opposition on—be it on visa reform, be it on bringing in a start-up year, be it on working together on a national digital workforce plan, or be it on issues of finding ways to get super and VC working together. We are happy to do this, but it does take commitment from both sides. If it is just a statement that represents all that the government wants to do and then demands that the opposition basically fall into line on it, that is not what is expected by the start-up sector. The start-up sector expects us to come up with ideas that we can work with one another on to advance the national interest. It will be interesting to see what happens on that front.
I do have to say this, if I may in one element reflect on something that I am concerned about: I previously had very fruitful discussions with the former Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, on equity crowd-funding. We had a number of meetings and we were prepared to work collaboratively on that. We have not heard that from the new minister. I wrote to her—the Assistant Treasurer—last week, extending a commitment to work with them on equity crowd-funding because there are concerns that exist in the start-up community about some of the proposals that have been floated that would, for instance, see equity crowd-funding limited only to public companies. If companies are listed already, they have gone through the process of getting their equity that way. This is for start-ups. Start-ups need to be able to get money, and they need to be able to do it in a way where they are not constrained by the restrictions imposed by corporations law. Again, we as the opposition are very concerned about these proposals and we wait with interest to see whether the government are serious—if they are talking about bipartisanship—about meeting with us, briefing us on their thinking and being able to work together on this matter. It is important.
This is too important a platform—the whole area of early-stage innovation, the creation of new businesses and new enterprises, the creation of jobs into the future, the training up of young people in this country and opening up opportunity. This cannot be a victim of the old politics; it demands a new approach. We hope this parliament will be able to usher in that new approach.
Debate adjourned.
White Ribbon Day
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:45): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that White Ribbon:
(a) is a male led campaign to end male violence against women;
(b) is now active in over 60 countries around the world; and
(c) ambassadors around Australia are working to engage men and encourage them to take a leadership role in ending violence against women;
(2) notes that:
(a) in 2015 in Australia, approximately two women are murdered each week by a partner or former partner;
(b) 17 per cent of Australian women have experienced violence by a current or former partner in their lifetime;
(c) men's violence against women is a symptom of gender inequality in our society; and
(d) social policy initiatives and law reform addressing gender inequality are central to reducing attitudes that support violence against women;
(3) recognises that:
(a) 25 November is White Ribbon Day; and
(b) the white ribbon is the symbol of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; and
(4) supports White Ribbon and other organisations to eliminate violence against women.
This week all around Australia people from all walks of life will be marking White Ribbon Day on 25 November, which coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The profile of White Ribbon Day in Australia is a testament to the progress that we are making as a community in building community awareness about the issue of men's violence against women. The issue is slowly coming out of the shadows, the curtains are being pulled apart and light is being cast on an issue that previously was kept hidden from view.
Community groups, sporting clubs, governments, our Defence Force, businesses and hundreds of individuals will mark the day with fundraisers and awareness campaigns in their communities. We have seen real advances in the way that people are talking about this issue and, in particular, the recognition that gender inequality is at the heart of the problem. White Ribbon has played a key role in that shift in understanding as men stand up and take responsibility for changing the conversation and the way that women are viewed and treated in society.
White Ribbon is a national male-led campaign to end men's violence against women. Given that the root cause of men's violence against women is gender inequality, the engagement of men in the fight against this scourge is crucial. The promotion of gender equality and respectful relationships is crucial to changing community attitudes that enable violence against women. Given that the primary challenge in preventing this violence is to change the attitudes of men in our community, men need to be a major part of the response to this problem.
White Ribbon has done a great job at tackling this challenge through grass roots community action. Just looking at the White Ribbon website, you can see hundreds of White Ribbon events occurring this week across Australia. In my own electorate these include events with: Peter Jordan Real Estate in Altona, the maritime transport industry lunch at Williamstown Football Club, a Hobsons Bay City Council event at Cherry Lake, the Melbourne's West Zonta Says No to Violence against Women meeting at the Williamstown RSL, Williamstown Women's Lacrosse Club, St Leo the Great Primary School, Yarraville Seddon Football Club, the Expressions of Freedom: hip hop against domestic violence event in Footscray, the Phoenix Youth Centre's PhotoSTOP Violence against Women exhibition, Maribyrnong City Council, Victoria University at MetroWest, Regional Rail Link, Western Region Health White Ribbon Day Committee, Brimbank City Council and the Sunshine Business Association. The number and diversity of these events speak for themselves; it is a campaign that has gained extraordinary traction in our community.
This Friday night in Melbourne's west, I will be heading to the Substation in Newport for a White Ribbon event being held by the DONS. The DONS are the Dads of Newport and Surrounds, a group of local dads who met through the Western Bulldogs Sons of the West men's health program and have continued to support each other on the journey to better health by holding regular fitness and social activities in the community. One of the issues that was tackled in the Sons of the West program was violence against women, and White Ribbon partnered with the program to help the participants learn about their role in helping to put a stop to it.
We are a close bunch in Melbourne's west and pride ourselves in knowing our neighbours and welcoming new people into the community, so it is no surprise that these blokes wanted to build on this work in the broader community. On Friday, they are asking people in Melbourne's west to dress up in black and white and come along to the Substation for a night out to raise money to support White Ribbon's work. While I do not ordinarily condone people wearing Collingwood colours, it is a great initiative and I want to congratulate Jason and Lucy Cranage, Cameron Smith and Matt Elmar for their work, as well as the Substation, Mountain Goat, Lion and local early learning centres and primary schools that have been selling tickets and raising money.
Another great partnership event that has emerged from my electorate is between White Ribbon and the Western Bulldogs. On Wednesday this week, the Western Bulldogs are hosting a barbecue at Etihad Stadium for their supporters and the broader community to raise funds for White Ribbon. Super coach Luke Beveridge will be joined by players Matthew Boyd, Dale Morris, Mitch Wallis, Fletcher Roberts, Marcus Bontempelli—'the Bont'—and Lukas Webb at the event. I am proud to see the Western Bulldogs taking a leading stance on this issue and sending a clear message that violence against women is not tolerated by the club and nor should it be tolerated anywhere in society.
Two weeks ago, Parliamentarians Against Family Violence Friendship Group was proud to co-host the launch of the primary prevention framework developed by Our Watch, ANROWS and VicHealth. It builds on a strong body of research that tells us what the drivers of violence against women are, and tells us how we can prevent it. It tells us that we need to change our attitudes and behaviours in workplaces, schools, community organisations, sports clubs, media and in popular culture. White Ribbon Day does exactly this. It encourages men to stand up and take responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours within our community—within these sporting clubs, these workplaces and our community organisations.
Thanks to the work of White Ribbon, we are seeing that change can happen. This issue has come an extraordinary distance in the last 12 months in particular but also since the founding of White Ribbon in Australia. But the only way that we can make this change happen and continue the progress that we have been making is for people to work together, to look at their own behaviours and to work with the community to take a stand on men's violence against women. I congratulate everyone who has been involved to date.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Butler: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:50): I rise in support of the White Ribbon campaign to end violence against women. In doing so I acknowledge and thank the member for Gellibrand for his commitment to this cause and for moving the motion before the House today.
Driving along Dane Drive in Gosford the other day I was struck by the simplicity of a message that flashed up on a portable neon road sign. It said, 'One in three women experience domestic violence. Brisbane Water police say no to domestic violence. So should you'—simple, powerful and effective. What also struck me was the fact that a simple neon road sign more commonly used to convey messages about speeding, drink-driving and other safety issues in our community was now reminding our community about another important safety message: eliminating all forms of domestic violence. What was once a hidden scourge in our community is now being put up in lights, so to speak, exposed for all the world to see, and people on the Central Coast are able to speak out with one voice about the fact that domestic violence and violence against women is not acceptable in our community.
Unfortunately domestic violence is still one of the most common crimes on the Central Coast, and some of the key Australian statistics are simply alarming. One in three girls over the age of 16 will experience physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime. On average every two hours a police vehicle will respond to a domestic violence call. Seventy-eight women this year alone have died as the result of domestic and family violence. Domestic and family violence now accounts for 40 per cent of all homicides, and alcohol abuse is often a factor in these crimes.
I thank Gosford City Council and the Brisbane Water local area command, led by Superintendent Danny Sullivan, who is himself an ambassador for White Ribbon, for their determination to support a male-led campaign to help change attitudes and behaviours that lead to and perpetuate men's violence against women. I spoke with Superintendent Sullivan, who told me about the unique relationship that Brisbane Water local area command has with Central Coast ADVICE, a local organisation that works towards helping victims escape the cycle of violence by providing information, referrals, support and case management strategies for people on the Central Coast. The superintendent said, 'Due to our strong focus on domestic violence as a crime and our partnerships with Central Coast ADVICE and other agencies, we have a proven record of helping victims to escape the cycle of violence. In fact we have one of the lowest repeat victim rates in the region.'
I doubt whether 10 or 15 years ago a portable neon sign on Dane Drive in Gosford—if in fact it had even been there—would have carried such a public message about domestic violence as I saw the other day. I think that the White Ribbon campaign has definitely made a lot of progress. Today I am very proud to be part of a government, led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, that recently announced $100 million of funding to go into a national Women's Safety Package that seeks to turn words into action.
I am also proud to see that Premier Mike Baird's New South Wales government has recently announced $60 million of funding, including increased support for crisis accommodation. Such accommodation is provided by many local community groups. I want to single out today the Central Coast's Coast Shelter women's refuge. Last weekend the Brisbane Water local area command joined with the Blacktown LAC and the Windsor LAC on a bike ride from Newcastle to Blacktown. This ride—an important ride—not only drew attention to the issue of domestic violence but also raised much-needed funds for the important work that Coast Shelter women's refuge does in our local community. Many other community groups recently also supported the men of the Central Coast in standing up against domestic violence. I acknowledge some of the many recent events that have been held, including the Erina Rotary's White Ribbon 'Comfort in Crisis' dinner and the Gosford White Ribbon Luncheon held on Saturday at the Central Coast Leagues Club. This weekend I will be joining hundreds of men, women and children walking along to the Skillion at Terrigal in a strong message of solidarity and support for the White Ribbon campaign. I encourage members of the local community on the Central Coast to join us on Sunday morning in Terrigal for this very important event.
This strong message is permeating right throughout our community today. It is not just about changing the culture for women today, but also for a generation tomorrow. Every time a male in our community stands up and says that violence against women is not acceptable, he is not just another voice or another statistic. He becomes part of a powerful story, the story of a culture on the Central Coast and, indeed, around Australia that truly honours its wives, partners, sisters, daughters, colleagues and friends. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:55): I too acknowledge the member for Gellibrand for bringing this very important motion to the chamber today. White Ribbon Day is certainly a cause that I associate with and am very passionate about, not simply because I have been a White Ribbon ambassador since 2009, but because I am a husband, father and grandfather, so there are some very special women and girls in my life, who I love very much. Therefore, it makes it impossible for me to sit back and watch the shameful and almost epidemic proportions in which we are now seeing domestic violence being played out in our communities.
The statistics are well known. From the age of 15, one in three women will experience physical violence. One in five will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Seventeen per cent of domestic violence is perpetrated by a current or former partner. At least one woman dies each week as a result of domestic violence. To date, I understand that 63 women have been killed in Australia this year.
In my electorate in the south-west of Sydney, the Fairfield local area police command has responded to 2,024 incidents of domestic violence this year and the Cabramatta local area police command has responded to 1,375 incidents. Out of those incidents in Cabramatta, 208 people were charged with 412 domestic violence offences, making domestic violence account for 30 to 40 per cent of all police work in my area. As a matter of fact, the police have advised me that more than 50 per cent of all assaults reported locally are assaults on women by a current or former partner. Despite these alarming numbers, we still see a huge underreporting of domestic violence in our community.
On Wednesday this week 800 people will be marching from Cabravale Memorial Park to Freedom Plaza in my electorate to commemorate White Ribbon Day. The walk will be joined by the police commander, Superintendent Wayne Murray, and Detective Chief Inspector Darren Newman. They will march side by side with community members to raise awareness of this shameful crime in our society. The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, will also be there. He will also talk about some of the gender imbalance when it comes down to issues of domestic violence in our community and the impact that it has. Leading the march will be three sisters from my local area, Alice, Aminda and Anna Huynh, whose mother, Kim Lien Huynh, was murdered by her second husband in their Cabramatta home in 2012. As teenage girls at the time, these women still carry with them the scars of the emotional trauma of this tragedy, which they feel, they tell me, every single day.
Much still needs to be done to address the impacts and consequences of domestic violence on children. Every year in Australia there are about 50,000 reported cases of child abuse that has occurred as a consequence of violence being perpetrated against their mother. These instances leave children severely traumatised—emotionally, physically and psychologically—with injuries they, many times, never properly recover from. Rosie Batty, our 2015 Australian of the Year and a very powerful advocate against domestic violence, tragically lost her son, Luke, in February 2014—killed by his father, in Victoria. These stories are gut-wrenching; they are clear illustrations of the plight of children who are caught up in family violence and they are yet to be adequately addressed in our society.
While much needs to be done to address the visibility of and impacts upon the children who are victims of domestic violence, there are a number of organisations in my electorate which continue to play an indispensable role in lending assistance to women in violent situations. I particularly commend the Bonnie Support Services, the Liverpool Women's Resource Centre and—a very special one—the Sistas for Sistas group, who look after the abuse of Aboriginal women in our community. They do powerful work for good and should be very much supported.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (11:01): I rise today to support the motion brought by the member for Gellibrand and I congratulate him for his continued efforts to raise the profile of this issue in this place. Australia is the lucky country. Australians enjoy freedoms that people the world over aspire to, yet there is indeed a dark side to this idyllic Australia we all know and love. It is a problem which is, sadly, endemic in each and every one of our communities. If there were some mysterious illness that was claiming the lives of Australians each and every week, if there were some pandemic that was destroying the lives of children or if there were some contagion causing generation after generation of women to suffer needlessly, there would be widespread panic and demands for stronger action—and yet there is such an illness. The plague of domestic and family violence across this nation claims the lives of two women almost every week and ruins countless more, and each of them, of course, is a tragedy.
The figures speak for themselves. We have heard them again in this place, but they bear repeating. One in five Australian women have experienced sexual violence; one in three women have experienced physical violence. Each and every day, the police deal with some 650 domestic violence matters across the nation. Domestic violence costs our economy $13 billion, as if you could even quantify the damage. The sad reality is that domestic violence is pervasive and insidious. It is a scourge which is largely out of sight and often goes unreported. It is an issue squarely situated within a discourse of gender power relations and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by men. Indeed, 95 per cent of all victims of violence in Australia, whether male or female, experience violence at the hands of a male perpetrator.
Domestic violence is symptomatic of broader cultural issues which need to be rectified. Unquestionably, gender inequality fundamentally feeds this cycle of domestic violence. To prevent violence against women, we must account for these gender patterns of violence and address the cultural issues driving this pattern of behaviour. On Friday, 13 November, I was joined by Senator Michaelia Cash—who, of course, has responsibility as the cabinet minister inter alia for women—at a domestic violence forum in Mount Gambier. Seventy members of the community attended that forum.
I convened it in partnership with Soroptimist International of Mount Gambier, the White Ribbon association and service providers, and we had speakers from all those groups, including the local resident magistrate, Teresa Anderson. I must express my thanks to the media, including ABC South East SA, who convened an outside broadcast for the event and have taken the opportunity to effectively replay the whole forum on ABC South East SA over the last week. My thanks go also to Sandra Morello at TheBorderWatch. She, too, has covered that event in some particular detail, such that almost every day last week we had stories which were raising the profile of this issue. Magistrate Teresa Anderson made the point that we need to do something to amend the evidence acts around the country, and Susie Smith, who is a service provider at the front line, shocked the audience when she told the audience that 15 women in Mount Gambier were assessed as 'at an imminent risk of death'. That is my community, and it shook me as did everyone in the crowd.
Thankfully, Australia is squaring up for the fight against domestic violence, because it is a fight we have to win. I refuse to accept domestic violence is a given. I refuse to accept there is any excuse for committing violence against our children, wives, girlfriends or partners. I say that there is no excuse for violence. This is not the first time I have risen in this place to speak on domestic violence. It is an issue which I care deeply about. It is the least I can do as a White Ribbon Ambassador. I welcome the recognition this motion brings to the White Ribbon movement—a movement which I believe is crucial in effecting the long-term cultural change required to remove this scourge from our community.
Wednesday is White Ribbon Day. It is an opportunity to reflect not only on how far we have come in this fight but, most importantly, on how much more we still have to do. I am proud to be part of a movement which is making a difference in this space and I am proud to support this motion. I do not accept that my daughters will grow up in a world where they have a one-in-two chance of being subjected to abuse. Not on my watch.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:06): I am pleased to rise in support of this very important motion moved by the member for Gellibrand. In doing so, I think it is important to reflect on two things. I acknowledge the incredibly significant work that has been done by White Ribbon, an organisation that I am very proud to be an ambassador for, in raising awareness of family violence and, in particular, in putting squarely at issue in the national conversation men's responsibility to end family violence. It is also incumbent on all of us in this place and in the communities we represent to reflect on the fact that, at the same time that we have seen an increased awareness of family violence in the national conversation, we continue to see family violence, violence against women, at unacceptable levels—at frightening and shocking levels. In particular, I have been concerned, from the moment I was elected to this place, about the incidence of violence against women in the communities I represent.
Much of the electorate of Scullin is comprised of the city of Whittlesea, which has one of the highest reported rates of family violence in Victoria. In the city of Whittlesea in the last year there were 2,359 family violence incidents reported to Victoria Police. Children were present at nearly 900 of those incidents. An average of 45 instances of family violence in the municipality are reported to the police every week. Family violence is the context for 31 per cent of all rapes and 34 per cent of other sexual offences. Further, 82 per cent of victims in the city of Whittlesea were female, and 100 per cent of the alleged offenders were male. There is no greater issue confronting the communities I represent than the scourge that is family violence. It is an issue that is of increasing concern in growth areas, where connections to community have not been well formed and where access to services are not as they should be. I have addressed this parliament on this matter before, and I will continue to advocate for the needs of women and children in growth areas to access support services at these times of crisis.
This motion is also about leadership in this place, and I acknowledge my great friend the member for Gellibrand for the work that he has done as an advocate for his community and as a leader in this parliament and in the Labor Party in putting issues of violence against women firmly at the centre of the national conversation through his work in the party but also through his work in convening the multipartisan parliamentary friendship group that has done so much to raise awareness of this issue. As a Victorian, I acknowledge the leadership that Daniel Andrews, as leader of the opposition and now as Premier, has shown in making the fight against family violence an absolute priority for his government and in agreeing to implement every recommendation of the Victorian royal commission, no matter how difficult those recommendations may be to implement. That shows the strength of his resolve, and I think the resolve of the Victorian people, to eliminate family violence. Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Labor Party in this place, made family violence a priority from the moment he became leader. Indeed, his first announcement was in support of the work of community legal centres, which play such a critical role in supporting victims of family violence. This is a matter where there has been a strong level of bipartisanship, and I acknowledge the recent announcement and commitments of the government in this regard.
Other speakers have touched upon the Change the story framework, which was launched in this place in the last sitting week. It is an interesting document in many respects but a very challenging one for every policymaker, because what it tells us is this: we have the evidence base; we know what to do; we must go ahead and do it. In acknowledging the announcements of the government, I think we need to think about what more there is to be done. There are a range of policy interventions that could do so much. I think about paid domestic violence leave, a matter that needs further consideration. I think about many other legal interventions that can assist and ameliorate the circumstances of victims. In looking at these individual interventions, which we must do, we should also never, ever lose sight of the critical question here, which is gender inequality.
Violence against women is a creature of an unequal society. The member for Gellibrand's motion acknowledges this, and we must all acknowledge this. I was pleased to be in the chamber for the member for Barker's comments and to see that this is a matter that is acknowledged not only on this side of the chamber but right across the House.
Ultimately, as we look at the evidence, as we build a broad-based policy response that includes making prevention of violence against women an absolute national priority, we must remember this: if we are to be serious about preventing family violence, we must be more serious about striving for gender equality in Australia.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:11): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the motion moved by the member for Gellibrand on White Ribbon Day, and I thank him for bringing this motion before the House. In speaking about White Ribbon Day through this motion, we are recognising the importance of the fact that women and children in Australia have the right to feel safe and to live without fear of violence in their homes.
White Ribbon Day is about all Australian men standing up and speaking out to prevent men's violent conduct towards women, and it is about making women safe. Held annually on 25 November, White Ribbon Day signals the start of 16 days of activism to stop violence against women. However, while this day is significant in highlighting a major issue in our country, putting an end to domestic violence is something our communities should be working towards every single day.
Domestic and family violence is preventable and can be stopped. There is no need for victims of violence to live in fear for themselves and their families, even when they have left an abusive relationship. Over the past 18 months, significant progress has been made in the Australian community in raising awareness of domestic and family violence. As a government, we are addressing what should be a simple goal—that all Australians deserve to live free from violence. Yet it is sad to stand in this place and reflect that this year 63 women have been killed by a violent partner or ex-partner, and one in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner. Earlier this year, our country saw the devastating impact domestic and family violence has on our community. These tragic deaths of women and children highlighted the need for urgent action.
Domestic, family and sexual violence are unacceptable in any circumstance, and I am pleased to see that this government recently pledged a $100 million package to fight against these forms of violence. The package of measures will provide a safety net for women and children at high risk of experiencing violence. It also improves front line support and services, leverages innovative technology to keep women safe and provides education resources to help change community attitudes towards violence and abuse. More than $21 million from the package will be used for specific measures to help Indigenous women and communities, who are at an even higher risk. Domestic violence is now a national priority, and our government is acting to put an end to violence against women and children. I also take this opportunity to note the efforts of the current Queensland state government in this space and their recent package of announcements.
In my electorate of Forde the Logan police have established a dedicated domestic violence and management team. This team will take a proactive approach to dealing with high-risk domestic violence matters, and I commend them on this initiative. In 2014 Logan police responded to some 5300 domestic violence matters, and this new team of four officers will target perpetrators identified as high-risk offenders. I commend the Logan police for taking such a proactive approach in creating this new domestic violence and management team. It is a positive step from our hardworking police force who are committed to making the community a safer place for everyone to live in.
To the men of Australia I say: domestic and family sexual violence is unacceptable and we should be standing up and speaking out against it. We should be telling our friends, neighbours, children and the family that it is not okay to be violent towards another person—whether it be man, woman or child—and if you see something you should speak up and report it. To the people who are in or have left or are preparing to leave a situation where you are affected by family and domestic violence, there is help and support. From those who I have spoken to about this issue I acknowledge that it is this first step of seeking help and support that is often the most difficult. A great starting point is 1800 RESPECT, the National Sexual Assault Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Service. I also encourage people who are witness to domestic and family violence to not ignore the problem. We have other great organisations, like Logan Women's Health Network—there are many resources. On White Ribbon Day I stand here to say to the men of Australia: stop the domestic and family violence for the future benefit of this great country.
Meals on Wheels
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:16): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that Meals on Wheels has a long and proud history of providing ready-made nutritious meals, as well as a friendly smile and a chat, through its dedicated network of volunteers since 1952;
(2) acknowledges that Meals on Wheels prides itself on providing 'More than just a meal'; and
(3) affirms that the ability of Meals on Wheels to provide meals along with trusted local community outreach is unparalleled, and is worthy of the recognition and continuing support of government.
Meals on Wheels is an iconic Australian organisation that has been supporting local communities for more than 60 years. The 15,000 volunteers in Queensland alone who make Meals on Wheels possible deliver nearly two million meals a year to more than 11,500 people with a wide variety of support needs.
Every single day in typical suburban streets right across Australia, thousands of Meals and Wheels volunteers provide not only meals but also support, care and friendship to some of our elderly, sick, frail and disabled neighbours. I am fortunate to have some of the best community-spirited volunteers working for Meals and Wheels in my electorate, including in the Western Suburbs, Kenmore, Ashgrove and Mitchelton organisations. When our bodies fail and it is difficult to go to the shops for groceries, that is when Meals on Wheels can step in. Independence is something we all value—and key to supporting people to stay in their homes when they become elderly and frail are services such as those provided by Meals on Wheels and their volunteers. The volunteers are absolutely diligent in supporting their clients, as they call them, and in turning up every day. Too often volunteers are seen as those glamorous people who work at events like the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games or major conferences, but it is the Meals on Wheels volunteers who turn up every day, every week and every month of every year—and they don't get the recognition and support that they so deserve. When a Meals on Wheels volunteer attends a client's home, they are not just delivering a meal; they are providing an invaluable service to someone in need, the community and the Australian taxpayer.
However, I do believe that the Australian government could do more to help these wonderful people who provide meals on wheels by doing less. Earlier this year, for example, I met with representatives of local Meals on Wheels groups who were concerned about changes made to the way prospective Meals on Wheels clients subscribe to their services. Members will recall that Meals on Wheels providers were originally responsible for assessing the eligibility of prospective clients, as well as preparing and delivering meals. This was a sensible and cost-effective arrangement for providers, the Australian government and the people who need this valuable community service. But from 1 July 2015, responsibility for eligibility assessment was given to another layer of bureaucracy and was absorbed into My Aged Care Regional Assessment Service, which has now been contracted out to 13 organisations and 75 subcontractor organisations for a fee. Prospective clients now have to contact the My Aged Care Regional Assessment Service via a call centre or web portal to have their eligibility determined, and this can take several months. Indeed, I heard recently of a local resident and it took three months.
How often is it that we have elderly parents and one has to go into hospital for a couple of weeks? And what you do is ring up your local Meals on Wheels and say: 'Mum's in hospital for a couple of weeks. Do you mind providing meals for dad?' They say: 'Sure, not a problem. We'll pop around and organise what sort of food he likes and get that happening.' They complete the paperwork and you can then concentrate on your other parent who may be unwell. But no longer is that going to be the case; prospective clients now have to contact the My Aged Care Regional Assessment Service and—at a time when we took to the last election our commitment to repeal unnecessary red tape—this now is actually what we're doing to Meals on Wheels. There is no need for another layer of bureaucracy between a Meals on Wheels volunteer and the elderly and the sick, frail and disabled who benefit from their services. More concerning is advice that one of the Meals on Wheels volunteers gave me: they had been contacted by a large supermarket chain who indicated that they understood that the government was going to tender for the service. Would their volunteers volunteer for them in the future if they won the contract?
Meals on Wheels is a wonderful service. It supports the elderly in their homes and it provides a social interaction and care for those people as well because, instead of just leaving the delivery at the door and hoping that someone remembers to pull it in at some stage, Meals on Wheels volunteers ensure that their client is not only accessing those meals but also eating them, and they check on the conditions at the home at the same time. I commend the Meals on Wheels volunteers and this motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:22): I second the motion. I congratulate the member for Ryan for bringing forward in the parliament this important motion on Meals on Wheels. She has identified the fact that there are some problems with the My Aged Care website, and there have also been some problems with transitioning from the provision of Meals on Wheels through HACC and under the new arrangements, which do involve the My Aged Care website. Meals on Wheels is a very valuable organisation. It was established in Britain during the Second World War and it has been operating in Australia since 1952. It delivers 14.8 million meals a year to Australians. In excess of 78,700 volunteers provide their services because they believe in Meals on Wheels—they believe that frail aged and disabled people should have access to good quality meals. Meals on Wheels has played this invaluable role in communities throughout Australia. Not only do they provide nutritious meals; they also provide support and care to the people they deliver the meals too. It is unconscionable that people should have to wait for periods of time before they are deemed to be eligible for Meals on Wheels. The point the member for Ryan made about that was very poignant.
In Shortland electorate we have Charlestown Meals on Wheels, Belmont Meals on Wheels and Swansea Meals on Wheels. On the Central Coast we have meals on wheels delivered by volunteers but they are all cooked at a central point. Charlestown, Belmont and Swansea all cook their own meals. You have volunteers who come in early, they prepare the meals and once the meals are prepared another set of volunteers come in and they deliver the meals. The quality of the meals that people are receiving is of the highest standard. They are the kinds of meals that they have been used to all their lives. They are not something that has been frozen and cooked in some central point—they are quality meals. I have been out with Swansea Meals on Wheels and Charlestown Meals on Wheels, and quite a while ago with Belmont Meals on Wheels, delivering meals to people in their home. Quite often the person delivering the meal is the only person that they have contact with—the volunteers become part of their family. The interaction between those delivering meals on wheels and the person who receives the meal is a very important aspect of Meals on Wheels. I cannot emphasise that enough. On 28 August I went out with Swansea Meals on Wheels. There are a lot of elderly people in the Shortland electorate. We delivered meals in Swansea to The Village, where a number of elderly people live in units. They have valued that contact, and they continue to value it to this day. I know that those volunteers in the Shortland electorate taking the meals to those frail aged and disabled people are out there doing it now and I say thank you to them.
I have been worried in recent times that there has been a push for supermarkets, Woolworths, to become involved in delivering Meals on Wheels. But it is not the same as getting your groceries delivered. You need that personal contact, you need those special volunteers who can go along and interact with those receiving the meals in the way that I just identified. Meals on Wheels needs to be adequately funded and it needs to be well administered. I would like to thank each and every person who goes out there volunteering for Meals on Wheels. It is a way of life for them. We say thank you, I say thank you, and those receiving the meals say thank you also.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (11:27): I also support this motion recognising the great work of Meals on Wheels. I do not always agree with the member for Shortland but on this occasion I strongly endorse her words. I am the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Meals on Wheels and for many years I shared that responsibility with the former member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas. Currently the member for Griffith, Ms Terri Butler, and I co-chair that group. It is important that an organisation such as Meals on Wheels have entree into the Australian parliament so that the work they do can be recognised and the issues they face can be addressed.
It is important to note that Meals on Wheels has been going for 60 years, and in the course of a year nearly 15,000,000 meals are delivered by more than 78,700 volunteers to about 53,000 recipients. That is across cities, regional areas and small country towns. It is more than just a meal that recipients are getting from Meals on Wheels. True, Meals on Wheels is about nutrition, but that is only part of the story. As the member for Shortland said, quite often the only visit that some elderly people get throughout the day is the visit from the volunteer who delivers the meals on wheels. Numerous lives would have been saved on an annual basis when people have been found in an unwell condition and it is the Meals on Wheels volunteer who has recommended that they go to the doctor or who has called for help. So that social cohesion is very important.
Across the electorate of Parkes we have dozens of individual organisations that deliver meals on wheels. The one at Dubbo is quite a large organisation that delivers meals not only through Dubbo but also supplies meals to other outlying areas and to much smaller organisations in places like Boggabri, Warialda and Bingara and places like that. Last year I was at the celebrations for the Meals on Wheels anniversary in Boggabri, and many of those volunteers have been volunteering for most of the 60 years that Meals on Wheels has been around. Indeed, one of the ironies of Meals on Wheels is that more often than not the person delivering the meal might be older than the person who is actually receiving it because once people become a volunteer for Meals on Wheels they like to keep that job going.
The member for Shortland touched on something that is of concern, and I think it is a challenge for those of us who are in government, regardless of what side of the chamber you sit on: it is very easy for governments to look to a large organisation to handle the administration of an essential service like this; it is much easier to have a more narrow point of contact with a larger organisation. But we must never forget that the success of Meals on Wheels is due to the volunteers. The reason that Meals on Wheels works is that we have volunteers and we must not do anything that disenfranchises those volunteers. Outsourcing Meals on Wheels to supermarkets or the like would have a negative effect. I know that some other organisations have come into my electorate and have tried to contact some of the Meals on Wheels volunteers with the existing organisations, and that causes friction in itself.
It is a real challenge to foster and care for our volunteer organisations. Many of these are small groups in small country towns, but it is important that they maintain their autonomy, that they are encouraged and supported, that they are reinvigorated with new volunteers and that Meals on Wheels continues for another 60 years and beyond as a very valuable organisation.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:32): I am very pleased to support this motion moved by the member for Ryan and pay tribute to the Meals on Wheels establishment and the wonderful work that it has done in Australia since 1952. In particular, I would like to thank, congratulate and pay tribute to the wonderful volunteers of Meals on Wheels across Australia who, every day, ensure that the elderly, people with disabilities and those who are lonely are provided with support and, importantly, a nutritious meal to ensure that their health and wellbeing is being catered for.
I wish, in particular, to pay tribute to those that work in our community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith in the Randwick and Botany Meals on Wheels organisations. For well over 50 years they have been supporting vulnerable people within our community and delivering those meals on a daily basis. At the moment, in both Randwick and Botany combined, Meals on Wheels delivers close to 2,000 meals a week to people within our community. They are not just meals; they are healthy, fresh, nutritious meals that can easily be heated up and delivered to people who are living in difficult circumstances and who may be frail, elderly, disabled and in need of care and attention to ensure that they can live fulfilling lives.
As other speakers have pointed out in this debate, the great value of Meals on Wheels is not simply in the food that is delivered. Meals on Wheels is much more than simply delivering a meal to a person on a daily or weekly basis. The wonderful volunteers of Meals on Wheels spend time with those whom they visit. They spend time chatting with them, they help them out around the home and, importantly, they sit with them and have a cup of tea or a chat and talk about their life and talk about what is happening in their life at that point in time. Particularly for elderly people or those who may be lonely and do not live with anyone, that is vitally important to a person's mental health and wellbeing. In the lead up to Christmas, when traditionally Australians spend a lot of time with family, I think we also need to remember those in our communities who live alone. Over the Christmas period Meals on Wheels provides a wonderful service connecting with and supporting those who may be lonely and live on their in our community.
Last week I conducted some volunteer awards in Kingsford Smith where we awarded community service certificates to those who volunteer in our community. For the last two years that I have done these awards, Meals on Wheels volunteers have been well represented and are well respected and loved within our community. It is a great pleasure to be able award a certificate of community service to someone from Meals on Wheels. Many of those volunteers that have worked in our community for Meals on Wheels in Randwick and Botany have been long-term volunteers, with over decades of support for this wonderful organisation. Many of them report to me that it is not simply about volunteering and providing support to those living vulnerable lives in our communities. Volunteering is also good fun, and that is something that I am acutely aware of. I came to politics through my work in community organisations. I was involved in Surf Life Saving from the age of 13. Most of my social network and friends that I have developed over those many years have come through being involved in volunteering. So volunteering is not simply about the social benefit; it is also about feeling part of a community, feeling connected to the community, and developing great friendships and love for the community and for people within that community over many years. Meals on Wheels and their volunteers provide that opportunity to many in our community.
Today I once again congratulate and thank and pay tribute to those volunteers, who, week in, week out, over many decades, have supported the vulnerable, the lonely, the disabled and the elderly in our community. You provide a wonderful service, and your contribution deserves credit and accolades from this parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:38): Yesterday I met with representatives of the Assyrian community in my local area and heard their tales of despair over what is occurring in their homeland of Iraq and the persecution that many of their relatives and friends have faced over the last couple of years. Many have had to flee their traditional homelands in places like Turkey and Iraq with nothing more than their passports and the clothes on their backs. Many of their family members have been killed by Daesh in this immoral insurgency that is occurring in that important part of the world.
The conflicts occurring in Syria and Iraq represent one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time. More than 11 million people have been displaced due to these conflicts, with most fleeing to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 25 per cent of those people who are fleeing these conflicts are children. There are currently more than 3,700 children in Jordan and Lebanon living without one parent, both of their parents or any adult caregivers. The United Nations Security Council has called on all states to join the fight against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and redouble efforts to prevent further attacks by the militant group.
For over a year, Labor have offered bipartisan support for the actions that this government has taken in committing Australian troops to fighting Daesh in both Iraq and Syria. But, at the same time, we have called for greater scrutiny by and greater involvement of this parliament as the representative of the Australian people—the people who have the right to know about the long-term strategy of the Australian government in restoring peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. We believe that the Australian people have a right to know and that this parliament as a representative of the people should have a debate about Australia's involvement and the long-term strategy in both Iraq and Syria.
This is nothing foreign to this parliament. In 1991, the parliament debated for two full days Australia's involvement in the first Iraq war. In 2003, there was a significant debate in this parliament again in respect of Australia's involvement in the second Iraq war. But that has not been the case this time.
We all want to defeat the evil Daesh and stop what is occurring in Syria and Iraq. That is why Labor have offered bipartisan support to this government's involvement in and its commitment of Australian troops to that region—but our support is not a blank cheque. Where the lives of Australian soldiers are at risk, the Australian people deserve and have the right to know what the government's strategy is to bring about and maintain long-term democracy and peace in this region, and that strategy is not evident at the moment, unfortunately. We do not know what the Australian government's strategy in Iraq is if Daesh is defeated. How do we bring about long-lasting peace and an end to the sectarian violence that has plagued that country for decades? In Syria, if we do defeat Daesh, what is the Australian government's approach with respect to the Assad government?
It is a complicated geopolitical situation that is developing in that area. In recent months, we have seen Russia engage in air strikes on the premise that they were fighting Daesh, but it appears that those air strikes were targeted more at anti-Assad forces and shoring up the Assad regime. The US in the past have said that Assad must be removed as part of a long-term solution in this area. Indeed, the Liberal government has stated in the past that the Assad regime is illegitimate, pointing to the killing of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens; yet the foreign minister has in recent months said that the Assad regime may be part of a longer-term solution.
The Australian people have the right to know what our government's strategy is. Labor have offered bipartisan support and we do want to defeat Daesh—particularly in the wake of the shocking events in Paris and Mali—but we want to know how that will occur. Where there are Australian soldiers' lives at risk, this parliament should debate fully the strategy in Syria and Iraq.
Dr STONE (Murray) (11:43): I think many Australians are proud that Australia, a nation of only 23 million people, is, with the USA and Canada, consistently offering the highest number of resettlement opportunities to humanitarian refugees—and we have been in this position for many years. Recently we have determined to take an additional 12,000 humanitarian refugees from the Daesh, or ISIS, created war on Iraq and Syria.
We are also second only to the USA in commitment to efforts to fight these terrorists' movements. Australia is playing an important role in the global coalition led by the USA by supplying some 300 ADF personnel to help train the regular Iraqi army so they can reclaim and hold territory as part of the Building Partner Capacity mission. We are providing around 80 ADF personnel to support the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service in an advise-and-assist role; and we are contributing to coalition air strikes on Daesh targets in Iraq in support of Iraq ground forces' efforts to retake areas captured by Daesh. So far, we have trained more than 2,100 Iraqi army personnel and some 800 personnel in the counter-terrorism service, and our Air Task Group has conducted more than 480 air strike missions over Iraq and Syria.
On 13 November—just a few days ago—we saw the cowardly attacks on unarmed, defenceless civilians in Paris. They were targeted and shot down or blown up by Daesh adherents with warped minds, who believe that if you do not convert to their religion and their inhuman values then you should die. France was one of the first modern nations to fight to oppose tyranny. Its constitution and its country's culture acknowledge and loudly proclaim its citizens' rights to personal and religious freedom within the rule of law and democracy for all. In the exercise of free will for all people, the French champion human rights, especially the equality of men and women in all things. It is no wonder France and other western democracies are the object of such hatred by adherents to the Daesh ideology, based as it is on cruelty and intolerance. Daesh even beguile their loser and hapless recruits, including some 120 from Australia, by claiming that killing yourself as you murder defenceless victims is some form of glorified martyrdom, far preferable to the pursuit of global peace, individual freedom and respect for the right to life of all.
Just a few days before the Paris massacres, I chaired a special forum here in Parliament House, organised by our UN parliamentary group and in conjunction with the UNHCR regional office. The intention was that we put on the record and acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of these countries nearest to Syria, as we heard firsthand of their efforts and the extreme challenges presented by the Syrian refugee crisis. These nearest neighbours are now carrying an unsustainable burden on behalf of all of us as they offer an open door and haven to the refugees from the conflict. The key participants in this forum were: the diplomatic representative of Turkey, Her Excellency Mrs Gulseren Celik; Her Excellency Mrs Rima Alaadeen, Ambassador of Jordan; and Mr Milad Raad, Charge D'affaires of the Embassy of Lebanon in Canberra. Mr Thomas Albrecht also presented the UNHCR position.
The Daesh created Syrian conflict has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. The total number of people needing assistance is more than 13½ million, with 6½ million internally displaced. Over the last five years Jordan has accepted over 1.4 million refugees, with 647,000 registered with the UNHCR. Only 100,000 live in refugee camps; the rest are accommodated in villages, towns and cities—wherever they can find shelter. They now make up 21 per cent of Jordan's total population of 6.7 million people. Today, they have the world's biggest refugee camp. In fact, it is the fourth largest city in Jordan. The country has a budget deficit due to the expenditure on the needs of these refugees. In 2015, it will be 3.5 per cent of its GDP. This is typical of the other countries, such as Turkey, which is next door, and Lebanon. These countries are disappointed that, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been committed—and Australia always has its cheque in the mail—on average, only 30 per cent of the funds that are committed ever reach those countries that have that special need.
I say now is not the time for parliamentary debates about the ins and outs of this conflict but, rather, it is time to put our effort into special briefings to the opposition when they need them. It is time, as a country, to unite, to condemn the tyrannous conflict in Syria and the behaviour of Daesh, and to commend, acknowledge and support those neighbouring countries which are carrying such a heavy burden providing refugee haven and support.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:48): It was almost exactly 12 months to the day that the member for Berowra and I visited the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I still cannot shake from my memory the horror and despair on the faces of refugees living in those camps. Some were in tents, others were in shipping containers, but they were the lucky ones; they were in UN-run camps. The others whom we met in informal camps were basically living under plastic sheeting or tarpaulins with open toilets and no sanitary provisions. You cannot visit those areas and come away unaffected.
The enormity of this conflict in the Middle East cannot be overstated. In fact, it is the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, with over 190,000 people now killed and 13 million people now displaced and in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. Since the crisis began as a civil unrest in 2011, more than 50 per cent of Syria's population have been driven from their homes by armed conflict, violence and persecution and are fleeing in search of safety and protection for their families. In fact, it was not all that long ago that the world saw the devastating images of three- and five-year-old boys' lifeless bodies lying facedown on the sand after being washed up onto a beach in Turkey. Aylan and his brother drowned, along with their mother, attempting a sea crossing in a rubber dinghy to escape the violence in Syria. These are extraordinarily powerful images. They certainly woke the world up to the enormity of the issue. They symbolised the horror and magnitude of this refugee crisis and the desperation of the people. They showed, very starkly, the extent of desperation that existed for those fleeing the violence in the Syrian conflict.
These are certainly very desperate people looking for a future for their families, but, because there is no hope of any kind under Islamic State, which unfortunately now controls a swathe of land in Syria and Iraq, there is not much in the way of alternatives available for these people. The regional impact of the crisis and its enormous displacement really place a moral obligation on those more fortunate nations, such as ours, to play an assisting role. It is true that, in 2011, we committed $130 million in humanitarian funding to assist inside Syria and neighbouring borders. This funding has been directed to UN agencies, international humanitarian organisations and Australian NGOs that are, as I saw, doing a tremendous job in providing life-saving assistance such as shelter, water, sanitation, food and medical aid for many of the people crossing the border. Currently, the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have been remarkably generous and are hosting the highest number of refugees. Together, they have taken about four million Syrian refugees into their countries. However, these countries are now straining under the number of refugees. Their public services are overloaded. Their water and sanitation systems are overwhelmed. Regrettably, there are not enough available places in schools and hospitals to accommodate many of these refugees.
In fact, about half of the Syrian refugees are children. Many of them are growing up without access to adequate health care or proper education. The consequence is that many of these kids are being exploited as child labour and many young girls are facing the prospect of being forced into early marriages. This is something that we need to address. This is why we have been calling for greater involvement of the parliament in providing answers to the long-term strategic issues with respect to Australia's involvement in this crisis. We are talking about the potential of consolidation with redrawn borders. With the violence now intensifying, the Australian people deserve to hear the strategy being outlined. Therefore, we call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to support a parliamentary debate during this current sitting of government to consider Australia's response to the Middle East crisis.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (11:53): In order to avoid making the mistakes of the past, we need to heed the lessons of history. There is some discussion of the lessons to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan; but, in essence, they are the wrong lessons, and we need to go back further. There is no doubt that the West has become extraordinarily adept at winning wars, which is the first prerequisite to solving some diplomatically intractable problems. However, we also need to win a peace that follows war, and that is where we have been found wanting. Recent history is all well and good, but let's go back further.
At the end of World War I, American President Woodrow Wilson urged restraint but Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George thought differently. Indeed, David Lloyd George had stated that they must 'squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeaked'. This is what happened with the Treaty of Versailles, and this led to World War II. Following that conflict, the US prevailed with a more enlightened strategy, one where Marshall aid was provided and where most of the personnel and structures were allowed to remain in place. This has resulted in Germany and Japan being staunch friends and democracies since that time.
In Iraq, in particular, we made the mistake of excluding those who were senior in government, the bureaucracy, the military and the police force. This bred a group of implacable foes, many of whom latterly became part of ISIS and, indeed, constitute much of their leadership. We have no choice but to comprehensively defeat ISIS in the field; they have to know that they have been militarily defeated. We must allow no pretence that they have been anything other than defeated. To that end, far more has to be done than simply plinking a few targets a day from the air, as the West has been doing.
There has been a significant lack of political and strategic leadership from the West and particularly from the US. This has allowed the complication of Russia stepping into the vacuum that vacuous US policy has left. There can and must be no negotiation with ISIS until they are comprehensively militarily defeated. To aid in that, we have to ensure that we stop the multiple and sustainable significant lines of funding to ISIS. We know of the oil revenues that are flowing to ISIS. But ISIS are also selling antiquities. They are getting ransoms from Western governments and donations from mosques and other organisations. They are imposing heavy taxes. They are also raiding banks when they take territory et cetera. This revenue is allowing ISIS not only to continue their military and terrorist activity but also to put structures in place that allow them to pretend that they are a state actor—structures such as health care, welfare et cetera.
This evil that is growing in Iraq and Syria is facilitated by failed states. In that vacuum, this group have set about providing the offerings of state, as I said, such as welfare, employment, schools, safety and certainty. So the question must be: how do we, Australia, play our part in a comprehensive and holistic plan for dealing with ISIS and supporting stable, sustainable governments in that region? Policymakers must note that, of course, it is no accident that democracy seems to shrivel under the Middle Eastern sun. Economists have long noted the detrimental effects of the resources curse. Such effects are also in operation throughout middle Africa. Political scientists observe a minimum GDP development requirement required in order to sustain democracy. It also requires a functional bureaucracy and functioning middle class.
What is true today is that politics is the art of the possible, and that no situation, however grave it may initially appear, is intractable or impossible. In future, free nations must re-evaluate how much heed we pay to the maxim 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Arming rebels, picking winners and imposing values must be critically examined. I hope this will form part of further debate on the situation in Iraq and Syria. In conclusion, I have to say that it is unfortunate that the deputy leader of the opposition did not show any interest in national security matters when her government slashed defence spending to the lowest level since 1938.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
Assent
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (11:59): Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to several bills. I do not propose to read the titles, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
Report
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:59): I present the committee's report entitled 2014 annual report of the Australian Taxation Office (Second report), together with the minutes of proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
Mr VAN MANEN: by leave—I rise today to table the report of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue titled 2014 annual report of the Australian Taxation Office: second report. This report covers the committee's September public hearing with the Australian Taxation Office, the Inspector-General of Taxation, and other stakeholders. It is the fourth regular review of tax administration by the committee. Regular scrutiny of the ATO through these hearings allows the committee to closely monitor developments in tax administration, and provides the ATO and stakeholders with a forum to discuss new issues in tax.
The tax agent portal and the client correspondence list tool were key topics at the hearing. These are crucial facilities for most tax practitioners, and their reliability is of utmost importance. At the hearing, tax practitioners said they had experienced difficulties in accessing the portal and the tool in a timely manner. This creates inefficiencies for them and for their clients. It also affects client and practitioner perceptions of the ATO as a modern, client-focused agency.
There have been widely reported consumer issues that accompanied the roll-out of myTax. This, combined with the difficulties I have just mentioned, suggest that the deployment of IT solutions continues to require the attention of senior ATO management. I understand that many online services experience difficulties during rollouts or during significant upgrades; however, the community expects their experience should align with the ATO's goal of providing a streamlined client experience. The committee will continue to monitor this.
We note in our report that there have also been some positive IT developments at the ATO. It is working with software providers to help them incorporate Standard Business Reporting into their software products. As part of this process the ATO has an opportunity to be open and transparent with tax practitioners about the implications of Standard Business Reporting for their business model.
The committee was pleased to hear that the ATO has taken a flexible and consultative approach in revising the implementation date for Single Touch Payroll. Taking the time to consult with key stakeholders, even if there is short term delay, can produce a successful rollout. In the long run, this will save tax practitioners time and it will reduce frustration. The committee will continue to monitor the introduction of Single Touch Payroll in future reviews.
Taxpayer uptake of myTax was also a positive development. The eTax system was ageing and not accessible to every online user. We look forward to the further expansion and enhancement of myTax and myDeductions, and hope that the system proves to be stable and that it is used more by taxpayers.
The committee continued our focus on estimates of the tax gap, an issue we have been monitoring since the committee's inception. We note the delayed publication of the estimates for high-wealth individuals and fringe benefits tax, until 2016. However, we look forward to continued improvement in the ATO's reporting of tax gaps across the board and the resulting benefits in transparency and understanding of the tax system.
As the report notes, the ATO is making good progress in a range of areas, continues to focus on improving the taxpayer experience, and has developed strategies to address emerging tax issues. We support the Commissioner of Taxation and his executive team in continuing to drive the reinvention project throughout the ATO. I thank the Australian Taxation Office, the Inspector General of Taxation and all other stakeholders who assisted us in the inquiry. I also thank my fellow committee members for their continued commitment to scrutiny of tax administration. In that regard, I would like to acknowledge the work of the previous deputy chair, the Hon. Dr Jim Chalmers, who is here in the chamber today, and also the new deputy chair of the committee, the member for Oxley, Bernie Ripoll. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the secretariat, ably led by Mr David Monk. I also thank Jean Cuthill for her terrific work on this report, and Susan Cardell, who has recently departed the secretariat, David Brunoro and the rest of the secretariat. I commend the report to the House.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (12:05): by leave—As deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue I jointly table the 2014 annual report Of The Australian Tax Office. As a new member of the committee I acknowledge the work and contribution of the good members of the committee, and in particular the outgoing members. If I could make mention of Dr Jim Chalmers and the good work he did on this report, along with the chair and the secretariat, who have all contributed to a fantastic review of the Australian Taxation Office. The committee also acknowledges the contributions of various stakeholder groups who have provided submissions or evidence to the committee during the recent inquiry into tax expenditure statements.
This report follows an examination of the annual report of the Australian Tax Office. The committee held two hearings into the ATO's 2013-14 annual report, in March and September of this year, and has drawn its evidence from written submissions and from appearances at the hearing. The committee thanks the contribution of officers from the ATO, including Mr Chris Jordan, Commissioner of Taxation, and Mr Ali Noroozi, Inspector General of Taxation.
The committee notes the new client-focussed approach of the ATO and acknowledges the new direction and progress made in the recent period. It is pleasing to note the ATO's improving relationship with tax practitioners regarding issues around the tax agent portal. In particular, it is pleasing to note the role of the committee in providing a forum for working through issues raised by stakeholders that resulted in the ATO introducing the 'push notification' for tax practitioners. The committee acknowledges the ongoing work of the ATO to continue to address unresolved issues as well.
Also as a note, I want to particularly commend the role that the ATO plays in relation to tax help volunteers in pretty much all the offices of federal members across the country. These are good, decent community people who have some expertise in taxation matters who volunteer their time and come in and help ordinary people who otherwise could not afford to pay for tax help or advice. I know members provide space, time and resources. Those volunteers in particular do a great job. An interesting part of the annual report is the sort of assistance and work that is lent by the Australian Taxation Office that is probably unrecognised by most people but is really good work in terms of dealing directly with the community and helping people to better interact with their taxation affairs to make it simpler, cheaper and easier. I commend the tax office and particularly the tax help volunteers for that.
This report also focused on other important aspects of the ATO annual report, including the development of a single-touch payroll, no-touch tax returns, complaints functions and the pursuit of wind-ups and bankruptcies. That is necessary and good work that continues at the Australian Taxation Office. I commend the report to the House.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (12:08): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report, Report 451: Community Pharmacy Agreements, Review of Auditor-General Report No. 25 (2014-15).
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: by leave—On 4 June 2015 the committee selected this ANAO audit report for further review and scrutiny at public hearings. The Australian government provides subsidised medicines to Australians and eligible overseas visitors through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In 2013-14, the PBS subsidised over 210 million prescriptions at a reported cost to government of over $9 billion. The government also subsidised an additional 12.4 million prescriptions to the veterans community, at a cost of almost $400 million. Since 1990, the Australian government funding has helped maintain a national network of approximately 5,460 retail pharmacies as the primary means of dispensing PBS medicines to the public.
The fifth community pharmacy agreement covered the period July 2010 to June 2015 and was primarily a partnership with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The arrangement involved the delivery of $15.4 billion in funding. The ANAO report uncovered a number of failings within the fifth pharmacy agreement's implementation and administration. There were shortcomings in key aspects of Health's administration at the development, negotiation and implementation phases. The ANAO identified key issues relating to: the clarity of the agreement and related public reporting; record keeping; the application of financial framework requirements; risk management; and seeking ministerial approvals.
It was originally stated that the agreement would result in a net saving of $600 million over its term. However, the ANAO analysis indicated that the net savings estimated should have been closer to $400 million due to shortcomings in Health's estimation methodology. The principle issues related to: unexplained increases in the baseline cost of professional programs; the application of inappropriate indexation factors; and the treatment of patient co-payments.
Given the experience the Department of Health has had with the previous four pharmacy agreements, the failures of process observed are very disappointing. The failure to provide suitable records for public accountability and the breach of the Financial Management and Accountability Act governing public expenditure were particularly egregious.
The ANAO report's eight recommendations have been agreed to by all parties, and Health has given assurances that the sixth community pharmacy agreement has incorporated the ANAO's advice. Given the size of the expenditure for this new agreement—some $18.9 billion over the next five years—the committee is of the view that its implementation should be closely scrutinised to ensure that the lessons learnt from the previous agreement and the ANAO report are not lost.
In addition to the ANAO's advice, the committee made three further recommendations directed at: ensuring that Health report back within six months of tabling this report on the independent two-year review of remuneration and regulation for the sixth agreement, particularly with regard to value-for-money spending; ensuring that Health report back on the KPIs for the new agreement and how outcomes are to be achieved, monitored and measured; and the ANAO conducting a follow-up audit on the implementation of the new agreement.
In conclusion, I thank the committee members for their deliberation on these significant matters. I also thank the departmental representatives who appeared at public hearings for assisting the committee. I particularly want to mention the member for Boothby, who was the chairman of this committee until recently, and thank him for his work as well. I commend the report to the House.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: by leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos 445 and 447 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Economics Committee
Report
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (12:14): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2014 (Second report), together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr LAUNDY: by leave—The Australian economy has been progressing through a major adjustment, with terms of trade declining by a third and reaching 2006 levels. The governor noted that investment in the resource sector is about halfway through its decline and will likely fall to about five per cent of GDP from its peak of about eight per cent. In comparison, some of the non-mining sectors have shown significant improvements over the last 12 months, and the governor was optimistic about the Australian economy, noting that GDP growth was likely to exceed three per cent by June 2017.
Current labour conditions have generally been better than expected, with unemployment likely to remain unchanged for about 18 months before declining in 2017. While there is still excess capacity in the labour market, employment has increased by about two per cent over the last 12 months, and surveys indicate conditions in the household and business service sector have been above average.
The exchange rate has fallen to around its lowest level since 2009 and may depreciate further once the US Federal Reserve begins increasing interest rates. The governor noted that a lower exchange rate was unlikely to lead to increased inflationary pressures and the Australian dollar at its current level was helping to support demand for locally produced goods and services, which should in time lead to more investment.
The governor commented that the RBA's decision on 1 September 2015 to leave official interest rates at two per cent was appropriately accommodative given the current circumstances. He added that the economic and financial conditions over the period ahead will inform the RBA as to whether the current policy will most effectively foster sustainable growth and inflation in line with the target.
It is encouraging to note the governor's view that underlying fundamentals of the economy have continued to improve. The adjustment of the decline in the terms of trade is well underway, and, if non-mining activity continues to improve, this will likely lead to better output growth as the Australian economy reaches the later phases of the decline in mining investment.
I would like to thank all of the secretariat involved in helping the committee to put this report together. I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their assistance, particularly the previous chair, the member for Bennelong, John Alexander. Finally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens, and other representatives from the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 18 September 2015.
I commend this report to the House and move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (12:18): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:18): I am pleased to rise today in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 and those measures contained within it.
We have before the House some important measures and also some measures that relate to the normal business of government. Unfortunately, these measures, which should have gone through the parliament two years ago, have been hijacked by the government in their ideological crusade to deregulate the Australian university system and usher in an era of $100,000 degrees instead of getting on with the normal business of government, which is what they should have been doing. Labor has had to call on those on the other side to uncouple the measures contained in this bill from their ideological attempt to deregulate the universities so that we can go ahead with these important measures. It is certainly pleasing that, finally, after two years, the government have listened to Labor's calls and are putting forward these important changes.
Australian universities, researchers and students have been taken hostage by the Abbott-Turnbull government while they have been pursuing their folly of deregulation—a folly that has not been supported by the Australian people. But today we can offer our support to the government for these sensible measures. In particular I would like to highlight Labor's support for the part of the legislation that expands access to the higher education loan scheme to New Zealand citizens who have been in Australia since childhood. This is an anomaly that does need to be fixed. I, along with many members on our side—and I am sure those on the other side—have been speaking with young people who came to Australia as New Zealand citizens and who have been locked out of the HELP scheme. I know the member for Rankin, who will speak after me, has been representing his constituents on this issue to ensure that those of New Zealand origin have the opportunity to take up a higher education qualification in Australia. Indeed, the member for Rankin and I have visited universities that have also indicated just how important this measure is.
Labor flagged in 2013 its intention to bring such a bill to the parliament. Unfortunately, we would have liked to have seen reform in this area much more quickly. However, as I mentioned, the government chose to bundle this reform in its plan to deregulate university fees, despite us and many people around Australia urging and pleading for the government to uncouple this reform from its plan. We have now finally got to the point of seeing this legislation being supported in legislation in this House. In June this year, Senator Kim Carr did introduce a private senators bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2015, to try and rectify this anomaly. Although the government did not support that bill at the time, we are very pleased to see action on this.
I know that in my electorate, as well as right around the country, there are many young New Zealanders that came out here up to 10 years ago that are now approaching the end of their high school studies. They are keen to pursue a higher education degree and might not come from a family of significant means. Therefore, a loan through the HELP program that is available to Australian students is a very, very important element to make higher education accessible. Ensuring that those New Zealand citizens that have been here since childhood for a period of 10 years have access to the scheme is very, very important.
Further, this bill also gives Australian researchers and universities certainty by guaranteeing appropriations for the Australian Research Council, allowing the vital National Competitive Grants Program to proceed at fully funded rates. It also, importantly, will update the name of the University of Ballarat to Federation University in the Higher Education Support Act. Federation University has been rebranded for some time. Because of the government's inaction in this area and their inability to proceed with the normal governance arrangements, we have had to wait some time to see this change in the Higher Education Support Act. With this bill, we will now see those changes.
This bill also clarifies the constitutional power that the other grants under the Higher Education Support Act—mostly research and equity grants—rely upon, which is a really important element. It also adds Torrens University to the list of table B universities under the Higher Education Support Act, making it eligible for the same funding support enjoyed by other private Australian universities, like Bond University. Of course, Torrens University Australia has added to the complement of public and private universities in Adelaide, my home town. I was very pleased to be at the opening of that university and I am very pleased that the government have finally caught up with and will be making this amendment. This bill also streamlines reporting requirements for the ARC and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The bill has a range of elements that are important to governance arrangements—really part of what should be the normal function of parliament. So I am certainly pleased to see these changes brought before the parliament today.
Of course, as I said, Labor will support these measures, because they are sensible measures. Ensuring that young New Zealanders have the opportunity to access our higher education system is an incredibly important element, so we will support the government on these measures. In doing so, we recognise they have taken a long, long time and that it has taken Labor calling again and again for the government to uncouple these measures from the wider higher education reforms. The previous minister was quite determined not to that. It was almost as if he was blackmailing the parliament and blackmailing the Australian people by saying, 'If you want the ordinary business of government to proceed, you must support our radical deregulation agenda.' It seems that the new minister has seen some sense. Despite that, we do not know what his plans are when it comes to the broader higher education reforms; we are still unsure. He seems to have delayed them for one year, and that is all the reform that he has done. The measures contained in this bill are responsible measures. They should have been brought in much earlier. We are pleased that the government have listened to Labor's calls to uncouple these measures from the radical, ideological deregulation agenda. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:26): It is my pleasure and my honour to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 and especially to follow the member for Kingston—what a forceful advocate for participation in higher education in this country and somebody who speaks a lot of sense when it comes to the issues before us today. As she mentioned, there are a number of changes in this bill: changes to grants and standards and the renaming of a university—a whole range of sensible measures. The focus of my remarks today will be on what I a consider to be an absolutely crucial change—the most important change in this bill—allowing New Zealand citizens who have been long-term residents of Australia access to the Higher Education Loan Program.
This is an issue very close to my own heart. I proudly represent a very big community of those who are New Zealand citizens or New Zealand born and Pasifika members of my community as well. It is a privilege to represent them. Nine of the 10 biggest New Zealand born electorates in the country are in South East Queensland. Deputy Speaker Vasta, yours is one of them, as you would know. So we do have a concentration of New Zealand born people in our part of Queensland. They enrich our community and they also strengthen our economy.
Of the many issues confronted by New Zealand citizens in Australia, the specific one dealt with in this bill has been raised with me over and over and over again, since I was elected a couple of years ago. Whether it be at the Woodridge markets, at the schools in my electorate, whether it be at the forums I have held at Griffith University with the member for Corio, whether it be at the board of the Logan campus of that university, whether it be in the lunch rooms at Polar Fresh in my electorate, which has a big Kiwi contingent amongst their workforce, whether it be in conversations and forums hosted by the National Union of Workers, or whether it be forums and meetings organised by Oz Kiwi, the issue of access for New Zealand born kids to the Higher Education Loan Program comes up over and over and over again. From these conversations, I know and understand the core inequity here—New Zealand kids need to pay up-front if they are to join their classmates at university, even if they have been here for a long time and even if their parents have been paying the same taxes as Australian parents. This is a real problem for so many New Zealand born students, as you can imagine, who cannot afford to pay the fees up-front and are, therefore, blocked from going to university.
This acts like a boom gate which comes down on Kiwi students on the pathway from school to university. I know, anecdotally, from the conversations I have with school principals that, when a lot of these students get to the point, late in high school, where they understand that university is not a realistic option for them, all kinds of issues flow from that: kids giving up on university and perhaps not paying as much attention to their studies as they might otherwise if they had more of an opportunity to go on to university. At Griffith University, in my electorate, the head of Logan campus, Lesley Chenoweth, has a great saying about how the objective here is to build aspiration and to widen participation. The current arrangement, which we are changing through this bill, blocks aspiration and limits participation. That is not good enough for the students in my community and, indeed, right around the country.
This is not the first time I have spoken about this particular issue in the parliament. It has a long and chequered history which, as the member for Kingston said, does not reflect terribly well on those opposite. My predecessor in Rankin, Craig Emerson—a terrific local member and a terrific minister—made the announcement in April 2013 that we would fix this problem. Since the change of government, there have been a series of missteps and delays, which has been very unfortunate, particularly when you consider that a deadline was missed which meant that another whole year of Kiwi students who might have had access to the HELP program had to miss out while the government played their usual brand of politics with this bill.
It is an unfortunate reality that after Craig Emerson made the announcement in April 2013 we had the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, make an agreement with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Key, that this would be progressed. Then it was attached to the university deregulation agenda, which meant that it could not be passed. We had the member for Sturt, in particular, very reluctant to pass this aspect of the bill. He held it hostage to the $100,000-degree agenda that the member for Kingston mentioned, so that deal between Mr Abbott and Mr Key was not implemented at our end, which is a bit embarrassing for our country. Then we had Senator Carr, in the other place, move a private senator's bill to try to decouple this important initiative from the $100,000 degrees, and we were rejected by the government.
Then, after that, we had the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, make the same deal with Mr Key that Mr Abbott had made a year or so earlier. It is highly embarrassing that an Australian Prime Minister has to make the same deal twice, but it is good to see that now we are finally making good our commitment to New Zealand—not just as a nation but to the people of New Zealand who have lived in my electorate and right around the country for a long time and whose kids deserve the opportunity to go to university. We welcome this legislation, but we do say that it comes after a very disappointing delay, characterised by some pretty petty politics from the member for Sturt, which has seen the aspiration and participation of Kiwi kids held hostage to a political strategy from the other side of the House.
But people in my community are less interested, of course, in the politics of an outcome; they want the outcome itself. So I want to say that this legislation today is a victory for people who have campaigned for this change. It is better late than never. A lot of people in my community and in the surrounding areas are very excited about the change. I do want to acknowledge the colleagues who have helped make this possible: current colleagues like Senator Carr, the member for Kingston, the member for Hotham and others; and former colleagues like Craig Emerson, as I mentioned, and also the former state member for Woodridge, Desley Scott, who was a constant, tireless campaigner for this change as well.
Most of all, I want to congratulate the groups in our community who have campaigned for this change—now successfully. I am talking here about groups like Griffith University, the NUW and Oz Kiwi who have been tireless advocates for this piece of justice in our higher education arrangements. They know, as I do, that this is an important issue affecting the New Zealand community in Australia, but they also know, as I do, that it is not the only issue. I want to thank everyone who came to a forum I held in Logan Central earlier this month—a forum organised by the NUW and Oz Kiwi, which was very well attended, where we talked about some of the issues beyond access to higher education.
The other challenges relate to Howard-era policy changes which created two classes of Kiwis in Australia, with post-2001 arrivals disadvantaged against pre-2001 arrivals but paying the same taxes and exposed to substantially greater risk of poverty and intergenerational immobility. This side of the House recognises and understands those challenges faced by our New Zealand brothers and sisters, and that is why at our last national conference we put into the ALP platform, for the first time, a resolution that notes the inequity for New Zealand citizens living in Australia under the terms of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangements.
I mentioned earlier that New Zealand-born people in Australia make an important contribution to my community and to the broader economy, and I think it is important that we see them in that light. Too often, I think, we rely on outdated stereotypes or outdated notions of what New Zealanders in Australia contribute to our economy. Too often we see them as a cost. But there are facts on the table now, thanks to the Productivity Commission, which show just how substantial that contribution is from New Zealand-born people in Australia. The Productivity Commission report, Strengthening economic relations between Australia and New Zealand, found that Kiwi citizens living in Australia, compared with the general Australian population, had a higher labour force participation rate and a lower unemployment rate. Just from those two simple statistics, that outdated stereotype that some people want to push about Kiwis in Australia is not just wrong anecdotally in my experience in my local community; it is also wrong factually at the aggregate macro level around the country.
We do need to see Kiwis differently in this country—too often it is dominated by that outdated stereotype. We need to understand the challenges they face here. We need to see what we are doing today with higher education loans as the beginning of a more fair set of arrangements for New Zealanders and not the end. I support this bill. I say to those students who will take up a university offer next year and who might not have otherwise been able to: we wish you well for your studies; we know the return on Australian investment in you will be substantial and it will be long lasting.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:37): I rise to give the summing-up speech on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015. I start by thanking all those members who spoke on the bill. This bill amends three pieces of education legislation and achieves important changes. The government has chosen to group together a suite of six education legislation amendments. These expand eligibility for funding support, resolve uncertainty, streamline requirements and secure funding.
Passage of this bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow certain New Zealand special category visa holders to access the Higher Education Loan Program scheme from 1 January 2016. This will assist a number of New Zealand citizens who moved here as children and deserve the same support as Australian students to undertake higher education. It will also add Torrens University Australia to the list of table B providers in the Higher Education Support Act. This will enable Torrens University to be eligible to apply for the same funding support as other private Australian universities, including research block grants. In addition, the bill will ensure that the Higher Education Support Act reflects the change of the name of the University of Ballarat to the Federation University Australia.
It will confirm the relevant heads of constitutional power that other grants of the Higher Education Support Act rely upon, in addition to the effect that part 2-3 otherwise has. The bill will also amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to streamline and clarify the reporting responsibilities of TEQSA following the passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. This removes duplication and reduces the regulatory burden.
Finally, the bill will amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to add funding for the financial years starting on 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2018, and also to apply indexation against appropriations for existing schemes. This amendment provides certainty and security of funding for the Australian Research Council until mid 2019. In addition, the bill will remove the requirements in the ARC Act requiring the development of an annual operating plan. This will remove duplication while ensuring the ARC, like all other Commonwealth departments and agencies, remains accountable via an annual corporate plan.
The measures in this bill have been welcomed by higher education institutions, the Australian Research Council, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and other key stakeholders. I thank the opposition for its support of this bill. When Minister Hartsuyker introduced this bill last month, Senator Kim Carr moved quickly to convey his approval, noting that all six of these measures are 'non-controversial measures that enjoy bipartisan support'. He acknowledged that it would provide 'certainty to researchers and scientists across the country' and that it would 'come as a relief to thousands of students'. I thank Senator Carr for his expressions of support.
The New Zealand citizens amendment is particularly anticipated by many young New Zealand citizens and their families who have made Australia their home. These young people deserve better access to higher education through eligibility for student loans. We want them to approach their tertiary education with confidence. The extension of the HELP scheme to New Zealand citizens who have grown up here provides these long-term residents with support that will enable them to achieve their higher education goals. It will also ultimately enable them to contribute to the Australian economy and workforce to the best of their capacity.
It is important that this bill be passed this year. Some of its measures are time critical because they change eligibility for funding support for the 2016 calendar year. Delay in passage of this bill would mean that a significant group of New Zealand citizens would be denied the option of deferring their tuition fees through the Higher Education Loan Program in 2016. These are people who, because of their visa status, do not currently have a practical pathway to Australian citizenship.
In conclusion, the passage of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 will ensure these New Zealand citizens who have called Australia home for at least 10 years are not left out of our student loan scheme. The bill will enable Torrens University, which is a successful private Australian university with a proven track record, to join table B of the Higher Education Support Act. This will enable the university to be considered for research block grant funding and funding to award Commonwealth postgraduate scholarships to its research students.
Finally, the bill provides certainty to the Australian Research Council regarding ongoing funding through to the end of the 2018-19 financial year. This vital recurrent funding stream supports the council's highly regarded National Competitive Grants Program. This program builds our national research capability, creates and sustains momentum in research partnerships, and enables promising careers to thrive. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 reflects the Australian government's ongoing commitment to the ARC, its programs and funding recipients. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:43): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:44): I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name. Labor's position is to support this bill. We will always support sensible savings measures that improve the budget bottom line without harming vulnerable Australians. That is part of Labor's commitment to sound fiscal management, and it stands in stark contrast with the actions of the government since coming to office. I see the assistant minister at the table letting out a wry chuckle, as so many Australians have chuckled at a government that held press conferences before the election in front of debt trucks and since coming to office has done a deal with the Greens for unlimited debt. We have seen debt projected in the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook to peak at 13 per cent of GDP and now in the latest forecast is projected to go to 18 per cent. Yes, Deputy Speaker, you can see why many ministers would chuckle as they hang their heads in shame.
The problem is that we have the economic managers of this country—moving onto Treasurer 2.0, the member for Cook Scott Morrison—continue to parrot the same line that Australia has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. This reveals an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to read the economic data that is out there. The government is continuing to put ideology ahead of the health of the Australian economy and the prosperity of Australians. Since the last budget, total tax receipts have been revised down by $8.5 billion in 2014-15, $12.4 billion in 2015-16 and an eye-watering $49.7 billion over the four years to 2017-18. Nearly all sources of government revenue have fallen as a share of GDP over the past five years, and the biggest single fall has been in company tax, dropping from 6.8 per cent to 5.2 per cent of GDP.
Indeed, just weeks after Treasurer Morrison's declaration that the budget did not have a revenue problem, the Department of Finance figures indicated the exact opposite. The figures for the first two months of the financial year showed revenues of only $61 billion in July and August, well short of the $63 billion expected when the budget was delivered. Barely two months into the new financial year we already had a deficit of $13.5 billion—more than one third of the budget forecast of $35.1 billion for 2015-16. Since the economic and fiscal outlook for the 2013 election, forecast tax receipts have been downgraded by almost $100 billion across the forward years. That revenue write-down is equivalent to losing half of New Zealand's entire economy in just four years—half the New Zealand economy is the sheer scale of the revenue write-downs since the 2013 election.
As a share of GDP total tax receipts are down from 26 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 24 per cent in 2015. Not only is Australia's revenue as a share of GDP dropping over time, but, as members of the House know, it is low compared to the other advanced economies, with which we typically compare ourselves. The most recently available OECD data from 2013-14 finds that Australia's tax to GDP ratio was significantly below the OECD average of 34.1 per cent—about 10 percentage points of GDP below, in fact. In the OECD's view Australia has a revenue problem. In its Going for growth report, the OECD recommends Australia undertakes tax reform and notes the significant revenue challenge. Former treasury secretary Ken Henry has said that 'we cannot afford new social policies with the current revenue base'. The comments from the respected economist Saul Eslake from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, notes that, while spending is 1.75 per cent above Howard era averages, revenues are 2.25 per cent below average.
The IMF's most recent report on the Australian economy notes:
While expenditure reduction can and should play a role in reducing the fiscal deficit, there may be limited scope for this avenue since expenditure is already relatively low compared to other advanced economies.
The IMF went on to note that any reform package to fix Australia's budget 'will likely need to heal the net revenue gains over time'. The IMF agreed again in its World Economic Outlook report, titled Adjusting to lower commodity prices, which focuses specifically on the significant revenue challenges that are being faced by commodity-exporting countries like Australia. While Australia and minister at the table have their heads in the sand, other commodity-exporting countries are focused on addressing these revenue challenges and ensuring that they have the funding required for social and infrastructure programs. These countries understand how important it is to bring the budget back to balance and how important it is to have a government that is not just racking up more debt as the Abbott-Turnbull government has done.
It is clear that we need to tackle challenges such as an ageing population and below average wage growth—so much for that wages break-out that Senator Abetz was forecasting a while back. And it is bizarre to have Australia's economic managers in the Abbott-Turnbull government continuing to pretend Australia does not have a revenue problem. Indeed, every time former Treasurer Hockey got up to give an update on his promised budget surplus, the only thing he ever talked about was the massive revenue write-downs. In a doorstop interview on 5 February 2015, former Treasurer Hockey said:
I've had to write down iron ore revenues on a scale that I don't think any previous Treasurer ever has and it's our biggest export.
And yet in the same breath he continued to argue that Australia did not have a revenue problem. It was an interesting dance to watch and it is even more interesting to note that Treasurer Morrison seems to be following the same dance steps.
Many had hoped that the change in Prime Minister and Treasurer would see in a new period of economic literacy, but it seems that not enough has changed. The government seemed to believe that if they continued to talk about a spending problem, Australians might let them get away with $100,000 degrees, cuts to the pension and cuts to family payments. This is not just unfair for hardworking Australians, it is economically reckless. At a time when the economy is already weak to have government spending detract from growth is what economists would call 'procyclical' and many Australians would call 'pretty short-sighted'. Cutting spending when growth is weak simply makes growth even weaker. It reduces job creation, puts more people out of work and ultimately can risk harming the macroeconomy.
Treasury has highlighted that weak wage growth since the 2014 budget has reduced tax receipts by around $8.6 billion over the four years to 2017-18. Wage cuts not only hurt working families, they hurt the budget as well. The government would do well to remember this if they are planning another budget shocker like the 2014 budget. The cuts to health and education are not just threatening future prosperity in Australia; they also threaten to worsen inequality—currently at a 75-year high. By taking resources away from schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, by making sick Australians pay more to visit the doctor, we are going to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Australia.
By contrast, Labor has been clear that it will approach budget questions in a balanced and fair way. Our fiscal plan will look at both the spending and the revenue sides of the budget to reduce the deficit in a fair and responsible way. If you are serious about fixing the problem, you cannot simply suggest that the only question to be tackled is on the spending side. A refusal to be honest with the Australian people belittles our economic debate, which ought to involve more than point-scoring and three-word slogans. Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has been absolutely clear—Labor's fiscal plan will contain more savings than spending over the decade. We have supported more than $20 billion of savings proposed by the government, and in supporting this bill we are adding another $1.4 billion worth of savings to the tally.
Beyond that, we have laid out Labor's plans to tackle multinational profit shifting and to rein in our unfair and unsustainable superannuation tax concessions. Those plans add more than $20 billion to the budget bottom line over the course of the next decade. If the government wanted to adopt those plans to deal with the revenue challenge, they would have Labor's full support in doing so. Despite the chattering of the minister at the table, the government has done nothing on either of these fronts. It remains unwilling to bring down any fair and responsible plan to rein in superannuation tax concessions—one of the fastest growing tax concessions in the budget. In the area of multinational taxation, where the government's own plan should have revenue and estimates it just has a series of asterisks. There are no savings being banked as a result of the government's multinational tax plan—unlike Labor's, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office to raise $7.2 billion over the next decade.
Our plans have been on the table for months. We are happy to work constructively with the government in engaging in the important task of fair budget repair. The government's only strategy when it comes to revenue is to jack up the GST. They want to increase the GST, despite the fact that their own Re:think white paper finds that the GST is no more efficient than income tax. Indeed, you might hear the Prime Minister in question time today making the same argument that he has made in previous question times—that the GST is a more efficient tax than income tax. But that is not what his own tax white paper says. His own tax white paper says that if you raise $5 of government revenue from income tax, the excess burden is $1. It says if you raise $5 of GST revenue, the excess burden is $1. The deadweight cost, the efficiency impact, of the GST is no larger or smaller than that of the income tax. But the GST is certainly much less equitable. Its burden falls squarely on the lowest paid. NATSEM, the favourite economic modeller of the member for Warringah, estimates that a five percentage point increase in the GST would reduce disposable household incomes for the top fifth by three per cent and for the bottom fifth by seven per cent—more than double the impact on poor households as affluent households if you raise the GST by five percentage points.
Most importantly, if you raise the GST by five percentage points and you do not increase the total tax share, it must be the case that you are not compensating those on fixed incomes. Those on fixed incomes can only be compensated through increases in payments, which would necessitate an increase in the tax share. What is most frightening from the comments of the member for Cook, the new Treasurer, is his suggestion that a rise in the GST will not increase the tax share, which means, simply put, no compensation. I have to confess I was mildly surprised to see this proposition being put in an Australia Financial Review poll over the weekend. The Financial Review asked Australians whether they would support a GST increase that delivered compensation through increased family payments and did not increase the tax share. In other words, they were asked if they would support a magic pudding. Such a tax change is internally contradictory. If you increase the GST you either provide increases in family payments or you keep the tax share the same—you cannot do both.
Labor believes that taxes should be set at a level that funds the services Australians expect and rely on, but no higher. We believe our tax system should be fair and progressive—it should be equitable, efficient and as simple as possible. We believe that where there are tax concessions they should serve a strong economic rationale and it must be the case that a tax concession is the best way of delivering a public policy goal, otherwise it is better to focus on other means. As an alternative government, we will not make the mistake of focusing solely on the spending side of the budget. We cannot cut our way back to surplus when millions of Australians rely on government, whether it is through pension payments, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, strong public schools or important health care and infrastructure spending. We will take a fair and balanced approach to budget repair that acknowledges the real challenges that the Australian economy faces and the need to maintain an economic transition that boosts innovation but reins in inequality.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms MacTiernan: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (12:59): I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015. It is fitting that I have just listened to the shadow Assistant Treasurer lay out for the Australian people the Labor Party's view on how to fix the economy. I think it can be summed up in three words: tax, tax and more tax. They talk about hardworking Australians. Hardworking Australians are people who pay tax. I do not think our challenge is to raise more taxes; our challenge is to spend more responsibly. That is what we are trying to do, particularly, in this bill.
The macro figures are very startling: we are getting in $404 billion of revenue and we are spending $434 billion every year. This means that we are living beyond our means. Labor's answer is to go ahead and take more money out of the pockets of Australians. Our answer is to try to find ways of creating employment, creating a stimulus and ensuring that we can live and spend more wisely. It is startling that, out of the federal budget, $154 billion—over one-third of our total expenditure—is being spent through social services in the welfare budget. The challenge for us is that, if we can take one person who is a welfare recipient and move them across to being no longer a welfare recipient but, in fact, a working person who can contribute to tax revenue, then that is one step towards repairing the budget.
We heard the shadow Assistant Treasurer very clearly laying out the economic ideals of the Labor Party, but I do wonder whether those economic ideals are in line with where the Labor Party once started. Essentially, if the platform that they are taking to the next election is: 'We are going to take more money out of Australian's pockets because we do not think they can spend it very well, and we think the government can spend it better,' then they are a long way from what their ideals were. Their ideals started in 1891 at Barcaldine under the Tree of Knowledge with the Australian shearer's strike—and if anyone realises how hard work is, then they should try shearing. Where are the shearers from the Australian Labor Party? I do not see any. I do not see one shearer in the Australian Labor Party. In fact, what I would like to see is people getting back to their roots and, perhaps, over the summer break, getting out there and visiting a sheep station and seeing where their party started from because, if they went back and did that, then they would remember very clearly that asking people to pay more tax is not in line with what originally took place under that Tree of Knowledge in 1891-92. I guess that is the challenge for the Labor Party while they think about the future.
It is no wonder that the great Tree of Knowledge got poisoned by glyphosate, Roundup, in 2006. If the only thing they are coming up with as the way to repair Australia's economic challenge is to take more money out of Australian's pockets, then they are not thinking clearly about where they started from. In 2006 an arborist declared that the Tree of Knowledge was dead, and I think that is a real example of what we are seeing here. The Labor Party need to do some hard policy work in opposition so they can then realise why they are in opposition. The saplings are trying to grow. Indeed, on 19 April 2011, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard planted a sapling that was grown out of that Tree of Knowledge before someone poisoned it. If the only answer they are going to put forward in their election policy is tax, tax and more tax, then I hope someone is protecting that little sapling because I dare say someone will go and put some Roundup on that one as well.
In this bill there are a couple of things that I do not quite agree with, and I think it is very important that a federal MP represents their constituents and their electorate. I do not think schedule 1, which is modernising work related car expense, is in line with fairness. I think it is something that probably should have been looked at and it is something that I have certainly advocated to the minister about. When you are claiming a vehicle's expenses, you can claim 55 cents a kilometre travelled, 66 cents a kilometre travelled and 75 cents a kilometre travelled, depending on the size of the vehicle. If you are a rural based business, you can claim up to 5,000 kilometres under the system. This change means that the average is going to be 66 cents per kilometre instead of 75 cents per kilometre. That means a rural based business will miss out on about $500 worth of tax deduction. I am saying this and defending this for the people who live in the Mallee because the roads are not that great in the mallee. Certainly we are trying to fund them and improve them, but rural based people usually have to drive bigger cars out of necessity, so this is $500 of tax deduction that they will miss out on in moving this bill through.
It needs to be said, though, that we have stood very firmly behind our small businesses. One of the great things that came out of the last budget was the $20,000 instant tax write-off for small businesses. This has been very popular in my patch. It has been taken up by producers, it has been taken up by small-business people, it has been taken up by manufacturers and it has been taken up by people who are going to employ people. That is ultimately in line with what our challenge should be, which is to get people off welfare and to get them to be a tax contributor by becoming gainfully employed. The other thing that has been very welcome in the business packages has been the accelerated depreciation write-off for fodder and for irrigation infrastructure. As we have developed free trade agreements, and we are seeing the huge benefits of that in the electorate of Mallee, particularly in the irrigation community, being able to write off irrigated infrastructure quickly over three years has been very beneficial.
As a good local member I am bringing forward my one concern about this bill, but I am saying that we at least do have a plan, and I think the plan for getting Australia back on track is to move people from being welfare recipients—with $154 billion, over one-third of our budget, being spent in that area—and get them off welfare and contributing to the Australian economy by having a job. Of course, if you have a job, that is not only good for our country, it is good for you. That you can get up every day and do something purposeful for your life is certainly something that gives you a sense of self-worth and a sense of purpose.
My fear for the Australian Labor Party—and, really, my fear has to go out to the sapling that Julia Gillard planted on 19 April 2011, that sapling that is the last survivor of the Tree of Knowledge—is that, unless they come up with a better policy than tax, tax and more tax to take to the election, someone might poison that sapling with glyphosate, just like the Tree of Knowledge was poisoned in 2006.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:06): We just heard, through the contribution by the member for Mallee, why the National Party is utterly irrelevant in regional and rural areas. The member for Mallee went to the last election urging that there be no cuts to education and health in his community, but he has voted for cuts to education and health every single time in this place. He has said there will be no increase in the GST, but his party keeps on dropping stories in News Corp newspapers saying what impact changes to the GST will have on their electorates. What about the NBN? He did not talk about the NBN. The cost of the NBN has doubled, and the impact is that it is rolling out more slowly in Mallee and other areas as a result of the failure of the National Party.
Here is exactly why the National Party is utterly irrelevant in modern political life: the member for Mallee just made a speech saying he did not support this particular aspect of the legislation, but I guarantee you that, when this legislation comes to a vote in this place, he will vote for it despite the fact that he said he does not agree with aspects of it—typical National Party.
We on this side of the chamber will not be lectured on the history of the Labor Party by the National Party, who we endured in Queensland under Joh Bjelke-Petersen—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr NEUMANN: with its cronyism and all those things. The National Party over there cannot lecture us sanctimoniously.
I will address the legislation before the House today—because the member for Mallee addressed nothing in relation to this particular bill. The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015 amends a diverse range of taxation laws dealing with work-related car expenses, the zone tax offset, the concessional treatment of salary packaged entertainment benefits and the reporting requirements of third parties to the ATO. The measures in this bill are expected to save $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. Labor support this bill, and I commend the shadow Assistant Treasurer for his speech today.
We on this side of the chamber are up for sensible saving measures that will not adversely impact vulnerable Australians. In the two years since the election of the Abbott-Turnbull coalition government, Labor have supported about $20 billion of savings proposed by the government and, as I said, we are supporting the significant savings of a total $1.4 billion here. That is consistent with Labor's fiscal plan to return the budget to balance by delivering more savings than spending across the next decade.
To that end, we have also announced policies for savings in the budget. We heard the member for Mallee going on about what Labor's plans are; if he wants to stand up for his constituents, how about making sure multinational corporations that reap huge profits in Australia pay their fair share of tax to the Australian community? How about standing up to end the unfair superannuation concessions which overwhelmingly favour high-income earners in this country? The member for Mallee could stand up for his constituents in relation to that. So far, the government has been unwilling to support Labor's measures. We are ready to work with the government, should it change its mind.
The government's line here, and we heard it from the member for Mallee, is that the budget does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. This is a favourite statement by those opposite, who talked about the 'debt and deficit disaster' before the last election. But we know, as the member for Moreton interjected earlier, that this government has one of the highest tax-to-GDP ratios in the history of the Commonwealth. It has doubled the deficit and it has increased debt by over $100 million, with no plans at all to address those issues. Of course, they never talk about this issue, but before the last election they went on endlessly about it.
We know there are fiscal challenges facing the country, but the government keep spruiking the spending problem, which is code for the cuts they are proposing, which are terrible and will have an adverse impact—and we saw that in the 2014 budget—on middle- and low-income earners, pensioners and those on fixed incomes. The budget 'spending problem' is a furphy which serves a political objective, one that allows a lazy and predictable attack not just on Labor but on middle- and low-income earners in the country, and it is plainly at odds with the facts.
Just about every economist worth their calculator or indeed their pocket protector is lining up to knock down the government's 'spending problem' furphy. The International Monetary Foundation has said of the Australian economy:
While expenditure reduction can and should play a role in reducing the fiscal deficit, there may be limited scope for this avenue since expenditure is already relatively low compared to other advanced economies …
Even former Liberal leader John Hewson said in response to a question from David Lipson on Sky some time ago:
Well, Scott's first statement as Treasurer—
the new Treasurer, the member for Cook—
was to say that this was an expenditure problem and everybody in the economics community, business community, sort of groaned 'really?' It's not just an expenditure problem.
That came from John Hewson. The last part really is worth people knowing: according to Dr Hewson, after the Treasurer claimed we had a spending problem rather than a revenue problem:
… everybody in the economics community, business community, sort of groaned 'really?'
And that groan has been heard around the country.
We have seen story after story in the papers recently about the proposal to increase the GST. While the government will not give an unequivocal statement, we know that NATSEM modelling has revealed that increasing the GST to 15 per cent would require people in the lowest 20 per cent of income brackets to pay seven per cent more of their income, whereas people in the top 20 per cent would pay just three per cent more. It is a regressive tax. The government has floated the idea that raising the GST would fund personal income tax cuts and that it would help the states and territories in terms of education and health. It seems to be the panacea for all ills. It would also, if you can believe the papers on the weekend, solve problems in relation to insurance, house acquisition and other issues.
The NATSEM modelling has found that increasing the GST to fund a five-percentage-point reduction in all tax rates would reduce the progressivity of the tax system even more than raising the GST alone. This scenario would see almost two-thirds of households worse off, the average impact being negative for the bottom three quintiles while being positive for the top two quintiles. It is a regressive, unfair tax and it is simply wrong.
We are willing to listen to fair and sensible cuts, and the first schedule of this bill modernises the methods used to calculate tax deductions for work-related car expenses. There are four methods currently, and two of them—the 12 per cent of original value method and the one-third of actual expenses method—will go. Under the current system, taxpayers can choose the method which delivers the highest deduction. The cents-per-kilometre method is favoured by about 80 per cent of all taxpayers. This schedule removes both the 12 per cent of original value and the one-third of actual expenses methods. These methods are arbitrary, they are fairly complex calculations and they do not reflect the real cost of operating a vehicle. So it is perhaps unsurprising that these two methods are used by less than two per cent of the 3.8 million Australians who claim the deduction.
In addition to removing these two largely unloved methods, schedule 1 simplifies the operation of the cents-per-kilometre method. At present, there are three different bases. I will not go through them. There is no substantiation required for the actual kilometres. It is just a reasonable estimate of the kilometres or the distance travelled for work within a year up to an annual cap of 5,000 kilometres. The bill streamlines the three rates into a single rate of 66c per kilometre, regardless of engine size or vehicle. The rate is based on the average running expenses of the five highest-selling vehicles operating in New South Wales and Queensland. Interestingly enough, the cents-per-kilometre rate will be available to modern hybrid vehicles for the first time, and that is good news for those vehicles. One wonders what the former Prime Minister would have thought about that!
Schedule 1 makes no change to the logbook method and will save $845 million over the forward estimates. We are going to support that. The second schedule relates to the zone tax offset. This is a non-refundable tax offset which was introduced in 1945 to compensate residents in remote Australia for what was then called the climate conditions, isolation and high cost of living in those areas compared to other parts of Australia. There have been some changes since then, but the last change was in 1993. There are two designated tax offset zones, zone A and zone B, and special areas. What we are doing here is rationalising this arrangement under the zone tax offset. In the existing legislation, the claimant must reside or work in a specified remote area for 183 days or more during the income tax year. The residency test associated with the offset does not require the claimant to reside continuously in the area for 183 days. The mining sector has really changed a lot in the last 70 years. Treasury estimates that 20 per cent of taxpayers who claim this rebate—180,000 people—are FIFO workers not permanently living in the remote area. This is contrary to the original intention of the legislation. Many of these workers also get allowances from their employer to compensate for the remoteness of the employment so we are going to support this measure. It is expected that this measure will save $325 million over the forward estimates. We already announced in May this year that we would support it.
The next aspect deals particularly with the concessional treatment of salary packaged entertainment benefits. One of the reasons I wanted to speak on this is that these benefits are significant in my shadow portfolio area of ageing. At present, most salary packaged fringe benefits provided to employees of not-for-profit organisations are reportable and are exempt from fringe benefits tax, but only up to a set cap. These caps are set at different levels, depending on the type of organisation. However, all entertainment benefits are specifically excluded from this requirement, and many aged-care organisations use these. These entertainment benefits include meals and drinks, staff social functions and sporting and other events. The government has decided to impose a $5,000 grossed-up cap on entertainment benefits that exempt employers and rebatable employers can provide to employees.
The uncapped treatment of meal and entertainment expenses for fringe benefit purposes has been subject to several inquiries in recent years. I have made it plain to stakeholders in the aged-care sector that Labor would support this. It comes as a result of Productivity Commission recommendations which have noted:
The meal entertainment benefit is particularly inequitable, with greater benefits flowing to employees with higher salaries …
Not everyone in the aged-care sector is enamoured with this particular government proposal. But we have made it plain we think this is a point of equity so we are supporting this particular measure. The government estimates the measure in schedule 3 will raise $295 million over the forward estimates.
The fourth schedule is really about increasing and improving information reported to the Commissioner of Taxation by a range of third parties. It is information which will improve the ability of the ATO to pre-fill taxpayers' tax returns—a service offered since 2007. The information includes: wages and salaries, interest and dividends, Centrelink payments, private health insurance and Medicare details. It is important for older Australians as well. That is another reason I wanted to speak on this particular amending legislation. However, the information gathered under the Commissioner of Taxation's current powers have shortcomings in relation to timeliness, data formats and the ability to match information to individual taxpayers. Schedule 4 creates a new reporting regime requiring third parties to report additional types of transactions: government grants and payments, transfer of real estate, transfers of shares and units in trusts, and business transactions made through payment systems. The measures will save, according to what I have seen, $123 million over the forward estimates. The measures were first proposed by the previous Labor government and are now supported by us in opposition.
Our support for this bill reinforces our commitment to sensible budget savings and helping the budget bottom line without hurting vulnerable Australians—a lesson which could be learned on the other side of the chamber more often. The $1.4 billion in savings supported by Labor in this bill add to the over $20 billion in savings we have supported in the government's legislation. We will take a sensible and balanced approach with respect to savings. We will support the government when we think they have got it right. We will oppose the government when we think they have got it wrong. On this occasion, we think they have got it right, and so we support them.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (13:20): I rise to support the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015. I thank the member for Blair for his expression of support for the government's measures. In this bill, there are sensible measures in which the government is demonstrating its commitment to building a fair and sustainable tax system and, over time, implementing modernisations and efficiencies to ensure that the tax system is fit for purpose for the 21st century. I note the member for Fraser moved an amendment to the bill which is really out of step with the support that the member for Blair expressed. It really does not go to any practical, positive, problem-solving measure that we would expect from a vibrant opposition. I say to the member for Fraser that he should really go back and re-read his own books. He would probably find some good, positive ideas in there that he could put forward that the government would be willing to adopt at any time. He could consult with his colleague the member for Blair, who recognises that, in these schedules, we are modernising the methods of tax collection and ensuring that we minimise bureaucracy and streamline processes.
Today, I really just rise to say that I completely support the government's commitment to an approach of fairness and sustainability in the Australian tax system. Obviously, we are making some important modernisation changes to the methods for calculating tax deductions. We are creating some changes to zone tax offsets and some new reporting regimes. This bill is emblematic of the Turnbull government's commitment to ongoing tax reform. It is good to see that the Labor Party are supporting this bill and the government's approach. They will have the opportunity to support more of the measures to reduce expenditure that they proposed while they were in government.
I will finish by saying that the member for Blair's speech on expenditure in this second reading debate demonstrates why Labor are not really fit to return to office. They have not yet learned the lessons about restraining expenditure and expenditure growth. Clearly, in every speech they give in this place they do not understand why it is important to rein in expenditure, why we have to curtail, in particular, expenditure growth and why we need governments to be focused very much on this task in these difficult economic times. Without further ado, I say that this is a good bill, a good approach. I am grateful that the opposition has recognised that this government is delivering on tax reform.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer) (13:23): Firstly, I would like to join with the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer and concur with his comments. I would also like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws. These changes are part of the government's commitment to a fairer and simpler tax system.
Schedule 1 to this bill modernises the methods for calculating tax deductions for work related car expenses from the 2015-16 income year by streamlining and updating the available methods and rates for claiming work related car expenses. Schedule 1 removes two of the least utilised methods for calculating work related car expenses. Used in just two per cent of claims, the one-third actual expenses and the 12 per cent of original value methods will be abolished. Taxpayers can continue to calculate their expenses using the cents per kilometre method or the logbook method, depending on their needs and travel. Secondly, the existing three rates for the cents per kilometre method will be replaced with a new single rate of 66c per kilometre, which will be updated annually by the Commissioner of Taxation. Having three different rates for different engine sizes adds complexity to claims for taxpayers. This change will better align deductions for car expenses with the average costs of operating a motor vehicle and is based on the most recent industry data of the top five selling vehicles in Australia. Also, the existing rates are being modernised in order to apply to modern electric vehicles. For those taxpayers who travel more than 5,000 business related kilometres, the logbook method will not change. This method still enables them to claim their actual expenses based on their actual work related business use. The original methods and rates were set in the 1980s. It is clear based on the methods actually used and up-to-date industry information on current running costs that these rates and methods are outdated. These changes will raise $845 million over the forward estimates and will modernise the way in which we calculate our work related car expenses.
Schedule 2 to this bill will better target the zone tax offset to exclude fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers as part of the 2015-16 income year. This meets the government's priority to deliver a fairer taxation system, ensuring only those genuinely living in specified geographic zones are entitled to the offset. The zone tax offset was introduced in 1945 and was intended to compensate recipients for the disadvantages of living in remote areas, including isolation, uncongenial climate and higher cost of living. It was the policy intention of the zone tax offset to target Australians genuinely living in these regional areas. However, now we see that fly-in fly-out workers flying in from Perth, Brisbane or Sydney—areas otherwise ineligible for the zone tax offset—are able to spend over 183 non-consecutive days in these distant areas of Australia and claim the offset. This is clearly not the intent of the original policy and is unfair on those Australian families whose genuine place of residence leaves them contending with the isolation, uncongenial climate and higher cost of living associated with having their home in these remote areas. It is estimated that up to 180,000 people currently claim the zone tax offset based on where they work rather than where they live. Schedule 2 to this bill amends the law so that only those residents genuinely living in the designated geographic zones are eligible to claim the offset and is expected to raise $325 million over the forward estimates. This change is consistent with the original policy intent of the offset, ensuring that it is well targeted and sustainable. Those fly-in fly-out workers whose usual place of residence is in one zone but who work in a different zone will retain the zone tax offset entitlement associated with their usual residence.
Schedule 3 to this bill will improve fairness in the tax system by placing a cap on uncapped entertainment benefits available to employees of certain not-for-profit organisations and by making these benefits reportable. Under this bill, employees of certain not-for-profit organisations will no longer be able to salary sacrifice an unlimited amount of entertainment benefits, without any FBT implications. The uncapped concession is not available to other taxpayers. In addition, these exempt benefits have not been reportable for eligibility tests applicable to government payments. The government recognises that some not-for-profit organisations rely on this concession to attract, recruit and retain staff. Therefore, rather than removing the concession entirely, the government will retain concessional treatment for these benefits by imposing a $5,000 cap. Employees of affected not-for-profit organisations will still have access to the standard FBT concession caps, which provide an FBT exemption or rebate up to a set cap. These caps are unaffected by this bill. This measure is consistent with the government's objective to improve fairness in the tax system.
The government is committed to reducing the compliance burden on the taxpayers of Australia. One way is by providing a wider range of information to taxpayers before they lodge their tax returns. This would mean people would need to do less themselves. Schedule 4 to this bill creates a new third party reporting regime. It requires third parties to report information to the Commissioner of Taxation on the following four types of transactions: government grants and payments, transfers of real property, transfers of shares and units and unit trusts, and business transactions made through payment systems. This will then enable the commissioner to provide more information to assist taxpayers in calculating their tax liabilities. The measure also strengthens the integrity of the tax system.
The government recognises that a balance must be made between the compliance benefits to millions of taxpayers and the compliance costs imposed on third party reporters. Greater use of technology, improved management and information and better design of processes will enable more automation of reporting. The government expects that the commissioner will work with reporters to streamline processes, reduce compliance costs and avoid duplication in implementing this reporting regime. These four measures continue this government's commitment to a fair and sustainable tax system. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ) (13:29): 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
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer) (13:30): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Special Olympics
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:30): The Special Olympics movement is a real force for good in our country. I am fortunate in my area to have Special Olympics Logan putting basketball, futsal, bowling and swimming within the reach of more athletes in my local community. I spent a bit of time with the athletes, particularly the basketball athletes in Special Olympics Logan. They are always great fun to spend time with, as was the case on Saturday night at the end-of-year function and trophy presentation. A lot of fun was had on the dance floor and in the photo booth. We also got to celebrate Darren's 36th birthday—happy birthday, mate!
Everyone got a trophy, but I wanted to single out Trent Warner. Trent is an absolute superstar. He won the Gary Campbell Spirit Award. Gary Campbell is someone we lost all too early—a bit over a year ago—in a cycling accident. He was a big supporter of the Special Olympics generally, but in Logan in particular. His award, presented by his wife Sue, is all about sportspersonship and playing the game the right way. I want to congratulate everyone involved in another terrific season: people like Suzy Chainey, the chair, and David and Sharon Russell, Lyn Mathers from Logan Metro, and all of the volunteers and coaches and everyone else who is involved. They are such a terrific group of people at Special Olympics Logan.
I believe, as do they, and no doubt everyone in this chamber, that the joys and benefits of sport should be within the reach of everyone. That is what is so important about Special Olympics Logan. Well done to everyone involved.
Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:32): I wanted to speak about the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. This program has been running since 2000 and is based on a similar British program. It originally came about from a suggestion for the former member for Wannon, David Hawker. Under this program I have had the opportunity to go to the Middle East area of operations twice. Earlier this month I took a five-day sea ride in an Anzac class frigate, HMAS Anzac. The sea ride was from Fleet Base East, in Sydney Harbour, to Jervis Bay, going through the Eastern Australia Exercise Area, and down to Two Fold Bay, near Eden.
I was impressed with the tempo of exercises, or evolutions. There were mine transit exercises, anti-submarine warfare exercises, naval gunfire support, force protection exercises, man overboard exercises, helicopter crash exercises et cetera. On some of the days we were exercising with two other frigates, HMAS Darwin and HMAS Warramunga. I was also able to experience a number of evolutions in the rigid-hulled inflatable boat, which was thrilling.
I would like to thank Commander Belinda Wood, for sharing her naval experience and her leadership lessons. I would like to thank the XO, Lieutenant Commander Geoff McGinley, who coordinated my visit. I would like to thank Lieutenant Mark Nicholas, who drew the short straw in having to share a cabin with a politician. There were others on the sea ride: Commander Simon Howard, who will shortly take command of his own ship, and young midshipmen who were just starting their careers in the Navy. I would like to thank them for their company and all the crew and the heads and deputy heads of departments, who did so much to make me feel welcome and made the sea ride so interesting.
Chinese-Australian Community
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:33): Earlier this month I attended a celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Chinese-Australia History Museum. Thirty years is a long time in the context of the volunteers who have established and maintained this important museum, but it is a short time in the context of the history of Australian-Chinese culture.
The first recorded arrival of a Chinese person in Australia was in 1818, and by the 1850s around four per cent of the Australian population was born in China, a proportion that is very similar to the proportion that we see today. But what a different cultural context faces the Australian-Chinese community of today. Gone is the institutional discrimination that confronted the Chinese residents of Melbourne when they, in order to celebrate the first meeting of the federation parliament of Australia, erected a Chinese-style pagoda in the Chinatown of the federation era. Today, the Chinese Museum, which is just up the road from that Chinese-style pagoda, is a well-established institution that celebrates Chinese-Australian culture.
Over its 30-year history, the museum has housed permanent and temporary exhibitions to nationally and internationally host young and upcoming Chinese artists, and it has grown significantly in size and prestige. I congratulate the museum's inaugural director, Dr Christine Liao, and the current chairman, Dr Bill Au, and the dedicated staff and volunteers, who have worked so hard to make the museum what it is today. As an Australian with children who have Chinese heritage, I look forward to the museum providing a narrative of the Australian-Chinese heritage of Australia for the 30 years to come, and many more.
Bonner Electorate: Red Frogs Australia
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:35): Today to speak about the fantastic Red Frogs Australia program, based in my electorate of Bonner. This is a vital initiative for young people right across the country, teaching them valuable life lessons and giving them the support they need. At this time of year I always like to reinforce the importance of safety at Schoolies to students in my electorate. Programs like Red Frogs help spread this vital message. Last week I was privileged to attend a Red Frogs talk by founder Andy Gourley, at Mansfield State High School, in my electorate. The students had a great time learning how they can best protect themselves and their mates.
It was great to see in person what makes Red Frogs so special. Since Andy began Red Frogs, in 1997, the program has grown to cover a range of events and critical issues for youth. Red Frogs helps set up healthy behaviours for young people to last a lifetime. I applaud the Red Frogs crew for their work. In particular I want to thank Andy Gourley for his immense contribution to this cause. Red Frogs has changed so many lives in my electorate, in Australia and across the world, and it all started with one bag of Red Frogs and one man's passion to engage with young people. I look forward to seeing the program achieve even greater success in future.
Bendigo Electorate: Serco Call Centre
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:36): As we left parliament a few weeks ago, some people in my electorate received some pretty shocking news. The Department of Education and Training will cease using the Bendigo based Serco call centre to deliver one of their contracts. This will affect about 50 to 60 locals in my electorate, who have now lost their jobs. The department has confirmed that they will not be renewing the contract, which will expire on 20 January. The department has advised Serco that they will be entering into alternative arrangements and will therefore no longer require Serco's services and that of the 60 people in my electorate who currently work for Serco. They have said that they are going to insource the work, which could be great news for people in Canberra who may have lost their jobs under this government, given the local job cuts.
My questions to the minister are these. Will the Department of Education and Training be employing an additional 60 staff to perform this role? Will any of these new departmental jobs created as a result of the insourcing be situated in Bendigo? Will the workers laid off by Serco due to the insourcing be given an opportunity to apply for these jobs? We have lost lots of jobs in my electorate since this government came to office. The least they could do is guarantee future work for these workers in Bendigo.
Gosford Imperial Centre
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:37): Last Thursday I held one of my regular listening posts, this time at the Imperial Centre in Gosford. I met with many local residents. They shared their concerns about the need for Gosford's reinvigoration, more local jobs and better local infrastructure, including of course the delivery of the NBN to the coast, which is now proceeding very rapidly, thanks to the coalition government.
For as long as I can remember, the Imperial shopping centre has really been the centre of Gosford's business heartbeat. Today I want to thank centre manager Deborah Warwick for her passionate belief in and advocacy for the future of Gosford as a thriving CBD. The Imperial Centre has recently undergone a $50 million refurbishment and it really does look absolutely fantastic. Today I want to say thank you to Deb Warwick, the Imperial Centre and the businesses located in the Imperial Centre for their belief in Gosford. This refurbishment is a giant step towards the revitalisation of our great city on the Central Coast. As Deb said to me, 'There is real confidence in the future of Gosford. In addition to the redevelopment of the centre, the owners have purchased the building next door known as the Masonic centre, with a view to further investment and expansion.'
Together with other local businesses, the commitments by the federal government to deliver 600 new jobs to Gosford, the New South Wales government's commitment to bring another 300 jobs to Gosford and the council's open-for-business approach, we are now beginning to see the dream of Gosford being a place of local jobs, infrastructure and real opportunity come one step closer to reality.
Shamaslipoor, Ms Mojgan
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:39): I rise to speak about a Yeronga State High School student who is not celebrating schoolies on the Gold Coast. Instead, she is in a detention facility in Darwin. I speak of Mojgan Shamaslipoor, who was a school student at Yeronga State High School but was removed from the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation Centre and transferred to a detention facility in Darwin. Sadly, when I attended the Yeronga State High School speech night last week I got to see her husband, Milad Jafari, receive an award on her behalf. We saw a video link with a message from Mojgan Shamaslipoor.
Obviously the minister has some capacity to make a decision that would let Milad and Mojgan be together. We have had the local community rallying. We saw that last week. We saw Sam Pidgeon from the Queensland Teachers Union, Kevin Bates and Jess Walker, a tireless English teacher, working on her behalf. And all of her fellow year 12 students are doing whatever they can. They are hoping to work with the immigration minister, as he has the capacity to make a decision that will see Milad and Mojgan together. She will be a great asset to the Australian community. We saw that in her studies, despite the tough educational circumstances she has had and the tough circumstances that life has dealt her.
Education
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:41): From early childhood through to primary, secondary and higher education, education has always been a strong policy interest area of mine. My father is a teacher and being a father of young children myself—I am a former member of the governing council of my children's school—it is only natural that this is a passionate area for me and I enjoy getting out to the local schools in my electorate of Hindmarsh.
In recent weeks I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of schools doing some great things. I recently enjoyed visiting Forbes Primary School in South Plympton, St George College and Torrensville Primary School and meeting with principals and discussing the federal government's continued investment in education and other matters relating to improving education outcomes for our children. I want to thank principals Mr Ian Elliott, Ms Gina Kidas and Mr John McKaid for taking the time to meet with me. I am always impressed by the diversity in our schools and the efforts by our teachers to make a child's future their priority.
I was pleased to be invited along to the Ascot Park Primary School 'middle school panel' where students are asked to present their chosen topic to a panel made up of various members of the community. My thanks to Principal Greg Cox for including me. I enjoyed the opportunity to be a panel member and meet some wonderful students.
I was also very impressed by my recent visit to Westport Primary in Semaphore Park where Principal Rebecca Huddy and her staff are doing wonderful things. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Amy Detbangon, a student at Westport Primary, whose artwork was chosen for my Christmas cards this year.
Finally, I was privileged to attend St John the Baptist Catholic School's 80th birthday party. This event was a terrific celebration of the Plympton school's commitment to education in the community, and I would like to thank Acting Principal Josette Charles for her invitation to attend.
Kingsford Smith Community Service and Vi Robbins Volunteer of the Year Awards
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:42): Last Thursday I was pleased to host the second annual Kingsford Smith Community Service and Vi Robbins Volunteer of the Year Awards. I established these awards last year to thank and pay tribute to the many volunteers in our community who literally volunteer for hundreds of thousands of hours to make our community a better place to live and also to encourage others to get involved in volunteering.
Happily, this year's awards necessitated a bigger venue. We had double the number of attendees, and the awards featured performances from the wonderful Daceyville choir and many inspirational stories from the award recipients, including Filomena D'Alessandro-Green, who organised a dignified funeral service for a little baby girl found dead on Maroubra Beach, and Ian Levitt, who has volunteered at the local Pagewood Botany Football Club as cleaner, handyman, chef and coach for over 30 years.
Named in honour of the late Vi Robbins who volunteered at the Prince of Wales Hospital in our community up until she was 110 years old, this year's big award went to Betty Valius of South Eastern Community Connect for her 30 years of service volunteering to help new migrants settle in our community, acting as a medical companion for doctors appointments, running the Spanish school for children and helping organise events such as Harmony Day, Mental Health Month and Australia's Biggest Morning Tea.
We are a very large country with a small population. Without volunteers, we would not be able to live the lives that we do. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I thank all of our volunteers.
O'Connor Electorate: Bushfires
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (13:44): I rise to update the House on the devastating fires ravaging Esperance. Most would be aware that four people perished last week, and my heartfelt condolences go to the families of: Esperance farmer Kym—known to all his mates as 'Freddy'—Curnow; farm workers Julia Kohrs-Lichte from Germany and Norwegian Anna Winther; and 31-year-old Briton Tom Butcher.
The fire was started by lightning north of Cascade at 7 am last Sunday, and the fire is still burning within a 250 kilometre perimeter. Approximately 132,000 hectares of crops and pasture have been destroyed in the Grass Patch-Salmon Gums blaze and a further 15,000 hectares at Merivale. A number of houses and farm buildings have been destroyed. One of the best crops in years has been razed and there are thousands of livestock casualties. Homes have been left without power, and people have been left without communications. About 200 firefighters from Perth, Manjimup, Northam and Albany are providing support to the exhausted local volunteer brigades who fought a valiant fight in life-threatening circumstances. Shire of Esperance President Victoria Brown is providing outstanding leadership, and I commend everybody who is helping out. The whole community is banding together, with volunteers like Julie Kent gathering friends to produce over 700 salad rolls, many dozens of curried egg sandwiches and many batches of biscuits for the fireys.
Thanks to the businesses in the town who are contributing, including South Coast Foodservice, Woolworths, Pink Lake IGA, Castletown IGA, Brumby's, the Reject Shop, the French bread shop and Peters. I would also like to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the volunteer firefighters, DFES, DPaW, shire workers and other volunteers. The WA Farmers, WAF, are coordinating a farm assistance program, and cash donations can be made via the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund.
I am sure that I can pass on the best regards of this House to the Esperance community as they rebuild after this disaster.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Villanueva, Mr Cyrus
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:46): I can feel it in the air tonight! It is called Cyrus Villanueva. Cyrus is a young man who grew up in Dapto in my electorate surrounded by music and a loving family, and tonight Cyrus is going to be singing for his passion and his music as a grand finalist in The X Factor. Cyrus credits his father and mother for encouraging and nurturing his talent. Cyrus's dad, Jo Vill, is a regular on the local music scene, and, as a child, Cyrus listened to his father's records and has been influenced by legends such as Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole and Stevie Wonder.
Cyrus went to the local Kanahooka High School in Dapto and last week he returned to the Illawarra and to his own school, where he was a massive hit. He returned with his mentor, Chris Isaak—somebody better known to me than most of the people at the school—to celebrate his journey with his family, friends and all of his fans. Cyrus was fresh out of high school when he decided to audition for The X Factor. On stage, Cyrus has captivated his fans not only with his vocal and performing success but with his attitude. James Dinardo, a teacher from Kanahooka, has known Cyrus for many years. He was also his manager at McDonald's, where he used to give him a break and enable him to busk outside the Albion Park store every Saturday. Cyrus has also auditioned and played at Jo Kowalczyk's Little Joe's in Dapto, where he has been a big hit.
It is time for Australia to catch the Cyrus virus and back him when he appears on television tonight.
La Trobe Electorate: Roads
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:47): I am proud to be standing here today to announce that, finally, after a six-month, strong, local La Trobe campaign to upgrade the Monash Freeway, including an electorate-wide survey, over the weekend the state Labor government announced a $400-million Monash upgrade. This is a huge win for local residents and a big step in the right direction. I sincerely thank the state government for finally getting on board. The announcement looks to ease the congestion of the Monash carpark by widening the lanes to five each way between EastLink and the South Gippsland Highway and three lanes each way further south-east to Clyde Road. But this only makes up for what should have been built by a previous state Labor government. We now urgently need four lanes each way on the Clyde Road end of the project, and the state Labor government needs to address the long-term growth for the area. Also, part of the upgrade must include on/off ramps at the diamond interchange in Beaconsfield and the extension of O'Shea's Road. This would remove the need for Beaconsfield residents to travel along the very busy Clyde Road to enter and exit the Monash. Finally, we have not given up on the East West Link. We need a new state government in Victoria.
Lalor Electorate: Werribee Football Club
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:49): I too rise to praise the Daniel Andrews Labor government in Victoria. I rise in support of a VFL club in my electorate of Lalor, the great Werribee Football Club. I welcome the Andrews Labor government's recent announcement that they will contribute $1.5 million towards the redevelopment of the Werribee Football Club's home, Avalon Airport Oval at Chirnside Park. This money will allow the club to build on existing services for young local people, particularly women and those from diverse backgrounds. The redevelopment will bring together facilities that will further enhance the great work being done by the club, as well as by its affiliate, North Melbourne. The club regularly brings local communities together through programs such as the multicultural schools program, which is designed to bring families from migrant and refugee communities across the electorate together through their love of sport.
Werribee Football Club has been lobbying for this development for 7½ years. So far they have $1.5 million from the state government, $5.5 million from Wyndham Council, half a million dollars from the AFL and VFL and $1 million from the club itself. They are, however, still seeking the last piece of this jigsaw—$3.2 million from the federal government—to make sure that my community and its elite football club have the facilities that they deserve so that young people in our community can get down to that club, support them and play football.
Bennelong Electorate: Motor Neurone Disease
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:50): On 21 October I announced that I was going to undertake the Bennelong 100 kilometre walk to raise money and awareness for motor neurone disease. I, in fact, walked 204.6 kilometres—although not all of me finished; there were eight kilos lost. We raised just over $10,000. I was humbled by the generosity of the good people and corporations of Bennelong. We visited 35 schools, 24 shopping villages, 11 aged-care centres and six charities—and we are all more aware of this terrible disease. I was moved to do this walk by the loss of a very close friend, Brad Drewett. It was so lovely that his young widow, Jo Drewett, joined us on the final day along with a sufferer who is a poster child for this awful disease, Kevin Langdon, and my friends and colleagues Philip Ruddock and Victor Dominello. The good news is that donations are still open, and you can donate money through my website or call the office for more details.
Cohen, Mrs Shirley
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:52): I rise to speak today on the passing of Shirley Cohen, Labor Party member, activist for social justice and advocate for education for all Australians. Shirley passed away on 27 October, aged 89. She and her husband, John, had three wonderful children: Rhonda, Roslyn and Keith.
Shirley worked at the psych and guidance branch of the Department of Education for many years. It was here that she led the way in assisting children with learning difficulties, putting her belief in education and opportunity for all into practice. But it was as a member of the Eltham branch of the Labor Party where I saw Shirley's contribution to social justice.
Her friend Elaine Wightman tells of the night of the Victorian election last year. Elaine and Shirley, both committed Labor activists, had decided to go to a performance of the Messiah.They got out of the theatre at around 9.30, got in the car, turned on the radio to hear Daniel Andrews speaking. Shirley knew that Labor had won and then started singing the 'hallelujah' chorus from the Messiah in the car on the way home. She was so happy. It was a very special moment and one that illustrated Shirley's humour and her belief in the Labor Party. That was the kind of person Shirley was: kind, funny, generous and an activist for social justice. She will be missed.
Environment: RAAF Base Williamtown
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (13:53): I raise the issue of firefighting foam contamination of perfluorooctane sulphonate originating from RAAF Base Williamtown, which has severely impacted on my community. There are PFOS levels reported as 100 times higher the acceptable health risk. Make no mistake: the PFOS contaminant originates from the RAAF base. Therefore, the Department of Defence and the Commonwealth are 100 per cent responsible and bear 100 per cent of the responsibility to put into place immediately an action plan to remedy the situation. The impacts on localised industries are not insignificant. There are now reports that the banks are black-listing for bank loans in the red zone investigation area.
Defence's evidence to the Senate committee hearing in October was that it was monitoring rather than containing contaminated surface water leaving the base. The first thing that has to be done is to contain the discharges from the Williamtown base. If you have a hole in a boat and it is leaking water, you do not just bail the water—you stop the leak. The contaminant levels need to be contained not monitored, because in the next storm event more PFOS will be flushed from the base into my local community. Defence needs to urgently communicate its plan to stop the PFOS continuing to contaminate the surrounding areas, as it has now been 81 days since the story broke let alone the years that Defence has known of the issue. Now, 81 days on, a detailed plan on how to stop the leakage has to be delivered to the community. The time for action is now.
Newcastle Electorate: Sport Achievement Awards
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:55): I certainly endorse the comments of the member for Paterson. I hope that he joins me in my concerted efforts to get relevant government ministers to respond to those serious questions that have been put before the House. I look forward to that support.
Today, I would like to acknowledge the Sport Achievement Awards that I hosted in my electorate of Newcastle at the Nobbys Surf Life Saving Club just last week. These awards recognised outstanding athletic performance by teams or individuals as well as the tremendous contributions made by volunteers, managers and coaches to our local teams and clubs. Some of the award recipients include: the coach of the Hunter Hurricanes men's water polo team, Brett Arnold, for coaching this team to win the bronze medal in the national league; Peter Storey, the co-founder of the now annual charity event 'Run with a Story', who was presented with an award for his dedication both to running and to the Newcastle community; the Shortland United Junior Football Club under 12s team, which received an award for winning the grand final in its first year of graded competition; and the Stockton Junior Rugby League under 16s team along with the Diggers at Newcastle City netball club, both teams who excelled in their respective sports. Whilst playing sport keeps you physically and mentally fit, it also helps bring communities together. The Sport Achievement Award is due recognition of the talent and dedication of all involved.
HMAS AE1
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:56): You would know that in my time as Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence I thought that a grateful nation needed to do all it could to help the families and loved ones of those that gave the greatest sacrifice in the service of our nation know where they rested. This saw us work very hard to seek, identify the location of and recover HMAS Sydney (II). We had the work of Jim Burke and Operation Aussies Home, finding where those brave Vietnam veterans who fell and could not be recovered lay in that foreign country. The AE2, one of our early submarines of our nation, was found. It rests, now, off the coast of the Dardanelles. It is being properly cared for and protected. But there still is one more mystery: the mystery of whatever happened to AE1. AE1 is a submarine that was dispatched very early in the days of the First World War, sent with a combined military and naval force to capture a German naval radio station and seize the German colony centred on the island of New Britain.
A dedicated team of people—led by Peter Briggs, the retired rear admiral and chairman of Find AE1—has executed the first stage of the search for AE1 to try and find the final resting place of that vessel and the 35-man crew that included British and Australians, and a sole New Zealander. We need to find AE1. This work is underway. In the first 200 metres of depth, we know where she is not. We have to keep working. I urge people to contribute handsomely to the fundraising efforts to continue the search.
Hotham Electorate: Hotham Writing Prize
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:58): Although the children and teenagers in our electorates are not yet old enough to vote, we still provide a voice for them in the federal parliament. Earlier this year, I launched the Hotham Writing Prize, inviting primary and secondary school students in Hotham to write to me about issues that they care about. Today, I want the House to join with me in congratulating Louisa D'Ambra of St Marks Primary School Dingley Village as the junior winner of the inaugural Hotham Writing Prize. Louisa wrote to me about homelessness. She said that while most young people are not directly affected by homelessness, it is an issue that is really on the minds of the young people of Australia.
My office received hundreds of entries, and it was very difficult to make a decision about who should be the winner, but Louisa's entry really stood out for me due to the clarity of her letter and the vividness through which she described her passion. Many of us in this chamber are used to speaking at writing at length, and it was amazing to get these incredible letters from young people like Louisa and see the way that they were able to explain what they cared about in such clear language. She said:
Imagine what it would be like in Melbourne's boiling summer and freezing winter. Think about what it is like siting on cold concrete begging for money, most of the time collecting no more than a few dollars a day.
Louisa recognises that actions often speak louder than words. To that end, she is donating some of her prize to a charity that helps young homeless Australians. Louisa and the other students at St Mark's Primary School, I am inspired by your commitment and I am very proud to be your voice in the federal parliament.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
France: Terrorist Attacks
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (13:59): I seek the indulgence of the House to make a statement on the recent terrorist attacks around the world. I acknowledge the presence in the House of the Ambassador of France, His Excellency Mr Christophe Lecourtier.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr TURNBULL: Late on the afternoon of Friday, 13 November, Paris, the City of Light, was assaulted by godless ISIL murderers, who blasphemously claimed to be killing in the name of God, who claimed to be killing in the name of Islam, but defamed and blasphemed Islam itself. One hundred and thirty citizens of France and 18 other countries were brutally murdered. Many more were injured, including a young Tasmanian, Emma Parkinson, a brave young woman with whom I spoke as she recovered from her surgery.
This was a coordinated attack involving eight killers and six locations. It was more than a lone-wolf attack, but it was not an elaborately sophisticated one. It reminds us that a few fanatics with automatic weapons and explosives can do great damage and strike at the heart of free, open and democratic societies. This was not just an assault on French lives and French freedoms. It was an attack on all humanity, on all our freedoms—the freedom to gather and to celebrate, the freedom to share time with our family and friends, the freedom to walk our streets without fear. That is why, when I spoke with both President Francois Hollande and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, I conveyed not just the heartfelt sympathy but the unwavering solidarity of all Australians with the people of France.
We are, though, forever reminded that terrorism is not a problem only for the West. Recently, we have witnessed terrorist attacks, in the form of suicide bombings, in Beirut, Ankara, Tunisia and Nigeria; the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in a Russian airliner flying over the Sinai; the attack on a hotel in Bamako, Mali; and ongoing extremist violence and killings, of course, in the Middle East and South Asia.
I have discussed recent developments with world leaders, and all are united in our condemnation of this terrorism, as we are united in our steadfast commitment to defeating those who carry out those terrorist acts. The leaders of the Muslim nations with whom I have met in the last week—President Widodo, the leader of the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia; President Erdogan of Turkey; and Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia—have all said loudly that ISIL's deeds and ideology defame and blaspheme Islam and are utterly contrary to the precepts of authentic Islam. President Widodo reminded us in this week past that his own country demonstrates that Islam, democracy, diversity and tolerance are completely compatible. President Erdogan of Turkey explained at the G20 that ISIL does not speak in the name of Islam. It is an abomination to religion, he says, and must be utterly rejected. Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia reminded us at the East Asia Summit that Islam teaches that to kill one innocent life is as though to kill all humanity.
The Paris attacks—all of these attacks—highlight just how critical it is that the international community cooperates to defeat ISIL in the field, in its space, in Syria and Iraq. They highlight how important it is for us more effectively to counter the corrupting messaging of ISIL and other violent extremists in schools, in mosques and, above all, online.
This will not be an easy fight, nor will it be quick. But our mission to disrupt, degrade and destroy the terrorists is making progress. A lasting defeat of ISIL will require a political settlement in Syria and Iraq. There are some signs of progress in that regard, but it is very early days. It will also require military force. Australia is second only to the United States in its military contribution to the international efforts in Iraq and Syria. I can reassure the Australian people that we will do everything we can to keep Australians safe at home and, so far as we can, abroad. There is no greater responsibility for any government, and my government, than Australia's security. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are the finest in the world.
The leadership of Muslims around the world in condemning ISIL is another key factor. I want to commend the Muslim leaders, presidents of great nations and presidents of community associations alike, who have spoken out for an authentic, moderate and tolerant Islam. Extremism is a challenge all Australians must address. Extremists aimed to sow discord by driving a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims, dividing us as a society. We are the most successful and harmonious multicultural society in the world. The richness of our diversity is one of our nation's greatest strengths, and we must protect and defend it dearly.
The terrorists want us to bend to their will, to be frightened, to change the way we go about our lives, to abandon our values. If we do that, they win. And they will not win—we will not let them win. When the French people left the Stade de France complex after that shocking attack, they were not cowed—they sang La Marseillaise proudly in one voice. That is how all free people should respond to these assaults.
To all whose lives have been touched by these evil acts of terrorism, the Australian people send their heartfelt sympathy and unwavering solidarity. Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, vous avez nos plus sinceres condoleances et notre plus forte solidarite.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): Mr Ambassador, when the first explosions were heard inside the Stade de France on Friday, 13 November, Patrice Evra was the French player in possession of the ball. Evra was born in Dakar, Senegal. On the field with him that night were players with family in Angola, Tunisia and the Democratic Republic of Congo—men of different faiths and cultures, brought up in different traditions, all wearing the famous blue of the country they love. And in the No. 12 shirt was Lassana Diarra, a practising Muslim, who was not yet to know that his own cousin was among those killed that night. Just a year ago Diarra was himself wrongly accused of having joined Islamic State—and now here they were, claiming responsibility for the murder of a woman he described as a rock, a support, a big sister. This is just one man mourning the loss of a loved one. Those same scenes of trauma and sadness are being played out across Lebanon, Mali and France as people slowly come to grips with the evil deeds of the past fortnight—indiscriminate, immoral, inhuman murder that we condemn today on behalf of all Australians. Mr Ambassador, please know that, as one country and one people, we offer our heartfelt condolences to your nation and to the people of France, especially those mourning the loss of someone they loved.
It does not matter what faith terrorists invoke—if they invoke a faith. It does not matter what imagined injustice they pretend to have suffered. It does not matter what name terrorists claim to act in or what flag they wave. Regardless of the religious symbol they claim to love, the nightmare is always the same: spreading fear and inciting hatred and division. Whether it occurs in Beirut, in the air above Egypt, in Bamako or in Paris, every act of terrorism is equally cowardly and equally abhorrent. Because every human life is precious and every death is mourned, every act of terrorism is an affront to our humanity wherever it happens and whoever it affects.
As reports of the bombing spread across Paris, people began gathering in the Place de la Republique. In the centre of that famous square stands a statue of Marianne, the national symbol of the French Republic, an idealisation of liberty and reason. In her right hand she clasps an olive branch. Her left hand rests on a copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. On the pedestal beneath her a lion guards a representation of a ballot box. Liberty, peace, justice, democracy—virtues carved in marble, etched in stone, tested and tempered in war and revolution, paid for by the courage, faith and sacrifice of generations past.
The attack on Paris was not just an attack on a city beloved by the world; it was an attack on the qualities that Paris embodies. It was an assault on the fundamental right of free people to live in peace. It was an atrocity designed to divide the world. And even in those early hours, as people around the world sought to make sense of the senseless, it was clear that the terrorists had failed. They failed because our world will not capitulate to fear. The remarkable Tasmanian student Emma Parkinson reminded us that Australians will never yield to division. We will stand together, many races, many languages, many faiths but one people. We share a common humanity that binds us and guides us. We re-dedicate ourselves to that today.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:11): I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the Paris terrorist attacks be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Mr PYNE: In so doing, I acknowledge the presence of his Excellency Christophe Lecourtier and associate myself with the remarks of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER (14:12): Mr Ambassador, as you have just witnessed, the thoughts of members of this House are with you and the people of France at this time. As an indication of support for the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and as a remark of respect to those who lost their lives, I ask all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Western Australia: Bushfires
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:12): I rise on indulgence to express our deep sympathy and condolences for the four victims of the recent Western Australian bushfires and their families. The tragedy of people going about their daily lives in a farming community in Esperance, only to be confronted by a firestorm, drives home to all of us the very grave dangers to life and property as the bushfire season is upon us. The Australian summer can be a very challenging and unpredictable time. I want to pay tribute to the firefighters and their crews who tackled these Western Australian fires and brought them under control. As a nation we have a great debt to the service and bravery of our professional and volunteer fire services who put their lives on the line to keep their communities safe.
In the Shire of Esperance this is a time for rebuilding and we are committed to providing whatever is needed to help that community through this heartbreaking event. The shire's president, Victoria Brown, summed up the challenge ahead when she said:
Our geographic isolation … is actually our greatest strength in a situation like this. It makes us strong. We are a close-knit, resilient community and we have always been supportive of one another in times of crisis.
That is the strength, solidarity and unity typical of communities across our great country when tested by the ravages of natural disasters. The bushfire season has arrived early in parts of Australia. All of us will need to be especially vigilant to protect our lives and property in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): I rise on indulgence. The president of the Esperance Shire, Victoria Brown, called it 'The day from hell,': farms and crops reduced to ashes, homes, sheds and wheat bins destroyed and four lives lost. Our hearts go out to their families, friends and loved ones today.
Three of those who perished were international visitors, two from Germany and one from Norway, all working on Karranga Station. Kym Curnow was the fourth, a farmer who had been driving around the district warning others of the approaching fire. It was an act of selflessness that cost him his life. Kym was a volunteer firefighter with the Scaddan Bush Fire Brigade. Brigade chief Gavin Egan said Kym was the one bloke no-one could say a bad word about. Even as they mourn the loss of their friend, the Skadden brigade are continuing the clean-up. We have brief moments where we get emotional,' Gavin says, 'but we just have to carry on.' We pay tribute today to the work of all the firefighters who saved more than 100 homes from the flames, and we salute the generosity of all those Australians who have offered assistance to those in need.
In 1939 when Judge Leonard Stretton concluded his report on the Black Friday bushfires of that year he wrote, 'They had not lived long enough.' This was not just a lament for the dead, many who lost their lives far too young, it was a comment on our whole nation, unprepared for the speed and ferocity of a fire that engulfed communities. In 2015 we have lived longer. We understand the ever-present danger of bushfires. We know the need to be prepared. But on a dry continent like ours we will never live long enough. Summer in Australia will always be a bushfire season. We will always need to take care. We urge all Australians to get their fire plans in place to look after themselves and their families this summer.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:16): I inform the House that the Minister for International Development and the Pacific will be absent from question time from 23 November to 26 November while he is representing Australia at the France-Oceania Summit. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources will be away during question time, today, attending to a personal matter. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Goods and Services Tax
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): The Housing Industry Association has warned that increasing the GST to 15 per cent could price many Australians out of home ownership. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Housing Industry Association that increasing the GST to 15 per cent would make it even harder for young Australians to buy a new home?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): I thank the Leader of the Opposition to his question. I do not feel that I have been away at all! Nothing has changed. Question time is just as it was when I left. The Leader of the Opposition seems persuaded that the government is proposing to introduce a 15 per cent GST. The government has no such policy. What the government is doing is conducting what the Labor Party was unable to do in government, and we are conducting a broad consultation and conversation with the Australian people on the question of taxation reform.
There was a discussion paper published earlier in the year. The Treasurer is getting together his white paper. There is extensive discussion and lots of views being put forward, some of them very constructive and some of them very imaginative—like the one from the member for Fairfax, when we were last gathered here—and all of those opinions and views will be considered by the government.
I would just say this: the object of reforming the tax system or making changes to the tax system is not to raise the burden of tax to raise additional revenue. The object is to raise the revenue that the government needs, to perform its duties and pay for the services it undertakes, but to do so in a way that better supports and incentivises Australian families to work, save and invest. The tax system is a very big lever that the federal government has, the federal parliament has, and it can be used better or worse, depending on its design, to promote types of jobs, investment and economic activity that all of us support.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his not-especially-scary scare campaign but I really would suggest to him, with all due respect, that he should come up with a new one.
Global Terrorism
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:19): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the collective response of global leaders to the recent terror attacks around the world?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:20): I thank the honourable member for his question. The international response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere—Bamako, Beirut, Ankara, the Russian airliner in the Sinai—were front and centre in all of the discussions I had with global leaders at the G20, APEC and East Asia summit.
All of the leaders agreed that the fight against terrorism is the major priority in global national security. We all reiterated our resolve to work together to defeat terrorism through increased international cooperation, including tackling the financing channels of terrorism, including tackling the messaging challenge where—despite the ISIL group, in particular, offering what is a barbaric, archaic version of Islam, one that defames Islam and blasphemes god—they have been very skilful users of online platforms, including social media. We are going to collaborate further on how we combat that, and a new countermessaging centre is being established in Malaysia to do that.
ISIL must be defeated and must be defeated in the field, in Syria and in Iraq. Australia has the second largest foreign military contribution of coalition partners to the battle against ISIL—more than any other country, other than the United States. We have six FA18 Hornets involved in missions in that theatre, with 250 personnel in the Air Task Group, 90 special forces advisers and around 300 soldiers building the capacity of the Iraqi Army. Those service men and women are doing their job with the professionalism and commitment and courage of the Anzac spirit.
We are working with our coalition allies—and that is as it should be. We have to destroy ISIL together. But we cannot and should not act unilaterally, not only because that would be obviously unreasonable and unwise but because it would be in violation of our agreement with the government of Iraq.
I know that many people here and in the United States have argued that America and its allies should dispatch a large expeditionary force to conquer and hold the ISIL-controlled areas in much the same way as Iraq was conquered and occupied in 2003. That is not the policy of the United States government or of any of the coalition partners, and it is unrealistic for Australia to embark on any military operations in that region other than in partnership with our allies.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield and the member for Moreton will cease interjecting.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just told the parliament that he wants to have a conversation with Australians about tax. So when will the Prime Minister tell a young family exactly how much longer they will have to save to buy their first home because of his 15 per cent GST?
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:23): I answered that question very adequately on the previous occasion.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
Trade
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how open markets and free trade agreements will generate exciting opportunities in Australia for growth and jobs?
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:24): I thank the honourable member for her question. Around the world, at the G20, at APEC and at the East Asia Summit, there was a commitment to opening up markets as a lever for creating jobs and boosting growth. Opening up our economies is a vote of optimism over fear. It is a sign that we are backing our businesses and exporters so that they can back themselves onto the world stage. When countries remove trade barriers, they know that there will be more competition in their own markets. But they also know that there are many more opportunities to grow and expand.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement will open up new markets for our traditional commodity exports and also in the services sector and industries of the future. President Obama expressed confidence that he would win the support of Congress for the TPP, which includes economies covering 40 per cent of global GDP. And also encouraging was the great enthusiasm of other nations in the region, including the Philippines and Indonesia, to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. President Xi indicated that China is working to ratify the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement before the end of the year, and, for our part, we are also aiming at this deadline, so that exporters—our exporters—will get the double hit of tariff reductions in just a few weeks. The unprecedented market access that China has offered to Australia under the ChAFTA—the highest quality free trade deal China has done with any country—puts our firms at a significant competitive advantage to others in other nations.
In my bilateral meetings with the European Union council and the European Union commission, we agreed to commence work towards the launch of negotiations for a free trade agreement between Australia and the EU. When it comes to the EU, our relationship with many economies, while extremely cordial, is somewhat underdone in terms of the economic activity. Germany is a good example. They are the fourth-largest economy in the world but only our 16th largest export market. Our Minister for Finance signed a double tax agreement with Germany, and we also have a very ambitious agenda via the Australia-Germany Advisory Group to increase trade, investment and cooperation on science and education. We have also established the EU-Australia Leadership Forum, with digital government set as the first topic for discussion.
The pace of change in the global economy has never been as rapid as it is today, and that requires economies to be flexible, agile, dynamic and free.
Goods and Services Tax
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out increasing the cost of renting for Australians by applying a 15 per cent GST to rent? How would a 15 per cent GST on rent affect young Australians saving for their first home?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:27): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. I find it quite amazing that the member for Sydney would be raising questions about rental affordability, given her remarkable stewardship of the National Rental Affordability Scheme that seemed to only provide very high tax incentives for reasonably wealthy investors and foreign students. And now she wants to come into this place and lecture those on this side of the House about housing affordability!
On this side of the House we take—and the assistant minister takes and the Assistant Treasurer also takes—the issue of housing affordability very, very seriously. This side of the House is engaging with the states and territories to ensure that we can address one of the most significant issues when it comes to housing affordability, and that is the sclerotic nature of the planning and zoning processes that are put in place by state and territory governments. As Treasurer, I am sitting down with the other treasurers to look at ways, through competition reforms, that we can ensure that there is a much better system to address the supply issues which are the major drivers of housing affordability—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has asked her question.
Mr MORRISON: problems in this country—but not only that. What we are doing on this side of the House is engaging with the states and territories to deal with the chronic problems with social housing provision in this country—something those on that side of the House might want to listen to, because what they should know is that we spend some $11 billion. That is exactly what they were spending when they were in government, with National Affordable Housing Agreements which produced no reform when it came to housing delivery at the state level when they were in government. This side of the House takes housing affordability seriously—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer concluded his answer? The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. A month ago, I asked you how much greenhouse gas pollution would come from burning the coal in the Carmichael mine that your government approved. You said:
… I am very happy to take the honourable member's question on notice and will do the calculation and let him know.
I have not heard from you. Will parliament get an answer or have you realised it is not a good look to go to the Paris climate talks admitting that you approved a single coalmine that, alone, will generate more pollution than the entire European Union does in one year?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members will cease interjecting. Before I call the Prime Minister, I remind the House that, if he has taken a question on notice, the answer will come in due course on notice—as a member for Melbourne well knows.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister can choose to answer the other parts of the question if he wishes.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for his question. We will certainly make some assumptions and send him some numbers, if he would like us to do that. But I am sure he can do them himself. I just say this to the honourable member: what the honourable member overlooks is that Australia is taking to the Paris Conference of the Parties very credible and substantial emissions cuts and targets. Our cuts of 26 to 28 per cent reduction from 2005 are very substantial. When they are measured on a per capita basis, which is the only way they can reasonably be compared with other countries, they are second only to the emission cuts offered by Brazil. So these are very substantial cuts, and they are recognised as such in the global community.
The honourable member mentioned coal. The honourable member hates coal—he really hates coal. The reality is that coal is part of the energy mix of the world today and will be for many decades to come. The world economies are moving to emitting less by new technologies—some are building nuclear power stations, everyone is building more renewables, more gas is being used and cleaner coal plants that emit less emissions and less tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour of energy generated are being used. So all of those changes are happening.
I am glad the honourable member has asked me this question because it gives me the opportunity to report to the House that, in our meetings with the Premier of China, Li Keqiang, in Kuala Lumpur, I raised the issue of the new Chinese regulations which are designed to only permit coal with a relatively low sulphur content to be burned. Of course, Australian coal, by and large, has very low sulphur content relative to Chinese coal. I recognise that it will never be as clean as the honourable member would like, but in the world of coal Australia coal is relatively clean. I raised with the Premier the problem that there were administrative difficulties in managing those testings, and he gave an undertaking that he would look into that and ensure that the administrative problems and blockages are rectified. That will be good for Australian coal exporters and it will be good for Chinese coal importers alike. I thank the honourable member for the opportunity to allow me to make this point today.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. The members for Griffith, Chifley and Charlton will cease interjecting. They interjected persistently through that answer. I warn them.
Economy
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:33): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on global growth targets and the need for strong economic growth strategies? How is the government building a strong national platform for economic growth and jobs?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:33): I thank the member for Barker for his question and for his keen interest in jobs and growth, not only in his own electorate of Barker but across South Australia and across the country. In addition to the very serious national security issues that were addressed by the Prime Minister in the recent round of G20 meetings, there was also—as you have just heard from the Prime Minister—a very strong focus on the economic task ahead of all of those leaders and here at home in Australia as well. They confirmed again their commitment to growth and jobs, as we have as a country. The G20 is calling for ambitious and comprehensive structural reforms that offer the best opportunity for strong, stable and balanced economic growth. Australia is delivering on all of these things through the platform for strong growth and jobs that we are providing with the combination of policies. Despite the headwinds that our economy currently faces and the transition that we are moving through, we had year-average growth last year of 2.3 per cent—around two per cent on year end. That is twice what comparable economies like Canada are achieving. We are doing twice what they are doing in those like economies.
Equally, on the front of jobs, we are now growing jobs at a rate of more than 10 times what we were at the time of the year of the last election.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton and the member for Wakefield.
Mr MORRISON: We have had 315,000 additional jobs added over the course of the last year. Youth unemployment today is lower than it was at the time of the last election.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Mr MORRISON: Our economy is also transforming and transitioning as our services sector also improves, with a growth in exports of some 7.3 per cent. The strong platform for growth that we are putting in place encompasses opening new markets through free trade agreements, our $50 billion national infrastructure plan, ensuring an even more resilient financial system, improving competition, a stronger budget and a better tax system that is going to reward Australians and back Australians who are out there working, saving and investing.
What I am encouraged by is that the Australian people are responding to this. They are responding to this with optimism. They are realistic optimists. They know and understand the challenges that we face as a country, but they are backing themselves and they are pleased that this government is backing them with strong policies that will support them being out there working, saving and investing. As I noted last time in this House, we now have more optimists about our economy than pessimists. There are certainly optimists on this side, but on that side we only see pessimism. But we will remain committed to the strong growth policies and the strong jobs policies that are putting in place the necessary reforms to ensure that Australians are getting ahead.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minster has asked for a serious conversation about tax in Australia, but is the Prime Minister seriously asking Australians to have a conversation about extending the GST to rent and paying more to rent their home? Why won't the Prime Minister just rule out putting a 15 per cent GST on everybody's rent?
Mr Craig Kelly: What are you repeating Tanya's question for?
The SPEAKER: The member for Hughes will cease interjecting.
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And the member for Dobell.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston is denying the Prime Minister the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I say, it does make me feel as though I have not been away; it is just the same questions they asked a week ago. It is good; it is very touching.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga!
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member's rather feeble attempt to get a rise out of me will not be gratified, I am afraid. Let me simply say that the object of a full discussion on tax is not to salami slice the debate and rule out one thing after another. That is where the former, Labor, government got into trouble with the Henry tax review. That was a fundamental mistake. The honourable member knows that there should be a broad discussion.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: Some of the proposals that they have put up are utterly fanciful. Nonetheless, we are not going to go down the road of ruling things in or out, because that defies the need for a full discussion. I will invite the shadow Treasurer's opposite number to add to this answer.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:38): I thank the Prime Minister, and simply note this: the Australian people understand that what we are looking at is a package of reforms that will grow jobs and that will grow the economy. They understand that the last time this government was involved in serious questions about improving our tax system it involved a raft of measures that saw taxes cut. And I recall that although those opposite campaigned against them and railed against them and went on and on and on about them, by the time they got to government they rolled none of them back—they changed none of them—because they knew there was a package of reforms that improved our economy. Those opposite simply do not want to get into that sort of discussion. As the Prime Minister says, they want to salami slice it down and treat the Australian people like mugs.
Syria
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on Australia's response to the Syrian humanitarian crisis? What security and other screening arrangements has the government put in place to ensure that Australia is helping those who are most in need—women, children and families of persecuted minorities?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:40): I thank the honourable member most sincerely for his question and for his passion in relation to making sure that Australia can do the right thing but have always at the forefront of our minds our national security interests. The Australian government has in place the most robust security screening measures in relation to those coming in under the humanitarian program, and we will not resile from that one bit. The government has announced that one of the dividends of the stopping of the boats, of restoring order to the way in which we conduct our migration program in this country, is that we will increase the number of people we bring in under the humanitarian and refugee programs.
I do not think it is a well-known fact in Australia at the moment that Australia on a per capita basis settles probably a higher number of people under this program than does any other country in the world, and it has been part of the success of the migration program since the Second World War. In fact, since the Second World War we have settled some 825,000 people under the refugee and humanitarian programs, and as a country we do it very well. When I met with the Secretary-General of the UNHCR in Paris a few weeks ago he complimented Australia on the way in which we were able to provide those settlement services in this country. And second perhaps to Canada, or at least equal with Canada, we are able to provide support to those people as they settle in our country.
What is always important to this nation and what will always be important to this government is that we put the national security of our country ahead of any other consideration. So, we are not in any circumstance going to compromise in relation to the assessment of these applications. There are about 2,800 people who are under consideration at the moment who have had their security checks or are in the process of having their security checks undertaken, as well as their health checks. But I have been very clear—and I repeat it again today—that we are not going to compromise in relation to any of these matters. If we see a security concern in one of these applications, that application will be put to the side and we will consider the next application in the pile.
This is a very important point to labour. The government made its intention very clear, and I will repeat it again today, that we have as the focus of this intake people who are persecuted minorities, those who are assessed as being most vulnerable—that is, women, children and families with the least prospect of returning to their homes, and that will include many Christians. Many Christians will be successful in this program, because they have very little chance of returning to their homes. But we will work with the United Nations and indeed with many Christian leaders from the Syrian community in this country to make sure that we can have a successful settlement of those 12,000 people.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. In his last answer the Prime Minister said that some of the propositions on the GST which had been asked by the opposition were purely fanciful. Prime Minister, which ones?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): Let me deal with the most fanciful of all, and that is the proposition that this government—and I would hope any government—would contemplate increasing the goods and services tax without any compensation by way of income tax cuts, increases to pensions and matters of that kind. The honourable member knows full well what he is seeking to do, which is to put some sort of ferocious pressure—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta!
Mr TURNBULL: He is trying to put some ferocious pressure on the government to rule one thing out or another. The honourable member knows this, and the Australian people know this—that we are committed to ensuring that Australia remains a high-wage, generous-social-welfare-net, First World economy.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: That means that every economic lever of government, especially the tax system, must be calibrated so that it gets the best out of our economy, so that it ensures that it drives jobs—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is now warned!
Mr TURNBULL: and so that it ensures that it drives investment. A conversation was begun earlier in the year and it continues. The government is consulting widely. We have had many suggestions, ideas, proposals and rebuttals, and the idea that the Labor Party proposes that this is some sort of attempt to oppress people on low incomes is simply fanciful. The Labor Party knows full well that our government, the coalition government, is committed to ensuring that Australia is an equitable society, that our tax and transfer system operates in a way that ensures that all Australians are treated fairly and that we get behind Australians in their enterprise to drive a stronger economy, stronger jobs, better jobs and better investment. All of that contributes to ensuring, as I said, that we remain a high-wage, generous social welfare net, First World economy. The honourable member has no interest in that, and his pathetic scare campaign is falling flat.
Bushfires
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister update the House on the bushfire situation in Esperance following the devastating bushfires over the past week?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (14:46): I thank the member for O'Connor for that question. I acknowledge the strong support that he has shown to fire affected parts of his electorate during the past week—particularly around Esperance, where there has been very significant fire damage and loss of life, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have already updated the parliament on today. There has been a combination of very severe weather in Western Australia—40-degree heat, 100-kilometre-an-hour winds and low humidity—and this has resulted in the deadliest fire conditions for the past four decades. There are still major fires burning in the Esperance area on Western Australia's south coast.
Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with my counterpart Joe Francis, the Minister for Emergency Services. The Prime Minister has also contacted Premier Barnett and been updated about the ongoing situation. Over the weekend, there were further difficult conditions which saw the Esperance fire break its containment lines on several occasions but also resulted in new blazes starting in Ellenbrook, the Julimar State Forest and around Bindoon—although those latter three fires have now been brought under control. The focus of the Western Australian authorities now remains on getting the Esperance fire under control.
On behalf of the Commonwealth, I thank the Western Australian emergency services personnel for their determination, bravery and courage in the face of very difficult circumstances. So far, the Esperance fires have destroyed several homes, left hundreds without power, destroyed over 200,000 hectares of prime agricultural land and, as has already been stated here in question time, tragically led to the loss of four lives. I offer our sympathy and our condolences to the families of those who have been affected by these fires.
Last week, in Perth, I took the opportunity to go out to the Western Australian state control centre to be briefed by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner, Wayne Gregson, and I have offered, through Minister Francis, assistance from the federal government to the Western Australian government, in terms of both the response and the recovery to this event. Under longstanding arrangements with the states, the Commonwealth has a range of mechanisms where we support states to recover from natural disasters, and we will continue to liaise with the Western Australian government regarding recovery assistance and monitor the impacts of these events.
Whilst talking about the Esperance fires, I would also take this opportunity to remind the House that we do face a very difficult summer. The strong El Nino weather pattern is likely to make conditions drier and warmer than normal, and this leads to heightened bushfire risk across vast parts of the country, particularly the south-east and the south-west. In view of that, it is useful for all Australians to prepare their homes and their families for the season ahead. Whilst the risk of being impacted by a disaster might seem remote, it does pay dividends to think about what you might do in the event of a disaster, and I would urge Australians to think about it in advance.
Family Payments
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. Around 19,000 Western Sydney families in the electorate of Chifley will lose up to $4,700 a year because of the Prime Minister's unfair cuts to family payments, and that is before an increased GST raises the price of everything. But, in the Prime Minister's electorate of Wentworth, just 3,000 families will be affected. Why are families in my electorate bearing such a heavy burden for this Prime Minister's unfair cuts and increased taxes?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House and the Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member knows that the government plans to reform and restructure the family tax benefit to give families more money each fortnight, encourage workforce participation and fund the new childcare system. We have listened to feedback on the original Families Package, and the Minister for Social Services, as the honourable member knows, introduced the revised family payments reform package into the House. We believe that this package strikes the right balance between achieving significant savings—
Mr Husic: How? Nineteen thousand in my electorate, compared to 3,000 in yours.
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley has asked his question.
Mr TURNBULL: whilst still providing sufficient financial support to those families most in need. The package, when viewed overall, is designed to drive greater employment and to ensure that more families, more mothers, can afford to have child care and be in work. I note that the member for Jagajaga said on one occasion—and I just find it a very characteristically eloquent quote, but I cannot lay my hands on it—that the most important thing that working families need is employment. The member for Jagajaga talked about the importance of child care, particularly the affordability of child care for women in lower paid jobs, and the recalibration of the childcare package is designed to do just that. The member for Jagajaga, who is an acknowledged—at least a self-acknowledged—expert in this area, and I do not doubt it, said that something like this has to be paid for, and it has to be paid for somehow. The changes are designed to pay for what is an improved package that is designed to target benefits at people on lower incomes and ensure that more mothers are able to go to work and to have their kids looked after in child care, enabling them so to do. So that is the objective.
With respect to the member for Jagajaga, she knows that what we have done is crafted a package that will pay for it.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: It will achieve the objectives she has described. I am disappointed that honourable members opposite do not see this as a very progressive measure that will achieve the objectives that we all share of ensuring higher levels of employment and female participation in the workforce.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Hotham that she has been warned.
Steel Industry
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Minister, I know you are aware that last week Arrium OneSteel announced the loss of a further 250 jobs at the Whyalla steelworks and that the company is currently undertaking a strategic review of operations. I know also that you met recently with Arrium representatives. Minister, are you confident that the steel industry and Whyalla can be maintained and strengthened, and is this an area where you believe government policy could assist in maintaining this vital industry for Whyalla and for Australia?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:54): I thank the member for Grey for his question. I know that he is working very closely with his local community, business leaders, civic leaders and those affected by the issues surrounding Arrium in Whyalla to bring about a good outcome for them, to create new industries and jobs throughout the iron triangle in his electorate. He asked me whether I think there is a future for the steel industry in Australia, and I think the answer to that is: yes, there is. What happened at BlueScope in the Illawarra indicates that businesses that work with their workforces and with the unions, that find new markets, that show that they can reduce their own costs through management practices and with the support of state governments—in the case of BlueScope Steel in the Illawarra, a payroll tax holiday provided by the Baird government—they are all pointers to what can be done to maintain industries like the steel industry while we are going through this period where there is a glut of steel in the international market because of the output of countries like China.
What Australia is doing to support the steel industry and jobs in Whyalla and elsewhere is manifold. We are reforming the Anti-Dumping Commission. We are trying to ensure that the Anti-Dumping Commission sees its role as protecting Australian businesses from being injured by behaviour of overseas companies. We are doing that by truncating their activities to make them as fast as possible. They are world's best practice, and we think they can be better than world's best practice, showing the rest of the world how to go. We are putting more resources into the Anti-Dumping Commission and we are cracking down on non-cooperative exporters who previously have been allowed to get away with thumbing their nose at Anti-Dumping Commission decisions and determinations. We are making the appeal process faster and working with business through the Anti-Dumping Commission to show business how to use the processes of the ADC rather than leaving them to their own devices.
We are also, through the ministerial council of industry ministers, reviewing our procurement policies of government, whether it is South Australia, Victoria or the national government, to see how we can best use our procurement policies to support Australian businesses first and foremost while remaining within our World Trade Organization obligations, and through a number of different measures the taxpayers of Australia are supporting Australian businesses in finding export markets, in transitioning from old manufacturing to advanced manufacturing. I was recently down in Geelong, last Friday, announcing round 3 of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. Through things like the next generation— (Time expired)
Parliament: Integrity
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:57): My question is to the Special Minister of State, who has responsibility for government integrity. Is it appropriate for a person to ask a Commonwealth officer to procure copies of the official diary of his employer when that Commonwealth officer is not authorised to provide copies to the person asking?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. A number have been warned.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will not interject when I am addressing the chamber. The Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I think you might wish to examine that question closely to determine that it does not ask the Special Minister of State for a legal opinion. It sounded very much like it did ask the Special Minister of State for a legal opinion. While I am sure he is prepared to answer the question, we do not want to be in breach of the standing orders.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned!
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. He will not interject advice from his seat. It is disorderly, and he well knows it.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, given that the question does not ask for a legal opinion, the question should be ruled in order.
The SPEAKER: The question certainly asks the minister for an opinion—there is no doubt about that.
Mr Burke: The question asks—
The SPEAKER: It might suit if I actually finish the sentence; it will save time. The question certainly does ask for an opinion. I think it is close to the line, but it does go to the minister's responsibility for administration. On that narrow basis, I am going to allow him to address that part of the question, but he does not have to answer hypothetical matters and he does not have to give a legal opinion.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:59): The integrity of all things parliamentary should be everyone's duty here, as it is mine. I would say that, rather than play games, the question is obviously directed at the issue that is being canvassed in the paper. I have made a full statement, and none of what I have said has ever been repudiated, and nothing has ever been added to; I think it would do us all well to ensure that the grainy issues that are being dealt with by the authorities are done so.
The SPEAKER: the member for Melbourne Ports will not interject, particularly when he is out of his seat.
Environment: Government Initiatives
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I recently had the pleasure of attending the Len Howard Conservation Park and Peel Inlet Reserve Green Army graduations. It was great to see young people working to conserve the Canning environment. For the benefit of my constituents, can the minister please provide an update on the Green Army Program and practical environmental initiatives, such as the National Landcare Programme, which are having a real impact in my local community.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (15:00): I would like to thank the member of the Canning, who has in fact already made representations on behalf of his electorate with regards to both the Green Army, Landcare and the new Peel-Harvey Catchment Council. Let me say this: all up across Australia there have been more than 700 Green Army projects announced—almost 500 Green Army projects have commenced or have been completed. In other words, we are well ahead of schedule—well ahead of where we had planned to be by this time.
In his own electorate, by my recollection, nine projects under the Green Army have been announced, including the one to which he referred—the Len Howard Park—three of which have been completed, two of which are underway and, I think, another four have been proposed. The Len Howard Park is an interesting example: it was a case of young Australians helping to revegetate bush, to rehabilitate land, to remove invasive species, to work on the basis of riverbank restoration and putting pathways in bushland—all of the things that one would want for an environmental program and project, as well as all of the things that one would want for the development of young Australians' skills and knowledge base.
I know from my recent experiences of talking to Green Army participants that many of them have said that it has given them the opportunity to enter the workforce and, in some cases, to return from mental health situations where they were not confident to be in the workforce or to be in public; and that is has been a tremendous success so far. The member the Canning also asks about the National Landcare Programme. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council in his electorate is the only new catchment council created in Australia during the life of this government. It was created because there were genuine water quality needs; it is an example of issues where urban development meets the environment come to the forefront. The reason that it was created was to deal in particular with water quality problems in the Peel-Harvey catchment. I know that his predecessor gave an enormous amount of time and effort to seeing this done. Since the catchment council has been announced, just over $2½ million dollars has been made available. Currently, I think $150,000 in small grants for local community groups is due to be completed in a very short period. We have our young Australians in the Green Army working on the ground in Canning; we have a new catchment council under the National Landcare Programme doing practical work to improve water quality, to improve riparian areas and to improve the Peel-Harvey catchment and environment. Well done.
Parliament: Integrity
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the member for Fisher had admitted on national television that he had asked a Commonwealth officer to procure copies of the official diary of his employer without the authorisation of his employer, why did the Prime Minister then give him responsibility for government integrity by appointing him as Special Minister of State? Does the Prime Minister maintain confidence in the minister?
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:04): The minister enjoys my confidence, and I refer you to the answer that he just gave to your earlier question.
The SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Wakefield to leave under 94(a). I have warmed to him countless times. Members will cease interjecting.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Manufacturing
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (15:04): My constituency question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. The Manufacturing Transition Grants Programme has provided $2.6 million of funding to Philmac in my electorate. How can targeted programs from the government help facilitate more jobs and growth to companies around Australia, including in my seat of Hindmarsh?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:05): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question about Philmac and their role in accessing the Advanced Manufacturing program. The member for Hindmarsh has been working very closely with businesses in Hindmarsh, in Adelaide's western suburbs, to help promote a movement to advanced manufacturing. Initiated by Ian McFarlane as the Minister for Industry through the advanced manufacturing program, this government is using taxpayers' funds to assist businesses move to a new model. This is particularly important in states like South Australia and Victoria—states that have been traditionally reliant on heavy manufacturing—moving to advanced manufacturing. In South Australia we do that through many means—whether it is food manufacturing, the defence industry. In this case it is Philmac, a very old South Australian company but a very innovative one in the irrigation products such as valves that they create to improve productivity, to save water, to increase efficiencies and to increase profits by reducing the costs to their clients' businesses.
The advanced manufacturing program is $50 million and it is working very well. It goes with a suite of measures that the government is proposing to try and improve the economy and create jobs. I know that some members of the opposition are actually interested in advanced manufacturing, because they come from states like is South Australia and Victoria. It should largely be bipartisan measure, but the economy is starting to turn around in places like South Australia and Victoria. The agricultural sector, for example, is booming in South Australia and we rely on it very heavily; we are increasing food manufacturing. The reduction of the dollar against the United States currency has meant an increase in things like the wine industry. We are moving businesses through things like the Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Programme towards the new economy. Very soon, hopefully by mid-December, we will have released the National Innovation and Science Agenda—a suite of policies, a suite of measures, which will have a very transformative impact on that sector of the economy. It will touch on areas to do with skills, with talents, with science, technology, engineering and maths in schools, and with commercialising research. I note today the G8 supporting the government's move towards research impact measurements for the Australian taxpayers' $1.8 billion commitment in research in universities. It will also cover the raising of capital to remove some of the hurdles that stand in the way of the very businesses that we want to flourish in order to create jobs and growth in Australia.
Parliament: Integrity
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): My question is to the Special Minister of State, who has responsibility for the integrity and specific responsibility for oversight of parliamentary officers. Is it appropriate for a person to procure another person to access restricted data held on a government computer?
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (15:08): I welcome the question and I point out to the shadow minister, as he should know, that above all else integrity in all things parliamentary is essential. This is no different.
Refugees: Employment
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:08): My constituency question is to the Minister for Industry representing the Minister for Employment. My constituent Rashidi Sumaili, a refugee from the Congo, is looking for work. He consistently finds that employers want recent and relevant work experience, which he cannot always cite. What measures has this government put in place to help unemployed people like Rashidi so he can get a job?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:09): I thank the member for Murray for her question. I can assure my colleagues there has been no organisation of these questions today at all. I am suffering the same fate as the minister for large projects representing the Minister for Communications when it came to the NBN and infrastructure in the last sitting fortnight. I am very glad to get the member for Murray 's question. I think constituency question time is working extremely well, may I say. The member for Murray is a very strong advocate in her electorate for employment and for jobs and growth in an area of Victoria that has suffered in recent years and decades because of the changing nature of the economy, because of the less labour intensive context of agricultural businesses in Murray and because of competition from overseas. The area that the member for Murray represents, Shepparton and around that part of Victoria, has suffered economically. But the member for Murray is a tireless fighter for her area and for jobs.
This question today is about youth unemployment and youth employment. I am very pleased to say that under the member for Cowper jobactive came into place on 1 July and in Murray it has already placed 876 people overall and 300 under 30. So jobactive is working. It is a $6.8 billion program which is making a difference in Murray. It goes hand in hand with our youth employment strategy—a $531 million strategy to support young people at risk of unemployment. I would have thought the Labor Party would welcome the Youth Employment Strategy. It is a $530 million strategy designed to ensure that at risk young people do not fall through the cracks. It is being accessed in places like Shepparton in the electorate of Murray and it is helping people get jobs. Overall, as the Treasurer said earlier in question time, unemployment is coming down and youth unemployment in particular is coming down. People like the Minister for Trade—who has brought about free trade agreements with Korea, with Japan, with China and through the TPP—are making an enormous difference to our future economically in this country in terms of free trade. The Minister for Agriculture is working tirelessly to ensure that we get the most out of the agricultural boom. He is not here today, but he often talks about the prices that farmers are getting for the produce they take to market. There are a number of those kinds of measures. The government is helping jobs and growth in Murray and all around Australia.
Mr Turnbull: After that thoroughly randomly selected question, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The SPEAKER (15:12): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 8 of 2015-16 entitled Administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, Department of Social Services.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:13): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:13): I have received messages from the Senate informing the House that Senator Moore has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, and that Senator Gallagher has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and Senator McAllister has been appointed a member of the committee.
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Report
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (15:14): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report 156: Treaties tabled on 8 September 2015 and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with that report.
Leave granted.
Mr TAYLOR: Today I present the Joint Standing Committee of Treaties's report 156: Treaties tabled on 8 September 2015. The report covers three proposed treaties:
an air services agreement with Laos;
a mutual legal assistance agreement with Brazil; and
amendments to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
Air service agreements are bilateral treaties that allow commercial air travel between two countries.
The proposed agreement with Laos details the number of flights, and the number of passengers and the quantum of freight that can be transported between Australia and Laos using commercial air services.
The agreement permits airlines from each country to set up operations in the other country, including selling tickets, reaching code sharing arrangements with other airlines, offering package deals combining international air travel and domestic travel, and having fair commercial access to airports and related facilities.
The agreement also emphasises the importance of air safety and security in relation to commercial air travel between Australia and Laos. All aircraft and staff involved in commercial air travel between the two countries must be certified to the relevant international standard. In addition, the authorities of each country have the right to inspect aircraft and facilities operated by an airline from the other country for both safety and security reasons.
Each country has the right to suspend without notice the services of an airline of the other country if there is a safety or security problem.
At the moment, there are no direct commercial flights between Australia and Laos. However, the committee hopes that this agreement will encourage stronger commercial ties between the two countries.
Mutual legal assistance agreements establish formal mechanisms for cooperation between countries in the pursuit of criminal matters. Australia has 29 such agreements at present.
The agreement with Brazil will enable Australia and Brazil to cooperate in tackling serious and organised crime, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking, people smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism.
Specifically, these agreements establish a framework for requesting and considering a request for legal assistance in relation to a criminal matter. The assistance rendered can include:
taking evidence and statements;
providing documentary evidence, including government and court records;
locating persons and objects;
examining locations and sites;
search and seizure;
delivery of evidence or property;
arresting suspects;
serving documents; and
locating and forfeiting the proceeds of crime.
A number of checks and balances are included in the agreement.
In particular:
a request can only be accepted where the matter under investigation is considered to be a crime in both jurisdictions.
mutual consent is necessary for legal assistance, so Australia can choose not to cooperate if we wish.
In addition, a request can be denied if the requested party believes it to be motivated by political, racial, sexual or other prejudice, or if the request relates to a crime that is punished by the death penalty.
In relation to the death penalty, government witnesses advised that Brazil has not conducted an execution since 1855.
The final treaty considered in the report I am tabling today contains amendments to the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which is generally known by the acronym SOLAS.
SOLAS contains basic minimum requirements for the safe construction, equipping and operation of ships at sea.
The proposed amendments to SOLAS include:
additional steps to verify the weight of containers before they are loaded onto ships, including provisions for testing by Port State Authorities;
clarification of requirements relating to the fire safety equipment and machinery spaces on passenger ships; and
a new requirement for cargo ships to carry specialised atmospheric testing equipment on international voyages.
I can advise that the committee supports all the proposed treaty actions. The committee has recommended binding treaty action in relation to the air services agreement with Laos and the mutual legal assistance agreement with Brazil.
Amendments to SOLAS are deemed accepted by parties on a set date, so no recommendation is required.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:19): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Anthea Bradshaw-Hall is the daughter Martin and Ros and the sister of Craig and Paul. I acknowledge the presence of Martin and Ros, Craig and Paul, and other members of their family in the gallery today, but I sincerely regret that they have to be here at all. They are here because over 21 years ago their daughter, their sister, was murdered in Brunei. She was 26 years old and her whole life was ahead of her. They are here because no-one has ever been tried for Anthea's murder. Law enforcement agencies are confident that there is enough evidence to charge the only suspect and prosecute that person in Australia, but until this bill becomes law there could be no justice for Anthea. They are also here so that never again will an Australian family, having suffered the tragedy of a murder of their child overseas, have to wait 21 years to see the wheels of justice start to turn. It is a testament to the love of Anthea's family and their relentless pursuit of justice today that I move the second reading of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2015.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill will amend Division 115 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to provide for the retrospective application of offences of murder and manslaughter of an Australian citizen or resident overseas. This bill will enable prosecution of these offences in Australia under Australian law in certain circumstances. The bill will also include safeguards for the retrospective application of these offences. Division 115 of the Criminal Code currently provides for four offences resulting in harm to Australians, including murder, manslaughter, recklessly causing serious harm or intentionally causing serious harm to Australians. These offences have extraterritorial application and were enacted following the 2002 Bali bombings. The existing offences were given retrospective commencement of 45 days to apply from 1 October 2002.
These amendments will extend the operation of the offences of murder and manslaughter of an Australian citizen or resident of Australia overseas to crimes committed prior to 1 October 2002. The maximum penalty under the new laws will be life imprisonment for murder and 25 years for manslaughter. While there are a range of tools at the disposal of Australia's law enforcement agencies, these amendments will clarify that the crimes of murder and manslaughter of Australians can be prosecuted wherever and whenever they occur.
Due to their retrospective operation, the new offences include safeguards to ensure their compatibility with Australia's obligations under international law. Conduct constituting the offence must be an offence at the time of commission under the law of the country in which the conduct occurred. This is known as the 'dual criminality' requirement. A person convicted of the new offences will also have the benefit of the lowest applicable penalty for the offence as between the laws of Australia and the country in which the conduct occurred. This is known as the 'benefit of the lowest penalty' requirement. These two requirements ensure that Australia's criminal laws operate consistently with Australia's obligations under international law on the use of retrospective criminal offences.
As a further safeguard, and consistent with all other offences in division 115 of the Criminal Code, the Attorney-General's written consent is required to commence proceedings under these provisions. This is an important safeguard which enables the Attorney-General to consider the circumstances of a case prior to commencing prosecutions.
The genesis of this bill was a tragedy, but the bill will close a loophole that has allowed great injustice. It will help end the injustice suffered by the Bradshaw family for over 21 years and it will ensure that those who seek to harm Australians in the future know that they will be held to account in a court of law.
This bill was co-sponsored in the other place by the Attorney-General and Senator Nick Xenophon. Senator Xenophon introduced his own version of this bill in 2013, and I have been pleased to work with him and the Attorney to ensure the passage of this bill through both houses of parliament.
It was President Kennedy who said that things do not happen; things are made to happen. This bill will become law because the Bradshaw family, Senator Xenophon and I made it happen. The Bradshaws carry a burden that no family should have to, but I am very pleased that today, in the best traditions of this parliament, justice is closer for Anthea.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:24): I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2015. The bill extends the retrospective application of part of division 115 of the Criminal Code, offences which were introduced with Labor support in the aftermath of the Bali bombings to ensure that, if necessary, those responsible could be prosecuted in Australian courts for the atrocities they committed.
The new offences introduced in 2002—the murder, manslaughter and harming of Australians overseas—were given a very brief period of retrospective operation to ensure that they applied to the perpetrators of the Bali bombings. This bill, which passed the Senate last sitting week, will extend the retrospectivity of the most serious of those offences—murder and manslaughter. This legislation is therefore unusual in two respects: it operates both retrospectively and extraterritorially. This is uncommon in our legal system, and legislation of this kind ought be made only cautiously.
This bill follows an earlier private senator's bill with the same purpose, which was introduced by Senator Xenophon. That bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where difficulties with its unusual operation were highlighted in submissions by legal academics, members of the Rule of Law Institute, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Labor is satisfied that those concerns have been addressed in this new bill.
This bill now implements important safeguards to ensure that prosecutions are fair and that fundamental principles ensuring the integrity of our justice system are respected. It ensures that no-one can be tried in Australia for an offence of which they have already been convicted or acquitted in a foreign court. It ensures that no-one can be convicted for conduct which was not already criminal where and when it occurred. Importantly, it ensures that no-one can receive a penalty in Australia that is higher than that which applied in the relevant country at the time.
With these safeguards, no defendant could reasonably claim that the retrospective operation of these offences are unfair. For the families of Australians killed overseas, however, the measures in this bill will make all the difference.
Though the bill is of general application, it has its genesis in one tragic case. I do not want to comment on the details of that case but I do want to acknowledge the many years of advocacy by the family of Anthea Bradshaw-Hall which have culminated in this bill.
Where Australians are killed overseas and where the relevant authorities are unwilling or unable to bring those responsible to justice, Labor consider it proper that Australia takes steps to ensure that such criminal conduct does not go unpunished. In 2002, we were satisfied that the nature of the crimes committed against Australians in Bali justified the unusual step of retrospective and extraterritorial legislation. Today, we are satisfied that there is a need for a further extension of those measures to deal with a gap in Australia's criminal jurisdiction.
I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Science) (15:29): I originally started my speech in the last sitting week and I will continue from where I was up to when the debate was interrupted. What I would like to continue with today is making it very clear that the issues that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2015 deals with are very different and very clear cut. I believe there is a very real and widespread consensus in the community that direct, personal involvement in terrorist activities is a very obvious abrogation of one's responsibilities as a citizen.
Citizenship is something we offer to permanent residents as a means of pledging their allegiance to our nation. For those born here, it is a right which also confers a certain range of responsibilities. As the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection said in introducing this legislation:
This bill emphasises the central importance of allegiance to Australia in the concept of citizenship.
Australian citizenship is something to be treasured. It is a common bond which unites us all, whether we were born here or chose to make Australia our home. Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country, its people and its democratic rights and privileges. Australian citizenship should not be taken lightly.
Unlike many other nations, citizenship is encouraged and available for all permanent residents who meet the criteria. In 2013-14, a total of 163,017 people became Australian citizens by conferral. These new Australians came from at least 190 different countries, which clearly reflects our longstanding and very strong immigration program. Australia has a long, proud tradition of welcoming both migrants and refugees. The Australian public support a generous, orderly, humanitarian resettlement of refugees in greatest need around the world. There is greater confidence in this program now that this government has gained control of our borders and stopped illegal boat arrivals.
I want to focus for a moment on our record because there has been a lot of misrepresentation and an incredible amount of falsehood generated in the media about Australia's immigration program. It is central to the question of citizenship, of allegiance to our nation and, indeed, of the spirit in which we build a thriving, cohesive society. Let's be clear: last year, Australia resettled 13½ thousand people under refugee and humanitarian programs. On a per capita basis, we are the most generous refugee resettlement nation in the world. There are many nations across the world who offer no resettlement program for refugees—absolutely none. Australia is one of the fewer than 30 countries to offer resettlement through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia is actively engaged with the UNHCR on the broader humanitarian crisis occurring in many parts of the world. I absolutely refute the notion, very often put forward, that we are not pulling our weight.
I also refute the narrative, in some sections of the media, that our border protection policies are, in any way, hard-hearted. In fact, because of the success of our policy in restoring the integrity of our borders, the coalition government are increasing our offshore humanitarian program by almost 40 per cent. By 2018-19, places in resettlement programs will increase to 18,750. Of course, our government also committed earlier this year to taking in 12,000 extra refugees who have been displaced by the conflict in Syria and Iraq, and by the true humanitarian crisis created by the rise of ISIL militants in those areas. This is the largest intake of refugees since World War II. It is clearly an important part of our global responsibilities and our humanitarian approach. I certainly want to stress that word 'humanitarian'. The clearest evidence that our policies are, indeed, humanitarian in nature is the fact that we have stopped the deaths at sea. We have ended the policies that resulted in over 1,200 deaths at sea. It is important to remember that busting the people smugglers' model has saved lives. It has allowed us to resettle people who have been waiting in refugee camps. It is, by any measure, humanitarian. We remain, as we have always been, a welcoming nation that offers and encourages citizenship for permanent residents.
However, with this bill, we recognise that Australian citizenship is a common bond involving reciprocal rights and obligations and that citizens may, through their conduct, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia. The Citizenship Act currently already provides for loss of a dual national's Australian citizenship in very limited circumstances. This bill represents an expansion of the circumstances in which Australian citizenship can be lost. It is part of a multifaceted approach to countering the threats to national security and a rapidly changing world where threats are posed on a range of fronts, including at home. As we have said, the aim of this bill is to protect the Australian community, but it is also about putting stock in the concept of allegiance and underscoring the responsibilities that come with citizenship. These are important discussions that we ought to be having in the Australian community.
I believe sometimes that our brand of relaxed patriotism might be misinterpreted as some form of weakness by those who have contempt for our values and ideals. It most certainly is not. This bill underscores the fact that we have very strong expectations of our citizens when it comes to allegiance to our nation. Any involvement in terrorist activities is clearly against the national interest and in breach of the very basic responsibilities of citizenship.
On behalf of my constituents, I am very pleased to support this legislation and to commend this bill to the House.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:36): Before I was interrupted, I said that I thought it was important that we go over some of the process of how the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 arrived in this House. On 26 May this year, an article in TheSydney Morning Herald reported 'Cabinet revolt over Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton plan to strip Australians of citizenship'.
According to Peter Hartcher and James Massola's piece:
Six members of the Abbott cabinet have risen up against an extraordinary proposal to give a minister the power to strip an Australian of their sole citizenship.
The report goes on to say:
According to participants, Senator Brandis, in opposing the plan, told the cabinet meeting: "I am the Attorney-General. It is my job to stand for the rule of law."
Mr Joyce put to the meeting: "Isn't that what we have courts for?"
Mr Andrews is said to have pointed out to the meeting that, if concern about the proposal was so widespread, community concern was likely to be even greater.
Because the idea had divided cabinet's national security committee, it was not presented to Monday night's cabinet meeting as proposed law but as part of a "discussion paper".
The six-page discussion paper was distributed during the meeting, angering some that it had not been circulated in advance, as matters for cabinet are supposed to be. Mr Turnbull asked Mr Abbott in the meeting whether The Daily Telegraph had been briefed on the idea for Tuesday morning's newspaper, according to people present. Briefing the newspaper, a favoured channel for leaking the Prime Minister's moves in advance, would have effectively pre-empted the cabinet, which met from 7pm. Mr Abbott replied that the newspaper had not been briefed. Page five of the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday morning carried a report that said in part:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce today, after cabinet last night approved the policy, that a bill will be introduced before the end of June that would strip dual national terrorist sympathisers of their Australian citizenship.
This bill was then brought to the parliament on 24 June this year and was met with an array of concerns by the opposition and many leading constitutional experts.
The bill was then sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, which received a number of written submissions and evidence during hearings from constitutional experts. This process raised some very serious concerns about the constitutionality of this bill and explored whether it would be struck down by the High Court. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Chair and Deputy Chair of that committee, the members for Wannon and Holt respectively, and the work of committee member, the member for Isaacs. The committee heard a range of concerns from a number of witnesses. Constitutional expert Professor George Williams noted that the bill before the committee stage was the most 'problematically drafted bill' he had ever seen, with more constitutional problems in it than any he had given evidence on. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Professor Williams had "no doubt" such a law would be challenged in the High Court and had already been approached by "prominent solicitors" who had clients facing charges that are included in the bill.
"It's such an obvious one to bring a challenge to; I don't see why they wouldn't to escape loss of their citizenship."
The draft bill was also dissected by constitutional law professor Anne Twomey, who noted that the inclusion of minor offences suggests 'chaos' and inexperience in the drafting of the legislation. Professor Twomey told ABC radio:
If you intentionally destroy or damage any commonwealth property, that's it, you've automatically lost your citizenship.
As well as the committee process, the government launched a discussion paper entitled Australian citizenship—your right, your responsibility and held a number of public meetings. This process was led by the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and then Parliamentary Secretary to the Social Services Minister and the Attorney General, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, as well as the member for Berowra, who was appointed the special envoy for citizenship.
From day one this process has been plagued by inconsistency and inadequacy. Most notably, we are still waiting on the outcome of this process, despite the fact that this bill is now being debated. As part of this process, the government released a glossy booklet littered with errors of substance and also basic proofing errors. According to The Conversation website, which is instructive:
The Abbott government’s discussion paper on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship calls for a “national conversation” on the issue. Unfortunately, the paper is akin to a push-polling exercise. It is both tendentious and misleading.
Most of the paper is devoted to framing citizenship in a way that is conducive to the government’s proposal to strip dual nationals involved in terrorist activities of their citizenship. Notwithstanding the title–Australian Citizenship: Your Right, Your Responsibility–the paper repeatedly talks of citizenship as a privilege, not a right.
“Privilege” is intended to convey something that should be valued and cherished. But, in legal terms, a privilege is something the government confers and can take away.
In this second sense, the language of “privilege” pre-empts a central issue for debate. Is Australian citizenship “conditional” on a ministerial assessment that someone “deserves” it? Should it be revocable on ministerial suspicion that a person has committed an offence?
Should there be any doubt about the government’s answer, the paper concludes that the privileges of citizenship:
… are fundamentally linked to an ongoing commitment to Australia and participation in Australian society.
It says:
Citizenship is a contract by which we all abide.
I put it to this House, that this whole exercise was a deception. It was an attempt to give the appearance of consultation when in reality the government had predetermined the outcome. It is a disgraceful way to treat this vitally important aspect of our democracy and identity. The flaws in this process do not stop with this booklet. According to the border.gov.au website, submissions to the discussion paper closed on 30 June 2015. These submissions have never been made public, and according to a range of stakeholders in the settlements and multicultural areas whom I have spoken to, many did not even know the process was underway.
Then on 20 August 2015, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the then parliamentary secretary and the member for Berowra held a press conference announcing they would be conducting public meetings on the discussion paper—the discussion paper that had already stopped receiving submissions. Again, this process was rushed and lacked direction. The announcement, as I said, was on 20 August and the first meeting was held in Hurstville on 24 August. I am also reliably informed that the meeting in Tasmania was predominantly comprised of departmental staff. On top of all this, the government has still not produced a final report or response to this process. The government has failed to make the submissions public, it has failed to properly consult with the sector and it has not got anything to show for it—and here we are debating a bill that this process should have informed.
It is no surprise that sections of the community are left scratching their heads. As reported by Sarah Martin in The Australian on Monday:
Community advocacy group Muslim Voice said the government should wait until it considered the findings of a national consultation process tasked with gauging community views on potential changes to citizenship laws and the "privileges and responsibilities" of Australian citizenship.
According to Australian Muslim Voice President, Diana Abdel-Rahman:
All of that work has been done: if it is not actually going to be taken seriously, then what was the purpose?
This process has been a complete debacle. It was an attempt to give the impression of consultation when in fact there was no meaningful consultation going on. I call on the government to release these submissions and a response to them. If people went to the trouble to participate, we should at least recognise the value in that.
I now turn to the substance of the bill. From the outset, Labor made it clear that we were willing to support a sensible updating of our citizenship laws, which recognises that those who take up arms against Australia should lose their citizenship. We believe that the legislation introduced by the government—and with the recommended changes set out by the PJCIS—represents a faithful updating of those laws. This means that only persons who have been convicted of a terrorist related offence or who are overseas collaborating with terrorist organisations can have their citizenship revoked. This represents a far narrower and more targeted set of amendments than those which were first considered by the cabinet and the National Security Committee back in May.
We think that this package does represent a sensible updating of our laws that deal with a legitimate national security concern: that, unfortunately, we have Australians who today are fighting in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. When that conflict is over, the relationship between those people and our country will confront us with difficult issues that we will have to face. The parliament has been dealing with this over the last couple of years. The foreign fighters legislation is an example of that, and these amendments, this package, represents another tool we can provide to our national security agencies to allow them to keep us safe.
At the same time, there has been considerable anxiety amongst many Australians that this debate might somehow render dual citizens as lesser Australians. This must never be the case and I say firmly to the Australian people that Labor will never allow this to be so. Dual citizens are just as Australian as anybody else, and it is very important that nothing is put before the parliament that seeks to erode that principle. We believe that this package honours the status of all Australians while dealing with a very complex issue.
A number of constitutional questions have been raised by legal experts during the course of the hearings of the committee. We frankly retain some anxiety in relation to the constitutionality of this legislation, but I note the letter that has been provided to the committee by the Attorney-General assuring the government's confidence in the constitutionality of this bill. In his letter to the committee the Attorney-General states:
I can assure you that the Government has received advice from the Solicitor-General, Mr Justin Gleeson SC, that, in his opinion, there is a good prospect that a majority of the High Court would reject a constitutional challenge to the core aspects of the draft Bill.
It certainly would have been better if the Solicitor-General's advice had been provided to the committee, as requested, but given the national security issues involved in this, Labor will not stand in the way of this legislation on this issue alone. Suffice to say, at the end of the day it is for this government to ensure legislation it puts before the parliament is constitutional. That is an issue for the government.
In summing up, the Labor Party has always agreed with the principle of this legislation. It makes sense to update our laws to reflect the times, as unfortunate as that requirement may be. I will reiterate how troubling the process has been, by the government, to get to this point. It has been characterised by incompetence and, in some cases, cheap politics. I would have thought something so important would have been treated with more contemplation and care.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (15:47): The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 proposes amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that individuals holding the citizenship of one or more nations in addition to their Australian citizenship—dual nationals—and who contravene Australian laws by participating in armed activity with terrorist organisations, or engage in terrorism-related actions sanctioned by terrorist groups will stand to lose their Australian citizenship.
Recent tragic events in France have focused international attention and galvanised global resolve to combat terrorism. This represents a crackdown on individuals who fail to comply with the oath or affirmation subscribed to at citizenship ceremonies, which requires citizens to be loyal to Australia and obey the laws of our nation. It prevents hardened criminals trained in insurgent techniques, such as the use of improvised explosive devices, from re-entering our borders with radicalised ideas and deadly skills. These measures are intended to spare the taxpayers of Australia from the significant costs of long-term incarceration in maximum security correctional facilities, and access to welfare. In the main, the persons affected were originally foreign nationals who acquired Australian Citizenship and subsequently betrayed our nation.
The principal international instrument relevant to dual citizenship is the 1930 Hague convention. A first point of principle in this convention is that dual nationality was considered undesirable. Even though the Hague convention was drafted at a time when the ideal was generally perceived as being that every person should have one citizenship only, dual citizenship has long been recognised in international law.
The world environment and attitudes have changed considerably since the Hague convention was signed by Australia, and especially over the last 10 to 15 years. There is vastly greater mobility of people and increased incidence of people living and working in foreign countries for extended periods. Australians, like others, are often required to acquire citizenship overseas for business, social and cultural reasons, obtain employment or to reside with non-Australian citizen spouses. There is greater acceptance in the modern, globalised world, that individuals may be citizens of more than one country and satisfactorily meet their duties as citizens in relation to each country. However there are currently more than 39 countries that prohibit their nationals from holding dual citizenship.
As a child migrant to Australia I was for a time a dual-citizen, as the minimum age for renouncing citizenship in Singapore is 21 years of age. After attaining the age of majority, I formally renounced my Singaporean citizenship, through the Singapore High Commission here in Canberra, more than 10 years ago when arranging my passport at the time of making my first overseas trip as an Australian citizen. I knew that my first allegiance was and still remains to Australia. Little did I know at the time that renunciation paved the way for me to be elected to this House, satisfying section 44 of the Australian Constitution.
Under the provisions of this bill, dual nationals who are convicted of specific terrorism-related offences will potentially face the loss of their Australian citizenship. These offences are detailed in section 33AA of the act, which provides that a person who is a dual national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct including: engaging in international terrorist activities; using arms, explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training in connection with the preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism or a terrorist; or engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. The provisions will apply to individuals who have engaged in relevant conduct offshore, or who have engaged in relevant conduct onshore and left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct.
Furthermore, the provisions apply to conduct engaged in: with the specific intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; with the intention of supporting, promoting or engaging in a hostile activity in another country; or on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation. A proposed new section 35A provides a power for the minister to revoke a person's citizenship once they have been convicted of a relevant offence and upon consideration of other relevant criteria. Loss of citizenship is not automatic upon conviction.
At a time when our national security and law enforcement agencies are involved in more than 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations and surveillance of multiple suspects, the need to protect our national security is of paramount importance. Since September 2014 there have been three terrorist attacks inspired by Islamic State within Australia. Six planned attacks against innocent civilians within Australia have been disrupted. This alarming trend is rising. Within a recent nine-month period alone the same number of Australian citizens have been arrested in counter-terrorism operations as were arrested in the 14 years since 2001.
At the beginning of this year the government published a list of 20 terrorist organisations outlawed in Australia under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The listing of an organisation under the Criminal Code makes it an offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, recruit for, train for and receive training from that organisation. It is also a criminal offence to get funds to, from or for or provide support to and associate with members of that organisation.
Under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review listings of terrorist organisations. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently conducting inquiries to review the relisting of five terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, including: al-Shabaab; the Kurdistan Workers' Party; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the Hamas sponsored lzz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
It is estimated that there are up to 250 Australian citizens who have departed from Australia as foreign fighters for terrorist organisations and that between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the Australians fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq are dual nationals. Approximately 50 per cent of criminals convicted of major terrorism offences are dual nationals. Why should our nation continue to afford the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship to criminals who act against our national interest, endanger our national security and do not meet the community expectations of mainstream Australians?
The advent of international terrorist groups has changed the ground rules. Our country does not have to be formally at war with a sovereign nation; rather, we are confronted with terrorist groups employing the tactics of guerrilla warfare against states. The enemy is difficult to identify and does not conform to established rules or military convention. This has manifested itself in the most brutal and barbaric conduct, including the targeting of innocent civilians, beheadings, crucifixions, torture, bombings, kidnap and rape. As a government we have a duty to ensure that these acts of terror do not spread to the Australian mainland and that we protect our homeland security.
The proposed amendments are necessary to modernise our current laws, which only strip dual nationals of their Australian citizenship if they serve with a foreign army at war with Australia. Section 19 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 states that:
An Australian citizen who, under the law of a foreign country, is a national or citizen of that country and serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia shall, upon commencing so to serve, cease to be an Australian citizen.
Despite being involved in a number of armed conflicts since 1949, Australia has not declared a formal state of war on another sovereign nation in that period. Hence section 19 has not been required up to now.
Every new citizen takes the citizenship pledge, which is a solemn oath:
From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
Swearing or affirming an oath is a legally binding process which must be enforceable at law and actually mean something. There are many thousands of deserving and worthy people waiting in the queue to become Australian citizens. Dual nationals engaged in terrorist activities do not deserve to be afforded the rights and privileges of Australian citizens, such as freedom of entry into Australia, immunity from deportation, access to social security benefits or taxpayer funded legal aid. The public should not have to bear the substantial cost of trials, legal aid and incarcerating these criminals in Australian maximum security correctional facilities for long-term life sentences.
The duties and responsibilities expected of all Australian citizens include: obeying the law; participating in employment and paying taxes; defending Australia by enlisting in the Australian defence forces should the need arise; and voting at elections and referenda. Persons swearing the oath have a legally enforceable obligation to be loyal to Australia, comply with Australian laws and not commit acts which are prejudicial to Australia's national interests. Those who fail to uphold their oath or affirmation must be held to account. The coalition government is introducing this legislation to ensure that this overwhelmingly held community expectation is upheld. It is fair to say that the vast majority of law-abiding migrants wholeheartedly support this legislation. As new citizens, they have chosen to commit their allegiance to Australia and they have little tolerance for individuals who diminish the reputation of the migrant community through their participation in terrorist activities.
Various lobby groups have raised concerns about this legislation, believing that it is too harsh or draconian. When it comes to national security, the interests of the vast majority of Australian citizens must take precedence over the rights of dual nationals who have broken an oath, displayed treasonous conduct and been disloyal to Australia. The provisions contained in the proposed legislation are consistent with Australia's international treaty obligations and will not leave a person stateless. The proposed legislation does not exclude the role of the courts. Persons who have lost citizenship may seek a judicial review on the facts. In addition, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant an exemption if there is a law enforcement or security imperative.
In summary, this bill proposes amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that dual nationals who are convicted of specific terrorism related offences will face the loss of their Australian citizenship. Individuals who are also nationals or citizens of a country other than Australia renounce their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in terrorist activities using arms, explosive or lethal devices; engaging in terrorist acts; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting, financing or providing training for terrorism. In the interests of preserving Australia's national security, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:01): I do not know whether I am going to be on my own in this place in doing so, but I will be opposing the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. I will be opposing this bill because it will do nothing to make Australia safer. It will divide us into two classes of citizens based on whether you have dual nationality or not and it will trash one of the most fundamental principles of civil law and the English constitutional system that we have taken for granted for many years—that is, if you are born in the country, you are a citizen of the country, and it is not the parliament's prerogative to take it away.
If you are born in Australia, you are a citizen of Australia. If you do something wrong by breaking the law, you get prosecuted and, if you are convicted, you get locked up. It is called the rule of law. Under the rule of law you get a trial and, if you are found guilty, you suffer the consequences. That is as it should be. That is the case whether you commit a parking offence, a murder or terrorist-related offences. That is as it should be as well. This bill takes a further step and says: if you commit a certain category of offences and you happen to also be a dual national, the Minister for Immigration and Border Control can decide that you are no longer a citizen.
I do not know that there many people who were born in Australia who would look at the immigration minister at the moment and say, 'I trust him to decide whether I get to remain a citizen or not.' People would say, 'If you are convicted of an offence, you do your time.' If you are convicted of one of the most heinous terrorism related offences, a legitimate terrorist offence where you have been convicted of causing or threatening to cause harm to the Australian people, expect to go away for a long time. That is what most people would expect. But I do not think people would expect to go somewhere we have never gone before—that is, to say that the immigration minister can now, with the stroke of a pen, take away your citizenship as well.
There is absolutely no evidence that this bill is going to make us any safer. Even a moment's reflection would make you understand why. If you are someone who wishes to do so much harm to people in Australia that you want to kill them, plant a bomb or go to the point where perhaps you are prepared to kill yourself, as we have tragically seen around the world far too often recently, do you really think the fact that the immigration minister might be able to take away your citizenship is going to change your mind? If you are prepared to kill yourself as you take out the lives of others around you, a law like this is going to do nothing to stop you from taking that heinous, barbaric step.
That is why, when you scrutinise this bill, you struggle to find any evidence in support of it. But you find many people whose job it is in civil society to stand up to parliamentarians at times when emotion could get the better of this place and say: 'No. Hang on. You need some sober judgement. If you are going to change laws with respect to citizenship, do not breach'—they pleaded with us—'the fundamental principle that someone who was born here remains a citizen unless they choose to voluntarily renounce it. Do not breach that.' That is coming from defenders of some of the most basic legal and human rights institutions in our country. They have come forward and said that this bill is dangerously and irreparably flawed. Coming, as it does, in this current political context, it is deeply unfortunate that we are being asked to pass this bill and rush it through.
In the aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris, Waleed Aly gave a speech on The Project that I think summarised and spoke to where most of the Australian population is at. It is worth reminding ourselves of what he said because it is germane to exactly this kind of bill and exactly this kind of response from parliamentarians. He said:
…there's no doubt that [Paris] was an Islamist terrorist attack, probably executed under ISIL's flag. What we don't know yet is if the attack was planned, ordered or funded by ISIL's leaders in Syria, because the problem is - this is what ISIL do.
They take credit for any act of terrorism on Western soil so that they appear bigger and tougher than they actually are. They did the same thing last year with the shooting at Canada's Parliament, and when a bloke ran around New York with a hatchet attacking people. And again with the Sydney siege. ISIL didn't control these guys. They were DIY terrorists who recruited themselves, but ISIL don't want you to know that. How do I know? Because ISIL told us that they don't want you to know that in their monthly magazine. In October last year they wrote, "It is important that the killing becomes attributed to patrons of the Islamic State who have obeyed its leadership. This can easily be done with anonymity. Otherwise, crusader media makes such attacks appear to be random killings."
There's a reason ISIL want to appear so powerful. The reality is all the land they control has been taken from weak enemies. They're pinned down by airstrikes and just last weekend they lost a significant part of their territory.
Peter Jennings said:
They really don't have the capacity to hit back against the combat aircraft of the west.
Waleed Aly continued:
ISIL don't want you to know they would be quickly crushed if they ever faced a proper army on a real battlefield. They want you to fear them. They want you to get angry. They want all of us to become hostile. And here's why; ISIL's strategy is to split the world into two camps. It's that black and white. Again we know this because they told us.
Last year they declared, "there is no grayzone in this crusade against the Islamic State, ... the world has split into two encampments, one for the people of faith, the other for the people of disbelief, all in preparation for the final Great War." They want to start World War III; a global war between Muslims and everyone else. That's what they want to create. They want societies like France, and here in Australia, to turn on each other.
They want countries like ours to reject their Muslims AND vilify them.
ISIL leaders would be ecstatic to hear that since the atrocity in Paris, Muslims have been threatened and attacked in England , America, and here in Australia. Because this evil organisation has it in their heads that if they can make Muslims the enemy of the West, then Muslims in France, England, America and here in Australia will have nowhere to turn, but to ISIL. That's exactly what they did in Iraq and now they want to go global. Saying that out loud; it's both dumbfounding in its stupidity and blood-curdling in its barbarity.
We're all feeling a million raging emotions right now. I'm angry at these terrorists. I'm sickened by the violence. I'm crushed for the families that have been left behind. But I won't be manipulated. We all need to come together. I know how that sounds. It's a cliché. But it's also true, because it's exactly what ISIL doesn't want. If you are a member of parliament (or has-been member of parliament), preaching hate at a time when we need love, you're helping ISIL. They've told us that.
If you're a Muslim leader telling your community they have no place here, or a non-Muslim basically saying the same thing, you're helping ISIL. They've told us that. Or whether you're just someone with a Facebook or Twitter account firing off misguided missives of hate, you're just helping ISIL. They've told us that. And I'm pretty sure, right now, none of us want to help these bastards.
That is what the Australian people are feeling, and that is spot on. That is why it is so disappointing that this Tony Abbott era piece of legislation is being brought before the parliament this week, where we are being asked to say, 'Even if you were born here, if you happen to have a dual nationality, you are now going to have less rights than everybody else and the immigration minister can just take away your citizenship.' That is sending precisely the wrong message at precisely the wrong time. It is exactly in these moments that we must defend the principles that are under attack. Those principles include a very basic one which is that if you are born in a country, you are a citizen of that country, and it is not up to a minister of the day to decide to take that away. Do something wrong and expect to be prosecuted; expect even to go to jail—potentially, for a very long time. But to say all of a sudden, 'You are now no longer a citizen,' is, everyone else is telling us, a bridge too far.
I urge the government to listen to what the Prime Minister said at the start of question time today, because that was the response, in many respects, that people were looking for. That is exactly the kind of response that the country wants. The country does not want us to start creating two classes of citizens. The country does not want us in this parliament to start giving up the basic rights that have been fought for and that now, many are arguing, are under attack.
I am not prepared to give up a fundamental principle about the relationship between citizens and the state. I am prepared to join with every other member, I think, of this parliament to say that people who want to do us harm deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on them. But this legislation is not going to make us safer. It is going to divide people and it is a bridge too far.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (16:12): Today, I rise not only to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 but to strongly support it. This bill provides three new ways for a dual national to lose their citizenship. In this current geopolitical climate, where nations like Canada and the United Kingdom are adopting new measures to protect their communities from terrorists and their supporters and sympathisers, the coalition government is committed to keeping our community safe from those who seek do us harm.
The events in Paris and the airliners that have been brought down by terrorists show a disturbing state occurring across the globe. It is also disturbing that, in only nine months, 23 Australian citizens have been arrested in counter-terrorism operations. It is even more disturbing that our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high priority counter-terrorism investigations. My constituents in Paterson deserve to feel safe as they go about their everyday lives—as, indeed, do all Australians. If someone leaves our sovereign borders to join a terrorist organisation abroad, they have spat on the face of our nation and the democratic rights, freedoms and benefits that this nation provides to them. These are the very freedoms that our forefathers fought to secure with blood that has been spilt for our golden shores. And they spit in our face!
There is no doubt that terrorism is a growing threat to the Australian people, and we want to get this right. That is why the government asked the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP and Senator the Hon. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells to chair the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review this bill. This government takes citizenship very seriously. For too long, we have focused on giving those who may pose a threat to our country the benefit of the doubt. Currently, extensive processes with lengthy investigations mean that our security agencies cannot act with the speed and precision required to prevent a potential attack.
This bill provides three new ways in which dual nationals can lose their citizenship. For the first time, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will oversee the automatic revocation of citizenship for persons engaging in relevant conduct. Relevant conduct pertains to a person who acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in terrorist conduct. The current loss of citizenship provision for a person fighting in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia will be extended. Importantly, under this bill, a person's citizenship will automatically cease if they fight on behalf of or serve a terrorist organisation overseas. This extension of the existing rules is critical and crucial, as terrorist organisations such as the ISIS death cult are not countries or states.
The proposed measures in this bill will be automatic. After being briefed by the relevant intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will issue a notice that the person has ceased being a citizen. It is not a decision of the minister alone; it is acting on the expert advice of our agencies. It is important to note that the minister can determine when it is appropriate to notify the person to avoid any interference with investigations. This process removes the need for the minister to act based on a formal security assessment. Tragically, as we have learned repeatedly in the last twelve months, individuals planning terrorist attacks on Australian people often have no training and can act very quickly. These days, lone-wolf-style attacks only require a knife, a camera, a phone and a victim.
As I mentioned before, this government is focused on getting this right. That is why the bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. As part of the process, members of the public were invited to make submissions on the bill. The consultation examined residency requirements and the citizenship test and pledge, as well as the possibility for certain Australian citizens to lose privileges such as social security payments and consular assistance. Submissions closed in mid-July during the parliamentary winter recess.
After a person's citizenship ceases, the process to return them to their country of nationality would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Suitably, the bill contains provision for ministerial discretion to exempt a person if it is in the public interest to do so. Children of parents who have their citizenship revoked will not automatically lose their citizenship; however, they could lose their citizenship if they engage in relevant conduct themselves. Importantly, a person who has his or her citizenship revoked will be able to seek a judicial review of the facts. This bill is about sensible yet strong action against those who seek to cause harm to the Australian community by engaging in terrorist conduct.
The bill follows the same path as some of our closest political allies around the world, with many nations facing the threat of terrorism by organisations like ISIS, as we saw in Paris. In 2014, the United Kingdom passed legislation that could, under the direction of the UK's Home Secretary, deprive a person of their citizenship on a number of grounds. These grounds include conduct that is not conducive to the public good and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the UK's vital interests. Under this legislation, the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person could acquire another nationality. Similar to the bill before this House, the United Kingdom's legislation cannot render a person stateless. Canada and the United Kingdom ratified the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1966 and 1978 respectively. Australia ratified this convention in 1973. In this current climate, it is imperative that we stay one step ahead of would-be terrorists.
As was mentioned in the national security statement earlier in the year, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing. The number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremist groups overseas is increasing and, disturbingly, the number of potential terrorists in Australia is increasing. The government's highest priority is keeping the community safe from those who seek to do us harm. This is a topic I am incredibly passionate about for a plethora of reasons. Our national security is paramount and must remain on the forefront of our discussions within this House.
The values and freedoms that we sometimes take for granted must exist in a just and humane society where the role of law and justice is maintained and its integrity preserved. As a nation, we are currently facing one of our greatest challenges to these freedoms through the emergence of a number of brutal terrorist organisations that threaten our basic ingrained freedoms. They threaten our livelihood and they threaten our way of life. As a nation, in the wake of a number of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, we must rally together with a renewed vigour to stop those threats and to take the necessary measures and steps to counteract them.
If someone in our nation leaves to join a terrorist army abroad, the government does not want that person back; the people of Australia do not want that person back. We will stop the return of terrorists, especially those who are dual citizens, through taking away their Australian passport. This is to protect the people of Australia. If you leave our nation to partake in terrorist activity, we will ensure, as far as is practically possible, that you do not return. There is no place in our nation for terrorists who hate our country—yet have sought all the benefits of this nation—and have then gone and joined a fighting terrorist organisation and betrayed our country and committed a treasonous offence against us and our shores. We have no tolerance for actions such as these. There is no place for people who want to do Australians harm simply because of the fact that we are Australian and we enjoy democratic rights and freedoms.
Those fighting against our Defence forces are fighting against all Australia. It is against the law in our nation to take up arms in order to fight and advocate for terrorism. In the action of leaving our nation to join arms with a militant organisation, radicalised individuals—terrorists—have made an active choice. Through doing this, especially if they are dual nationals, they have renounced their Australian citizenship. They will not be permitted back here.
As a government, we have recently taken stringent measures, through cancelling over 115 Australian passports. These are measures we have taken to stop radicalised Australians travelling to conflict zones. These measures are designed to deter individuals who have been radicalised. At the very heart of our efforts as a government, we are acutely aware that directly tackling the drivers of extremism and the radicalisation process at its infancy, even before this, is where we must consolidate our efforts.
I have had overwhelming feedback from my constituents. I will read an extract from a letter my office received recently:
I am writing to you to plead with your judgement and wisdom, in the matter of these Australian Citizens attempting to return to Australia after fighting against our troops. Traitors, to our Nation. They have proved their intentions by sneaking out of our country. They will only be an enormous burden to our economy and way of life. Not to mention, when in prison, they will recruit more idiots. They have made their bed, now it's time for them to lay in it and stay away.
An extract from an email my electorate office received states:
The stripping of people who want to join criminals/terrorists of their citizenship must be as harsh as possible. Anyone who wants to bite the hand that has fed them for many years do not deserve to return here and become "sleepers" with another agenda.
Some very passionate correspondence I received by letter states:
What's it going take any of you to DO THE RIGHT THING, some innocent person, Policeman/woman, Department of Defence Personnel being beheaded, PLEASE, get some bottle, show strength and do like those in those European Countries which have suddenly realised that some within the Muslin community are BAD, yeas Bad! and have started to get tough by deporting those who offend against their countries laws - WILL YOU, as a Government, DO THE SAME, the way things are going I HAVE A GREAT FEAR, that you won't, and just buckle to the whims and wants of the Muslim population here.
DON'T END UP BEING A WEAK GOVERNMENT, DO SOMETHING, PROTECT YOUR CITIZENS, too late when there is blood on the street! A Very Concerned Aussie.
Those are but some of the comments that have been made, yet those comments were received before what happened in Paris and before the airliner was brought down over Egypt. If these comments made by constituents in my electorate of Paterson are anything to go by, fears about the threat of returning foreign terrorist fighters to Australia are real and present throughout our Australian shores. People are genuinely concerned about the threat of foreign fighters returning to our region and carrying out violent extremist acts here on our soil. These threats have garnered a strong response from our country, and through measures such as the passport legislation we are achieving integrity in the passport process.
The Prime Minister announced yesterday that, pursuant to section 35 of the Citizenship Act, we as a government are creating new circumstances under which dual nationals who are terrorists will forfeit their citizenship. As the Prime Minister announced, one way whereby Australian citizenship is lost is renunciation by conduct, so if you engage in terrorism against Australia with a foreign army, you will automatically forfeit your citizenship. The second avenue is revocation by conviction, so if you are convicted of a terrorist offence there will be an assumption that your Australian citizenship is forfeited, should you be a dual national.
To end, using a line coined by the Prime Minister, 'As Australians, we will never, ever sacrifice our freedoms, but we will defend them.' In representing my electorate of Paterson, in the Hunter region of New South Wales, I not only commend this bill to the House; I strongly commend this bill to the House.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:26): I wish to place on record my deep level of concern about the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill. I am grateful to the many learned people who made submissions to the inquiry undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I note that some of the concerns expressed were taken into account in the PJC recommendations and have resulted in a bill that is significantly improved from the original bill in terms of being narrower in scope and providing for some review and oversight. I thank the Labor members of the PJC for their efforts in achieving those amendments. Notwithstanding those improvements, I believe the bill is still likely to be judged unconstitutional. In my view, the bill remains contrary to the rule of law and the principles of natural justice and so should not be passed by this parliament.
The government is deceiving the Australian community by presenting this bill as a relatively minor update to the existing Citizenship Act, under which a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they are a foreign national and serve in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. The government says this bill merely extends those provisions to include anyone who fights overseas for a declared terrorist organisation. But, even with the recent improvements, the bill is much broader than that. New section 33AA provides for renunciation by conduct, which means a dual citizen automatically renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in terrorist activity. As a result of a recommendation from the intelligence committee, this provision has been amended to limit the operation of the section to persons who have engaged in relevant conduct offshore or to those who have engaged in conduct onshore but left Australia before being brought to trial in respect of that conduct. Although we are informed that this provision is intended to deal with a person who has committed a terrorist act and then fled the country, this is not what the bill actually provides. Under the wording of the bill, a dual citizen who leaves the country for any reason—for example, a week's holiday in Bali—could have their citizenship terminated without trial simply because they are out of the country. In the case where authorities believe a dual citizen has acted in a manner inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia but where the evidence may not be sufficient to convict them of a relevant serious terrorist offence under section 35A, the new section 33AA could allow authorities to wait until the person leaves the country for any reason and then proceed with the automatic renunciation of citizenship. The government might say this is not the intended operation that provision, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent this scenario occurring. The Law Council of Australia, in its submission to the intelligence committee, commented:
… the scheme may be used to avoid the long-standing judicial procedures for testing and challenging evidence in criminal trials that normally apply before a person is presumed to have engaged in unlawful conduct and substantially deprived of their liberty. the scheme may be used to avoid the longstanding judicial procedures for testing and challenging evidence in criminal trials that normally applied before a person is presumed to have engaged in unlawful conduct and substantially deprived of their liberty. This may increase the likelihood of error and mean that innocent persons are mistakenly captured. For this reason, loss of citizenship should ideally only occur after a conviction by a court. This is particularly important where a person is in Australia and the alleged conduct is said to have occurred within Australia and difficulties with foreign evidence are minimal.
Also, as the Australian Human Rights Commission noted in its submission, automatic termination of citizenship means that an individual's circumstances and the relative seriousness of their conduct would not be taken into account. The practice of automatically nullifying a person's citizenship may be justified and make sense in some contexts, as explained by constitutional law Professor Ann Twomey, whose submission to the intelligence committee states:
When the concept of renunciation or loss of citizenship was first formalised in Australian legislation, citizenship was automatically lost as a consequence of 'a voluntary and formal act' of acquiring citizenship of another country, making a formal declaration pronouncing Australian citizenship, serving in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia and residing outside of Australia for a certain period of time. Each of these acts was readily proved by objective facts usually in the possession of governments.
But, as Professor Twomey has noted,
…when it comes to questions of personal intention and knowledge as to matters such as what any training might be used for or what money might be used for, then these would normally be matters that need to be proved before any action could be taken, and could therefore not be triggers for automatic termination of citizenship—at least not without a procedure for determining the facts.
On the question of whether a person has intentionally engaged in conduct inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia, the notion of automatic renunciation is nonsensical: only a human being can make the necessary judgement about the facts that underlie that question of intention before a decision can be made to revoke citizenship. Revocation does not happen magically courtesy of the universe.
From a constitutional point of view, any determination that a person has engaged in criminal conduct with the requisite intention sounds very much like a power that can only be exercised by a court under the doctrine of separation of powers as elucidated by the High Court. In terms of the natural justice aspects of section 33AA, the Law Council notes that its Rule of Law Principles require that 'executive decision making should be subject to meaningful judicial review'.
It is true that the bill does provide that a notice regarding renunciation of citizenship must be given to the person as soon as practicable and that such notice should set out the person's rights of review. Unfortunately, the bill also provides that the minister may decide not to give such notice if he or she is satisfied that this 'could prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia'! Given that in such cases a determination has already been made by the executive that a person has engaged in terrorist conduct, it is hard to conceive a situation where the minister would not be satisfied that such a notice could prejudice security, defence or international relations. The minister is not required to have regard to any particular criteria in making this determination. The only responsibility on the minister is to consider whether to revoke such determination every six months. This is far from amounting to the judicial review required under our rule of law.
In my view, section 33AA, which provides for renunciation of citizenship through conduct and does not require a conviction, is unnecessary and, worse, is contrary to the Rule of Law Principles with regard to the presumption of innocence, the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the administrative law principles applicable to the exercise of discretionary administrative powers which affect persons' rights and interests, as well as constitutional issues of separation of powers.
Similar concerns regarding constitutionality and compliance with the rule of law exist with regard to section 35, which concerns 'automatic' renunciation of citizenship due to fighting for, or being in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. As with section 33AA, the notion of automatic renunciation is nonsense, given that it will necessarily involve a determination by authorities about the conduct undertaken and whether that constitutes fighting or 'being in the service of' a terrorist organisation.
Some people would argue that any involvement with a terrorist organisation is grounds enough to revoke someone's citizenship, but putting aside the very important question of establishing through a fair process that such conduct has in fact occurred, it is also worth thinking about the complexities already present in the current conflict in the Middle East. For example, in Iraq and Syria, there is a multiplicity of groups operating on the ground, not least the murderous Assad regime itself, and there have already been instances where our military efforts are in alignment with groups on the ground like the PYD that have clear associations with listed terrorist organisations. The issue of whose side Australia is on at any one time is murky at best.
The provision of a personal power vested in the minister to rescind a notice advising a dual citizen that their Australian citizenship has been revoked does not cure the flaw in this bill. There is no obligation on the minister to consider whether to rescind and no mechanism by which such a consideration can be triggered. The rules of natural justice are excluded for the exercises of ministerial power in the bill. Furthermore, as Professor Ben Saul of the University of Sydney observed in his submission, the bill may, with some bitter irony, facilitate terrorism and encourage impunity for terrorist crimes in that
Australian 'terrorists' may remain free to commit terrorism overseas and enjoy an increased likelihood of impunity for their crimes. Foreign fighters who wish to return to Australia would no longer be subject to law enforcement measures in Australia designed to neutralize or contain the threat they pose, such as by arrest, prosecution and imprisonment; imposition of anti-terrorism control orders; surveillance; or deradicalization and rehabilitation strategies. Foreign fighters who wish to remain overseas would no longer be subject to efforts by Australian law enforcement to secure their return to face justice in Australia, such as by extradition, mutual legal assistance, or removal/deportation to Australia.
More generally on the issue of citizenship, I wish to quote an article by John Menadue, former Secretary of the Department of Immigration in the Fraser government, written on 6 August 2015 and titled 'Don't tamper with citizenship':
There are good reasons why we should not tamper with citizenship. Citizenship is a critical and unifying national symbol and should not be used to address alleged short-term problems. Acts committed by Australians should be punished under criminal law and if the law is not effective for the job it should be strengthened. …
A key principle of all citizenship is that people of many different backgrounds can become good and loyal Australian citizens. In the present situation that means that Muslims, like others, can become good Australian citizens. It is belief in that principle that holds this country together. If we debase that principle we should not be surprised that many people, particularly young people with origins in the Middle East, might decide that they have no future in this country. …
As Malcolm Turnbull has said, citizenship revocation should not be a 'bravado' issue and used to weaken our rule of law. Government bravado and promotion of fear is making us less safe. It is undermining citizenship.
I also want to mention the contribution of Professor Kim Rubenstein, who in her evidence to the committee said the following:
I see citizenship as being something much more profound. There are better ways and more appropriate ways for us as a nation to be dealing with concerns about terrorism in a globalised world. I think that even more particularly, in relation to the fact that the Bill is targeting dual citizens in a multicultural nation, the consequence of that will actually be counterproductive to the very principles of trying to create an inclusive society where members of the community are not attracted to terrorist activities or to activities against the Western liberal democratic system.
Both these contributions speak eloquently to the foundational damage that lies in the hasty, reactive, ill-considered and, more than likely, ineffective changes that this bill sets out to make. Some estimates suggest that fully one fifth of all Australians are either dual citizens or eligible to be dual citizens. That is a lot of people potentially affected by this bill. When new citizens take the oath or affirmation, they state:
From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
In my view there have been a number of actions taken by this government that run counter to the rights and liberties that new citizens are asked to respect—and, ironically, this bill would be one of them. What is more, while we rightly ask that citizens uphold and obey Australia's laws, this bill runs counter to long-established principles of the rule of law. On the question of allegiance to any nation it is worth remembering that the notion of allegiance has meant different things at different times throughout our history. I was reminded, during the course of the recent Centenary of Anzac commemorations, that our troops departed to the waving of the Union Jack—and we participated in that war as British subjects.
We should remember, too, the policy of internment that was applied to Australians of Italian, German and Japanese descent in the course of the Second World War. That was a time that could genuinely be described as a period in which the fate of entire nations and the safety of their citizens was at threat. Yet now we rightly look back with regret on the decision made to mistreat and intern thousands of Australian residents as 'enemy aliens' or 'naturalised persons of enemy origins', including many born in Australia. We should not make the mistake of believing that we are incapable in 2015 of similar errors of judgement, or of introducing similarly ill-judged and ineffective policy.
What concerns me about laws like the one we are debating here today is the way they fit into a merry-go-round of circular reasoning that is dishonest about the real world and to some degree works to perpetuate the problems they purport to address. This particular bill is unlikely to give rise to any mass revocation of Australian citizenship, but that does not militate against its fundamental wrongness—because, just as the minister said in his second reading speech that no-one should take their Australian citizenship lightly, so it must also be said that no government should take away, lightly or lazily, a person's citizenship.
It is highly questionable whether this bill adds anything of great substance to Australia's legal and law enforcement protections against those who might do us harm. In the broadest terms, Australia is a remarkably safe place. Indeed there are few safer places on this planet. We should not be complacent about danger, but we must be vigilant when it comes to the potential for government to make us less free and even less safe by banging on the drum of fear. On the list of real dangers to the wellbeing of ordinary Australians, the prospect of harm from terrorism ranks a long way down. Harm from tobacco, harm from alcohol, harm from domestic violence, harm from suicide—these are much greater sources of harm than terrorism by some considerable margin. That does not mean we should ignore the risk of terrorist acts, or forgo policy and program work to prevent them. It does mean we should be honest with ourselves and the Australian people and resist the political temptation to exaggerate our response, which inevitably means we cause damage to our long-established framework of rights and freedoms. In the end, and I suspect from the beginning, the purpose of this bill is simply to act tough, to emphasise the issue of security, to inflate the threat posed to Australia and to Australians, and to reap the cynical political benefits of so doing.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:40): I would like to start off by saying what a privilege it is to be an Australian citizen and to be in this chamber today. The Remembrance Day ceremony at the War Memorial this year was truly memorable—although we did get a little bit wet—and it highlighted the fact that we truly do live in the best country in the world. We have freedoms that millions of other people from around the world can only dream of. Australians have died so that we can enjoy our Australian way of life. We are now coming to terms with the recent Paris, Beirut and Mali terrorist attacks. It is clear that no place is immune from the threat of this evil. Australia and other world leaders must coordinate their efforts, both politically and from a military perspective, to defeat those who choose to do us harm and to whom human life has no value. This is a matter of urgency—we must ensure that our borders and our Australian way of life are protected.
I am pleased to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Machinery chillingly found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. I wish I had the same level of uplifted view of what the world might be as the member for Fremantle, but unfortunately I do not. Specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing and the number of potential terrorists is also on the rise. Australian security agencies are currently managing over 400 high priority counter-terrorism investigations. This has more than doubled since 2014. Therefore now is the time to act, and act this government will.
This bill will deal with the threat caused by dual citizens who act in a manner contrary to their allegiance to Australia. Let me make the point that if you are doing no wrong you have nothing to fear from this bill. As I have said, the time to act is now. About 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. And they are only the ones we know about. About 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment or are seeking to travel. Again, these are just the ones we know about. This bill will provide for the loss of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism-related conduct. It amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause setting out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based. It also outlines circumstances in which dual citizens cease to be Australian citizens through their engagement in terrorism-related activities. The bill has been widely consulted on, having been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report, with the committee tabling its report last month. It made a number of recommendations which have been included in the bill—it is in line with the bipartisan recommendations from the committee.
As I am sure has been said many times during this debate, citizenship should be respected and not taken for granted. This bill is a necessary and an appropriate response to the increasing likelihood of a terrorist threat. This bill is so important to my electorate of Durack because my electorate is so sparsely populated. It is so large—and I know there are other electorates like it—we require a helicopter to muster cattle, and we also have billions of dollars of resources projects dotted around the coastline and inland. I would have more volunteer sea rescue bodies than any other Australian electorates, and Durack would have more visits from the Royal Flying Doctor Service because of the number of towns in this incredibly remote electorate.
We need to make sure Australia remains a safe country. As a federal member, I have an obligation to keep safe not just my constituents of Durack but other Australians as well. This government was elected to deliver a strong, prosperous and innovative economy for a safe and secure Australia. The Turnbull government is 100 per cent determined to protect the community from those who are engaged in or are supporting terrorist activities and who seek to do us harm. This bill enables the government to strip Australian citizenship from dual nationals who participate in terrorism or terrorist related activities. As I say, if you have done no harm, you have nothing to fear. This bill will ensure that the over 300 towns and communities in my electorate of Durack and over 90,000 constituents remain safe.
As I said at the start of this speech, last week we commemorated one of our most important days on the Australian calendar: Remembrance Day. Around Australia, including in Durack, we all took a moment of silence. So, from plumbers and tradies in the north and farmers in the mid-west and the wheat belt to small business owners in the Gascoyne, all stopped to pay their respects to those who put their lives on the line to ensure that Australia is the great country we all love today and that it continues to be so. Those very same people illustrated that they would rather show their respect and appreciation and perhaps lose a phone call for another job or perhaps give up half an hour of work, and I think this speaks volumes about Australia and the people of Durack that they too want to keep Australia safe.
We cannot go soft on terrorism. We must keep Australia safe and keep the standards that we apply to allow people who we choose to enter this country and remain in this country. I am sure it has been said a number of times in this debate: we know it is not rocket science but it sure is common sense. It is plain and simple common sense. We must not weaken, we must strengthen, the laws of who can and cannot come into this country. Someone who loses their citizenship automatically receives an ex-citizen visa. If they are onshore, they lose their Australia citizenship—that is what is proposed in this bill. That visa may then be subject to cancellation on character grounds. This bill will legislate that a declared terrorist organisation will be a subset of those who are listed for the purposes of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code.
As I said in this House earlier this month, only those sitting on this side of the House have a track record when it comes to immigration policy. So effective is our stop-the-boats initiative that the Labor Party virtually endorsed it at their national conference in June this year. This bill that we are discussing today will further strengthen Australia's border control and ensure we maintain our high migration standards. There is no doubt that society has changed, and we as legislators must move with society.
I commend this bill to the House.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:48): As a multicultural country that sees diversity as one of our national strengths, Australia welcomes migrants. Those who become Australian citizens by choice rather than by birth honour our nation and are honoured by our nation with the conferral of citizenship. Citizenship is priceless and it should not be eroded arbitrarily. Governments should be very careful before diminishing people's rights in the name of security, and that includes people's rights not to be deprived of their citizenship, something that forms part of a person's identity.
As I said, Australia welcomes migrants. People who have come from across the seas have made a vast contribution to our society, to our economy and to our nation. Australia is a great example of a successful immigrant nation and a successful multicultural society. We are a diverse nation that has benefitted from successive waves of migrants, each adding something new. Since the end of the Second World War, new arrivals from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas have transformed Australia. In the space of not much time we have gone from being largely Anglo to multicultural and cosmopolitan place we are today. My own electorate on the south side of Brisbane would not be the same without the contribution of migrant communities such as the Greek community and the Vietnamese community, large groups of people who have come to Brisbane to make a home and to provide for their families.
Building a cohesive society takes acceptance. It takes communities where everyone feels welcome and that they belong. That is why I have been a strong supporter of Welcome to Australia events and other events aimed at bringing people together and emphasising the things that we share ahead of the things that divide us. And that is why I am a strong supporter of dual citizenship. It allows people to maintain their heritage and commitment to their homeland while making a new and equally strong commitment to Australia. Dual citizenship makes sense in a world of globalisation, instant communications and increased ability to travel. It is a concept we should retain. Citizenship itself as an institution is important to the nation and is also of fundamental importance to the individuals. Being an Australian matters to people. When I say that I am an Australian, that is a way of telling the world something about myself, but it also is a way of telling myself something about who I am. Citizenship is priceless and that is why it should not be taken away arbitrarily. That is also why the institution itself of citizenship should not be, as I said, eroded or undermined arbitrarily.
It is important that all Australians value their citizenship regardless of how they became a citizen, whether by birth in Australia, by migrating and choosing to become a citizen or by being born overseas to Australian parents. Our citizenship is a unique, formal identification that carries responsibilities and bestows rights and privileges. But Australian citizenship is more than those rights and those privileges and those responsibilities—as important as all of them are. We live in one of the most diverse societies in the world. Our Australian citizenship, together with the commitments that underpin it, is one of the things unites us all with a common identity and a desire to work toward a shared future. It symbolises our sense of belonging to this country. So taking away someone's citizenship is a grave matter. Imagine if someone said to you or to me, 'You are no longer an Australian.' Imagine how you would feel, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough. It is something that should happen only if strict and well-defined criteria are met and only through the operation of fair laws, democratically made and subject to the supervision of the courts.
As law-makers we should bear in mind the significance of diminishing people's rights in the name of security. In debates such as these, it is important not to lose sight of just what it is our nation is trying to achieve and the reason that we are putting our own armed forces in harm's way. The reason we want to prevent our own citizens from entering war zones to fight with foreign armies is to preserve our security here in Australia. The purpose of doing that is to ensure that Australians, now and in the future, can live their lives in a free, fair and open democracy, enjoying political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. To unduly diminish those same rights in the name of preserving security would be wrong. The balance is not easy. I do not claim that it is. But democracies have faced this challenge in the past. It is not new; we continue to face it.
During the Second World War, Britain wrestled with similar questions. Lord Atkin gave a famous minority judgement in a case where similar issues were being considered. It is now widely thought to be the view that should have prevailed. He said:
In this country amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.
It was a different type of law from the one that we are considering now, but the principles that underpin balancing those rights with encroachments on liberty and that ensure the rule of law in the supervision of the courts remain very important. Balancing those things is a challenge right now for us—to protect Australians without unduly diminishing the rights that make this a free and fair and open place to live. That is why Labor sought to work with the government to improve this bill, which was, frankly, unpassable in its original form.
I commend the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the work it did on recommending amendments to this legislation that turn it into a bill that seeks to better balance the considerations that I have mentioned. Those recommendations are reflected in the amendments to this bill. Labor will support the amendments and the amended bill.
Our approach to national security has always been to work with the government in the national interest. As the shadow minister, Richard Marles, noted in his contribution in the second reading debate on this legislation:
National security is not a matter which is owned by either party. …The vast majority of members of the Labor Party and conservative parties, evidently, have enormous concern for the security of our fellow Australian citizens.
I agree with what the shadow minister said. Some have argued that Labor should simply oppose legislation that this Conservative government brings to this place, but that would be irresponsible and we will not be irresponsible. The more responsible course is to work with the government to improve the bill, not just leave it to the Tories to try their luck with the crossbenches.
Our citizenship laws already allow for a person's citizenship to be revoked if they fight as a member of another country's armed forces. It is not unreasonable that, given the current environment, where we face hostilities by non-state actors, the law be updated to include fighting with non-state actors. The provisions in this bill applying to those convicted of a terrorism related offence will now be amended such that the list of offences to which the section relates is reduced. For example, an offence relating to the destruction of Commonwealth property which was in the original bill is no longer included in the list.
The provisions in the bill relating to conduct inconsistent with allegiance to Australia have also been amended such that they now apply only to dual citizens who engage in this conduct offshore, or who have engaged in this conduct onshore and have subsequently left Australia. I am told that this means that the legislation will now have potential application to only dozens of people rather than to the millions of Australians who are dual citizens or who may have access to dual citizenship, as would have been the case prior to the amendments.
The bill also will now outline a set of criteria for the minister to consider before declaring an organisation a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the act. The declaration of organisations as terrorist will be a disallowable instrument, meaning the parliament will have greater oversight in respect of that process. The minister will now be required to provide or make reasonable attempts to provide the dual citizen with notice of the revocation unless the notification would compromise ongoing operations or national security. The decision not to provide notice must be reviewed every six months thereafter. Importantly, under this revised bill, revocation of a person's citizenship will not affect the citizenship of other family members, including children.
Dual citizens who were convicted of a serious terrorist offence within the last 10 years and who were sentenced by a judge to a minimum of 10 years in prison for that offence may have their citizenship revoked under the new laws. As a result of amendments recommended by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, revocation of citizenship in these limited circumstances will be subject to the minister's discretion, having regard to a number of criteria, including current security threats. The government will be required to publicly report every six months on the number of times the changes have been applied and to provide a brief statement on the reasons for which they were applied. Most importantly, a person affected by any of these changes will have the right to seek from the courts a review in respect of the loss or revocation of their citizenship, and that will be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
These amendments are critical to legislation such as this if we are to preserve our open society and strong democracy. As I said, the bill in its original form was, frankly, unpassable. It took the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in making around 30 recommendations for the amendment of this bill to put it into a form that could be considered. Narrowing the focus of the bill, limiting ministerial discretion, allowing judicial scrutiny for those affected: all of those things make this a better bill but also, importantly, balance the need to be vigilant about our national security with the imperative to ensure that our rights as Australians, our rights as people who live in a free, fair and open democracy, are not unduly diminished—and of course the imperative to maintain the rule of law and to continue to ensure that we live in a society that respects the rule of law.
As I said at the outset, Australia welcomes migrants. Migrants have made a significant, even massive, contribution to our economy, to our society and to our nation. Dual citizenship is one of the arrows in our quiver when it comes to building cohesion because you can maintain that connection to your homeland while making an equal commitment to your new country, Australia. It really does matter; being an Australian really does matter. It is part of our identity. It is part of your identity and part of mine. You cannot put a price on the value of citizenship; it is invaluable. Because it is so valuable, we should not take it away arbitrarily. We should be careful that our laws are limited in scope and apply only in the most egregious circumstances when we are talking about depriving people of their citizenship. Deciding to become a citizen is a big deal and that decision is something that, as a concept, as an institution, we should continue to respect.
So governments should be very careful before diminishing people's civil, political and other rights in the name of security. We as a parliament should be very careful to ensure that the laws that we scrutinise and pass balance those rights, those obligations, those concerns and those imperatives. If we do not do that, we are not just failing the people affected by the bill at hand, we are failing the tradition of Western democracies, where parliaments have been at pains to ensure that the laws we make and the decisions we make, whether in times of conflict or in times of peace, continue to maintain the values that we share. You might ask: if we are not fighting for those values, if we are not fighting for freedom, for fairness, for an open democracy and for the rule of law, what are we fighting for? To undermine those important parts of what it means to be Australian in the name of protecting Australians is something that should be done in a very limited, narrow, sensible and cautious way. It is for that reason that it is important that the government of the day and the alternative government of the day, the opposition, have worked together on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to seek to make appropriate recommendations to improve this bill. But it is also important that, as the people who seek to make the rules for this nation, we continue to work together on matters of national security in the national interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this bill. I am pleased to support the bill as amended.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (17:02): I rise today to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. In doing so, I think it is worthwhile to begin by stepping back and asking ourselves, 'What is the motivation for this bill?' In doing that, I went to the purpose clause, which mentions three critical concepts. One is reciprocal rights and obligations, the second is shared values and the third is allegiance to Australia. It is worth quoting the purpose clause because I think it is well constructed. It says:
… the Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
Before I speak to some of the detail, we need to clarify what those shared values are because, fundamentally, this will be a very important act of parliament, if passed, which is aimed at preserving those values. In the wake of the Paris atrocities, we are hearing a great deal about Western values. In many of our national debates about citizenship, nationality, sovereignty and even immigration, we also hear a lot about these so-called shared values that are sometimes referred to as 'Western' values. But let's be specific, indeed, let's be loud and proud about what those values are because, in discussing them, we are not just talking about our way of life or our lifestyle; we are talking about the fundamental freedoms and assumptions that underpin our society. They lay the very foundations for our tolerance, our inclusiveness and our diversity.
What are those values? Unsurprisingly, they are referred to expressly, in one way or another, in our Constitution, or, in recent years, they have been implied by the High Court in interpreting that Constitution. That Constitution makes it very clear that our founders assumed that, in this country, there would be a right to a fair trial, that property held could not be taken by the government without fair compensation and that there should be freedom of religion and separation of church and state. These, of course, are our core freedoms of modern, liberal democracies. Added to that are the remaining core freedoms which the High Court has found by implication in our Constitution. One is the freedom of political communication—in effect, freedom of speech. Related to this, of course, are the freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of association.
Our Constitution also implies that citizens have a right to vote. In other words, democracy cannot be taken away by this parliament. None of these fundamental freedoms can be taken away. Underpinning all of them is the assumption that our system operates under the rule of law, that every person is equal before the law and that every person is subject to the law. Our system works with the extraordinary checks, balances and conventions that are absolutely inherent in the Westminster system. With the gift of the separation of powers from the United States to help it along, it ensures that these freedoms can never be taken away. Our core political institutions were founded on an assumption that we will never lose sight of these freedoms.
I would argue strongly that these first generation freedoms that I have described have made us great, just as they have made our friends in places like the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom great. Without these freedoms, many things we all take for granted would fall away. These include the right to be free from discrimination and the right to access to welfare for the vulnerable. If, for example, we did not have well-established, predictable property rights, how could our market based system thrive and provide the revenue for important welfare support? If we did not have a proper, identified role for courts and parliaments then what would stop parliaments legislating to prevent courts from reviewing the decisions of the executive branch of government? If we did not have courts enforcing our laws, fairly and without fear or favour, would anyone bother to pay tax? These fundamental freedoms are real. They make us what we are. They work.
Coming back to the bill before the House, I ask: why is it important to assert these values in the context of a bill which promotes and embraces the idea of 'allegiance to Australia'? It is important because the people who seek to harm us here in Australia and to harm our friends and allies explicitly reject those freedoms. These terrorists do not want to kill us for the sake of killing us. They do not want to harm us because they have nothing better to do. It is much more categorical than that. These people reject outright our fundamental freedoms. They do not believe in a separation of church and state. They believe that church and state are one and the same. They do not believe in political freedoms whatsoever. You can forget a fair trial; indeed, you can probably forget any trial at all. Women can forget the right to be free from discrimination or the freedom to marry whom they choose. You marry whom you are told to marry and when you will marry. You are utterly subjugated to your husband—a husband who is, in turn, subjugated to the caliphate. We need to explain this to Australians. We need to explain it without rancour. If Daesh were to achieve its goals, it would destroy our system, our beliefs and our foundations.
Now to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, and me, the aims and goals of Daesh seem ludicrous and preposterous—but that is not so obvious to everyone. A recent Lowy poll found that only 39 per cent of young people agreed with the statement that 'democracy is preferable to any other form of government'. Only 39 per cent of young Australians believe in democracy. This is a very serious problem. When we speak more generally about our so-called shared values, our Western values, we cannot assume that everyone understands what this means. We certainly cannot assume that every law abiding citizen in this country fully grasps just what these values are, or how important they are to our very being. I believe a great number of Australians have lost sight of why it is so important to defend these values. The last time that we truly defended them was in the Second World War. In that conflict, Australians were in no doubt about what was at stake. And later, during the Cold War years, we were often reminded of those values. They stayed at the front of our minds. But, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and since the demise of the USSR, our memory of failed alternatives to liberal democracy is fading. This is extremely dangerous. It is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote last week that one of the most essential things we can do is to win the battle of ideas. This bill actually engages in that battle of ideas, because it sends a clear message to not only those who have abandoned our values but those who actually fight against them—and we will not tolerate that. By repudiating our values, our fundamental freedoms, by fighting directly against those values, you will have repudiated your allegiance to Australia. These people are now forewarned that, if they do go overseas to fight, or if they do engage in terrorist activity here, they will run the risk that they will never come back or that they will be deported.
Any delay in the passing of this bill will give Australia's network of domestic and internationally based extremists the advantage. I agree with Michael Phelan, Deputy Commissioner of National Security at the Australian Federal Police, who says that keeping people who engage in terrorism offshore 'is one less thing the AFP have to deal with'. The Deputy Director-General, counterterrorism, of ASIO concurs. He also directly supports any measure that can keep problems offshore and reduce the direct threat to Australia.
The fact that these measures relate to dual citizenship is incredibly important. Dual citizenship is a legislative permission, granted by the parliament. It is not a human right. Many other countries do not allow it. It only became widely available in Australia in 2002. The former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker, raised a deep concern about dual or multiple citizenship and its implication for Australia's counterterrorism effort. The monitor asserted that it was a mistake in 2002 for the parliament to grant such an entitlement and recommended that multiple citizenship be abolished. That issue may be for another day; but, today, it is important to emphasise that the persons to whom these amendments apply are also citizens of other countries, and therefore claim another allegiance—and, as a practical matter, have somewhere else to go. These amendments will not in any way render any person stateless.
It is worth noting that several months ago, the UN's top counterterrorist official, Jean-Paul Laborde, said:
…if somebody has a double citizenship and one state wants to protect the society, they have to take the measures they weigh are best for society.
In front of us are those measures, and I support them.
The amended legislation will provide three ways in which a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia can cease to be an Australian citizen. The first element is renunciation by conduct—that is the new section 33AA. This provides that a person who is a national or citizen of a country in addition to Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct. That relevant conduct includes financing terrorism and financing a terrorist. Automatic loss of citizenship will be triggered whether the conduct takes place inside or outside Australia.
The second element of this bill expands the existing section 35 to provide for automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country and is overseas and fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. The minister may declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of section 35, but such a declaration is contingent on that organisation being listed by the Australian government. The minister must also be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation is indirectly or directly engaged in or planning a terrorist act. Importantly, a declaration by the minister of a declared terrorist organisation is reviewable by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
The third element of this bill provides a power for the minister to determine that a person's citizenship has been lost once they have been convicted of a relevant offence and sentenced to a total imprisonment period of at least 6 years. Loss of citizenship is not automatic upon the conviction, and the list of offences is limited to the most serious crimes. We are talking about convictions for things like treason, espionage, terrorism, the use of lethal explosives, and treachery.
In closing, I remind the House that Australian citizens involved in terrorism not only reject our foundational values; they actually set out to destroy them. Most migrants come to this country for a better life. At a recent gathering in Goulburn it was an honour to be introduced to new citizens from India, Zimbabwe and the Netherlands. You could see the excitement in their eyes. Their happiness was evident, in joining the melting pot that is this great nation—to become one of us. I could clearly see and feel in my heart that these new citizens subscribe to the values I have spoken about. They know they will hit the jackpot when they become an Australian citizen. They also expect the Australian government to uphold and preserve the values and freedoms we are famous for. That is exactly what this bill does. I commend it to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:16): The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is about Australian citizenship, the fundamental right upon which all other rights as Australians rests. Citizenship is assumed but not defined in our Constitution. This is actually a conscious step of the founding fathers. They debated the issue at quite some length during a number of the sittings but decided, in the final draft of the Constitution, to leave the matter silent. At the time, of course, we were all subjects of the Crown. Citizenship at that point in time was synonymous with being a British subject. In fact, it was not until 1948-49 that this parliament assumed for itself the right to determine Australian citizenship, and the conditions upon which that would occur. Prior to that, the most that the Australian colonial parliaments, and then this parliament, could do was deem who was or was not a subject of the Crown—a British subject within these dominions.
In the parliamentary session that follows the atrocities that have occurred in France, Syria and Mali, it is very foolish indeed to suggest that this bill is not about something else, as well. It is for this reason that everybody who has spoken in this debate today has made mention of those atrocities. I stand with every member of this House in condemning the acts of those who were involved—those who planned it, sponsored it and financed it—and send a message of solidarity to the people of France and Mali, and also to the people of Syria and the surrounding countries, who are suffering because of these acts of terrorism.
The bill focuses on the means by which a person's citizenship can be renounced or revoked. There are three important ways. There is renunciation by conduct, which applies to a dual citizen, who would renounce their citizenship when they undertake 'conduct inconsistent with allegiance to Australia'. This is defined. The types of conduct covered by this provision are taken from the Criminal Code or existing criminal acts in the law. This is the section that has been subject to quite some conversation, particularly amongst legal scholars, and I will return to this in a moment.
The bill also provides for renunciation of citizenship due to 'fighting for, or being in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation'. For the purpose of this section the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will make a declaration of the terrorist organisation in question. This will be a subset of the existing list of declared organisations under the Criminal Code.
There is a third provision, which is renunciation due to conviction for a terrorism-related offence. Again, the list of offences, which are outlined in the explanatory memorandum, are all existing offences taken from the Commonwealth Crimes Act and the Criminal Code.
There is complete consensus across the chamber that those who, through their actions, repudiate that bond of citizenship, who desecrate the values we all hold near and dear, have indeed rejected citizenship, and there should be a process for withdrawing their rights and obligations in Australian law. In fact, there should be a process for withdrawing their citizenship, where it does not leave these people stateless.
The question—in fact the only question that remains, in my mind—is which branch of government should perform this function. The founders of the Constitution had a very clear view of this. They believed that there needed to be a clear separation on the one hand between the powers of the parliament—the legislative and executive branches of government—and those of the judiciary. It was for those reasons that the powers and responsibilities of these two branches of government were separated in chapter 2 and chapter 3 of the Constitution. Indeed, for many centuries the separation, particularly between the executive and judicial arms of parliament, has been seen as a bulwark against tyranny. The reason for this was explained very ably by Justice Jacobs in R v Quinn; Ex parte Consolidated Foods Corporation, where he wrote:
The historical approach to … judicial power is based upon the recognition that we have inherited and were intended by our Constitution to live under a system of law and government which has traditionally protected the rights of persons by ensuring that those rights are determined by a judiciary independent of the parliament and the executive. But the rights referred to in such an enunciation are the basic rights which traditionally … are judged by that independent judiciary which is the bulwark of freedom.
This is no small academic issue. We in this place and elsewhere know that the law expands by both analogy and example, so we need to be very, very cautious in this place about the powers that we purport to give to ourselves, to the executive and to particular ministers within the executive. There has been some concern voiced by members on this side of the House, Labor members, that the provisions of this bill extend beyond the powers which have been granted by the Constitution to the executive branch of the government. Indeed, that was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
We have asked on several occasions that the Attorney-General furnish the Labor opposition with a copy of the advice from the Solicitor-General which the Attorney-General says exists and which the Attorney-General suggests provides advice to the Commonwealth that this legislation is constitutionally valid. We have asked on many occasions for this advice to be provided to the Labor opposition and it has not been forthcoming. The best that the Attorney-General could do was assert the advice existed and that the legislation was on all fours. We say that that is not good enough. It places a cloud over these particular provisions within this bill.
When the joint committee turned its mind to these provisions, it looked to similar provisions that exist in other jurisdictions. It looked at similar jurisdictions, those that we traditionally like to compare ourselves to. It looked to Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and France. It is true that both the United Kingdom and France purport to give their minister or the executive within their governments the power to revoke citizenship from dual nationals for analogous reasons to those before the House today.
It is also true that there are similar provisions within the Canadian laws where the minister of citizenship and immigration has a discretion to revoke citizenship if a dual citizen has been convicted of a terrorism offence, high treason, treason or spying with particular minimum sentences. It is also true that in Canada the minister can ask the federal court to make a declaration that a person has served as a member of an armed force et cetera. What is important about this example is that the declaration is made by an independent judicial officer and not by the minister.
Such is also the case for our friends across the ocean in New Zealand. The New Zealand laws have been cited in this debate has an example for us. If you look at the New Zealand laws carefully you will see that there is also a judicial step whereby a minister or somebody acting on the instruction of the minister may serve a notice of intention to deprive to a so affected citizen and that person has 28 days to appeal to the high court for a declaration that there are insufficient grounds to justify that deprivation. So, again, in this case you can see that there is an example of a judicial step. So too is the case in the United States and many other countries I have looked at.
I repeat again that these are not small or academic issues. They are important issues which have been determined by the High Court, legal scholars and politicians for decades to be an important principle of law, protecting both the parliament and the people of this country, ensuring that we are continuously governed by the rule of law.
So we have some concerns. I have some concerns about these provisions in the bill. I would not be at all surprised if they were subject to a constitutional challenge and if that constitutional challenge was successful. Let me make it plainly clear: my concerns about these provisions are not directed at the objective of removing citizenship from a dual citizen who has acted on behalf of a terrorist organisation in the ways prescribed by the legislation. I support the government in that objective. These people have acted in a way that puts them at odds with the Australian people. In the words of the explanatory memorandum, they have severed the bond which unites us all. I believe that there should be a mechanism which enables a dual citizen to have their Austrian citizenship revoked. But, if we are going to do it, we should do it in a way which is constitutionally sound and constitutionally valid. In my view, it is best done in the way that it has been done in Canada, New Zealand, the United States and many other countries around the world where this power is restrained by a judicial step. With those brief comments and reservations, I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (17:28): I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this bill today and to add to the comments made by my parliamentary colleagues. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is another manifestation of the coalition's commitment to protecting the sovereignty of this country and the safety of its citizens. At the heart of this bill is the importance of a connection to Australia, a commitment to the country's laws and a respect for the mutual obligations which exist between individuals and the state and which are expected to be fulfilled by all Australian citizens.
I have said this before, but I am happy to elaborate once again. The inauguration of the Australian Citizenship Act in 1949 was a key marker of our development as a fully fledged independent nation accepting migrants on its own terms. Since Federation we have evolved from having a restricted immigration policy to having one of regulation, accepting individuals from other nations who wish to bring skills and contribute to Australia, accepting those seeking refuge from persecution and taking in those seeking humanitarian assistance.
Citizenship is a tool by which we invite individuals from all over the world to join our national story and to contribute to our shared community life. For that reason, it should be treasured, celebrated and upheld. The Australian legacy is that of shared generosity, of helping our mates and of lending a hand to those who need it most. Over the years our community's social fabric has been one of cultural diversity and it is through that diversity that our community has strengthened its bonds. Within that diversity, a common thread that unites us all in our citizenship is a commitment to Australian values such as mateship, egalitarianism and a fair go for all.
I know that the issue of citizenship is one that my electorate of Barton feels strongly about. Citizenship has benefited many Barton residents, with 48.3 per cent of people in my electorate being born outside Australia. Barton residents are often first-, second- or third-generation migrants, and they have all embraced the Australian way of life in their path to citizenship. Those in my electorate who have attained Australian citizenship after having been born overseas are always expressing to me the high value they place on Australia's decision to bring them into the fold of our community. None take their citizenship lightly. They all understand their obligations as citizens, express devotion to our country, and are willing to continue to build this nation and become proud members of a strong and diverse society. The government's role expected by our citizens is to protect citizens from harm and ensure they remain safe from terror and safe from those who have little regard for human life. The coalition's highest priority is to keep the Australian community safe from those who would seek to do us harm. Australians have a right to expect protection from domestic threats of harm and from international threats to our security. Sadly, the threat of terrorism facing our nation is not a figment of imagination; it is real, it is serious and it will worsen unless action is taken.
The Review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery earlier this year confirmed that the threat of terrorism in Australia is rising. Specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing and the number of potential terrorists is rising. Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations, which has more than doubled in the last 1½ years. Since September last year, 26 people have been charged as a result of the 10 counter-terrorism operations undertaken, which is more than one-third of all terrorism charges since 2001. Approximately 110 Australians are currently fighting with or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. A further 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are seeking to travel to those conflicts.
The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 will amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that dual nationals who fight for or who are in the service of a terrorist group, or who engage in terrorism-related conduct will automatically lose their Australian citizenship. Citizenship is to be respected, not taken for granted. This applies to all Australians. Since the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1949, there have been provisions for the automatic loss of citizenship in cases where a dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. Our laws must be updated to reflect current threats to our country and values through terrorism-related activity. Those found to be betraying their allegiance to this country by engaging in terrorism and related conduct will have their Australian citizenship overturned. The bill will also ensure that dual nationals who are convicted of specified terrorism and related offences lose the privileges of Australian citizenship. Protecting our national security and the right to safety for our citizens are our highest priorities. They should be the highest priorities of all governments. This is not about compromising individual rights, it is not about rendering an individual stateless but it is about reinforcing the notion that those who betray our state will face the full extent of the law. This is an appropriate response given the evolution of global terrorism. Furthermore, an individual who has lost his or her citizenship will be able to seek judicial review of the facts.
The measures in this bill operate automatically at the time a person engages in the specified conduct or is convicted. There are three new ways in which a dual national can lose their citizenship. The first is through conduct such as engaging in terrorist threat activities, engaging in a terrorist act, providing or receiving terrorist training, directing activities of a terrorist organisation, recruiting for a terrorist organisation, financing terrorism, financing a terrorist, or engaging in foreign incursion or recruitment. The second is through fighting for a declared terrorist organisation. This bill expands the scope of the existing section to provide for the automatic cessation of citizenship if a person who is also a citizen of another country is overseas and fighting on behalf of, or in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. The declared terrorist organisation will be determined by the Attorney-General under the Criminal Code. The third way is through conviction for terrorism and related offences. Proposed new section 35A provides that a person automatically ceases to be an Australian citizen if they are convicted of a specified terrorism or related offence.
I want to take this opportunity to pre-empt any concerns fellow Australians may have on two important fronts. Firstly, a child will not automatically lose their citizenship because of the actions of his or her parents. However, an individual under the age of 18 can lose their citizenship under the bill's provisions if they have engaged in acts of terrorism, as clarified previously. The minister will have the discretion to determine whether an individual loses citizenship or not. The minister will also have the discretion to exempt any individual in public interest cases. In the case that an individual has his or her citizenship revoked, the person, if they are in Australia at the time, would be returned to the country of their other nationality or citizenship. This would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, similar to cases of people who have had their visas cancelled.
These changes are part of a multifaceted approach to countering the threat of terror posed by an increasing number of foreign fighters, sympathisers and supporters of extremists and potential terrorists. The threat is simply too serious to ignore. As I mentioned previously, attaining citizenship through birthright or acquisition carries reciprocal obligations. Australian citizenship confers great benefits but, equally, rights and obligations. We have fair expectations of our citizens to defend our shared values, which will stand us in good stead for as long as we embrace them. The majority of Australians never need to be reminded of this. Most citizens would never dream of betraying a country that has bestowed them with hope, opportunity and reward. But, for the small percentage who do, it is not acceptable to ignore the potential threat to human life that they pose.
We do not need to think far back or look too far to realise how dangerous some terror groups have become—notably Daesh and ISIS, who are systematically displacing millions of people in the Middle East, notably Syria. It is unthinkable to imagine Australians who are dual citizens of these nations, travelling abroad and fighting amongst them, completely against our shared values of democracy and peace. The alarming rate at which young dual nationals are fleeing to join terrorist organisations is horrifying, and, as a responsible government, we cannot sit back and do nothing. If and when they return, they cannot simply glide back into this country, slip through Customs and resume life like everyone else. It is very unlikely that they are able to resume civilian life and demonstrate loyalty to Australia if they have witnessed the horror of, and actively participated in, the torture, killing and persecution of so many innocent people. Many Australians do not feel these individuals have the right to resume life here. I know many Barton residents have telephoned, emailed and written letters to me expressing their disgust that terrorists and sympathisers alike should be allowed to remain in Australian society without punishment, especially if they deploy similar acts on our shores.
There is a real difference between breaking social codes of conduct and engaging in an act of terror. The gravity of the latter cannot be underestimated. As an Australian citizen, the first allegiance is always to this country. The Allegiance to Australia Bill is an expansion of the circumstances in which Australian citizenship may be lost. However, this has been done at a crucial time, when dealing with terror organisations which completely oppose democratic values and respect for human life. It is fundamental that our citizens remain connected and loyal to Australia. Citizenship is not an aspiration of being part of the Australian community; it recognises that the applicant is already part of that shared life, with reciprocal obligations and respect for this country's laws. The new powers in this bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:39): I too rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill, which seeks to update our current citizenship laws in the face of home-grown terrorism. I do not think that anyone in this chamber takes much pride in having to be part of changing the laws to reflect this. The issue about home-grown terrorism, Deputy Speaker, as you and everyone else are aware, is that it is something that is a recent development not only in this country but around the globe. The legislation which is before us forms part of a suite of national security measures designed to address the issue of home-grown terrorism.
In fact, when you think about it, the word 'terrorism' is becoming all too familiar following: the escalating security crisis in Iraq and Syria; what we see occurring now in the Middle East; the ongoing terrorist threat; but also the increasing prospect of terrorism in Australia and countries that share our beliefs, particularly when it comes to freedom and liberty. It has been only nine days since a wave of ISIS attacks occurred in Paris, which killed 130 people. Clearly, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of France, who are coming to terms with that tragedy on their soil. Brussels are currently in their highest state of terror alert as they search for a fugitive that was involved in the Paris atrocity. Brussel's public transport and their schools—all those things that we would normally take for granted—have for the last three days been closed. Another tragedy unfolded in Mali, where two gunmen held up 170 hostages at a luxury hotel. The siege lasted for more than seven hours and resulted in 19 people being killed. Only a few weeks ago, we saw the downing of a Russian airliner. We saw the atrocities of the bombings that occurred in Lebanon, where 40 people were killed. This is not something that is peculiar to Australia as we go about our business addressing terrorism; this is now very much a worldwide occurrence.
Bear in mind that since last September, we have seen three home-grown terrorist attacks inspired by ISIS on Australian soil: the attempted stabbing of two police officers in Melbourne in September last year, the Martin Place siege in December of last year, and the fatal shooting of a New South Wales police employee in Parramatta only recently. Following these events, Australian authorities have also disrupted six planned attacks and arrested more than 30 people for their involvement in the conspiracies, during counter-terrorism operations around Australia. These occurrences have prompted a review of many of our laws, to safeguard the Australian way of life and to ensure the integrity of our national security as we guard against terrorism-related activities.
The Australian Citizenship Act has not been updated since, effectively, it was first written in 1948. Under existing provisions, a person's citizenship automatically ceases if they served in the military of a nation at war with Australia. Subject to the discretion of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the minister may also revoke Australian citizenship if a person is found to have procured their citizenship through fraud, or if they are convicted of serious offences which occurred before the person became an Australian citizen. However, given the evolving nature of the threat of terrorism and violent extremism, the government, in June of this year, introduced amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act, which propose to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who have engaged in acts of terrorism.
I appreciate that, following the announcement of these amendments, there has been considerable consternation amongst many Australians that this bill could somehow render dual citizens lesser Australians. That is clearly not the case and never was the position in the negotiations that occurred around amendments to the Citizenship Act. Dual citizens are just as Australian as anybody else, and it is important to note that nothing has been put before this parliament that does anything to erode that fundamental principle. This has always been the approach adopted by Labor in the consideration of this legislation, right from the start.
On 4 September, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security released their detailed report. That report detailed 27 recommendations relating to the government's amendments to the bill. It is important to note that those recommendations were unanimous. This was clearly a bipartisan report. It was certainly designed to improve the bill. In doing so, it looked at providing stringent safeguards relating to situations where dual citizenship holders could have their Australian citizenship removed.
Effectively, under the recommendations of the committee, dual citizens can only have their citizenship stripped if, firstly, they are convicted of a terrorist offence in Australia; secondly, they are currently overseas engaging in terrorist activities; or, thirdly, they are collaborating with a terrorist organisation. That was pretty specifically laid down by the committee, and the government has accepted those recommendations. These amendments, if passed, will set a very high bar. They will reduce the scope of the legislation to a much narrower set of circumstances and will give a much more focused approach in addressing the real difficulties, as we see them, of home-grown terrorism.
The foreign fighter phenomenon, in particular, as I said earlier, has taken many in the West, not just here in Australia, by surprise, with the number of people travelling to the Middle East to participate in and fight alongside organisations such as ISIS in their endeavours in Syria and Iraq. As I understand it, it is reported that, as of June this year, 120 Australians are currently fighting with terrorist organisations overseas and 160 Australians are supporting organisations through financing or recruitment from this country. According to an ASIO report to the parliament, around 30 Australians have returned from fighting in Syria and Iraq, 19 of whom have been subsequently involved in terrorist plotting and eight of whom have subsequently been convicted of terrorism offences. The proportion of foreign fighters who have gone on to be convicted of terrorism related offences in Australia has been surprisingly higher than many of the pre-ISIL averages across other Western nations. Therefore, one of the key concerns of these amendments also relates to the potential threat that these foreign fighters pose to domestic security upon their return.
However, in line with the committee's recommendations, this does not mean that Australians will lose their citizenship simply because of untested suspicions or concerns relating to their conduct. Citizenship is one of our most fundamental rights and we do not support any measure that would erode or undermine this significant principle. Therefore, it is significant to emphasise that a person who is found to have been convicted of a terrorist offence, is engaging in overseas conflict or is found by the courts to be collaborating with a terrorist organisation will have the right to appeal any determination by the minister to have their citizenship revoked. The minister's determination of that would be a matter that could be tested at law. Therefore, an individual's rights are secured, provided they believe they are sufficiently innocent of the criteria of either participating in, associating with or collaborating with terrorist organisations. This is an important safeguard, given that we believe this is a fundamental right for all citizens, adhering to our notion of freedoms and human rights.
I understand that a number of questions have also been raised during discussions with the government regarding the views of various legal experts of the constitutionality of certain aspects of the bill. We have raised those matters with the government on many occasions and I note from the shadow Attorney-General that the committee has been provided with a letter from the Attorney-General himself assuring it of the bill's constitutionality. I know that is clearly not a legal advice, and it is not something that you would roll up to court with to justify your position, but I assume that Senator Brandis has appropriate legal authority to provide that correspondence. I would like to emphasise that the issue of constitutionality is an issue for the government. At the end of the day, it is for the government to ensure that the legislation put before this parliament is constitutional.
Labor takes the issue of our national security very seriously. We also take seriously the question of ensuring that whatever legislation passes this parliament will never create two classes of Australian citizens. Having said that, Labor supports the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, as the recommendations, we believe, certainly improve the bill. We note the government has also accepted those 27 unanimous recommendations of the committee. We believe that the bill, embracing those recommendations, does not represent a significant change to the principles underpinning our country's citizenship laws but will simply bring the laws up to date so that those who seek to do our nation harm can no longer be considered to have an allegiance to it. I support the bill.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (17:52): I rise to speak in very strong support of the measures contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. I think every Australian who reads the newspapers or listens to the news knows that the threat of terrorism around the world is ever increasing. Nothing has made that more profoundly clear than the events nine days ago in France which had an impact on us all. And we know that Brussels is on its highest terrorist alert. I know from the emails, calls and personal approaches I have had from my constituents—and it would be the same for many if not all members in this House—that Australians support a very strong approach to the threat of terrorism in Australia and, like this government, they take our national security very seriously.
The review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorism threat in Australia is rising—specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing and the number of potential terrorists is rising. I read that ISIL has almost 40,000 online operatives, so it is certainly not surprising that the threat level is increasing.
Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high priority counter-terrorism investigations. That number has doubled since early 2014. Since September last year, when the national terrorism public alert level was raised to high, 26 people in this country have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. That shows you the increase and why we need to take this issue seriously in Australia. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, and about 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria and Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment or seeking to travel.
The government announced earlier this year that it would develop amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the removal of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaging in terrorism related combat—and rightly so. Supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, Australia. Australian citizenship is a bond that should unite all citizens. Citizenship should be respected and not taken for granted.
As I was told repeatedly when I was doorknocking in 2007, especially by those who were seeking at some point in the future to become Australian citizens, they believe very strongly that it is a privilege to be a citizen of Australia, not a right. I agree with them. However, that privilege is being continually undermined by those who hold it cheaply and those who actively seek to use the laws of this land against our own people and our own communities. We need to act. As the bill states, parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond involving reciprocal rights and obligations and that citizens may through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia. They do this themselves. This is something they choose—to sever the bond and repudiate their allegiance to Australia.
The new powers in the bill are certainly necessary and an appropriate response to what has been an evolution in the terrorist threat. Looking at the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, there have been provisions for the automatic loss of citizenship in cases where dual citizens serve in armed forces in a country at war with Australia. It is important that our laws are updated to reflect current threats to our country and our values through terrorism related activity.
My father was a migrant to this country back in the 1920s. All of his family came to Australia because it offered them an opportunity that they really respected. That is exactly what we need from people who come to this country. His family came here because they could see that this country offered them an amazing opportunity. In those early days it was the simple opportunity to work hard, feed their family, put a roof over their head and eventually, if they worked really hard and saved their money, build a small family business. To the migrants this was indeed a land of opportunity, and the privileges that went with citizenship were held in great esteem. It is interesting that so often these are the people who react so strongly when someone takes Australian citizenship for granted and engages in terrorist acts. It is these people who take this very, very personally. They see the opportunity Australia has given them and their families and they have no time for those who seek to undermine that citizenship privilege.
A person's citizenship can also be revoked on the basis of a conviction for immigration or citizenship fraud or for a serious offence—a sentence of 12 months or more—committed prior to the granting of citizenship. Sixteen people have lost their citizenship this way since 1949. This bill amends the act and has a range of measures attached. It applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how that person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth.
Section 33AA provides that a person who is a 'national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in' specified conduct. The relevant conduct is spelled out:
(a) engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices;
(b) engaging in a terrorist act;
(c) providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act;
(d) directing the activities of a terrorist organisation;
(e) recruiting for a terrorist organisation;
(f) financing terrorism;
(g) financing a terrorist;
(h) engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.
It covers a wide range of potential terrorist activities.
The government amendments to the bill provide that the conduct provisions are limited to individuals who have engaged in relevant conduct offshore or in relevant conduct onshore and left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct. The amended bill provides that the conduct provisions only apply if the conduct is engaged in with specified intentions, such as the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; with the intention of supporting, promoting or engaging in a hostile activity in another country; or on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation.
Existing laws provide for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This came into force in 1949. The bill expands this section to provide for automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country—a dual citizen—is overseas and fights for or is in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. A declared terrorist organisation will be a subset of those listed for the purposes of terrorist offences under the Criminal Code.
Australians expect us to take very serious measures. The outpouring we have seen from Australians for others around the world means that the continuous measures the government is taking to strengthen our national security and deal with this ongoing issue of terrorism are very rightly and strongly based and supported. The amended bill provides that the minister, by legislative instrument, may declare a terrorist organisation where the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering terrorism or advocates a terrorist act. It provides for an organisation that is opposed to Australia or Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties. This is what is covered when someone participates in a citizenship service. All of us in this place have been along to numerous citizenship ceremonies. They are the words of someone who seeks to become an Australian citizen, as part of their pledge, as part of the rights, responsibilities, obligations and opportunities that go with being an Australian citizen.
I was a delegate for the United Nations, to observe the elections in Cambodia, some years ago. I saw a group of people who had not had the right to vote. So many others had been killed by the Pol Pot regime. Those people were so excited. They had to put a finger in indelible ink to prove that they had only voted once. For the older people who had lived their lives through that time there was excitement on their faces. They rushed up to us outside those polling booths, in great excitement, to show us the finger that had been dipped in indelible ink. It proved that they had the right to vote and that they had done so. That is what citizenship is as well. It gives you the right to participate. How seriously we need to take that right, and it is a responsibility that has obligations.
I strongly support the measures contained in this bill. I just wanted to reiterate that the people who feel particularly strongly about measures like this and those that protect our Australian values and way of life are often those who have come to this country looking and knowing that this country would nurture and support them in the same way that they would work with and for this country for the betterment of all of us. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:06): This is controversial legislation. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 extends the conditions by which dual citizens may have their Australian citizenship cancelled. It is a very important issue. Citizenship defines who we are. We are Australians, and that defines everything about our rights and liberties and who we are as people. Since 1948, the Australian parliament has determined the conditions on which citizenship can be bestowed upon certain people, the rights and privileges associated with that and the conditions upon which that citizenship can be revoked, and, since that time, that particular law that bestows that citizenship and outlines the conditions under which it can be revoked have not been changed.
In providing a person with Australian citizenship, certain rights are conferred. Some of them are constitutional—the right to trial by jury; the right to freedom of religion. Some of them are implied in the Constitution—the right to political expression or freedom of speech and so on. But citizenship is also a two-way street. You are conferred with rights but you have certain obligations as well. You have to respect the rights and values of Australia enshrined in our Constitution, and our laws you must uphold and obey.
I have considered this issue quite thoroughly. You are trying to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights and liberties of citizens and putting in place the necessary measures to deter and to stop people from undertaking terrorist acts that would harm and seek to destroy the Australian way of life. I want to thank those in my community who have written to me about this issue. I have received some correspondence from people, and they outline valid concerns. The concerns that people have outlined in respect of the constitutionality of this bill are legitimate. It is going back over a history of Australian constitutional interpretation that does specify that such rights and privileges should not be removed by the executive level of government in this country but by the judiciary. That is clearly stated in our nation's Constitution. So I thank those who have written to me about this.
I also congratulate and thank the Labor members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security who—through their thorough investigation of this bill and, indeed, their outlining of some of the problems of the original bill—have managed to secure 27 amendments to the bill which really inject a bit of common sense into what the government was proposing. There is no doubt that the original manifestation of this bill would have been unconstitutional and it would have fallen over at the first case that was brought before the High Court. That still may be the case. We do not know that, because the Attorney-General refuses to release the legal advice upon which the bill is founded. So that still may be the case. But the amendments that Labor members have put forward, and which have been accepted by government members on the committee and then by the government, do ensure that a bit of common sense has been injected into this bill. So that process was very important.
One of the first acts of the shadow Attorney-General was to ask the Attorney-General, George Brandis, to present the Solicitor-General's legal advice—to disclose to the Australian people the advice upon which the government had acted which demonstrates that this bill is constitutional. After all, the worst case scenario for the government could be to introduce this new law, to have it passed by the Australian parliament, and then for it to fall over at its first challenge in the High Court. So we sought the advice that the government had acted upon. Unfortunately, that advice was not forthcoming. The Attorney-General did provide a letter providing assurances that the bill is constitutional, but pardon us if we take those assurances with a grain of salt, given the Attorney-General's performance on a number of legal issues in the past. So, in the wake of that, we referred the bill to the joint committee on security and intelligence, and they conducted an inquiry, and, as I said, there have been 27 recommendations that have strengthened this bill.
I want to make it very, very clear: I am horrified, like most Australians, by the acts of terrorist organisations and terrorists, not only in Australia but elsewhere throughout the world. In particular, in the wake of what has occurred in France and in Mali over the course of the last week, we do need to ensure that our security, intelligence and police agencies have the necessary and appropriate powers to combat this and to protect Australian citizens. This is something that is acutely known by the community that I represent. We lost more members as a result of the Bali bombings some 11 years ago than probably any other community in the country. It is something that has hit home in our area.
So we need to make sure that dual nationals who do undertake serious terrorist offences, either overseas or in Australia, do lose their Australian citizenship because, in doing so, you sever the bond that you have with the rest of Australia. You take yourself outside of the realms of our Constitution, our laws and our way of life. And, for that, you deserve to have your citizenship cancelled. But, in doing so, I want to make sure, by the same token, that, if a court or a minister acts, that act is constitutional. That has been the basis upon which I and the Labor members of this parliament have approached this legislation, because the original version of this legislation, we believe, would not have passed that test. So the committee went on to make 27 recommendations, which Labor supports, which substantially improve this bill that has been put forward by the government.
This legislation has not been updated since 1948 when it was first enacted, and I do feel that the time has come to update this act in order to equip our security forces and intelligence officers to better combat the threat that is posed by non-state actors such as Daesh, Jemaah Islamiah and other terrorist organisations. Citizenship is one of our most fundamental rights, and I will not support any moves that undermine that right; nor will I or other Labor members tolerate any changes that sever or weaken the status of our country's many dual nationals.
As a result of the 27 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, there will essentially be three scenarios covered by three new provisions which will result in dual citizens losing their citizenship as a result of terrorist related activity. Those scenarios are: a dual national who is convicted of a terrorist offence in Australia, or a dual national currently overseas engaging in terrorist activities or collaborating with a declared terrorist organisation like ISIS, and renunciation by conduct. The bill actually specifies that renunciation by conduct as dual citizens who undertake conduct inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia, as defined in the bill. The types of conduct covered by this provision are taken from the Criminal Code and all existing criminal acts and law. This is a section that has been subject to scrutiny and to the issue of constitutionality, but the protections put in place as a result of the 27 recommendations do strike a much fairer balance. They do go to that issue of protecting rights and privileges whilst deterring terrorism but making sure that the decision is constitutional.
The provisions relating to those convicted of a terrorist related offence will be amended such that the list of offences to which this section relates will be reduced as a result of that inquiry. For instance, destruction of Commonwealth property is no longer included as an offence. We are now only talking about serious criminal offences that would constitute grounds for conviction for an offence and trigger the minister's discretion on dual citizens. The provisions relating to conduct inconsistent with allegiance to Australia will also be amended such that they will only apply to dual citizens who have engaged in the conduct offshore or who are engaged in the conduct onshore and are now located offshore—that is, the provision is aimed at providing national security agencies with another tool that would prevent these people returning to Australia if they have been involved in terrorist related conduct.
The bill will also outline a set of criteria for the minister to consider before declaring a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the act. The declaration of the organisations will also be a disallowable instrument. The term 'in service of' will be clarified for the purposes of section 35. This will ensure it is clear that acts done under duress or unintentionally—for example, a parent covering living expenses of a radicalised teenager—would not be covered by the act. All provisions will only apply in the event that the minister receives an adverse security assessment in relation to the dual citizen. The minister will be required to provide, or make reasonable attempts to provide, the dual citizen with notice of the revocation, unless that notification would compromise ongoing operations or national security. The decision not to provide must be reviewed every six months thereafter. Revocation of a person's citizenship will not affect the citizenship of other family members, including children in particular. That is a very important amendment that has been secured. A person will have the right to appeal the loss or revocation of their citizenship to the Federal Court. It is important that there is that level of judicial review of the ministerial decision.
In total, these amendments significantly narrow the scope of the bill and represent a far more targeted approach to what was originally proposed by the government. In my view, the amendments better balance the rights of Australian citizens as conferred by this parliament through legislation, enshrined in our Constitution and implied by the courts over many years. Also, rights and protections are ensured for our security intelligence agencies and our police to ensure that they have the necessary tools and the necessary penalties to punish people and deter people from engaging in these insidious acts.
We take terrorism and this issue of citizenship very seriously—extremely seriously. That is why Labor has provided quite a great deal of scrutiny of these laws. We are talking about one of the most fundamental rights that defines people: citizenship. We should not take lightly any bill which seeks to expand the removal of that citizenship. That is the approach that we have taken with this bill, but, in doing so, we have made sure that, in combating the rise of terrorism and terrorist organisations throughout the world, Australia is playing its part and, importantly, protecting Australian citizens. On that basis, I am happy to commend this bill to the House.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert—Government Whip) (18:19): As the member for Herbert—and I am sure that I speak for most of us in this place—one of the proudest moments I have each month in the city of Townsville is when I attend the citizenship ceremonies conducted by my local Townsville City Council. To stand up there and to read out the letter that Minister Dutton has brought for everyone before they make the oath of allegiance, or whatever we call it, is truly a wonderful thing. My mayor, Jenny Hill, is the daughter of migrants. She is a first-generation Australian. She tells people undertaking the ceremony that she was exactly where they were, and she talks of the pride she felt as her parents became citizens of this great country. To stand there and see these different nationalities come together and become Australian citizens is a truly wonderful moment, each and every month. To hear them recite those words—'From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey'—is what this legislation is all about.
The problem we have today is that some people do not take those words seriously when reciting them. We have some people who use our system, our citizenship, our social security system, our good intentions and our trust to foster a hate of our country and our way of life. With a rising number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas and supporting and financing them in Australia, this legislation provides for dual citizens to have their Australian citizenship removed due to their participation in terrorism related activities and outlines the circumstances under which that might happen. What we are saying is: if you take out Australian citizenship and then go and fight for our enemy against us, then we will take Australian citizenship from you. We do not want you back. It is that simple.
What this is not about is an attack on the cultures, textures, flavours and colours that immigrants bring to our country. We are a better country because of the rich heritage of other nations coming here and sharing their home country's values and cultures with us. What this is not about is forcing people to become Australian. A lot of people in Townsville say, 'They should become Australian.' I always say that if, for whatever reason, I had to move to another country and take up citizenship of that country I would respect and love my new country but would never stop loving Australia or the fact that Australia made me the man I am today. I would still tune into the first session of the Boxing Day tests. I would still stop and give thanks every Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. I would still have a lamb roast on Australia Day, and I would still be a Cowboys supporter. These things would not stop me from being a productive and respectful citizen of my new country. So it should be with people coming to Australia from other countries: bring all the things you love, and keep them; be proud of them; celebrate and commemorate them. But you have to be a productive and respectful member of our country. So, when taking out Australian citizenship, new citizens will bring their culture with them but must be prepared to obey the laws of Australia.
Why do we need to change? The Review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. Specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing and the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing. So, we have some serious issues, and we have to take some serious matters into our hands. Our security agencies—and I think we should give a little bit of thanks to the people who do these things, the Border Force people and our security agencies, who do a fantastic job in keeping us safe—are currently managing over 400 high-profile counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since early 2014.
Since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert level was raised to high, 26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. And about 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment or are seeking to travel. Those are big numbers, but when you consider how many people come here every year by way of humanitarian refugee programs and skilled migration, we are talking about a very small minority of people here.
Citizenship should be respected and not taken for granted. I think that is the genesis of this whole debate. As the bill states:
Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
The new powers in the bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat. This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a 'purpose clause' setting out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based; to outline circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism related activities; to outline circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill to provide for reporting on and monitoring the operation of the arrangements in the bill; to provide for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring; and related matters.
The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security on 24 June 2015 for inquiry and report. The committee tabled its report on Friday 4 September 2015. And I must make special mention of the chair of that committee, Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon, who did a fantastic job in making sure that we got a good report out of that.
So, what are the actual details here? Section 33AA provides that a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct. The relevant conduct includes engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism; financing a terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.
The government amendments to the bill provide that the conduct provisions are limited to individuals who have engaged in relevant conduct offshore; or engaged in relevant conduct onshore and left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct. The amended bill provides that the conduct provisions apply only if the conduct is engaged in with specific intentions, such as the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; with the intention of supporting, promoting or engaging in a hostile activity in another country; or on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation. We are not talking about a million people here; we are talking about a very small number of people.
Element two of this bill goes to the provisions for fighting for or being in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. The law has provided for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia since it came into force in 1949. This bill expands the section to provide for automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country, is overseas and fights for or is in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. The provisions in relation to being 'in the service of a declared terrorist organisation' do not apply to acts that are unintentional, under duress, or for the purposes of independent humanitarian assistance. Again, we are talking about shrinking down the number of people who are actually exposed here.
Element 3 is a conviction for terrorism and related offences. To be considered under this section, a person must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment or to periods of imprisonment totalling more than six years. This provision relies on a court having determined criminal guilt. The relevant offences include convictions for treason, espionage, terrorism, international terrorist activities and using explosives or lethal devices, treachery, sabotage and foreign incursions and recruitment. The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time a determination is made by the minister. The minister must revoke a determination if a conviction is overturned or if the decision to overturn is upheld on appeal, and no further appeal can be made to a court in relation to the decision. So you do have a judicial oversight.
We are a great country made up of people from all over the world. We lay claim to and are rightly proud that we are the single most successful immigrant nation on the face of the planet. That is because we are a classless society; we take the person as we find them. That is the way we want our country to continue. I am a firm believer in a strong immigration policy, both skilled migration and humanitarian immigration. I am a firm believer that we are a better country for having people from other parts of the world here. In this country, you are given every chance to put in, to have a go, to get ahead and to do better for your children and your family. If you repudiate that helping hand, if you take up arms against us, we do not want you here and we ask, as my Dad always says, that you do not let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.
I support this legislation. I support the work that Minister Dutton is doing in this portfolio. I support my government as we do everything we can to keep our country safe. I thank the members of the PJCIS for all their hard work on this, and these things are not easy. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:32): When we rise to speak in this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, given the events over the last few weeks—particularly the events in France, Mali and Lebanon—it gives us cause to think and reflect about what it is to be an Australian and to understand our obligations as citizens of this great country and that with citizenship you have responsibilities. Those responsibilities require you to act in a particular way in understanding your obligations to us, because when you declare your pledge, under the Australian Citizenship Act, it says:
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for automatic cessation of Australian citizenship, including Australian citizenship by birth, of a person who is also a national citizen of another country, that is, a dual national, where that person renounces their Australian citizenship by engaging in specified conduct inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia, fights for or is in the service of a declared terrorist organisation outside of Australia and is convicted of a specified offence under the Criminal Code or the Crimes Act 1914.
I think it is worthwhile reflecting just for a moment on the history of citizenship in this country. Citizenship has evolved in Australia. At Federation in 1901, 'British subject' was the sole civic status noted in the Australian Constitution. The Australasian Federal Convention of 1897-98 was unable to agree on a definition of the term 'citizen' and wanted to preserve British nationality in Australia. An administrative concept of citizenship arose from the need to distinguish between British subjects who were permanent residents and those who were merely visitors. This was necessary for the Commonwealth to exercise its powers over immigration and deportation.
Motivated principally I think by the nationalism of Arthur Calwell, the Minister for Immigration between 1945 and 1949, this administrative concept was formalised in the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. In 1958, the act was amended so that naturalisation could only be revoked if obtained by fraud. This prevented a naturalised person being stripped of citizenship and deported. Throughout the 1960s, Australian citizens were still required to declare their nationality as British. The term 'Australian nationality' had no official recognition or meaning until the act was amended in 1969 and renamed the Citizenship Act. This followed a growing sense of nationalism and the declining importance of the British Empire for Australians. I remember well this period because it was a debate around the role of the EEC and Britain's entry into the common agricultural policy, and so the preferential arrangements that existed between Australia and the United Kingdom, in terms of trade, started to change irrevocably. So the closeness of mother England became somewhat more distant.
However, it was not until 1984 that Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects. The Australian Constitution does not grant the Commonwealth parliament an express power to make laws with respect to citizenship. Nonetheless, it has long been accepted that a broad power to pass such laws exists. But, as we know through the discussion of this piece of legislation that is currently before us, the High Court has never precisely delineated the ambit of this power and its constitutional boundaries. There have been a number of commentaries around that particular issue in the public debate and discussion leading up to the passage of this bill.
The minister, when initially introducing the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, addressed the challenge posed by dual citizens who betray Australia by participating in serious terrorist related activities. But the central emphasis of the bill is the importance of allegiance to Australia in the concept of citizenship. That is fundamental for all of us. The introduction of this bill and the subsequent work, as we have heard, of the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in their final presentation of a unanimous report containing 26 substantive recommendations to improve the bill, shine a light on an area of constitutional law generating much discussion in our community.
Of course, there are many still who believe that the constitutional validity of the proposed changes that we are putting through this parliament today is open to question, but as I understand it we have had written assurances from the Attorney that he believes the amendments we are making today are constitutional. Let it be said that we hope they are. But, if they are not, then we know that there has been a lot of discussion in the broader legal community about the constitutionality or asserted constitutionality of this piece of legislation. If it is proven that is not constitutional at some point because of a challenge to the High Court, then it will be in this government's hands to come up with a response which means that we make the effective changes that we are requiring to be made here today and ensure they are constitutionally valid. I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, so I would not argue that I have any particular expertise. But I have been reading the commentary of many eminent jurists around this country, and it is clear there is a matter of grave contention still to be debated.
We do live in a wonderful place and it is important that we secure this country from the ravages of sectarian violence and terrorism that are so evident as we speak. I am mindful in having this discussion that people like me in the late 1960s and 1970s were involved in supporting organisations like the African National Congress, raising money for the ANC, which was fighting a guerilla war in South Africa, and later, in supporting FALINTIL, the opposition guerilla movement in Timor-Leste. So we need to be very conscious that, in having these discussions, we have a history here in this place, and indeed across this country, of working with resistance movements around the world who have been involved in seeking liberation.
But we are in an entirely different context today, because we are not talking about a liberation movement; what we are talking about are the evils of people who do not recognise international law, do not recognise sovereign boundaries and do not recognise the precepts, in the case of ISIS, of the religious doctrine that they are supposedly advocating. So it is important that we build into our laws protections for Australians from Australian citizens who are involved in potential acts of war against this country, fighting for a declared terrorist organisation involved in murder and the horrors that we have seen depicted on our screens over recent months and years. If there are Australians who have Australian citizenship and are not prepared to accept their responsibilities as Australian citizens for the protection of themselves, for us and for their families, from the violence which they seek to perpetrate elsewhere, then let it be on their heads, because we cannot countenance the irrational behaviour of those who perpetrate such acts of bigotry and violence. I am thankful to the member for Fowler, who, in his contribution, told us that, as of June this year, there were 120 Australians fighting overseas and 160 Australians supporting those who fought. Thirty Australians who were involved in these dreadful acts have returned to Australia, and eight of those have now been convicted of terrorist acts.
Removing one's citizenship is something you would think an individual would regard as important. We have a lovely multicultural country. We are proudly, arguably, the site of the most successful experiment in multiculturalism in the world, and that has been a conscious effort of engaging community with community, religion with religion, with respect for cultural diversity, and understanding nevertheless that, once all those of different nationalities who have come to this great country of ours over recent years step up to swear that oath of citizenship, they have an obligation which will only be removed now by them acting as terrorists in the way in which this bill describes. It seems to me that all Australians should have confidence in the intention of this parliament, in a bipartisan way, to protect all Australians from the stupidity and the violence that has been perpetrated on so many externally to this country. In my family, my partner Elizabeth and our four children all have dual nationality and they are proud of it, as they should be. Every Australian who holds dual citizenship should be proud of that dual citizenship, understanding how important their country of origin and their heritage are to them, their families and the community.
When we are making these decisions here, we do so with a heavy obligation for all Australians, regardless of where they live and regardless of whether or not they are dual citizens. Every Australian needs to understand and comprehend that the intention of this legislation is for the protection of the rights of all Australians—to understand our human rights obligations under international law, to understand the rights of appeal that exist in this legislation for those who are found to have offended and to understand that, as a result of the 26 recommendations of the joint committee, heavy constraints have been put on the original legislation. We can have confidence moving forward that this has been done in a strongly bipartisan way for the best of intentions. The only issue arising ultimately will be whether or not the legislation, if challenged in the High Court, holds up to judicial scrutiny.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:47): I am pleased to rise and speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. To have Australian citizenship either by birth or by migration to this country is a decision that you would have made by yourself or your parents would have made and it is the equivalent of winning Lotto. We can never take for granted the enormous and wonderful opportunities that are given to everyone who has Australian citizenship. At all times we should talk about the importance of Australian citizenship, the opportunities it provides and why allegiance to our nation is an important factor.
Sadly, there are too many in this country who worship the tyranny of political correctness. They like to have some loathing of our nation; they like to mock our traditions and our heritage. They do enormous harm to our nation. One of the threats to this country comes from the radicalisation of people who are actually Australian citizens. What causes that radicalisation? One of the main causes of radicalisation of young people lies in thinking that the Australian nation is not a good nation and thinking that we are somehow a racist nation. When they hear such talk that demonises our country, we need everyone in this parliament to call that language out.
Recently the Grand Mufti of Australia issued a very disappointing press release that talked about the causative factors of terrorism; one of those factors is those who loathe this country and who talk our country down. We need to do the opposite: we need to talk up our country for all the things that are good about it. People like to say that we are somehow racist or that we are Islamophobic, but look at the evidence—look at the wonderful achievements of people of the Muslim faith here in Australia. We have Muslim people elected to our parliaments and our local councils. They are elected as mayors and they are elected in areas where the Muslim population is a minority—the non-Muslim majority of those areas have decided that they will elect a Muslim person to represent them. How can that happen when we are a racist country? We have Muslim people who are captains of our industries and who have gone on to be CEOs of our largest corporations. They are elected to our national sporting teams simply on ability and merit. We have Muslim people who are successful entrepreneurs, who have achieved senior ranks in our Defence Force, who have been popular entertainers and commentators in our media. We have had people of the Islamic faith who have won beauty pageants. We cannot have achieved all those things, if at the same time people see that we are racists and Islamophobic. We need to call those things out and we need to say the things that are happening in our nation.
We also need to call out people who attack our Defence Force. Our Defence Force should never be described as being involved in 'foreign military interventions'. Our ADF personnel currently in Iraq are there at the request of the legitimate Iraqi government. They are not there for territory or conquest; they are there risking their lives to protect innocent civilians from beheadings and rapes. We should talk up the wonderful contributions of our Defence Force and how they risk their lives to spread peace and democracy in other parts of the world.
It is the same in this parliament. When we introduce anti-terror legislation we do not do so as a distraction from budgetary issues—we do it because on the best advice and the best intelligence that we have from our security and police forces it is needed. When our police conduct anti-terror raids, it is not some conspiracy to single out people from the Islamic community. Our police conduct those anti-terror raids because, again, on the intelligence that has been made available they need to take action to keep safe all Australians irrespective of what religion they come from. That is why our police engage in these activities. Where we see poverty and backwardness in the Middle East, it is not because of Western oppression—it is because these countries for decades have lacked free market policies, they have been governed by despotic rulers and they have had corruption and cronyism throughout their economies. That is why these nations are backwards and have not enjoyed the prosperity that many nations in the West have.
If we are talking about the importance of allegiance to Australia, we should set out what that actually means and we should hold up the values that we say we want citizens to have and to hold in this country. I would like to go through a few of them. First, all citizens should have respect for our traditions, our heritage and our democracy. We should have due respect for our national anthem. We should say that it is not acceptable for any group, in any circumstances, to walk out of any event when the national anthem is being played. We should say that we should have due respect for Anzac Day, and all institutions in this country should respect and commemorate Anzac Day. We should stand up and say that one of our Australian values is that women in this country have equal rights, that girls have the right to education and to go on to whatever career they want. They are free to choose whoever they wish to marry. We should say that the practice of female genital mutilation is a medieval, barbaric practice that is against the law of this nation and that those who engage in that practice or aid and abet it will end up behind bars for a long, long time. We should say that the values of this country are about free speech and that one of the rights you do not have in this country is the right to demand the obliteration of things that cause offence. The possibility of being offended is one of the small disadvantages of having all these rights in this country. The values of this country are also about freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes the right to renounce your religion or to change religion or to criticise a religion. There is also a commitment to speak the English language. If we want to have a successful, inclusive multicultural society, it is important that when people go out in the shops or the streets or the clubs or the bars or the restaurants they can communicate with each other. That is why we should have a commitment to the English language. You simply cannot integrate into our society properly unless you can speak the English-language. These are the values that we need to be proud of and say that these are the values of our nation. If you want to come and call yourself an Australian citizen, these are the values that you should hold first and foremost.
I turn to the legislation. When dual citizens in this country do not have allegiance to our nation first and foremost it is absolutely correct that we take away that very valuable gift of Australian citizenship. This legislation does that under three circumstances. The first is renunciation by conduct. That applies to any person who is aged 14 years or older if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to our nation by engaging in specified terrorist related conduct. Such conduct includes engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices, engaging in a terrorist act, providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in or assistance in terrorism related activities, directing the activities of a terrorist organisation, recruiting for a terrorist organisation, financing terrorism or a terrorist, and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. Any dual citizen who engages in those activities does not deserve the rights and privileges that come with Australian citizenship.
The second category is service outside Australia in the armed forces of an enemy country or a declared terrorist organisation. If you want to go and serve overseas and take up arms against Australian Defence Force personnel, you do not deserve the right to have Australian citizenship. This bill correctly strips that right from people in this category with dual citizenship. The third provision is conviction for terrorism offences and certain other terrorism offences. If you are engaged in terrorist activity, the likes of which we have seen recently overseas—the beheading and murder of innocent civilians who are doing nothing more than watching a football match or going to a rock concert or enjoying dinner with family and friends—you do not deserve the rights and the privileges that come with being a citizen of Australia.
I commend all the other members who have spoken on the importance of this bill. Irrespective of what side of the House we sit on, every single one of us needs to call out those who try to demonise our Australian values. We need to stand up and say those Australian values are the things that have made us a successful and prosperous nation, and we need to work to continue to protect those values. I congratulate the minister for his work on this bill and the parliamentary committee that analysed it and made a few minor changes, and I also congratulate the opposition for coming on board and supporting the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (19:00): I rise to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 and explain to the House why I will not be supporting this bill. My opposition to the bill is not directed at the intent or purpose of the bill. It is focussed very clearly at the inclusion of a retrospective provision and, under the cloud of uncertainty, on the constitutional viability of this bill. I know that the bill has been amended following recommendations from the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and there have been a raft of necessary amendments. But it appears that, even after the amendments have been made, the bill may be constitutionally vulnerable, and, if this bill is so very important and critical to the health, safety and welfare of all Australians in the face terrorism, it should be invincible.
On 24 June this year, when the minister introduced this bill into this House, he affirmed that he was implementing a commitment made by the government 'to address the challenges posed by dual citizens who betray Australia by participating in serious terrorism related activities'. The initial bill was roundly criticised by legal and constitutional experts. It raised significant questions relating to human rights, statelessness, citizenship and the limits of executive power. Many of these criticisms have now been addressed.
My reasons for not supporting this bill differ markedly from the reasons I failed to support the tranche of national security bills previously presented by the government. In regard to the earlier bills, when bills of such significance are considered necessary, it is imperative that everybody—individuals, organisations, communities and businesses—have adequate time to scrutinise and comment. The lack of independent scrutiny of the earlier bills, combined with the lack of time given for members and senators to consider these complex bills, formed the basis of my nonsupport.
The bill here today has taken a more considered and consultative pathway. I commend the government for taking the time necessary to consult and listen before bringing this bill on for consideration by the House. I note that the joint committee received more than 40 written submissions and conducted three public hearings with a broad range of legal groups, academics, non-government organisations and government agencies. The bill, as now amended, reflects that the government has listened and acted, to a degree, and this is good.
However, in this parliament we focus on the rule of law. Our processes and procedures work to ensure that we have the highest possible standards of government and the best outcomes for the people of Australia. The integrity of the rule of law is critically important to me in my role as a law-maker in this parliament. The central element of the rule of law is that laws are capable of being known in advance so that people subject to those laws can exercise choice and order their affairs accordingly. It follows that laws should not retrospectively change legal rights and obligations or create offences with retrospective application. Retrospective laws make the law less certain and reliable, and a person who makes a decision based on what the law is today will be disadvantaged if the law is changed retrospectively. From my perspective, enacting a retrospective law weakens the rule of law and has the potential to lessen the level of confidence the people of Australia have in us as legislators.
Professor Anne Twomey, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, notes that the part of the bill most vulnerable to attack would be the retrospective provisions for people who had already been convicted of certain offences. I share Professor Twomey's concern on this issue. But, in this case, it is not only the retrospective nature of the legislation that worries me and my constituents. The bill blurs the line between executive power and judicial power where the minister can, at a stroke of a pen, remove a person's citizenship. Constitutional lawyer, Professor Twomey, has said that the issue was whether removing a person's citizenship 'would be treated by the courts as something that is akin to punishment and therefore exclusively judicial in nature'. I note that the shadow Attorney-General in his speech on this bill in this place on 12 November raised concerns with the constitutional viability of the bill. Ultimately, the opposition has chosen to accept the government's advice that it is constitutionally sound.
Citizenship brings with it rights and obligations. Clearly it is not a one-way street. It provides us with the right to political participation in the life of the community, the right to vote and the right to receive certain protections at home and abroad. This bill speaks to the very heart of our obligations as a citizen, obligations that we have whether we are a citizen by birth or by naturalisation. I know that many others have referred to the pledge to citizenship that is read out across Australia every week by new citizens, and I know that we, as members of parliament, frequently accept the pledge:
From this time forward,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
Whether we are citizens by birth or naturalisation, this pledge enshrines the rights and obligations that all Australians share.
For us here today, the security of our nation and our people is paramount, and I fully support the government taking steps to introduce legislation to ensure the safety and security of Australia and its citizens. However, it must be good legislation. My opposition to this bill is not directed at its intent or purpose. It is focused very clearly on the inclusion of a retrospective provision and the cloud of uncertainty over the constitutional viability of this bill. Thank you.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (19:08): The coalition government was elected in September 2013 with a mandate to deliver strong government to guarantee a safe, secure Australia. This bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, is about implementing that promise to the Australian people.
Australian citizens have a fundamental responsibility to uphold the values and interests of our country. Irrespective of how one became a citizen, citizenship is a contract of rights and responsibilities. A person cannot uphold their responsibilities as an Australian citizen while they have pledged allegiance or support to a body that is contrary to Australia's interests or values.
This bill seeks to deal with the issue of dual citizens committing treasonous acts against Australia. Effectively, this bill will update the existing citizenship protection and integrity measures framework. Citizenship should not be devalued, and obtaining citizenship should not protect or facilitate illegality. As it stands, if a dual national were to fight with another country's regular standing army against Australia, they would immediately forfeit their Australian citizenship.
The nature of war has changed since the original act came into being. We need laws that reflect today's terrifying times. The most common form of warfare in operation across the globe is warfare conducted by non-state actors. I remind my colleagues that we are at war with a murderous terrorist organisation, ISIS, seeking a global caliphate. War of this kind is not subject to international agreements, rules or protocols. I am not advocating a fighting-fire-with-fire or an eye-for-an-eye approach; I am simply invoking consideration of the changed nature of the threat that our nation faces. It is war, but not as we know it. It is asymmetric. It is brutal. It is everywhere.
We have seen terrible incidents in the recent past where Australian citizens have been directly affected by terrorism. It has never been easier to move throughout the world, and with that comes an ease in calling new countries 'home'. Some of the greatest threats are posed by citizens here at home. This bill is a measured and appropriate response.
Indeed, we are not alone in taking these measures against enemy dual nationals that commit or deign to commit acts of treason against our country. Some of our strongest and most natural allies, such as the UK and Canada, have similar penalties. The Turnbull government have consulted and benchmarked against best practice internationally.
It is important that we as a country and as a government are determined to prevent radicalised people from roaming our streets. If people intend to become involved in terrorism, then they no longer have allegiance to Australia and their responsibilities as an Australian citizen have been compromised. Actions speak louder than words. I welcome this codifying of our community values and expectations. I add at this point that this bill in no way abrogates our responsibilities under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Earlier this year, I spoke on the Migration Amendment (Character and Visa Cancellation) Bill. I welcomed that critical and timely piece of national security legislation then and, likewise, I welcome today's further enhancement. The visa cancellation bill is important to understanding how and where today's debate fits into the legislative landscape and time line. Because of the amendments enacted in that bill, the government is now able to act where there is a risk, as opposed to a 'significant risk', that a person might engage in a wide range of criminal conduct. Reasonable suspicion that a person is or has been associated with a group involved in criminal conduct is sufficient reason to refuse a visa. Such conduct includes people smuggling, genocide, war crimes, crimes involving torture or slavery and crimes that are otherwise of serious international concern even if there has been no actual conviction.
There should be no shame in saying that we have values and principles and that this Liberal government is willing to stand up for them. Under the previous six years of Labor misrule and chaotic misgovernment, the balance of rights and responsibilities became a question of rights only. By turning a blind eye to gross and aberrant characters and by accepting all in good faith, we expose our people to unknown dangers. Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' may not have run, but that is because of the strong actions taken by successive Conservative governments. I am proud to be part of a government that is bold in its actions and resolute in its decisions.
The Abbott coalition government delivered a national security statement that outlined the government's response to the national Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Machinery for a Safer Australia. This review found that the number of foreign fighters is increasing, along with the number of sympathisers and supporters of extremists. With the number of potential terrorists rising, it is important that law and justice agencies have the tools to deal with the threats they pose.
Under section 35 of the Migration Act 1958, it is already law that any dual citizen who fights against Australia in a foreign army will have their citizenship revoked. The expansion of that section merely addresses the modern-day threat to Australians, that being the threat of terrorism by non-state actors and non-aligned individuals. Section 35 is self-executing and ensures that citizenship will be stripped from a person who fights on behalf of or in service to a terrorist organisation. Section 33 operates so as to ensure that only dual citizens will lose their citizenship. The amendments safeguard against a person becoming stateless. They also propose that the offence must be terrorism related and must indicate that a person has acted against their allegiance to Australia. If one looks to the societal constructs of Rousseau or Locke, there it is on line 1: protect the bodily integrity of each citizen and the integrity of the state. Even the visual idea of a contract is relevant to this debate surrounding cancelling citizenship and making it easier for the minister to do so. After all, the Australian government is honouring its side of the contract or deal by protecting the bodily integrity and security of the person, but some people are not living up to their side of the deal. The deal is that if one comes to this country then one has to play by the rules as they stand, not change the rules because one does not like the rules. I put it to the House that the greatest liberty that a state can protect is life. Our primary responsibility as legislators in this place is to protect the citizens of Australia.
The changes outlined in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 and amendments to the Migration Act are the first real attempt to update the security and protection features of visa and citizenship programs since the mid-1990s. With respect to visa grants, having weak and low thresholds for the character tests dilutes the nature of our system and costs us all more in the long run. Today we should be cognisant of the fact that citizenship is the second act of a two-act play. It is the icing on the cake. Looking at the first part of the equation—that is, visa grant—is also exceptionally important. I am proud that our coalition government has gone about the task efficiently and effectively. I and all the coalition know that security is an expensive business, prevention is always better than cure and prevention is always cheaper than cure. The people we seek to remove from the Australian community or ban from entering the Australian community in the first place are people who are freedom haters. They hate us because we Australians love freedom. It is not enough to have an Australian residency visa to be an Australian. One needs to live Australian—live the values, live the hopes and live the dreams. One needs to embrace the history of Australia. We will not and cannot let this nation ever become known as a soft touch.
ISIS have waged war in two countries, seeking to exterminate minorities and subjugate those left alive. They have captured and beheaded Western journalists and aid workers with glee. They have killed, raped, looted and burned their way through town after town. Anything we can do to prevent the flow of Australian jihadists to this area is a win for Australia. Look at the steady flow of footage and photographs of the beheadings, the mass murders, the shallow graves and the firing squads. When I saw the footage of ISIS militants murdering Shi'ites, Kurds, Yazidis and Christians, I could not help but be shocked by the stark likeness of their crimes to those of Nazis generations before them. While in the 1940s it was the SS smiling over bodies of the slain, now it is the jihadist, the thug, the barbarian, the so-called Islamic State. Herein lies the danger for Australia: we have our own citizens choosing to join these Islamic fascists. They cannot be rehabilitated; they do not go back to their day jobs and forget their days of jihad and murder. With every Australian who heeds the call to join ISIS, there is another foot soldier for their evil campaign. For every fighter who returns, Australia gains a new terrorist, a new trained killer, a new traitor, a new quisling.
For those who question the dangers of 100 or so terrorist killers in our midst, I tell you this: all you need are a few people hell-bent on causing you and your country pain and grief. On September 11, 19 people killed 3,000 and changed the skyline of one of the well-known and loved cities of the world. It took only a handful of people to claim 202 lives, of whom 88 were Australian, in the Bali bombing. The Boston Marathon killings, which robbed three people of their lives and injured a further 250, were the work of only two madmen. There is no better reminder of the destructive nature of even a single terrorist than we have seen in Canada. In a city like this, it took only one man to kill a soldier performing his solemn duty at the Canadian war memorial and to storm the parliament with murderous intent, injuring a further three people in the fight. All of these attacks could have been much worse with casualty lists often coming down to fate more than anything else.
But something we can do about this is to try to prevent it happening in the first place. This bill is one step forward. It has been extremely distressing to see report after report in the papers and in the news of the numbers of Australians suspected to be fighting with ISIS. It is tragic and yet terrifying that over 100 Australian citizens are over there, engaging in murderous acts of unspeakable barbarity. Even more concerning, however, are reports that potentially dozens of these fighters have returned to Australia. These people, these trained and experienced masters of depravity, are now living in the same streets as you or I. They are visiting the same shops, taking the same buses and mixing in the same spaces as our wives and husbands, our partners, our siblings, our parents, our children and our friends. But it would be foolish to think that these people could commit mass murder and beheadings one day and go back to their day jobs the next. It would be even more foolish to believe that they have not returned with the means and know-how to carry out their depraved and murderous desires.
This bill will be the next step in our fight against ISIS. I counsel that others pay heed to US President Thomas Jefferson when he said, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.' In the final analysis, our Prime Minister would be wise to heed the words of another former US President Ronald Reagan. He said:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same …
Let's acknowledge that freedom is not free. Someone, somewhere, always pays the price.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:22): In rising to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, I think it is important, given my job title as the federal member for Bendigo, to put on the record some comments about citizenship, as it is an issue that has been debated widely in my electorate for the last few months—in fact, probably the good part of two years, since our council decided to approve the application for a mosque to be built in Bendigo.
Quite often, the debate is: what is citizenship? What are our rights as Australian citizens? Sadly, what has happened in my community is that some people have confused citizenship and multiculturalism with patriotism. They have confused what we believe and uphold to be our rights and obligations as Australian citizens for a campaign which is against that. Locally, we have seen people don the Australian flag—basically, it is a racism campaign—and call for councillors to oppose the construction of the mosque. We have seen people in the name of citizenship demand that our local councillors and our local representatives not respect people's right to freedom of religion but instead call on them not to approve an application to build a mosque. We have seen people put forward the suggestion that Sharia law is about to be imposed on Bendigo—a ridiculous claim. A number of lies have been peddled by far right-wing extremist groups in the name of Australia, in the name of patriotism and in the name of Australian values and citizenship.
Surely, to uphold Australian values and citizenship, one would think the idea of a fair go would be to defend the Australian spirit and not isolate and misrepresent those of a particular belief. What some people have missed in this debate about citizenship, particularly in our communities and less so in what is being debated here today—is that modern Australia is a multicultural Australia. Modern Australia is now a multicultural society where every individual's right to practice his or her beliefs within the framework of the law follows the cultural tradition where that is respected and protected.
We all enjoy going to citizenship ceremonies. On the weekend, I had the opportunity to go to an unusual citizenship ceremony at our local Bendigo basketball stadium. Kelsey Griffin, who is a Bendigo Spirit basketball player—in fact one of our best—took the step to become an Australian citizen, and she did so with her family and with the Bendigo Spirit family in front of a full stadium. I thanked Kelsey for taking the unusual step to hold her own citizenship ceremony at the end of the game, because it gave a number of people in Bendigo the opportunity to engage in a citizenship ceremony they otherwise would not have. I was proud when our mayor read out the values that we hold as Australian citizens. Something that is lost at the moment in our national conversation is what it means to be an Australian, what it means to take out Australian citizenship, and the values that come with that. It means that we are part of an inclusive, multicultural society, that we respect one another's right to worship their religion and to express their culture and values. People do not give this up when they come to Australia; it is all within the framework of our legal system. We are a secular society but we do respect people's right to bring their culture here to this country and to share it with us.
Australia today is a rich tapestry. Many cultures have woven together to form our nation's fabric. Our strength is our diversity. I am the daughter of migrants. Both my parents are from England. I had to give up my British citizenship to run for parliament. When this bill was first put forward, before it went through the committee process and was heavily amended to become the bill that we have before us to today, I did question how it could impact on my family—how it could affect my sisters or, in fact, my parents—and the many other people who live in the Bendigo electorate who have dual citizenship. We are, quite frankly, one of the areas in this country that has the lowest number of people who were born overseas or who have a parent who was born overseas. Yet, despite the fact that we have higher than the national average of Australian-born residents, we are a community that celebrates diversity, that is inclusive. This goes back to the very beginning of our town.
We are a gold rush town and, as such, we had a large Chinese population in Bendigo. We also had a Cornish population and a US population. Their names still ring true in many parts of our town. But, as the Bendigo Chinese will tell you, the story of their journey towards citizenship has not been equal to, or the same as, others in Bendigo. They do not reflect kindly on Sir John Quick, who many in this place hold up to being one of the fathers of Federation. They believe he actively excluded them from citizenship when this country was first formed. Things have changed and we now do not exclude Chinese Australians or, in fact, any cultural group, from participating in our democracy.
The debate that we are having at the moment in Bendigo and in broader Australia involves groups—far-right extremist groups—that are calling for other groups to be excluded. They are saying, publicly as well as privately through social media and through bombarding people's letterboxes, that people who practise the Islamic faith should be excluded. They try to say they are not racist, yet they are everything but that. What I am concerned about with this debate is that when it started, when the former Prime Minister tabled this legislation, those same fears were invoked.
People in my electorate were having their letterboxes bombarded with this awful hate-speech mail. At the same time we had a Prime Minister saying that we will strip people of their citizenship if they engage in terrorism acts. But what the legislation that was first put before the public failed to do was ensure that there was proper and due process. When the bill was first put forward it was messy and sloppy. We were not sure how people who fell into this category would have their citizenship stripped. The bill was therefore sent to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which received from constitutional experts a number of written submissions in evidence during its hearings. This process raised serious concerns with the original bill: whether it was constitutional and whether it could be struck down by the High Court.
As well as the committee process, the government at the same time also launched a discussion paper titled Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility, and held a number of public meetings. I felt that one of the booklets that was released at the time inflamed the situation we had in Bendigo. When people raised an issue of concern with me, when they said they were worried about sharia law being imposed, that they were worried about what the mosque would mean for Bendigo, I would send them a copy of what we talk about at citizenship ceremonies. It was quite a positive document that talked about how we are an inclusive society and how our rights and obligations as Australian citizens are to respect one another. But this new document, Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility, talks about terrorism in the very first page. It talks about the number of people who have been arrested in relation to terrorism and it talks about the Sydney siege. These are serious issues—absolutely—but is it appropriate to have them in a document that should be about celebrating Australian citizenship?
Any acts of violence should be condemned. Our law enforcement agencies are doing an outstanding job of ensuring that people who are terrorist threats are being investigated, arrested and prosecuted, as they should be. What we talked very little about, though, and what we have had a stunning lack of commentary about from government and from the frontbenchers—in fact where there has been dead silence—is the number of people who have been arrested who are associated with far-right activism. Equally, just as many people involved in far-right activism have been arrested for what I would class as similar situations to others involved in terrorism. A number have been arrested on weapons charges. A number have been arrested and police have discovered tasers, bomb-making manuals and other equipment during the raids. Yet these people, who are the anti-Islam campaigners, get very little criticism from this government. If these people had been of the Islamic faith there would be speaker after speaker standing up to condemn them. if these people had been of the Islamic faith, as opposed to being white supremacists, how many speeches condemning these people would we have heard from frontbenchers in this place.
The government has failed to be measured and equally to go after the far right, as they have gone after others in our community—whether it is just politically or ideologically convenient. I call on the government to be equally measured. In my community we know what happens when we do not have political leadership on this issue. We see the things we have seen, not just in Melton but in Bendigo—some locals caught up in the lies and the misinformation. I do my duty, as local MPs would do, and explain to people that sharia law cannot be imposed upon Bendigo. It is ridiculous to suggest that. I explained how our Constitution works. I explain their rights and obligations as Australian citizens: how they need to be inclusive and how our country is built on this proud tradition of migration.
But it is not something Bendigo can do on its own. We need the support of our political leaders here in this place to condemn the far-right-wing extremism we are seeing. Just as we have seen in this booklet that talks about people being arrested for terrorism and the Sydney siege, perhaps it should also talk about the far-right extremists who have been arrested and have had bomb-making equipment—people who want to preach hate and who have openly said they are quite happy to take up arms in their campaign to keep Islam out of Australia.
This kind of violence should be condemned by all of us in this place. There should be a $40 million fund established for an anti-radicalisation campaign of the far-right extremist groups. I applaud the government's efforts to work with the Muslim community in Australia, and the $40 million they have put on the table to help counter the radicalisation of young Muslim men and women. But I want to see $40 million put on the table to help communities like my community in Bendigo, and other communities, to tackle the radicalisation from the far-right white supremacists.
We are engaged in an education campaign. A lot of our citizenship values are involved in that, reminding people that we must be an inclusive and tolerant society. It is who we are as a country. But resourcing is everything. The frustration that we have locally is that we are doing it on the smell of an oily rag. Councils and health groups are putting together these resources and materials to help explain to people that what is being pushed on them by the far right is not true. It is not patriotic, it is not Australian and it is not about freedom of speech.
The bill before us today has been heavily amended and it is one that Labor can now support. A number of constitutional questions have been raised by legal experts, but it is an issue for the government. Suffice to say that at the end of the day the government will need to ensure that the legislation that is put before the parliament is constitutional and will stand up to any High Court challenge. Citizenship is not just a gift, it is also a right of people here in this country. It is something we all must value, regardless of your beliefs or your religion.
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (19:37): It is a great honour for me to speak about the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill because there are some very important elements to this bill to do with the current challenges we face due to terrorism internationally. We know the awful circumstances of Paris and of other terrorist attacks around the world over many years now, not just in these last 12 months. The act of terror in Paris was an attack on the freedom of the Parisians, which is the antithesis of everything the murderous butchers from IS reject.
American comedian John Oliver spoke about the attacks last week and, while I will clean up his comments a bit, he said:
France is going to endure, and I'll tell you why. If you're in a war of culture and lifestyle with France, good … luck, because go ahead, bring your bankrupt ideology.
I think this is a very important point. While culturally there are differences between Australia and France, the attacks on France are attacks on the Western way of life.
We are not perfect and as a society we will strive to get better, but the cowardly attacks on France have further illustrated the need for the changes that this bill presents. While we are talking about France, there have also been attacks in Mali, and there were attacks in Beirut not long ago too. There are constant attacks around the world on people's individual liberties where terrorism is striking in cowardly ways.
We as a society are not perfect, as I said before, and we will strive to get better. This bill is not a knee jerk to the deadly attacks around the world but rather the result of diligent consideration aimed at ensuring the safety of Australia and Australian citizens. The review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. Specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing and the number of potential terrorists is rising. Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since early 2014.
Since September last year when the national terrorism public alert level was raised to high, 26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. About 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria and Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment or are seeking to travel to those countries.
The government announced earlier this year that it would develop amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the loss of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conduct. Supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, a bond that should unite all citizens. It is a very special privilege to be an Australian, and citizenship should be respected and not taken for granted. The new powers in the bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat.
I just want to touch on some international examples to show that the Australian government has done appropriate research and consultation with governments and agencies around the world. In 2014 the UK passed legislation which expanded the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. Under the new laws, a person can be deprived of citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied by a number of conditions. Canada has recently passed legislation expanding the basis on which citizenship may be revoked and the process by which this may happen. The new laws were passed by parliament in 2014 and came into effect earlier this year in May. Under the new legislation, the citizenship and immigration minister may revoke the citizenship of a dual national who is convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received. Previously, revocation of citizenship in Canada involved three steps.
In closing, there is a place in our society for Muslims. The people of IS or Daesh do not represent Muslims any more than Martin Bryant represents Australians. This bill is not about penalising any group in society, only about ensuring that there is no place in our society for those who wish to create terror. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (19:42): I rise this evening to speak on an incredibly important bill. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is a bill which is consistent with the values and interests of the Australian people. Citizenship is not an entitlement; it is a privilege. It is an absolute honour, in fact. Australian citizenship is made all the more precious through our excellent quality of life, robust democratic system and level of personal freedoms that are the envy of many across the world. Australia is a beautiful place full of productivity and peaceful people. Across this great nation you will find vibrant multicultural communities made up of ethnicities from all over the world. We are bound together by one fundamental truth: we are Australian citizens.
As citizens we are all equal under the law. We all receive the right to vote, to have a say in how our country is run and administered. We have the right to throw out a government if we do not think they are performing to standard. We have access to comprehensive social services and healthcare systems which help us all in our times of need. Our children are given the opportunity to read and write, to learn and to grow, through our excellent schools. We are supported finically through our tertiary institutions. Australians are aspirational and ambitious and we have shaped a society which harnesses that drive and develops its potential. These privileges are ensured through our Australian citizenship. These privileges are the hard-won results of generations of Australians who have gone before us. Young men and women have gone out into the world and made sacrifices to ensure safety for those of us here at home.
Barely a fortnight ago on Remembrance Day, I, as well as many others, stood and reflected on the sacrifices made by so many for what? For our nation and for our citizenry. We enjoy the safety of professional and resolute Defence and police forces. Echoing George Orwell, we sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. The men and women of our security services keep us safe, and their professionalism should not be understated or forgotten. These are the privileges that come with citizenship. They are willing to defend us and those freedoms because citizenship means something. Citizenship is an undying commitment to a nation and to its values. A citizen takes responsibility for the body politic, defending it with their life if need be. That is a message which must be conveyed and understood, as the threat of a globalised terrorist network has once again surfaced.
Since this legislation was introduced into this place, we have seen a wave of attacks on and in countries around the world. We watched with horror as wicked men acted on their perverted ideology, taking the lives of some 130 innocent people in Paris, the heart of liberal democracy. Whilst we are all saddened and angered by such attacks, we must remain resolute, determined and focused in our struggle. We stand with our brothers and sisters in the pursuit of freedom across this world and do so against the headwinds of hate and intolerance that are mobilised by those would seek to exploit fear rather than address it. The provision of national security is the first and foremost role of government. It is the primary responsibility of this government to keep our citizens safe from harm. It is no illusion that threats against our way of life are very real. They are present in our society and must be defeated. This message should not be one of alarm but, rather, one that sobers our minds as we come to grips with the realities of a globalised world. We must remain eternally vigilant, as this is the price of liberty. It seems that in this 21st century we must remain ever vigilant of the threat within as well as the threat without.
Whilst I have every faith in the industry of our professional and determined security forces, there is a role that legislators such as us must play in responding to this threat. This bill is a part of that response. This bill will amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for automatic cessation of Australian citizenship, including Australian citizenship by birth, of a person who is also a national or citizen of another country where that person: renounces their Australian citizenship by engaging in specified conduct inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia; fights for, or is in service of, declared terrorist organisations outside Australia; or is convicted of a specified offence under the Criminal Code or the Crimes Act 1914. This government has taken a measured and appropriate stance in this bill. National security in the 21st century can only be assured through the continued adaption of our legislative framework.
Since the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria surfaced, we have seen a new wave of young Australians engaging in activities which are fundamentally at odds with our national values and our national interest. It is not acceptable to those who do subscribe to our values for such individuals to maintain their citizenship as Australians. Daesh is not the only group that is pulling young Australians into their midst. The globalised world is fractured when it comes to criminal organisations such as Daesh, and the government maintains an exhaustive list of groups which are considered to be terrorist in nature. It is important, as the flow of people, information and ideas continue to be facilitated by increases in technology and solidified in socially networked communities, that we set the parameters of what is and what is not acceptable when it comes to the actions of Australian citizens. We must take a stand as a community and say that we do not accept that taking up arms against our values through fighting for groups which employ medieval barbarity and evil in the pursuit of the strategic goals should go unpunished. This government is willing to make the necessary changes to protect our citizens and the promise our citizenship holds.
Civic responsibility is a concept which is at the heart of the values of this government, and I do believe it is also at the heart of everyday Australians. It is entirely reasonable to remove the citizenship of someone who reneges on their civic responsibility through fighting for an enemy of our nation and of ourselves. With rights come responsibilities. How often have we heard that? Our citizenship guarantees us so many privileges yet it also demands of us that we act accordingly and deliver on our commitment to this nation, its values and its interests. We have been decisive in this bill. Automatic loss of citizenship will be triggered whether the conduct takes place inside or outside Australia. The loss of citizenship will be immediate upon the person engaging in the relevant conduct. The minister must give notice that a person has ceased to be an Australian citizen once the minister becomes aware of the person's conduct that gave rise to that outcome, but this notice does not affect when the loss of citizenship takes place. The bill makes clear that this notice may be given at such time and to such persons as the minister considers appropriate. This bill provides that a person automatically ceases to be a citizen if they are convicted of a specified offence. This provision relies on a court having determined criminal guilt. The relevant offences include treason, espionage, terrorism and foreign incursions.
This bill provides that a person who loses their citizenship for undertaking terrorism related activities which demonstrate a breach of allegiance is not able to reacquire Australian citizenship in the future—and most Australians would say, 'Thank God for that.' This is entirely appropriate because such a person will have shown that they are not capable of upholding their commitment to our country and are not worthy of the deep honour of Australian citizenship. This bill delivers on the responsibility that this government has in protecting our citizens from the agents of our enemies now and into the future. We remain resolute in our enduring and ever-present duty to protect the freedoms and liberties of our people. This government will take the possible step, and will have the intestinal fortitude, required to make the right decision in this national security space.
Ours is a Commonwealth built on tolerance, freedom and industry. Those who take up arms against our society are our enemies. Each and every person must be held to account for their actions and, as such, those who are our enemies cannot and should not be our citizens. I stand proud of this government's effort in responding to changes in the national security space, and I stand in awe of the dedication our national security professionals have to our safety. This bill will deliver outcomes for our nation, and I commend it to the House.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (19:53): At the moment, it looks as though the world is in unprecedented turmoil—North Korea, Sudan, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, the shocking atrocities in France and Mali and the planned atrocities in Germany and Belgium which mercifully seem to have perhaps been averted now, and of course the Russian airliner bombed out of the air over Egypt.
You have to ask yourself the question: has world security ever been so bad? Of course, it has. As bad as it is now, it has been worse in the past. It is 101 years since the beginning of World War I and it is 76 years since World War II broke out. In that context, the current crisis the world is in does not look so bad. But the game has changed dramatically. Whereas those wars were confined to travel options on the ground, the tools of war and insurgency have changed so much. Terrorist organisations can now reach right around the world and virtually into our living rooms through technology—through the internet and social media—with things like plastic explosives and fanaticism that most of us cannot even start to comprehend. We have enemies now who would rather die for their cause than live. How does any civilised society combat someone who would rather die for their cause than live? Pretty much through human history we have worked under the theory that in the end people have a sense of self-preservation. So when someone is intent on killing themselves, as we see with suicide bombers, it is almost impossible to have a perfect defence against such tactics. That means that we must continually adjust the way we deal with our enemies and the way we approach impending threats to our borders.
Throughout our history, Australia has welcomed immigrants and refugees from all over the world; in fact, our population has been built on this. We form a wonderful cohesive conglomeration of nationalities and of peoples who have come from all over the world. Apart from our first peoples—the Aboriginals; the Indigenous people of Australia—we have all come from afar. It is great to be Australian. It is a very privileged position to be an Australian—perhaps one of the greatest privileges in the world—because there are no barriers to race, there are no barriers to nationality, there are no barriers to creed and there are no barriers to religion; all that we ask is that you be loyal to Australia, to our laws, to our rules and to our institutions. From the day that a new citizen takes the oath to Australia, they are eligible to become Prime Minister and they are eligible for any job in Australia; there are no restrictions—except, if I were to bring in the monarchy debate, they could not be king in Australia. To leave that to one side, there are no restrictions. We offer full citizenship, but it comes with an obligation. In return for citizenship, we ask loyalty. We grant citizenship and there are no strings attached except loyalty. The newest Australian has that same commitment as every other Australian—as those of us who were born here.
When citizens display disloyalty to this country, which they may still well claim to be their home, and are working in the interests of other states, how can we call them Australians? In my mind, they have forfeited their rights to be Australian. No-one should be permitted to devalue what it means to be Australian; that is unfair to citizens that express nothing but loyalty to, and pride in, their country. This should be true of any society that seeks to uphold what it means to be a citizen of their country. Unfortunately, for instance, Belgium is going through this exact situation at present in the wake of the horrific attacks in Paris, with Belgian nationals, people who call themselves Belgians and who had been welcomed into Belgium society, committing these heinous crimes against their fellow countrymen and their neighbours. In this instance, I would state that these perpetrators are not Belgians and they are not interested in being full participants in its society. Just the same can be said of Australian citizens who engage in 'conduct which is inconsistent with allegiance to Australia,' as the amendments in this bill state.
There are currently approximately 110 Australian citizens fighting in Syria or engaged with terrorist organisations. To me these 110 people are rejecting what it means to be Australian. They do not uphold the privilege to be Australian, and they are not displaying a commitment to the Australian way of life. They are obviously not interested in our values. Instead, they are pursuing a way of life that is not conducive to what we aim to achieve here—a productive and peaceful society rather than a segregated one. In fact, they seek to destroy us. Already their tentacles have reached back into Australia. Look at the most recent examples: the Lindt Cafe in Martin Place; the knife attack on the two police officers in Melbourne, which was, incidentally, planned to be a beheading; and the shooting of Curtis Cheng, a good, honest man, employed by the New South Wales police, just going about his daily duties at the Parramatta police station.
This bill is only aimed at those who hold dual citizenship. Some of those 110 people in Syria that claim to be Australian—in fact, unfortunately, they are—will hold only Australian citizenship, and, as much as I feel in my soul I want to disown them, we cannot. It is not reasonable or responsible to render people stateless. Just in terms of dealing with our international relationships, you could imagine that, if we cancelled someone's citizenship and they were stuck in an airport somewhere on the other side of the world and that country was saying, 'We don't want them,' and we are saying, 'We don't want them,' and no one owns them, it will just lead to anarchy between nations.
A phrase I used in our own party room—and you may well remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—was, 'In the end, I think we are all responsible for our own garbage.' That is the case with those who are solely Australian citizens. They are our garbage, unfortunately, and it is our responsibility to deal with them. But in the case of this bill, I guess you could say they are shared garbage, particularly if they have come here and taken a second, Australian citizenship. They have sworn allegiance to Australia. If they are conducting an act of war against us, they have broken the pledge. They have broken the pledge, not Australia, so we will terminate that pledge and say, 'We no longer owe you loyalty.' This bill sets the parameters of this mechanism, if you like—how and why it works. It has been to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and a raft of recommendations, which the government has accepted, have resulted from that process. So it should, and does, command broad support.
The people on the street—or, where I come from, sometimes out in the paddock—are asking for action. They are absolutely looking for the government to stand up and do something, and many of them would like it to go much, much further. We have responsibilities in the international sense, and I touched on how we owe a responsibility for our people that are solely Australian citizens. But those people out there want to know that the Australian government is doing absolutely everything it can to make Australia safe, that the Federal Police and ASIO have the resources they need, that the border protection policies of Australia are strong and sound and that our immigration department is up for the task of dealing with those people who would like to come to Australia and making sure that we have quality options and that those that we allow to become Australians are those that we can trust and that deserve to become Australians. As a nation, we need to uphold the values and the safety of those that are loyal to Australia—those that are proud to call themselves Australian and would die in patriotism for this country, not those who would die in battle against us.
The removal of citizenship for dual citizens is, indeed, at the end of the day, a small step in what is going to be a very, very long campaign. It is going to be an ongoing war that this nation and the other civilised nations of the world will have to wage for many years. There are no silver bullets in this game. But this, I think, sends a very strong message—and that is probably one of the most important parts of the legislation—that we will not tolerate this behaviour. If you have dual citizenship, you will lose your citizenship. If you are solely an Australian citizen, we will accept you back, but you will not be having a very nice life when you get back here. You will be spending some time looking at the bars of a prison, because we just cannot tolerate this threat. Worldwide, we must stand as one against this disgusting and morally repugnant attack on civilised societies. I commend the bill.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (20:05): Border protection, national security and respect for the Australian way of life and our cultural values and beliefs are among the top issues of concern among Hinkler constituents. From the outset, I say that this government's tough immigration policies carefully balance the national interest with our humanitarian responsibilities. 'Stopping the boats' is not just a three-word slogan; it is backed by a policy of tough measures that have deterred people from risking their lives at sea. In the 12 months before the coalition introduced Operation Sovereign Borders, there were 401 illegal boat arrivals carrying some 26,542 people. This compares with only one illegal boat arrival in 2014.
Since coming to government two years ago, our policies have resulted in the closure of 13 immigration detention centres, saving the 2015-16 budget some $500 million. We have reduced the number of children in detention by 90 per cent. As a result of Operation Sovereign Borders, we have been able to increase the humanitarian program from the current level of 13,750 places per year to 18,750 places per year by 2018-19. It has also enabled us to take 12,000 additional Syrian refugees through proper channels, in addition to the 4,400 we settled last financial year.
I strongly support the measures contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 which strip dual passport holders of their Australian citizenship if their actions do not demonstrate an allegiance to Australia. I emphasise that these laws only impact dual passport holders and do not render a person stateless. The bill applies regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth. Similar laws have been enacted in the UK and Canada. Australian citizenship should be respected and not taken for granted. As the bill states:
… Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
The new powers in this bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat.
A review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. Specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing; the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing; and the number of potential terrorists is unfortunately rising. Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since early 2014. Since September last year, when the national terrorism public alert level was raised to high, 26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.
Since it came into force in 1949, the law has enforced the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This bill expands section 35 to provide for automatic cessation of Australian citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country and is overseas fighting for a declared terrorist organisation.
But what about dual passport holders who are living in Australia? About 190 people in Australia are currently known to be providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are seeking to travel. Proposed section 33AA provides that a dual passport holder renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. Such conduct includes engaging in terrorist activities, including the use of explosive or lethal devices; providing or receiving training connected with a terrorist act; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; and financing terrorism.
Proposed section 35A gives the minister power to determine loss of a person's citizenship when they have been convicted and sentenced to at least six years imprisonment for a relevant offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Loss of citizenship is not automatic, and the minister must revoke a determination if the conviction is overturned. Dual passport holders who are stripped of their Australian citizenship have the right to judicial review. The minister must table a report in parliament every six months outlining the number of successful and unsuccessful notices given and a brief explanation of the basis for those notices being issued.
Also relevant to this debate here today is the current community discussion and media coverage surrounding the deportation or visa cancellation of foreign criminals. My office has been contacted in a relation to a number of foreign nationals caught up in the unrest on Christmas Island who had been living locally. Their visas have been cancelled after committing a violent or serious offence. It would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases, for privacy reasons. I simply make the point that it is not unreasonable to expect people who enjoy the benefits of living in this country to obey Australian law. The government makes no apologies for cancelling the visas of noncitizens who commit serious or violent criminal offences in our country.
In December last year the coalition made amendments to the Migration Amendment Act to ensure that noncitizens or foreign nationals who commit crimes, pose a risk to the Australian community, or are of integrity concern are able to have their visa refused or cancelled. Mandatory cancellation was also introduced for noncitizens in prison who do not pass the character test to ensure those who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community remain in detention until that risk has been assessed and their immigration status has been determined. Why should Australians pay to keep noncitizens in prison? Why shouldn't they be returned to their country of citizenship?
In 2014, the United Kingdom passed legislation which expanded the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. Under the new laws, a person can be deprived of citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British citizenship status and to do so would not render them stateless; or if the person obtained their citizenship status through naturalisation, and it would be conducive to the public good to deprive them of their status because they have engaged in conduct 'seriously prejudicial' to the UK's vital interests and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that they could acquire another nationality; or if the person acquired their citizenship status by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.
Canada recently passed legislation expanding the basis on which citizenship may be revoked and the process by which this may happen. The new laws were passed by parliament in 2014 and came into effect on 28 May 2015. Under the new legislation, the citizenship and immigration minister may revoke the citizenship of a dual national who is convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.
In conclusion, the legislative changes we have made in Australia are not about race or religion. They are about protecting and upholding our country's beliefs and values from terrorists and serious criminals. The government's amendments to the bill are in response to the 27 recommendations made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security on Friday, 4 September 2015.
Since 1945, 4.6 million people have become Australian citizens, including 136,000 in 2014-15. Most immigrants are extraordinary people who have helped make our great country what it is today: our history, our art, our cuisine and our social fabric. Over the past two years, my office has helped secure visas for literally dozens of people, including doctors, nurses, graphic designers, farmers and tradespeople. Many others we have helped are also making valuable contributions to our community through volunteer organisations, paying taxes and spending money in local businesses.
In my role as the federal member for Hinkler, I often have the pleasure of attending citizenship ceremonies in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. All of the people I have met to date are excited, optimistic, positive and proud to be making their pledge of allegiance to our nation, to Australia. Their oath goes like this:
From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
Our nation's greatest strength lies in our diversity and the Australian way of life. That strength and culture is provided by our people. Our people's safety and security will always be, first and foremost, our No. 1 priority. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (20:14): It is a lamentable duty in some respects to be speaking on this bill tonight—the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The only reason we are discussing it is that we are dealing with some significant challenges and problems within Australia, and this government is determined to deal with those in the best interests of Australians without fear or favour.
A recent review of our counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising—that might seem like a really obvious statement—but this review concluded that the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists in our own country is increasing and therefore the number of potential terrorists is rising. We are advised that our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations and this has basically doubled since 2014. More worryingly and more depressingly in many respects, there are around 110 Australians currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq; and around 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and/or groups in those conflicts in Syria and Iraq through financing, recruitment or they are seeking to travel there themselves.
Clearly we have a significant challenge to undertake, and the role of this parliament is to deal with those challenges, to defend our values and to defend Australian freedoms irrespective of the consequences. I am extraordinarily happy that as a result of this bill Australian dual nationals who swear allegiance to another cause or country by fighting or engaging with or supporting terrorist activities offshore will no longer be able to call themselves Australians and will not be able to return to our country, should they be overseas. This is a no-brainer—an absolute no-brainer. If we are to look at ourselves with pride as a country and as a parliament, we must assert on behalf of the Australian people that we will not tolerate anybody fighting for, or having allegiance to, somebody or some cause or some country other than our own. This is really a modern concept of treason and treasonous behaviour must be treated in the strongest possible ways.
I am probably a contrarian in some respects; I would be more than comfortable stripping the citizenship from non-dual nationals who went to fight overseas and beheaded people and put women into sexual slavery and raped and pillaged and murdered. I would be very comfortable voting for a bill that stopped them from returning to Australia, but I appreciate and understand that as a government we must maintain strong and positive relationships with our neighbours, our trading partners and the whole international community. In a sense it is really unreasonable to off-load those people to other jurisdictions. Where we have a sole Australian citizen who is engaged in that behaviour, I accept that, unfortunately, we must take them back, but, quite frankly, when I speak to the average Deakin constituent they would be more than happy to tell that person, 'Sorry, your conduct means that you are never welcome back to this country.'
Acknowledging the limitations of this bill for a range of very good and important reasons that we cannot render people stateless, I am extraordinarily proud that we have been able to steward this bill through a number of reviews in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that dual nationals will not return to this country. I say that as the son of Lebanese migrant to this country. We often talk about somebody who has a convert's zeal, and I was lucky enough to grow up in a home with a father who had a zeal for Australian citizenship that you only get, I think, from people who have had a very hard journey to get here and they truly appreciate how lucky and fortunate we all are to call ourselves Australian citizens. I have seen firsthand in a migrant community the absolute way in which they treasure being an Australian and they defend Australian values. In my household you could never say anything bad about our country because my father would not have. That is my experience with the vast majority of immigrant communities in my electorate and throughout the country when ever I travel.
There is nothing incompatible with our values of being an open, welcoming, tolerant multicultural society—indeed, it strengthens it. If you want to be an Australian citizen and you are a dual national and you are lucky enough to have Australian citizenship, we have very high expectations of you. No doubt there are many responsibilities but there are also many rights that you get with being an Australian citizen; and they have to be there together—you cannot have one without the other.
I thank the responsible ministers involved with this legislation for doing a power of work. I want to commend the joint parliamentary committee which undertook the review into the machinery of these amendments and thank them for their work, because this is still a contested area. It is quite shocking to me that there are still people—many of whom occupy a place within the Greens political party—who think that, if you have gone to Iraq or Syria, if you have beheaded Christians or have raped or sexually enslaved minority groups, you should be welcomed back to this country. Those proponents say, 'Well, we should bring them back and prosecute them here.' Given our laws of evidence, it would be virtually impossible to ever convict a person who has conducted themselves in that way, so why would we bring them back to this country? This bill ensures that those people will never walk our streets; it ensures that those people will never have the opportunity to bring home the disgraceful skills and ideology that they would have honed in that foreign jurisdiction and to ply their evil trade here in Australia.
As the son of a migrant, somebody who has been embedded in migrant communities my whole life, I say that this bill promotes the values and the responsibilities that we expect of everybody who comes to this country. We will open our arms up to you, we will give you every opportunity in the world, but if you throw that back in our face and if you conduct yourself in a way that is so incompatible with calling yourself an Australian, we will strip you of your citizenship. Unfortunately, I bet at that point some of those people may start to realise just what they have left behind—although perhaps many of them are so twisted that that would not necessarily be the case. I commend each of the ministers for the work they have done and I again want to commend the parliamentary joint committee, and I absolutely commend this bill in the strongest possible terms.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (20:24): Being an Australian citizen is a privilege. Any person engaged in terrorist activities against the values we hold as Australians does not deserve to be a citizen of Australia. Islamist extremists are insulted by our way of life. They are insulted by our freedoms, they are insulted by the separation of church and state, they are insulted by equality for women and there are many other values that they are not happy with. I say with great sincerity to extremists who are insulted by these Australian values, and indeed the values of a lot of Western countries, that if you are not happy with them I encourage you to leave and go and live in countries where the values that they hold are more congruent with your values. If you are a dual citizen taking up arms against us in places overseas, as many are, then stripping you of your citizenship is a very good idea and I commend the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill to the House.
I would like to quote Sir Edmund Barton on being an immigrant and an Australian. This is from 1907: 'In the first place, we should insist that if an immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates themselves to us, they shall be treated on exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such person because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian and nothing but an Australian. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any person who says they are an Australian, but something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag. We have room for one language here and that is the English language. And we have room for one sole loyalty and that is loyalty to the Australian people.' Every Australian needs to understand that this is what our country is. Let our politicians enforce what our first Prime Minister believed.
Obviously we have become more lenient, and dual citizenship is something that is often encouraged. As we have become more multicultural we obviously encourage and are happy for our country to have many languages. We are the richer for that—many languages are spoken in our country and obviously dual citizens are welcome here, because of course Australian citizens can also be dual citizens in other countries. But the basic premise of that statement is still there, and that is allegiance and congruency with the values that we have.
Why has this bill come before this House? The first time this issue came into the consciousness of most Australians, and most people throughout the world, was the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York back in 2001. There were some events before that, but since that date we have all been very conscious of the different terrorist attacks in the name of religion, but, as we know, those people are doing their own religion a great disservice. We have had the Bali bombings, we have had the Lindt cafe, we have had the shooting of the police staffer a number of weeks ago—there are many examples, including the Paris terrorist attacks last week. Australia's security agency is managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations—this has doubled since early 2014—and we have, we think, around 110 Australians currently fighting with or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. The importance of this cannot be overstated. We have to make it very clear to all people in this country and all organisations, and 99.9 per cent of them are congruent with our values, that we do hold certain values and certain democratic principles very dear to the success and the freedoms of this country, and groups and extremists that are not aligned with these values are, as I say, encouraged to leave and go to countries where they feel the values are more congruent with their own beliefs.
Obviously since this bill was drafted there have been a few variations, but it remains related to dual citizens. People who are citizens only of Australia will still be coming back to Australia if they have been involved in these activities, but we will certainly be laying charges and their life will not be that pleasant when they come back. This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause setting out the fundamental principles upon which the amending legislation is based. The bill outlines the circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism-related activities and it outlines the circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill. It provides for reporting on and monitoring of the arrangements in the bill and provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring and related matters.
The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security in June 2015 for inquiry and report. The committee tabled its report in September 2015. The committee made 27 recommendations for amendment to the bill and explanatory memorandum. The government amendments are proposed to the bill and explanatory memorandum in response to those recommendations.
Element 1 is the renunciation by conduct, which provides that a person who is a national or a citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct. The relevant conduct is:
(a) engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices;
(b) engaging in a terrorist act;
(c) providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act;
(d) directing the activities of a terrorist organisation;
(e) recruiting for a terrorist organisation;
(f) financing terrorism;
(g) financing a terrorist;
(h) engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.
The government amendments to the bill provide that the conduct provisions are limited to individuals who have engaged in relevant conduct offshore or have engaged in relevant conduct onshore and have left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct. The amended bill provides that the conduct provisions only apply if the conduct is engaged in with specified intentions, such as with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, with the intention of supporting, promoting or engaging in a hostile activity in another country or on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation.
Element 2 is that the person fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. Since the law came into force in 1949 it has provided for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This bill expands the section to provide for the automatic cessation of citizenship if a person who is also a citizen of another country is overseas and fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. A declared terrorist organisation will be a subset of those which are listed for the purposes of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code.
As amended, the bill provides that the minister, by legislative instrument, may declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section where the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, or advocates the doing of a terrorist act, and is opposed to Australia or to Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties, so that, if a person were to fight for or be in the service of such an organisation, the person would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. The provisions in relation to being in the service of a declared terrorist organisation do not apply to acts that are unintentional, under duress or for the purposes of independent humanitarian assistance. A declaration by the minister of a declared terrorist organisation is reviewable by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Element 3 is conviction for terrorism and related offences. As now amended, the section provides a power for the minister to determine a person's citizenship has been lost once they have been convicted of a relevant offence and upon consideration of relevant criteria. Loss of citizenship is not automatic upon the conviction. Following the recommendations, the list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Offences or incursions into foreign states with the intention of engaging in hostile activities have also been included through the amendments. This replicates provisions under the repealed Crimes Act and is important in ensuring the bill is as effective as possible, given the activities of terrorists overseas. To be considered under this section, a person must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment or to periods of imprisonment that total at least six years.
This provision relies on a court having determined criminal guilt. The relevant offences include convictions for treason, espionage, terrorism, treachery, sabotage, and foreign incursions and recruitment. The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time a determination is made by the minister. In making a determination the minister must be satisfied that the conduct of the person or related convictions demonstrate that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen, having regard to the following factors: the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction or convictions and the sentence or sentences, the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community, the age of the person—if the person is aged under 18, the best interests of the child are a primary consideration—the connection of the person to the other country of which they are a citizen, Australia's international relations and any other matters of public interest. The minister must revoke a determination if a conviction is overturned or if the decision to overturn is upheld on appeal, and no further appeal can be made to a court in relation to the decision.
As you can see, this has been done with great consideration, and there are protections in there as well if a person is convicted but they are not sure what they were convicted for. I commend this bill to the House. It is a shame that this bill is important to our national security at the moment and, indeed, to the national security of any countries around the world who have done similar things. But these are the time in which we live, and one of the primary roles of a government is to protect its citizens. This bill is certainly going some way towards that.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (20:37): Before I begin, I congratulate the member for Page on his excellent contribution to this debate. I rise today to speak in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is a bill which reinforces the importance of Australian citizenship. Citizenship matters. Citizenship is fundamental to our constitutional democracy. It is the expression of our rights and our responsibilities. It is an institution.
We derive the word 'citizen' from the Latin word 'civitas', which was the ancient Roman term for 'city'. To be a citizen is to belong to a body politic, and, whilst it is an ancient system of human interaction, it is one which has delivered the modern freedoms we enjoy today. To be a citizen is to swear undying allegiance to a nation. Citizens enjoy both the opportunities and the challenges confronting their nation, and Australia is no exception in this context. Citizenship of a nation is imbued with a set of rights. No Australian citizen is above another, and absolutely none are above the law.
A fortnight ago, I stood on the grassed roof of Parliament House with a group of children visiting from my electorate of Barker. I told the young students from Monash Primary School in the Riverland that this was a place built into the hill, not on top of it, to emphasise the equality that all Australian citizens enjoy by virtue of their citizenship. I told them that this sort of arrangement was not always the case, as we stood looking at the copy of the Magna Carta just down the hall from the chamber, and I told them of the progress of our British forebears from a feudal society to a vibrant, democratic nation-state which embraces its own modernity. I told them of how the Australian citizens who came before them worked hard to build this Commonwealth and that they too had a part to play in the story of our nation.
As Australian citizens we are given boundless opportunities. We are born into a lucky country and, whilst not all of us receive the dividends of that luck, we have designed a society which safeguards our disadvantaged. Australians enjoy one of the best education systems in the world. We have a comprehensive healthcare system which leaves no citizen behind. We have a social security system which delivers equality of opportunity and seeks to rectify structural disadvantage across our nation.
Our nation is so successful that we have the capacity to send our citizens abroad to teach, to mentor, to safeguard the weak and to combat those who would seek to dominate their fellow men. Our people are widely recognised for our optimism, our sense of humour, our fairness and our ambition. We are a nation that punches well above its weight. We are considered a middle power on the international stage and we respond frequently and rapidly to help our neighbours when they experience natural disasters. Ours is a strong and healthy nation.
The democratic system that we have was built on the firm foundation of citizenship. Citizenship is the cornerstone of our society. It is the manifestation of the social contract we have with our government. But in this modern world we are faced with a new wave of disengagement with civic life. A minority is taking their citizenship for granted. Australian citizenship is one that is coveted the world over. It was the desire for a new life, one of hope and opportunity, which spurred my parents to pursue citizenship of this beautiful nation. It is the same motivation which draws people from all over the world to Australia each and every year, regardless of culture, race or creed. Australian citizenship delivers hope.
Yet, as we have seen over the past few weeks, sadly, there are people in this world—and, indeed, some in this country—that hate our way of life. They hate our freedoms and they despise our liberties. These people are so filled with hate that they seek to dislocate our society through acts of terror. We have seen attacks in the centre of Paris, attacks which were aimed directly at the home of liberty.
These criminals and their medieval world view have no place in the 21st century. Using fear and hate, they try to destabilise our confident Australian ethos and seek to force us to capitulate to their strategic objectives. Try as they might, they cannot. They will not shake our resolute and unbreakable commitment to our values and to our way of life. This government remains strong in the face of such acts of terror and responds with a steady and measured hand.
This bill brings our citizenship laws into step with the reality of a 21st century world view. We have seen the new face of an ancient evil in the proliferation of so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. We have seen how their brutal, barbaric tactics, spread through modern and pervasive technologies, have lured people from across the globe to their feudal base in the Middle East. While the foreign fighter phenomenon is not new, a range of factors, including the number of individuals currently involved in conflict in places such as Iraq and Syria and the relatively high proportion from Western nations, are an increasingly concerning reality.
Of primary concern is the potential threat these individuals pose to domestic security upon their return—a very real threat, especially if they retain their citizenship and the freedom to re-enter Australia at will. The United Kingdom, Canada and France have all employed citizenship revocation as a legislative framework to mitigate this threat. We know that around 110 Australians are currently fighting for or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. We know that about 190 people in Australia are providing material support to individuals and groups in these countries and in these conflicts, through financial and recruitment practices, or seeking to travel to the conflict zone. There is a very real risk that these members of terrorist groups may decide to return to Australia. Indeed, as we are increasingly seeing, many are doing so. We cannot stand idly by as foreign fighters return to this country and enter our communities to spread their poisonous ideology.
We know that our industrious and professional security agencies are already actively monitoring some 400 priority cases domestically. This bill will further strengthen our security forces' capacity to deal with Australians who go overseas to partake in foreign conflicts. We must hold these people to account because citizenship is a two-way street. Australian citizenship guarantees extensive rights and liberties but, in return, it demands certain responsibilities. One of our responsibilities as citizens of Australia is an unquestioning allegiance to our nation, its interests and its values. Allegiance is a duty owed by all citizens to their sovereign state. A citizen's duty of allegiance to Australia is not created by the Citizenship Act but it is recognised by it.
This bill recognises the importance of that relationship and, as such, effectively delivers three mechanisms for automatic loss of citizenship. Of course, we are speaking here of the automatic loss of citizenship for those who hold dual citizenship. As for me, I would be happy to see individuals with sole Australian citizenship stripped of that standing if they were to take up arms and fight for a foreign nonpower such as Daesh or the Islamic State but, of course, our international conventions prevent us from doing that. Going back to those three mechanisms, the first is a new provision in which a person renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in certain terrorist conduct. Second, there is an extension to the current loss of citizenship provision for a person fighting in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. The extension provides that a person ceases to be a citizen if they fight for, or are in the service of, a specified terrorist organisation overseas. Third, there is a new loss of citizenship provision if the person has been convicted of a specified terrorism offence by an Australian court.
This government makes no apologies for taking a firm stance when it comes to the integrity of the Australian citizenship system. The security of our nation is the priority of this government. The reality is there are people out in our society today who are actively aiding our enemies at home and abroad. It is not something we should fear but it is something we must address. In supporting terror and barbarities, such individuals directly attack our values and our way of life. Such individuals forfeit all rights to the maintenance of Australian citizenship and it is that right that we are prepared to take from them.
This bill is not a free pass for governments to render people stateless nor is it an opportunistic grab for power. This bill is a necessary response to the new realities that face our national security. Not only is the position we are taking in this bill reasonable but it is consistent with the position taken by some of our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Canada and America. It is simple: if you, as a dual citizen, go abroad and fight against this nation and its interests, we will strip from you your Australian citizenship. As we speak, there are Australian Defence Force personnel in the Middle East risking their lives so that this evil that has taken root in Iraq and Syria does not spread to our shores. To be Australian is to adhere to our way of life and to subscribe to our values.
This bill deals with a threat caused by those who have engaged in terrorist related conduct that is contrary to their allegiance to Australia. It formally removes Australian citizenship from a dual citizen who takes up arms against Australia. It comes down to this: we live in the greatest country on earth. We live in a vibrant, multiracial society with a robust democratic system of government which maximises freedoms and delivers equality of opportunity. Those who have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq on behalf of our enemies wholeheartedly believe that the way we live is fundamentally wrong. They believe in a monocultural society which is subjugated to the whim of a few religious leaders. They believe in stoning women to death for the offence of being raped. They believe in selling young girls into sexual slavery. They believe in crucifying nonbelievers and treating humans like property. They do not believe in religious freedom nor in freedom of speech. They have perpetrated mass murder and continue to groom our young to do their bidding for them. Not only do they continue to perpetrate these crimes against humanity but they pervert ideology to justify their action. They want to plunge us squarely back into the Dark Ages. These are truly evil men and women.
The message this government is sending is clear: if you are dual citizen and you take up arms with these barbaric war criminals, you are not Australian. You will not be an Australian citizen; we will take that privilege from you. Indeed, we will strip it from you. I am proud to support this bill. This bill is taking the protection of our nation to the next, higher level, and I commend it to the House.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (20:50): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. To belong is to be a citizen. Many of us are born into that privilege. When we are born into that privilege, perhaps we may not value it as much as we certainly should. Some strive for that privilege; some strive to be citizens of Australia. Across the electorate that I represent, I see many citizenship ceremonies and people grasping hold of that particular certificate and really holding it very close and dear to their hearts. Often, you will see that certificate displayed in their house if you go and visit them. Citizenship is a gift that some of us are born with. It is a gift that is sometimes bestowed upon people who come to this country. But it is something to be valued; it is something to belong.
However, there are some who do not value it. How do they not value it? They do not value it by not valuing the people who live here and the values that we share in this country. One of the things that is special about the area I represent is how multicultural it is. For example, one of our high schools has 415 students with 54 first languages spoken.
In some respects we are living out the great dream of humanity, which is that we can all get along. We can fight one another on the football field but we can all get along. I really love that the electorate that I represent is immensely multicultural. The food is great. The culture is great. The way people interact is good. This was built around an ideal, and my fear is that many have lost that ideal. It is the ideal that somehow Australia is something special. Australia is something special. Many of us, whether five generations ago, one generation ago or in our lifetime, have come to make Australia home. I think this is unique in the world. I think Australia, Canada and perhaps America are the three most multicultural countries in the Western democracy that have really got a handle on this.
Will this bill in itself stop terrorism? Will stripping dual citizens of their citizenship stop terrorism? The answer is no. How does one fight an ideal with a gun? We should not shy away from the resolve that we must do that which is right. Ultimately, we must have the strength to do that which is right. That strength requires strong law enforcement. That strength requires a bill such as the one before us where we are drawing a line in the sand and making it clear that citizenship is not something you can take for granted, that citizenship is a privilege which some have been born into and some have been granted.
We must also fight this problem that is presenting itself to the world with education. Education is about valuing what we have. My fear is not so much dual citizens who might attack us but Australians who were born here, who feed on radical ideals and become home-grown terrorist. The only way we can tackle that is through strong education to ensure that Australians do not take for granted the values that we hold dear. Let's be clear about this. Ultimately, every generation needs to relearn the importance of what is unique about Australia. I also think humanity is not weak when it displays unity or displays love. Love is probably not a thing that we talk about very much in this chamber, but it is in the shared nature of humanity. It is when we see mankind at its best. It is when we stand united in a positive belief that we can achieve anything. Together, we can disarm our nuclear weapons, like we did in the Cold War. Together, we can tackle Ebola, like we saw in Africa. Together, we will stamp out this strange idea that death is the answer, that killing is a means to an end. That is the real contrast between the shared humanity that I believe in, the shared humanity that much of the world longs for, and Daesh and the cult that it has started.
There is no doubt that some of what Daesh is trying to do is built on some warped ideal about an Islamic state in the Middle East. Islam can be a force for good; it can also be a force for evil—just like Christendom was a force for evil in the Dark Ages. It is only when you realise that we can have a faith but also interact in a tolerant way in a modern world that we can learn to get along. The challenge that we have is that we do not divide this debate down the lines of a battle between people of Muslim faith, people of Christian faith, people of Buddhist faith and people of Hindu faith. The world cannot stand a conflict where 1.2 billion people are fighting against one another just because of different belief structures. What we can stand is a society that values different belief structures, that allows people to interact and of course debate their views about the world and that believes in the rule of law.
There is no place for Sharia law in Australian society. The only place for laws to be made is in this chamber—a representative government of secular law where we can have the debates that represent the views of the Australian people. We should be very clear that at no point should we tolerate a belief structure based on a law that does not come out of this chamber. I think citizenship is a privilege. We can win this battle with a resolve to have the strength to disarm, to disturb and to break up those who seek to harm us, and this we can do through education, through valuing our freedoms and through the love of humanity. A good humanity and a shared humanity believes in respecting one another and listening to one another's views.
Debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Presentation
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Assistant Minister for Defence) (20:58): I present the Prime Minister's answer to the question asked by the member for Melbourne on 22 October.
BILLS
Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (20:59): It being 9 pm I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
McEwen Electorate: Employment
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (20:59): Employment—how to get work, how to train for work, and your rights at work—these are important issues right across McEwen. Whether I am in Sunbury, Seymour, Mernda, Doreen, Craigieburn, Romsey, or the other towns in my electorate, employment is a constant topic of discussion and concern in our community. That is why, last Monday evening, I sponsored a gathering of around 40 people at the Sunbury Aquatic Centre to discuss employment with the shadow minister for employment, the member for Gorton.
There were people there from all walks of life, including businesses, and I will get to the discussion shortly. But let us look briefly at the statistics that are of concern. There are 23,600 more unemployed people in Victoria now than when federal Labor left office, in 2013. The Abbott-Turnbull government's lack of a youth unemployment policy has seen the rate in Victoria rise to 14.9 per cent. In Melbourne's north-west, talking in communities like Sunbury, Gisborne and Romsey and the Macedon Ranges, the youth unemployment rate is at 13.4 per cent. In the community of Sunbury itself, since 2013 the unemployment rate has risen from 3.2 per cent in Sunbury and Sunbury South to 4.2 per cent. That is a 30 per cent increase in the rate of unemployment in Sunbury alone. Across the electorate of McEwen unemployment has gone from 4.2 per cent in 2013 to 5.5 per cent today.
These are not just cold, hard figures on a page. These figures reflect the lived experience of people in our community—people trying to put their kids through school, pay their mortgage or their rent and put food on the table. We must do better than this, and this was part of our discussion at the forum. I do not have time to cover in detail all of the topics we discussed, but let's go through some of the more important elements. We talked about the increasing rate of youth unemployment. The fact is, it is not only socially unfair but it is also economically stupid not to address this problem. We also discussed the impact of technology on the way we work and train; the importance of STEM in our schools; the coming impacts on all manufacturing in Melbourne and beyond of the shutdown of the automotive industry; how Sunbury dealt with the closure of Ansett, what we had learnt from that, and what might be able to be applied today; discrimination against older workers and migrant workers; career advice in schools and universities; and, the growing issue of disreputable RTOs and what to do to avoid them and shut them down. These are just a few of the issues we covered.
We can do better, and this government must certainly do better. Only two weeks ago the Abbott-Turnbull government announced new funding under the Melbourne's North Innovation and Investment Fund that ignored places like Sunbury—$4 million in grants for projects meant for Melbourne's north, but nothing for our community.
I strongly support investment in jobs in our region, but the Abbott-Turnbull government needs to be smarter about ensuring that the jobs are located closer to where people live. We are seeing extraordinary residential growth in the outer north, some of the most significant growth in Australia, but we are not seeing the investment from the federal government that will support jobs and families in our communities.
It is pretty clear that the Turnbull government has not even considered growth north of Campbellfield and will not put any money in to the businesses north of there. Both Hume and Whittlesea have significant populations north of the traditional manufacturing suburbs. Whilst totally ignoring the growing population, the Abbott-Turnbull government has shunned Sunbury and our communities in the Calder corridor. Anyone who has any understanding of our region will know that our roads are clogged and infrastructure investment is not keeping pace with growth. This has been exacerbated by four years of zero spending by the Baillieu-Napthine government on road investment, which means that we are now four years further behind than where we were before.
We do not need any more people having to drive south in the morning and north in the afternoon, spending hours in traffic that could otherwise be spent productively at work or at home. What we need is jobs investment close to the communities that are growing.
I want to thank all who attended the meeting, including the member for Gorton, for contributing to an important discussion. This government must do better in the way it deals with employment in our community and it must do better for our families and for our kids. Without investment in jobs and employment in our region the families already struggling from massive cuts to manufacturing and the airline industry will find it more difficult to continue to keep their heads above water.
It is not right, and this PM needs to stop talking at people and start listening to them. He needs to listen to people and drive investment in to our outer suburbs and give our residents a fighting chance.
Domestic and Family Violence
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (21:04): I do not often say good things about the former Labor government. However, one of the few positive legacies I could cite from this era is the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. A number of things that have come out of these hearings have been invaluable to the community. Firstly, it has given victims of abuse a chance to be heard on the public record, once and for all. I have read many media reports of the hearings, where people who have testified have told what a valuable experience this is towards their healing. Consequential to the testimony, is the fact that more than 800 incidents of sexual abuse have been referred to police. In some of these cases justice is being served right now. All of this is a valuable thing. It is good for the victims, and it is good for society that people who committed these despicable and horrid crimes against children, albeit several decades ago, will face justice.
As the royal commission process moves towards conclusion, it is time for members of this chamber to start giving serious consideration to how we prevent future crimes. The top priority of any government must be to protect its citizens, and the citizens who are most in need of protection are those who are unable to defend themselves—that is, children.
I would like to briefly outline one of the stories that has surfaced through the royal commission process. I will not name the offender, not because we owe him any duty, but to protect the privacy and dignity of his victims, some of whom still reside in my electorate. So, for the purpose of this speech we will call him X. X was a teacher. He was sacked by the South Australian public school system, in 1978, for 'disgraceful and improper conduct'. He went on to work at a Brisbane private school, in the 1980s, where he was sacked after accusations of sexual abuse. He was promptly rehired at another school, where a student went to the principal and made detailed accusations about X sexually abusing him. The principal of the school warned the child not to tell lies. He threatened to take away his scholarship and he ignored the accusation. X later resigned from that school, was given a glowing reference by the principal and moved to my electorate and took up another teaching position. It was in the Northern Territory that he was sacked and convicted of sexually abusing five boys from his last school.
I do not know how many young lives were irreparably damaged by the actions of X. I do know that every victim after his first in the late 1970s until his dismissal from the Northern Territory education system in 1993 was failed by the system. They were failed by those who did not escalate the accusations to police, and they were failed by a system which allowed a paedophile to continue working unsupervised with children.
Along with my colleague the member for Dawson I am campaigning for the creation of a national register of people who have been convicted of sexual crimes against children. This is building on from the good work that the Northern Territory government has done. Government must protect its people, especially those who are unable to protect themselves. I call on members from both sides of this chamber to support the creation of this register, because we need to make sure that stories similar to that of X are stopped. They are so common that we have not even scratched the surface. I think that even if the register stops one child being abused it is worth it. There will be more to come on this issue. The member for Dawson and I are very passionate about this particular issue. We would like others on both sides of the chamber to support us.
Scullin Electorate: Whittlesea Community Connections
Mr GILES (Scullin) (21:09): This evening I rise to speak about the important work being done by an organisation in my electorate that is also active in the electorate of my great friend the member for McEwen. That is Whittlesea Community Connections. I would like to talk about the need for this organisation to retain an appropriate level of funding and the support it needs to continue doing the great work it does in providing services and, equally importantly, building community. While I have spoken about this organisation on several occasions in the House, I rise to speak about it now as the organisation is about to go into its annual general meeting and also because it is facing some particular challenges at the moment. I want to take this opportunity to place on the record my strong support for the work it does.
I will start by talking about Fahimah. This is just one example of the lives that have been positively affected by Whittlesea Community Connections. Fahimah is a permanent resident of Australia. She and her husband have two children. Her husband is physically and emotionally abusive towards her in front of their children. Recently, Fahimah's husband left her and took the children interstate. He retained her visa documentation. She visited Whittlesea Community Connections for information about family violence and to help get her children back. The settlement service referred her to the police and the legal service referred her to Victoria Legal Aid. The children were returned. There are some other matters that are ongoing. The situation has been very distressing. She is awaiting court hearings to determine custody and other issues having received the support that has enabled her to navigate a system that is foreign to her and complex. This is just one story of many across settlement services, casework, legal services and other client services that Whittlesea Community Connections provide. All of them are important. Many of these stories are testament to the importance of an organisation that does not merely provide high-quality services to people in need but is firmly anchored in community.
Over 42 years Whittlesea Community Connections have met the changing needs of residents of the city of Whittlesea. They have identified and responded to service gaps to build resilience. WCC provide community legal services, emergency relief services—sadly, much in demand at the moment—settlement programs, community transport services and more. They have been developed in and by the Whittlesea community and therefore have a particular ability to close service gaps and promptly respond to emerging needs.
This is a very significant point. The role of smaller focused providers is too often overlooked and left in the shadow of larger charities and service providers. This week will see White Ribbon Day. It is an opportunity to reflect on the importance of well-funded community delivered and legal services. As well, women's groups and support services are invaluable in helping to break the cycle of abuse as community support and information hubs.
Whittlesea Community Connections assists seven people a week with family violence issues. It has faced a significant cut to women's services, which means these services will disappear and will not be picked up by other providers. As has been discussed in this House today, the links between such services, gender equality and family violence are all too clear. In areas where women are isolated there is an increased likelihood of these things being significant, as is the case in many of the growth areas that I represent and which are represented by the member for McEwen. Providing vital services in disadvantaged areas that face challenges is important, but equally important is having these services delivered on the ground by the community for community. The funding cuts that Whittlesea Community Connections is facing mean significant holes in the budget. Hundreds of volunteers have racked up thousands of hours, but we cannot rely on them digging deeper to provide these services.
When recognising the exciting possibilities for growth in the community and some of the new challenges, such as that the city of Whittlesea will be welcoming many Syrian refugees in the near future, we also must recognise that there is more complex work to be done. In recognising the quality of work that Whittlesea Community Connections has done, we cannot be blind to the realities that these changes mean for support. So I acknowledge the work that has been done by: Jemal Ahmet, the CEO; Maureen Corrigan, the president; and all the staff and volunteers. Many staff and volunteers were previously clients of the service, which is a real testament to the resilience that has been built. I stand here also acknowledging that more needs to be done on the ground to provide this organisation with the support to keep doing the work that has been done—not only to provide services for people who need support but to provide the glue that makes strong, successful, growing communities in particular. That is something that the people of Whittlesea have been able to rely on for 42 years. Without intervention, I fear they may not get the same service that they deserve and often desperately need.
Health Care
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (21:14): I rise to talk about private health insurance, tax and federation. As our nation participates in a lively discussion about how to improve our tax system and federation through wide-ranging reform, it is also very important that we take into account one of the biggest challenges facing the nation—that is, how to fund our health system. The health system is at the nexus of that federal-state fiscal interplay and, at the heart of this, is the private health insurance system.
Private health insurance is currently held by only 47 per cent of the population, which, in itself, challenges the community rating principle. Yet one-third of the people who go into a public hospital have a significant part of their care paid for by private insurance rebates. At the moment the federal government is acting as a major self-insurer for the health system. It underwrites the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the activity and risks that occur in the private hospital system. It gives grants to the states to run their hospitals, but it also gives a private health insurance rebate because the Medicare levy does not cover all the costs of Medicare.
Our role as a government is to make sure that there is a health system. But, in an insurance sense, the federal government is taking the majority of the risk. I would like to see the majority of the risk moved from the federal government to both the states, who are equally responsible, and the private insurance products. But there are problems with private insurance. It is a train wreck happening in slow motion. The very affordability of private health insurance is being challenged by increasing premiums due to the costs of healthcare technology and community expectations.
There is a massive increase in the number of exclusionary products—that is, insurance products that insure you for everything except the things that cost a lot of money—which, in itself, challenges the value proposition for most people holding the insurance, so more of them are dropping out. In the lead up to the changes in the rebate, there was a rush of people forward-purchasing their health insurance for a couple of years and those people have now reached decision time again. I suspect, judging by past behaviour, that more people will drop out of private health insurance, which will then challenge the community rating principle.
We need to look at other ways of increasing private health insurance, because having more people holding private health insurance will improve its affordability and instil the community rating principle. At the moment, while the community rating principle results in money going into the insurance pool, the people or health funds that are initiating risk-reducing activities are not getting the full benefit of it. But if everyone held private health insurance it would, by its very nature, deliver that benefit across the spectrum.
We need to look at innovative ways of delivering a viable private health insurance industry. If we do not and it collapses, 100 per cent of the risk will return to the federal government. What I am suggesting is that we need to increase the strength and viability of private health insurance so that we are not taking all the risk ourselves. Things that we must consider include making health insurance a legitimate cost for a family to claim as a tax deduction and introducing innovative products like annuities, where you can pre-purchase care and have the funds for that care held either by an insurer or by other bodies that are prepared to take the risk, much like a bond for going into a nursing home. These issues need to be addressed; otherwise we will find that in two or three years time the number of people holding private health insurance will drop beyond the stage where it is a viable solution for funding health care.
Hotham Electorate: Writing Prize
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (21:19): The young people who live in our electorates are often too young to vote, but we should not forget that we are still their representatives in the federal parliament. When I go to primary and secondary schools, I often talk to students about what I regard as the most important skill of a member of parliament—that is, the ability to listen. Earlier this year I realised that I had been listening very hard to the interests and issues raised by my older constituents but I was not doing as much as I could to listen to the views of young people. That is why I began the Hotham Writing Prize.
I asked students from all over Hotham to submit an essay or a letter raising an issue they are concerned about as a young Australian and, importantly, suggest how the government could address that issue. I also began this prize because writing about public policy is a passion of mine. This year I had the privilege to co-author, with my good friend the member for Gellibrand, a book entitled Two Futures. The Hotham Writing Prize was also a way of encouraging young people to go through that really important discipline of writing down their ideas. I was absolutely overwhelmed by the response that we got to the Hotham Writing Prize. Hundreds of young people from across my electorate took the time to put pen to paper and raise an issue with me. Last week I visited some of the Hotham schools that had award winners represented amongst the student population.
I would like the House to join with me in congratulating Louisa D'Ambra of St Mark's Primary School in Dingley Village, who was the winner of the junior writing prize. Louisa is an articulate and intelligent young woman, who wrote to me to raise the issue of homelessness. She argued that homelessness is not an issue that affects many young Australians directly but it is an issue that is on the minds of a lot of young people around the country. Louisa made a number of suggestions about what we could do about homelessness, including one I thought would be of interest to this House. She suggested that taking away some politicians' perks might be one way that we could help make sure that all Australians have a roof over their heads.
I want to congratulate Bria Raso from Heatherton Christian College, who wrote a passionate and articulate essay about women in sport. Bria is a soccer champ, but she is very frustrated that girls in sport do not get the same resources, attention and focus as boys who are of a similar standard and that is unfair. Bria raised a second and really crucial reason why this matters to her, and that is that young women around this country are constantly being bombarded with unhealthy and unattainable images of beauty. Bria suggested that, if women in sport got more attention, we would see a lot more strong, fit and healthy women that Australian girls could look up to.
The quality of entrants was of such a high standard that we commended, in particular, eight additional students who wrote excellent essays and letters to me. From St Patrick's Primary School in Murrumbeena, a very well-awarded school, we commended: Alex Lees, who wrote about the importance of recognising the contributions and abilities of Australians with disability; Ebony-Jane Holland, who wrote to me about the role of art as a therapeutic tool; and Aoife Dormer, who wrote to me about bullying. We also commended: Akitoshi Harvey, from Oakleigh South Primary School, who also wrote to me about bullying; Sarah Pachie, from St Mark's Primary School, and Charli Cuthbertson, from Huntingdale Primary School, who both wrote to me about animal cruelty; Siobhan McGlynn, from Sacred Heart Girls College, who wrote to me about the importance of good sexual education in our schools; and Victoria Tischchenko, from Cheltenham Secondary, who wrote to me about an idea she has about community youth centres.
I want to quickly mention three issues, which came up consistently in the essays that were written to me, which I believe deserve the attention of this parliament. Mr Speaker, young Australians are dealing with a lot of complex issues online. When you and I were young, our parents were able to shield us from behaviour and content that was inappropriate. For most Australian parents, that is actually no longer possible. There is a real thirst out there amongst young people to, for example, address online bullying, by programs which help young children understand what it can feel like to be bullied online. Community safety was also raised frequently with me. We need to do a lot more work in this chamber about how we can help our young people feel safer on our streets and in our parks. Finally, celebrating cultural diversity was an important subject, and it made me feel so relieved that there are so many clever young people around the country who are showing leadership in building strong and inclusive communities.
A lot of people around the country argue that young people are not interested in politics. I can tell them today that they could not be more wrong. These last few weeks, I have read hundreds of letters from passionate, well-informed and articulate young people. With these young people as our next generation of community leaders, I feel really positive about our country's future.
Wannon Electorate: RACV Energy Breakthrough
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (21:25): I rise tonight to talk about a wonderful event that I attended on the weekend in Maryborough. It is called the RACV Energy Breakthrough. It is a terrific event where we see thousands of students gather in Maryborough to test their skills and see whether they can design vehicles which will provide opportunities for us to use the innovation, the science and the technology to get energy breakthroughs. The students come from across the state to design these vehicles, and they are vehicles of different types, dependent on the category in which they are entering. The students participate in teams of eight. There can be teams of four girls and four boys or sometimes all male or sometimes predominantly female crews. There are also teachers that help with the design and the engineering.
The ultimate contest is a 24-hour race. The students go to all sorts of efforts to be competitive in these races. They will usually race in the vehicles for periods of an hour. They will then do a pit stop and another student will jump in the car, the first student will get out and have an ice bath, a massage and fluid intake and then make sure that they have the proper nutrition into them. As the member for Gippsland, who is in the chamber, would know, it is like running and preparing for a marathon—24 hours of absolute activity. At the end of it, the teams pick up their vehicles and parade down the straight. The joy on their faces from what they have achieved is there for all to see.
I had the privilege of being able to go behind the scenes and behind the pits. I talked to the local Terang College students about the preparation that they had made, how they had been up there for four days and how they had camped there. There was a sea of tents throughout Maryborough; the population doubles as a result of this event. It won Victoria's best tourism event two years in a row. It was going for a third time, a triple award-winning feat, but was, sadly, pipped by another wonderful tourism event—in my electorate, actually—Fun4Kids. RACV Energy Breakthrough ended up coming second this year. It is quite extraordinary.
I must congratulate the RACV for their sponsorship of this event and Country Education Project, CEP, who started this event 25 years ago, and the RACV have come on board. I also congratulate the Central Goldfields Shire—and I was lucky enough to be with the mayor on Saturday—for the way that they have ensured the success of the event. Most importantly, I want to pay tribute to the volunteers who make this such a wonderful event. The volunteers work tirelessly for four days to ensure its success. That helps the community, because obviously they are able to fundraise for the local community and for their local organisation but also through the joy that it brings to the children.
If we are to ensure that our children understand that, through engineering, through innovation and through science, they can have careers for the future, it is hands-on practical events like this which will demonstrate to them that there is a future in this type of endeavour. I know someone like yourself, Mr Speaker, a motoring enthusiast, would love to see the way the kids get in and tinker with their machines to get that last second of greater efficiency out of them, so that, over 24 hours, those seconds add up to minutes and help them in trying to win this race.
I have to say that it was uplifting to be there and it was uplifting to see thousands of students from across the state, across the nation and internationally participate in this event. It is a landmark event for Victoria of which we all should be proud.
The SPEAKER: It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Claydon: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence is a global campaign to raise awareness about violence against women and its impact on a woman's physical, psychological, social and spiritual wellbeing;
(b) international campaign originated from the first Women's Global Leadership Institute coordinated by the Center for Women's Global Leadership in 1991; and
(c) 16 Days of Activism begins on 25 November—the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and ends on 10 December—the International Human Rights Day; and
(2) urges all Members of Parliament to be leaders in their community in the campaign to end violence against women and girls by taking part in activities in their electorates that raise awareness of this important issue.
Ms Vamvakinou: to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 29 November is International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People as observed by the United Nations (resolution 23/40 B);
(b) following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was established to carry out direct relief and works programs for Palestinian refugees who had fled to West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria;
(c) UNRWA services are available to all those living in its areas of operations—West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria—who are registered and who need assistance;
(d) Palestinians registered with the UNRWA are unable to register with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and additionally cannot be referred for resettlement by the UNHCR;
(e) Palestinian refugees from Syria are a vulnerable minority, who are currently fleeing for the same reasons as other genuine refugees and persecuted minorities; and
(f) whilst not a legislative requirement, the UNHCR registration is a determining factor in the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection's consideration of refugee and humanitarian visa applications; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) recognise that the Palestinian refugees from Syria who are registered with the UNWRA are unable to register with the UNHCR irrespective of meeting the criteria for refugee status in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention; and
(b) work with the UNHCR to consider Palestinians fleeing Syria and registered with the UNWRA as eligible to apply for the Government's recently announced intake of 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Sukkar ) took the chair at 10:29.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Budget
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:29): So many of this government's policies are hurting families, especially in regional and rural areas such as my electorate of Richmond on the North Coast of New South Wales. As I have said many times before in this House, National Party choices hurt. These choices hurt across a whole range of areas, including those such as the $50 billion in cuts to our health and hospital funding and the $30 billion in cuts to education. In my region, in northern New South Wales, the National Party have already made the choice to increase the GST to 15 per cent, to unfairly cut the age pension, to cut local jobs and to slash health services—and now they want to cut family payments. Labor will always stand by Australian families and will oppose the Prime Minister's harsh and unfair cuts.
Before the last election, we had Liberal and National Party candidates running around promising to help families with the cost of living. Like every other promise they made in the campaign, it was broken. It was simply untrue what they were saying. They have actually made it harder for the families. In their first budget, families were under attack, and it seems this government will never let up—such as with these latest cuts to family payments. I will certainly keep fighting against the unfair cuts being made by the Prime Minister and his government to families in my area. Federal Labor will oppose the government's latest attempt to cut family support. In my electorate their cuts would mean cuts to family tax benefit supplements for thousands of local families and to family tax benefit B payments for local single parents and grandparent carers. The cuts to family tax benefit part A and part B supplements will leave more than 11,900 families in my electorate of Richmond hundreds of dollars a year worse off.
The fact is that raising a family is very expensive and the cost of living keeps going up. The government just does not seem to understand that, as they want to cut hundreds of dollars a year from family budgets. A single-parent family on the North Coast with a couple of kids in high school could be more than $4,700 worse off because of the government's plan to cut the family tax benefit—and the schoolkids bonus as well. Remember it was Labor who introduced the schoolkids bonus to help families with the cost of getting kids to school. Just yesterday we saw a new figure showing that more than three million Australian children will lose support under the Prime Minister's unfair cuts to family payments. These figures, from the minister's own department, show 1.6 million families and their children will lose hundreds of dollars a year in important family tax benefit supplement payments—a huge amount. We also saw a review yesterday that showed that families in the Prime Minister's electorate will be the least affected by these cuts. That really shows how out of touch he is, with these cuts to family payments. On top of these cuts to family payments, the government, as we know, wants to increase the GST, which will hurt every family in my area on the North Coast. Labor will never compromise on fairness and will keep protecting local families from this Liberal-National government's unfair cuts.
McPherson Electorate: Roads
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Science) (10:32): A couple of weeks ago I again met with many of my constituents at my regular listening posts, which I hold at least every month. They create an opportunity for people in my electorate to come and speak with me on an informal basis and raise whatever issues they like. The general topics this time were on the relocation of Centrelink from Palm Beach; aged-care issues, particularly as they related to some individuals; and of course science, which is in my portfolio responsibilities.
But the single biggest issue raised at those listening posts—and it is an issue raised with me every single day in my electorate—was the widening of the M1. That has been an issue that we on the Southern Gold Coast have fought for collectively since 2007, when there was a commitment by both the then federal government and the then opposition to widen the M1, the priority area being Tugun to Nerang. The state Labor government reallocated that money further north, so that Logan and parts north of that were the beneficiaries—but that meant that my electorate and the whole of the Southern Gold Coast were left waiting for significant upgrades.
When we had the Newman government in Queensland and I got to deal with the member for Mudgeeraba, Ros Bates, all I had to do was to pick up the phone to her and get a response. We worked together to make sure that we were getting the widening through the electorate happening. That has not been the case with the new Labor government in Queensland, and it is an absolutely stark difference. I have written to Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, who wrote back to me in May indicating that she had referred the issues that I had raised—which was to meet with her to discuss the widening of the M1—to the transport minister, Mark Bailey. I have corresponded with him a couple of times—or, I should say, I have written to him, because I have not received any responses from Mark Bailey at all.
We are at a stalemate on the southern end of the Gold Coast, because nothing is being done by the state Labor government. I have called on them in a number of forums to actually get their act together, to start putting some proposals and to start coming to the table. I have indicated that I am absolutely ready, willing and able to sit down and discuss the needs of the southern Gold Coast, particularly with regard to broad transport issues and specifically in relation to the M1. There has been stony silence.
I am not normally a person who gets up and plays partisan politics, but I would have to say the response from the state Labor government is dismal. I do not think they should be sitting on their hands any longer and ignoring the southern end of the Gold Coast, because we matter, quite frankly. It is about time that the state Labor government actually got their act together, recognised that we are a significant part of the Gold Coast and did something to listen to our concerns.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:35): It is interesting hearing the government talk on and off about the GST. We saw reports in the last sitting of parliament out of the Liberal Party party room about some nervousness about the GST and I just thought I would go through a bit of history about it. I was thinking about when the current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was opposition leader on 13 October 2008 and he said, 'But I can give you this commitment—there is no plan, no intention and no possibility of us recommending an increase to the GST.'
I thought to myself, 'How far back do you have to go through all the election commitments to find evidence of a GST?' I thought, 'I'll go and have a look at Our plan: real solutions for all Australians.' I could not find one mention of the GST in there. This is a familiar document to those opposite and of course to the parliament—'the direction, values and policy priorities of the next coalition government'. It has a wonderful photo on the front of it of all the notables. The former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott—he is there. He promised no GST. Joe Hockey, who has now left us to go into the diplomatic corps, apparently, is sitting there. He looks a bit heavier here than in recent incarnations, so he must have gone on a bit of a diet. We also have the current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, sitting there. I love the juxtaposition of it—he is sitting just apart from everybody else on Tony Abbott's team. Doesn't that tell you something? A picture says a thousand words.
Then I thought to myself, 'How far do you have to go back before you get to a GST?' Of course, John Howard had a 10 per cent GST. But then I went back to my old loaned copy of Fightback! I love Fightback! It is the reason I joined the Labor Party. Interestingly enough, I can remember going around as a 22-year-old sticking stickers that said 'Say no to a 15 per cent GST'. Yet here we are again with those opposite talking about broadening the base, lifting the rate and having a 15 per cent tax on everything. That is what those opposite plan for. It was all here in the original bible document. We are told by the Liberal Party strategists that they are not going to go with a Fightback! reform document, that it will be more like John Howard's.
The point is that it is a regressive tax. It hits the poorest hardest and it hits those on middle incomes—working class and middle-class Australians. It hits them while the top end of town skates free on tax, and that is what those opposite are all about. We will find out eventually, once they release their plans to the Australian people, once they are good enough to reveal their hand to the Australian people.
Trade
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (10:38): It has been a pretty busy week in the electorate of Lyons. Last Monday we had a free trade agreement seminar at the Brighton Civic Centre. I was very pleased to welcome representatives from Austrade including the Trade Commissioner from Fukuoka, Japan, Tom Yates; Sally Chandler, the TradeStart Export Adviser; Geoff Atkinson from AusIndustry; Johnathan McManus, trade policy officer with the FTA Outreach Unit of DFAT; and Nigel Warrant.
Also in attendance was a local business—Tasmanian eel exporter Shaun Finlayson along with his father, Bradley. They operate a very important business out of Bagdad in the southern Midlands of Tasmania, exporting eels, ironically, to those three countries that we have recently signed free trade agreements with: Korea, Japan and more recently China. Many people in this place will have also heard the story that was related by Lucy Gregg from Reid Fruits about the expansion that they saw in their business when a 23 per cent tariff on cherries to Korea was removed. They went from selling roughly 10 tonnes annually to 190 tonnes this year, showing the benefits of that tariff removal.
Later that night, I had the opportunity to address the Evandale Rotary Club, a fine organisation doing wonderful work in their community. I thank Russell Fyfe, the president, Arthur Talbot, the secretary, former president David Houghton and the chairman for the evening, Richard Chugg. The following day, I had the pleasure of attending Flourish. Flourish represents consumers of mental health services around Tasmania and provides feedback to policymakers in the areas that are most important to consumers. I thank Miranda Ashby and all the other staff who work for this very important organisation, particularly the chairman of the board of governors, Danny Sutton.
I also participated in a panel at the Fonterra producers forum, along with members of the Bonlac Suppliers Group who were in attendance. I was joined on that panel by Luke Curtain from Tasmanian Irrigation and local farmer Grant Archer. There were representatives from all around Australia. It was great to be able to showcase the importance of the dairy industry not only to my electorate but also to the state of Tasmania.
The highlight of the week was my attendance at the Mole Creek Primary School. I met Nathan Rockliff and Stephanie, the grade 5/6 teacher. I was, unfortunately, not able to meet with them when they were here in Canberra a fortnight ago and I had the pleasure of answering their questions and presenting them certificates.
Kingston Electorate
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:41): The Christmas spirit is alive and well in the electorate of Kingston, with many different fairs happening in my local community that are not only helping to raise money for local organisations but also bringing the community together in a way that showcases all the talent.
I congratulate the Cove Sports and Community Club and the Lions Club of Hallett Cove & Districts Inc. for hosting the Cove fair. It was a great day. Many local schools students performed, as well as organisations. A great festive spirit was on display. The Hallett Cove R-12 school also held their inaugural school fair day, in which they were able to showcase a lot of the students' work and activity and also to raise money for charities. I acknowledge all the staff, teachers and parents, who put in a huge amount of effort, especially Principal Mary Asikas for her involvement on this very special day.
Also, on the weekend just past we had the Noarlunga Football Club Christmas market. I give a big shout out to Jodie Smith and her team. This was a wonderful day where a lot of money was raised for the local community. You were able to quickly go and get your Christmas shopping done, which I did, buying a pet rock from the Moana Primary School, who showed their enterprising spirit by setting up businesses and selling a range of different products, including dream catchers, pet rocks, phone holders and other things. It is not over yet; the fairs continue. The Friends of Sully's will be hosting their Christmas fair and carols on 6 December. I give a big shout out to the Friends of Sully's, who are making this year bigger and better than ever, and I send a big thankyou particularly to Mick Allison, who is putting the work in for that.
This is just the start of the Christmas season, with the Onkaparinga Christmas Pageant happening this weekend. I urge everyone to get down to Beach Road. It is a really wonderful day. You might even see Father Christmas at the end of that pageant. I will have my usual pageant float there. It is wonderful day for people to come down and celebrate. In addition, we will roll into the Christmas season.
I put on record my big thanks to all volunteers. All these events are put on by volunteers who believe in the importance of bringing our community together and sharing that Christmas spirit. I give a big thankyou to everyone on the barbecues, everyone putting up stalls, everyone on the drink stands and everyone who comes together to make it a very special time in the electorate of Kingston.
Petrie Electorate: Tangalooma Wrecks
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:44): Earlier this month, an iconic silhouette in Queensland was destroyed. Queensland state government authorities cut down the Tangalooma Wrecks just above the waterline. While I realise this was done to stabilise the wrecks and make them safer, I rise today to condemn the lack of planning and the state government's lack of foresight when it comes to tourism and business opportunities in Moreton Bay. These safety works were carried out without any public consultations and with no plans to replace the wrecks. In fact, the consultation was so bad that even the federal member for Bonner, who looks after Moreton Island, was not consulted. We did not hear a peep from the state member for Redcliffe, Yvette D'Ath, who has had eight years in public office and is responsible for Moreton Island. No-one knew. It just happened overnight. I put up a Facebook post on 17 November, just last week, and the reaction from boat owners in the federal seat of Petrie and in the neighbouring seat of Lilley clearly shows that people think this is a travesty.
Tangalooma Wrecks date back to 1963, when a group of boat owners got together and lobbied for a harbour to be constructed just off Moreton Island. Their request was granted with about 15 ships sunk there. The decommissioned vessels included old whalers, old barges, dredges and flatboats, with the Maryborough taking the lead as the first vessel to be sunk. The wrecks created a break wall, which has until now served as a sanctuary for smaller boats doing weekend trips out there. On top of that, the wrecks are also a great place to dive and snorkel. Tangalooma Wrecks were, without a doubt, one of the most iconic scenes in South-East Queensland. Roz Shaw from Moreton Island Adventures said:
Tangalooma Wrecks are an iconic Queensland Tourism attraction—Brisbane's great barrier reef.
It is imperative that there is a long term plan to ensure this attraction and safe harbour for boating it retained such as placing further wrecks on the site.
Greg Nickerson from Northside Marine, a big boat shop in my area, said:
It's disappointing and devastating. We can't fix what happened but we need a plan to renew the wrecks to what we had previously.
I have spoken to my federal counterpart, the defence minister, looking for a couple of old patrol boats that could possibly be sunk there, but there is nothing available until 2020. I call upon the state government to have a five-decade plan, a 50-year plan, to replace those wrecks and provide a sanctuary and tourism opportunities for Moreton Bay in the coming years.
Adelaide Electorate: Education
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:47): Deputy Speaker Sukkar, as you would know all too well, often this is a place where we focus on conflict and our differences on a range of issues, but of course it is important that we also note that every member of this House recognises just how lucky we are to be able to participate in the strong and stable democracy that Australia has always enjoyed. We know that we cannot take for granted the fact that we have the rights, responsibilities and privileges that come from being part of such a healthy democracy. We know that it is important that all children growing up in Australia recognise just how lucky we are and recognise that not all countries around the world have these rights and privileges and have the opportunity to participate in public debate. That is why it is so important that we all work to make sure that schools within our communities focus on Australia's democracy and on how people can be part of that.
I have been very lucky to visit schools on countless occasions across the electorate of Adelaide and hear directly from young Australians about their views on the issues that are important to them and their concerns, but also questions that they have. Sometimes it is very easy to underestimate young Australians. In fact, the first time I visited a school in the electorate some 11 years ago, I visited a group of year 6 students at St Raphael's primary school. After speaking very slowly to them in very simple terms, I asked whether any of them had any questions. A tiny little man put up his hand and said, 'Excuse me, Ms Ellis, but do you think that the Australian government takes a compassionate enough approach to asylum seekers in this nation?' and I recognised that I had significantly underestimated the passionate views and understanding of young Australians.
That is also true of the schools that come and visit this place as part of their lessons about democracy. I know that 16 schools from the electorate of Adelaide have visited Parliament House in recent times and I have had the great opportunity to go and meet with several of them. Just on Friday, I was at Prospect Primary School presenting certificates to the year 7s who participated in their recent visit, but a few weeks earlier I met with the year 6 students from Walford Anglican School for Girls. About 50 girls from year 6, along with five of their teachers, came along a few weeks ago and I went and spoke to them. I asked them what issues they would raise if they were able to stand up in the House of Representatives and make a contribution. They answered that they would talk about climate change, about women in parliament, about education, about marriage equality and about the importance of a strong health system. I pledged to raise these issues on their behalf in the parliament and I am very happy to do so today.
Forde Electorate: Telstra
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (10:50): I would like to take this opportunity to share the frustrations that many of the residents in my electorate currently face with Telstra refusing to update any of the infrastructure in suburbs that are currently lacking access to quality internet. Upper Coomera resident Elizabeth Warburton runs a small mortgage-broking business from home and relies heavily on the internet for her work. She uses the internet to keep in contact with customers and she conducts work through an internet portal for information and application processing. She uses email for liaising with banks, solicitors and clients and she also receives leads through a website and Facebook page.
She has run the business for 15 years and recently moved to a new home where, unfortunately, there are no ports available for her to access broadband. A loyal Telstra customer for more than 15 years, Elizabeth has rung them to sort the matter out but was told that she could not be hooked up to the internet and to call every couple of weeks to see if a port would be made available. In the meantime, Elizabeth continues to use wireless internet, which is more than double the price you would pay for normal broadband, as well as relying on friends' and colleagues' internet access to assist her with work. On top of that, Elizabeth is dealing with expensive phone bills for having to resort to using the internet on her phone. With no answers or resolution in sight for Elizabeth, and Telstra refusing to offer her any further assistance, she no longer requires their service. To rub salt into the wound even further, Elizabeth has since received a letter from Telstra saying how disappointed they were to lose her valuable business and asking for feedback as to why she left.
While the three-year NBN rollout is a terrific project that will connect more than two-thirds of premises in Forde, there are many people whose homes do not currently have access to the internet and who have begged Telstra to install ports in their area so they no longer go without. Telstra are refusing to spend any money on the infrastructure that is desperately needed now. This is poor form by Telstra and there are already petitions underway in my electorate for residents and businesses who are tired of being ignored and treated as second-class citizens by Telstra. Residents like Elizabeth are fed up with Telstra's lack of assistance. Telstra need to stop dragging their feet and start serving their loyal customers, not only from my electorate of Forde but around Australia, to allow businesses to keep running and employing many Australians.
Shortland Electorate: Eastlakes U3A
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:53): Last Thursday I attended the annual general meeting of the Eastlakes U3A in my electorate. I was overwhelmed by the number of people that were present—they actually had 301 people present at their AGM. They have 550 active members and they have in excess of 700 members. In addition to that, they run a variety of courses. I believe they have got 75 courses running currently, and that is coming towards the end of the year. In their peak season, I believe they have run up to 90 courses at one time. Eastlakes U3A will be holding the Network Conference at Belmont at the 16 Foot Sailing Club between 27 and 29 April. That is a fairly big honour for the club and it just shows how active they are and how well run the club is.
At the annual general meeting, there were a few changes. The then president, Barbara Thomson, stood down and the new president is Nielsine Oxenford. Barbara Thomson is now the vice president. We have Judy Harrison as secretary, Maureen Greensmith as treasurer, Pam MacAskill as course coordinator, Barbara Kathner as leader liaison officer, Isabelle Davies as venues officer, and it goes on with a number of other people that are very active in U3A.
At the annual general meeting, three were made life members: Kath Walsh, for recognition of her leadership role on the steering committee and participating in the executive; John Schindlair, for his role on the management committee—he had been involved since 2002, both as treasurer and publicity officer—and Kate Phillips, for her role on the management committee and as a leader of many causes.
The courses that are conducted by Eastlakes U3A range from crosswords to languages, bridge, Tai Chi, dancing and other physical activities, along with a series of clubs that they conduct. They have lunch clubs and guest speakers. It is a wonderful organisation, and everybody who is involved enjoys it. Everybody is welcome. I would like to congratulate them on a very successful year. Time expired—
Guide Dogs SA/NT
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (10:56): Often in politics you hear former President of the United States Harry Truman's famous quote:
If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Truman, who experienced some bruising political battles, must have clearly understood the importance of a canine companion, and I can attest to this since the recent inclusion in the Williams household of a pooch called Toby. An organisation who fully understands the importance of dogs is Guide Dogs SA/NT, which is one of the most trusted charities in Australia, having served the community by supporting people living with disability for more than 60 years.
Guide Dogs has a long and exemplary history in training and placing guide dogs and supporting people with a vision or hearing impairment in South Australia. I recently was provided with a tour of their training facilities by Chairman Joe Thorp, CEO Kate Thiele and other staff, and was most impressed.
The organisation's hallmark has been one of innovation and firsts, including being the first guide dog school in Australia to expand its services to include autism assistance dogs. With a rapidly ageing population, services to tackle loss of sight will become a critical issue, and Guide Dogs is playing a major role in this.
I have been working with this great charity over recent months as they embark on a visionary project to be located at the Adelaide Airport in my electorate. Guide Dogs have announced plans to develop a pet hotel, which will provide both luxury and affordable accommodation for dogs, cats and other pets while their owners are away on holidays or business. I was pleased to attend the turning of the first sod in early November, marking the start of the development of this exciting project. The hotel has officially been named Beau's after the first guide dog ever trained in Australia in 1951, Beau. Beau's Personalised Pet Hotel is an almost $10 million project and is expected to be operational by late 2016. It has positive implications for job creation, both during and after construction.
It is estimated the project will generate up to 65 full-time and part-time jobs. South Australia is in need of exciting innovative projects, as is the rest of Australia, and this is an exciting project. It is expected the pet hotel will be an enabler for further financial security for Guide Dogs in terms of a revenue stream, and the organisation's ongoing goal to expand services to people living with a disability.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kate Thiele, who recently won a national title in the 2015 Telstra Australian Business Women's Awards in the For Purpose and Social Enterprise category. This is on top of her already impressive year, being named South Australia's Telstra Business Woman of the Year. I have met Kate a number of times and been very impressed with her success and achievements thus far with the Guide Dogs.
Kate, with her team, is doing great things in the not-for-profit sector and is dedicated to changing lives, and I look forward to working with them to ensure this project reaches its potential. Guide Dogs is an extremely impressive organisation, and I throw my full support behind this much needed project, which will have a genuine impact on Australians living with a disability.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Royal Queensland Bush Children's Health Scheme
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:00): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that BUSHkids is a non government, not for profit community organisation which offers a range of free allied health services to children and families living in rural Queensland;
(2) notes that in 2015, BUSHkids celebrates its 80th year of service to the people of rural Queensland;
(3) acknowledges that BUSHkids relies on generous donations from the general public in order to be able to continue its valuable work;
(4) notes the launch of Friends of BUSHkids, an initiative to reinvigorate community involvement in promoting and fundraising for BUSHkids services; and
(5) encourages all Queensland Members to support the Friends of BUSHkids initiative in their electorate.
My electorate of Ryan is full of good people doing good things for others. Today I want to thank, congratulate and acknowledge a wonderful group of people who spend a lot of their lives trying to make things better for young children and their families in regional Queensland. The Royal Queensland Bush Children's Health Scheme, otherwise known as BUSHkids, started in 1935 because the Governor of Queensland was worried about the health and wellbeing of sick children in the bush during the Great Depression and a long drought. It has continued because good people recognised future generations would suffer more complex and pressing medical conditions unless something was done to provide bush kids with better access to similar primary health services to those available in our cities.
BUSHkids is a not-for-profit organisation that for 80 years has provided better access to primary health care for children and their families in regional and rural areas right across Queensland. It is supported by a wonderful group of community spirited healthcare professionals and administration staff located in the heart of my electorate, in Toowong.
The scope of practice for BUSHkids was slightly different in its early days because the needs of sick children in rural and regional areas and the model of care available to them was found wanting. In its early days, for example, BUSHkids dealt with physical problems—like heart defects, lazy eyes, cleft palates, malnutrition, dentures and prosthetic limbs—because access to primary health care in remote areas of Queensland was limited or non-existent and sick children had to travel long distances for the care they needed. Sadly, for those in faraway pockets of Queensland, the time required for travel to get to major regional health centres and the disruption this caused to a struggling family business often meant a sick child did not get the care they needed. We know that a lack of access to primary healthcare services will result in poorer health outcomes, unnecessary and potentially avoidable complications and increased hospital admissions. Put simply, people with limited access to primary health care are also significantly disadvantaged in relation to preventative health care.
Chronic disease is not just an issue for old people, because the development and impact of chronic diseases and their risk factors is a lifelong process. Chronic disease is a major cause of loss of life and disability in all age groups, varying from more than 70 per cent in children up to the age of 14 and up to 95 per cent for elderly people over 65 years of age. The prevention of chronic disease requires the implementation of interventions that target young people as well as broader interventions for the whole population, wherever they live and work. Importantly, health systems that include strong primary health care are more efficient and have lower rates of hospitalisation, less health inequality and better health outcomes, including lower mortality.
In effect, we now know that establishing stronger personal and community links to primary healthcare information and services in regional and rural Queensland will reduce preventable illness and its cumulative impact on a person's health and wellbeing, as well as hospital demand. That more and better primary healthcare services are now accessible to sick children and their families in rural and remote Queensland is in part due to the pioneering spirit of the BUSHkids early health practitioners, their patients and their supporters. They have a long record of distinguished service to rural and remote communities in Queensland. For example, BUSHkids has played a vital role in helping sick and troubled children get better and keeping families and communities together. BUSHkids has helped nearly 45,000 sick children in remote and rural Queensland get the health care that they need. This is a truly remarkable achievement.
While access to better primary healthcare services for children in regional and remote Queensland has improved greatly over the past 80 years, there is still a need for better access to allied health services. And BUSHkids relies on generous donations from members of the public in order to be able to continue its valuable work.
Health care itself is on a journey where the emphasis of care is shifting to extending wellness and improving health. The link between health and education runs both ways and is far more complex than simple cause and effect. Poor health impacts on children's ability to learn and vice versa. This is evidenced by the high levels of ear disease and permanent hearing damage experienced by young Indigenous children, with hearing loss leading to linguistic, social and learning difficulties as well as behavioural problems in schools. This in turn reduces educational outcomes, which will have lifelong consequences for employment, income and social success. Through greater responsibility for and ownership and understanding of the importance of personal health management at a younger age, a much better long-term health outcome for young people and their families, as well as the taxpayer, is achievable. Put simply, prevention of disease or early intervention so an illness does not grow into an acute episode is the best outcome for the patient, their family and the taxpayer.
BUSHkids is uniquely placed to continue its crucial role in early identification, prevention and intervention in respect of health, education and social issues that affect children and their families in rural communities. In rural and remote Queensland today, for example, there is a growing trend in early childhood development and behavioural issues associated with broader family and community challenges such as fly-in fly-out work, ongoing drought, family break-ups and drug and alcohol related social issues. In responding to this challenge and recognising the range of primary health services available, BUSHkids now offers early intervention strategies that include parents, family and community education.
Complementary models of care that include allied health and other primary healthcare management alternatives are effective in improving clinical management of patients and freeing up specialist appointments. BUSHkids now has fully supported centres based in Emerald, Dalby, Bundaberg, Mount Isa and Warwick and a sixth centre at Inglewood serviced by a family healthcare support worker. Dedicated allied health professionals in regional Queensland provide early intervention, development and therapy services to improve the health and wellbeing of children with, or at risk of, developmental and other difficulties. The BUSHkids speech language pathologist reduces the incidence and impact of communication and eating difficulties through assessment, diagnosis and treatment of children with speech, language, voice fluency, literacy and eating difficulties. BUSHkids occupational therapists assess the skills which can impact on a child's participation in their self-care, play and school activities. BUSHkids psychologists help reduce the incidence and impact of emotional, social, academic and behavioural difficulties. And BUSHkids family health support workers support allied health professionals by providing a range of education and school development programs to children and their parents and/or caregivers. And, with early intervention facilitators located in Agnes Water/Miriam Vale, Kingaroy/Nanango and Stanthorpe, BUSHkids provide even more rural and regional Queensland children and their families with better access to allied health professionals in partnership with other government and non-government healthcare providers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the need for our BUSHkids programs is compelling, and I am sure your own electorate of Durack would benefit from these services. Increasing evidence shows we should front-load early intervention and innovative primary care management options to when and where people need them, instead of moving a very expensive ambulance to the bottom of a cliff. Indeed, the World Health Organization has long argued 'resource allocation clusters around curative services at great cost', thereby 'neglecting the potential of primary prevention and health promotion to prevent' the vast majority of the disease burden.
I am honoured to be the patron of Friends of BUSHkids in Brisbane, which is a crucial link between city and country. I applaud BUSHkids for its 80-year record of service, for putting the changing health and wellness needs of rural kids at the centre of its scope of practice and for remaining true to the timeless principle of Hippocrates:
The function of protecting and developing health must rank even above that of restoring it when it is impaired.
Friends of BUSHkids is a community based group designed to promote engagement with the services BUSHkids provide, so it is at the forefront of emerging health issues and is the best possible advocate for improving the health and welfare of rural children. I encourage all members, particularly Queenslanders, to support the Friends of BUSHkids in their electorates, and I commend this motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Price ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Coleman: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:10): I thank the member for Ryan from bringing this matter before the House and congratulate her on her advocacy for this important organisation providing services to people in rural and regional Queensland. I cannot be as kind to the policies of her government when it comes to providing services to people who live in the bush—but more of that shortly.
I want to touch on some of the problems that are confronting people who are living in rural and regional Australia, particularly the healthcare problems, because the further you get from the capital cities the shorter is the average lifespan. In fact, compared with major cities, life expectancy in all regional areas is one to two years shorter, while in remote areas it is a whopping seven years shorter. People in the bush are more likely to engage in the sorts of behaviours that are associated with poor health. There are higher rates of smoking, for example, and, because of the great distances that need to be travelled between towns, often less physical activity. People living outside of major cities are also more likely to be admitted to hospitals for conditions that could have been prevented through access to non-hospital services and care services such as the primary care services that the member for Ryan spoke about in her contribution.
When you look at the incidence of chronic disease in regional and remote areas, females are 1.3 times—that is, 30 per cent—more likely to be reporting suffering from diabetes. The prevalence of asthma in inner regional areas is significantly higher than in major cities. Males in regional and remote areas are 1.4 times more likely and females just as likely to be reporting dangerous levels of bronchitis than those who are living in major cities. In regional and remote areas, males and females are 1.3 and 1.2 times, respectively, more likely to be reporting suffering from arthritis than people within capital cities. When it comes to cancer, compared with major cities the incidence of cancer is significantly higher in all regional areas. Melanoma is responsible for the large proportion of the excess new cases of cancer in regional areas. Its prevalence is 60 per cent greater, in fact, followed by colorectal cancer at 16 per cent, lip cancers at 15 per cent and lung cancers at 12 per cent. So there is a gap.
If we go to the area of mental health, we can see we have a significant problem in regional and rural Australia as well. Males in outer regional and remote areas are significantly more likely, 1.2 times more likely, to show high to very high levels of psychological distress when compared to their counterparts living in the major cities. Nationally, in 2012 over 2½ thousand people died from suicide, almost double the national road toll. Tragically, the suicide rate is 66 per cent higher in regional areas than in our cities.
When you look at dental care and children, six-year-old children in some remote areas have much higher rates—between 30 and 60 per cent higher rates—of decayed, missing or filled teeth than their counterparts in areas with much higher access to dental care. Twelve-year-old children in moderately accessible areas and very remote areas also tend to have more decayed, missing or filled teeth than their counterparts in highly accessible areas—in this instance, between 20 and 30 per cent higher rates.
Madam Deputy Speaker Price, against this backdrop—this whopping gap between health outcomes in areas such as your own and in areas such as parts of my electorate and health outcomes enjoyed by people in metropolitan cities—you wonder: why would any sane government introduce policies which were designed to make it harder for people to access their health professionals, particularly in the primary care setting? But that is exactly what this government has done in its first 2½ years.
Consider Medicare Locals. We created 61 Medicare Locals when Labor was in government. Their objective was to look at the areas where there were chronic health issues or gaps in health service delivery and to ensure we could put in place the sorts of services that were needed to close those gaps. They put in place the coordination of local services. They undertook independent reviews to ensure that, where new services were put in place, they were doing exactly what they were designed to do. But the former health minister never really understood what Medicare Locals were all about. He promised to abolish them, then he promised not to abolish them and then, after getting into government, he did abolish all of them and replaced them with new Primary Health Networks—about 31 around the country.
Those Primary Health Networks have significant problems. Some of them are far too big. For example, there is one Primary Health Network for the entirety of North Queensland—an area of greater size than the whole of Victoria. One PHN in your state, Deputy Speaker, covers 99 per cent of the state. There are only two PHNs covering the whole of South Australia, and there are significant problems with the design and the borders in a lot of those areas. In Albury-Wodonga, two rival state governments have managed to put in place a single health district spanning both states—and the Medicare Locals that were put in place mimicked that arrangement. The minister did not like it. He split it up and replaced it with two Primary Health Networks. It is opposed by everyone in those areas and it is creating more barriers to delivering and accessing healthcare. It was a folly, a massive waste of time and a massive waste of resources—again making it harder for people in rural and regional Australia to access the services they need.
Next I point to hospital cuts. The Liberal-National government ripped more than $57 billion in funding from public hospitals. They axed the national funding agreement with the states. State premiers of whatever political flavour are now warning that these cuts are unsustainable—leading to the closure of beds and putting many rural and regional hospitals, and hospital based services, at risk.
Then of course we have the GP tax and the GP tax by stealth—by which I mean the rebate freeze. They are hell-bent—these are harsh words towards your government, Madam Deputy Speaker—on destroying the Medicare system and, importantly, the GP practices that are the mainstay of healthcare provision within rural and regional Australia. The Medicare rebate freeze has been described by the Australia Medical Association as likely to see less bulk-billing and the possibility of a co-payment by stealth. It is going to drive the costs of medical services up in rural and regional Australia—once again making it harder for those people who most need those services to find access to them. I could add to this the $800 million that has been cut from the Health Flexible Funds. Importantly, these funds are funding regional health programs and remote health programs, along with a range of other services, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services.
Against the backdrop of all of these cuts, I welcome the fact that the member for Ryan has put the issue of bush kids on the parliamentary agenda, but I have to be harshly critical of the policies of her government for what they are doing in attacking healthcare services in the bush for people of all ages. We understand the critical importance of allied health services for people in the bush. It is sometimes very difficult, for love or money, to get an audiologist, a dietician, a psychologist or occupational health services in a remote area, because there is not much of a private market for those services—I would add to that physiotherapy services in remote Australia. The role of the hospital based services, the role of the Primary Health Networks and the role of those services funded by the Health Flexible Funds are absolutely critical.
I use the opportunity of this parliamentary debate, which goes to rural and regional healthcare provision, to again challenge the minister. I have done this on several occasions. I ask you to guarantee that not one dollar of the $800 million worth of cuts to the Health Flexible Funds will fall upon those services that are currently being provided to rural and regional Australia. That would be a good outcome.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:20): I have to say, it is a little bit shocking that the member for Ryan has not even been able to get the members of those electorates which benefit from BUSHkids to even come in here and speak to this motion. It is a good motion. It is important to acknowledge the great work that this organisation does in ensuring that the most vulnerable in our regional communities receive the medical help and the care that they need, when they need it. It is pretty shocking that the government members of parliament are not here to stand up and say that they agree with the member for Ryan and that they support this motion that she has put forward to acknowledge the hard work that BUSHkids does in their own communities. Perhaps it is because they are a little bit embarrassed at this government's record when it comes to regional health; a record that the previous speaker has outlined. On coming to office, this government cut billions—absolutely billions— from the health portfolio in their first budget. Through various measures, they have basically made it very hard for regional health services to deliver help and support when people most need it. In regional communities, we are starting to see the real impact of those cuts starting to be felt on a day-to-day basis.
Firstly though, let us take a moment to acknowledge the great work that BUSHkids does. They are in the core business of providing allied health services. They focus on children's development. They believe in early intervention. They are a not-for-profit organisation providing primary health care to children and their families in rural Queensland communities. I grew up in regional Queensland, and I know the distances that people would quite often travel to seek allied health services. BUSHkids do an amazing job of education, in making sure that, where children might be at risk of poor health, educational or social outcomes, they engage the schools and they engage the local community. They make sure that children most at risk receive the help that they need. As I have said, their core business is allied health. They focus on speech-language pathology, they focus on occupational therapy, they focus on psychology, and they focus on family health support workers. As a previous speaker has said, these kinds of support services would be welcome in Victoria. The not-for-profit based model that we have in Queensland is something that my own state could benefit from—because, right now, regional communities in Victoria are struggling, and they are struggling as a direct result of policies that this government has introduced.
The most shocking attack has been on Medicare. The impact of this government's attack on Medicare is being felt throughout regional Victoria. The freeze to the indexation of the Medicare rebate is having a big impact on allied health services. In my own electorate just recently, a couple of clients of Burra Consulting Services have been in touch to say that they received a letter asking them to pay $165 up-front to access services—yes, they would receive the Medicare rebate, but they would have to pay up-front and then receive the rebate afterwards. To a young person who might be accessing these services, or to a family that has a young person needing these services, it is hard to find that $165 to pay up-front. But this is what some regional services are doing—because this government has frozen the Medicare rebate. We know that CPI is going up by 1.3 per cent, that the Wage Price Index—even though it is at the lowest rate it has been for a while—is still at 2.3 per cent, and that the ABS reports an increase in hospital and medical costs of 6.5 per cent. So the costs of running these services are going up, yet this government has cruelly frozen the Medicare rebate indexation, meaning that GPs, allied health services, and health services in regional areas are having to put up their costs. If we really want to see help for BUSHkids then this government needs to reverse its shocking track record on health. It needs to be investing and not cutting funding to rural health services.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:25): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Ryan about supporting BUSHkids. I note the member for Ryan is my next-door neighbour in an inner city electorate, but I also note the contribution from the member for Bendigo—a Queenslander by birth but representing the seat of Bendigo in Victoria—and also the contribution from the member for Throsby from regional New South Wales. It is great to have people from the Labor Party supporting this motion. It is sad to see the silence from the LNP from Queensland when it comes to this great motion put forward by the member for Ryan. Obviously with an inner city electorate I do not have as many bush kids, but I know that many of them receive services in my electorate with the PA Hospital right across the road from the electorate of Moreton, but also QEII hospital and many other services that I will touch on.
BUSHkids do a great service. Having grown up in St George, I know that they do not do outreach programs to St George, but they are only just down the road in Warwick, Inglewood and Dalby, and they service all of Queensland. If we take our minds back to 1935 when we had a slightly different Queensland—it is still a very decentralised state, the most decentralised state—the difficulties of living in these far-flung areas when you have a child that needs medical attention were a problem recognised by the Governor of Queensland at the time, Sir Leslie Orme Wilson, and he sought a solution. He could see that children with increasingly complex medical needs would become a particular challenge in the bush, so at the request of Leslie Wilson—a former British soldier and Governor of Queensland from 1932 to 1946—in 1935 a meeting was convened by the Labor Lord Mayor, Alfred Jones, for the purpose of commencing the BUSHkids program to provide intervention and prevention for medical conditions suffered by children living in remote areas. Initially this program offered access to city medical and surgical services for children who live in the bush. It provided homes near the beach for the children to recuperate with their families. The first home opened in Scarborough, just north of Brisbane. Other homes were established in Yeppoon, Hervey Bay, Rowes Bay and Townsville. Eventually these homes progressed and became registered as hospitals, and the Red Cross provided travel for the children from their country towns. The service provided help even during the difficulties of World War II, when the society's resources were stressed. The polio epidemic provided even more challenges for the service, but despite all of the obstacles the BUSHkids service has continued for 80 years.
Currently BUSHkids operate centres in Brisbane, Bundaberg, Dalby, Emerald, Inglewood, Mount Isa and Warwick. The current program aims to build the capacity of the local rural communities to be able to respond appropriately to children who are at risk. This might include children with poor health or even education or social outcome concerns. Having grown up in Western Queensland, I understand the challenges that come with children who live in isolated areas. Also, having taught in Toowoomba and in Babinda in North Queensland, I understand the challenges that come with having a very decentralised state. I understand the importance of early intervention for children in these communities to access health and educational professionals. Early intervention can make an enormous difference to children, rather than having them moving in a direction that is going to create challenges down the track. If we can have early intervention, guidance and support for parents, a stitch in time saves nine later on.
BUSHkids provides early intervention for allied health for children and families in rural communities who would not otherwise receive the medical or educational care they need. The services provided to children through the BUSHkids program are delivered through a range of facilities across Queensland. One is disability services at Oxley, which is easy to access, particularly for those kids coming in from Warwick, Inglewood, Dalby and all points west.
I commend the member for Ryan for putting this motion to the House. I am disappointed that her Liberal Party and National Party colleagues were not around to support it. Too often they can take the support they have in the bush for granted, whereas we really need to make sure with a decentralised state such as Queensland, with major centres like Townsville, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Mackay, Mount Isa et cetera, that we focus on the resources that are there.
Debate adjourned.
Asbestos Awareness Month
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (11:30): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that November is Asbestos Awareness Month;
(2) acknowledges that tens of thousands of Australian's have ongoing asbestos related illnesses as a result of being exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment or through exposure at their home;
(3) recognises the significant impact on the families and friends of Australians who have asbestos related illnesses;
(4) congratulates asbestos related illness sufferers, their families and the labour movement for their campaign to win justice and compensation for those exposed to asbestos; and
(5) commits to working towards eliminating asbestos both in Australia and around the world.
November is Asbestos Awareness Month. It is fitting that the House recognises the impact of asbestos related illnesses in our communities, congratulates those who have campaigned for justice for those who suffer from these illnesses and commits to eliminating asbestos both in Australia and around the world.
Asbestos related illnesses are among the most painful diseases. Exposure to asbestos can lead to mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx, ovaries and lungs, and asbestosis. The World Health Organization estimates that 125 million people around the world are still exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment and that 90,000 people die annually from asbestos related diseases. These are truly shocking statistics, and we can be thankful that asbestos was banned in Australia in 2003.
Asbestos Awareness Month highlights to Australians the danger of working with asbestos during home renovations and maintenance. Australia has one of the highest incidences of asbestos related cancers in the world. It is a startling fact that nearly every home that was built or renovated before the mid-1980s is likely to contain asbestos. As millions of Australians would live in such a house, it is particularly important that we are aware of these dangers of exposure to asbestos. Before the ban in 2003, asbestos miners, manufacturers, trades men and women, and their families were impacted by exposure. These are commonly known as the first and second waves of victims. The third wave of people who will be affected are those who undertake do-it-yourself home renovations or maintenance in old houses. It is this third wave of DIY-ers and renovators who are at risk of dangerous exposure and on whom the awareness month focuses.
Anyone who watches commercial television will be aware that, in recent years, Australians have increasingly become obsessed with home renovations. On any given night, Australians can watch The Block, Better Homes and Gardens, House Rules or Grand Designs—the list goes on. Given the popularity of these shows, it is fundamentally important that the community is aware of the risks associated with exposure to asbestos and the horrific consequences of such exposure. The clear message of Asbestos Awareness Month is this: there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to asbestos fibres. I urge everyone who is considering or undertaking home renovations to visit asbestosawareness.com.au and undertake the 20-point asbestos safety check.
All of us in the House will be aware of the horrendous exposure workers at James Hardie suffered and the unconscionable actions of that company in seeking to walk away from its liability. It is only because of the bravery of campaigners such as Bernie Banton and the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, who together with the trade union movement delivered justice for these victims, that we are in the situation we are in today. I do not want to be overtly political in speaking to this motion, but the James Hardie saga is a significant episode in Australia's industrial history and is particularly relevant in raising asbestos awareness. Workers were exposed to asbestos and their employer knew this exposure was dangerous, yet it continued to allow them to work with asbestos. Then, when workers sought justice and compensation, the company did everything possible to avoid its responsibilities. This is a shameful example of a corporation exploiting workers in the worst possible way. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do all that we can to be vigilant and to prevent such shameful industrial abuse from happening in the future. Bernie Banton, who was one of the leaders of the campaign for justice, passed away eight years ago this Friday. I am proud that this House is recognising this brave campaign for justice with the help of the labour movement. Australia is a better country because of the efforts of these brave fighters for fairness. I should put on the record that I am particularly concerned about recent reports that James Hardie, despite very strong profits, has cut back its compensation program by a further 44 per cent.
Australians need to be aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. It is fitting that the national parliament is recognising Asbestos Awareness Month, is paying tribute to those who have fought for justice and is committing to working towards eliminating asbestos, both in Australia and around the world. I, again, pay tribute to the work of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, Bernie Banton and the trade union movement. I particularly acknowledge that my predecessor as the member for Charlton, Greg Combet, lists his negotiations with James Hardie as his greatest achievement in political life. In advance, I thank my colleagues from all sides of the House for making a contribution to this debate on Asbestos Awareness Month. I am proud to commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Price ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:35): I second the motion. There is not one word that the member for Charlton spoke that I have a problem with. In fact, I support him in every remark that he made. Asbestosis is a deplorable disease and there are not many places I can go in Australia where I cannot find someone affected by this disease. I recognise, as the member who just spoke did, some heroes in my area—particularly Vicki Hamilton from GARDS, Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease Support. The work that they do very important people because we come from the industrial area of the Latrobe Valley. We have all the asbestos laws, but none of us are immune to home renovations. Just recently, I was watching a contractor work. He rigged up this whole thing just to put a hot-water service in—just to drill four holes—because, as he said to me, 'My dad died of this disease.' My drummer's mum, Laura, died of this disease a while ago. I have spoken about that before. She never had any contact with asbestos, but she washed her husband's overalls. There are people who can live with asbestos for the whole of their life and never have a problem with it, and there are some who get sick at the merest touch of it. I am personally guilty of doing renovations involving asbestos. No-one ever told us all those years ago that there was a problem with taking the asbestos, throwing it in a trailer, taking it to the tip, dumping it and then going back for the next lot.
I holiday with my family at Phillip Island, where so many of the homes are just built out of asbestos. Even the newer homes are built out of asbestos. For the old ones built during the war, they had to get any material they could from anywhere to build their homes, and they did. There is nowhere you can walk on Phillip Island where you cannot pick up a piece of asbestos. My own son said to me, 'Dad, what's asbestos?' I just reached down to the ground and picked a piece up and said, 'That's asbestos.' The member for Charlton would say, 'You shouldn't have picked that up, Russell. You should've had gloves on when you picked it up.'
The message that is coming through is that we want local governments, state governments and federal governments to be aware of this issue, because we are not talking about a few people who may be affected and infected by this horrific and completely debilitating disease. You talk to the people who have the disease and are dealing with it—and our best efforts cannot save their lives if they are infected by this shocking, horrible disease.
The member for Charlton mentioned our past and, particularly, James Hardie. I understand what he is saying, but our past is our past. We need to address that appropriately and financially on behalf of those who need to receive benefits and lump-sum payouts, because, quite often, their lives are very short and they actually need a lump-sum payout, not an instalment, for themselves and for their family to deal with the issue—and they are dealing with the issue of death. We are dealing with the issue of death. We are not saying that this is a cold that you get and get over; this is something that you get and it actually kills you. The message that we are giving to everybody is: do not do your own renovations. Do not think you can break the rules, because it may not be you who dies. It could be your daughter working around you while you are doing the renovations. It could be your son who dies because of the renovations that you may be doing around your home because you think it is going to be cheaper: 'I don't have to get the guy in. I don't have to wrap it in the plastic three times. I don't have to carry it in and then take it to the tip and get it weighed and pay the extra money.' It is your own children under threat, it is your community under threat and it is those around you who are under threat when you do these sorts of renovations.
We are sending a very strong message here: this is a dangerous product; it will kill you. I applaud the Vicki Hamiltons of this world, the union movement that supports me in all these things and the contractors and the workers who make a difference to the people in the streets. We are a nation that is addressing this issue. We need to do something internationally with regard to India, Russia and the other places who are still producing this stuff and still using it as a material. It is a disgrace and we have got a long way to go.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (11:41): I rise to speak in support of the motion and I thank the member for Charlton for bringing Asbestos Awareness Month to our attention. Speaking on the topic today is a timely reminder of Asbestos Awareness Day happening this Friday, so keep your eyes open for the blue lamington drive and donate generously. Funds raised go towards needed research into the treatment of mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases. The reason asbestos awareness campaigns like Get to Know Asbestos this November are needed is because even though Australia banned the use of asbestos in 2003 there have been 600 cases of malignant mesothelioma and about 1,350 cases of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure diagnosed each year.
As we know asbestos was widely used in building materials and the automotive trade before 1987, so it is not only tradesmen who are at risk of exposure but also families who may be renovating or maintaining their own homes. It is estimated that one in three Australian homes contain asbestos in one form or another. I would like to tell you about the magnificent Lou Williams. Lou lives in my electorate of McEwen and I have met with her over the last few months to discuss issues regarding treatment options for people with mesothelioma. This issue is close to Lou's heart because she lost her father to pleural mesothelioma in 1985 and she has faced her own battle with pleural mesothelioma for the last 13 years. But I can tell you, she is one tough fighter.
Lou was exposed to asbestos as a child in the seventies—at a time when we did not know better, or were only learning about the impacts from those early cases at James Hardie Industries. Although we tend to think of most mesothelioma sufferers as being male, or those who worked directly with the material, we are starting to see a rise in the number of women being diagnosed with the disease as a result of exposure similar to Lou's or from home renovations.
When Lou came to see me she was working on behalf of all the mesothelioma sufferers in Australia. She is fighting to have a new medication used to treat mesothelioma put on the PBS. Lou's treatment plan uses a new medication called Keytruda, which is administered every three weeks. Basically, the medication encourages the body's immune system to kick in and fight the mesothelioma tumours in a more natural way compared to other oncological treatment options such as chemotherapy. The medication is approved in Australia for melanoma, but it is not yet approved for mesothelioma. The cost of the medication is $9,000 per dose, and traditionally you will need between four and six doses before you can find out if it is going to be effective. That is about $36,000 each person has got to find. It is well out of the price range of most people. But is it effective? Well, if you have seen Lou, she is the poster child. Lou has seen some great improvement in her condition with the medication attributed to shrinking her tumours and giving her a new lease on life—energy, strength and the ability to make the most out of each day. With these types of encouraging treatment results, shouldn't this option be available to all Australians? I think so. That is why we have been working with Lou to encourage the pharmaceutical company that makes Keytruda to apply to the TGA and the PBAC to have the medication listed.
I met with the company in August and spoke about the demonstrated need in the Australian community and the benefits that listing their product on the PBS would have for the thousands of Australian's diagnosed with mesothelioma. Lou is speaking on Australian trials and treatments at the International Conference on Asbestos Awareness and Management in Melbourne this week. I am sure that her personal experience will be discussed at great length and raise greater awareness of the benefits of putting Keytruda put on the PBS. There is no time to waste.
This is particularly the case for victims of James Hardie Industries who have once again been neglected by an unjustifiable decision by the company to slash its contributions to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund. They are slashing compensation while at the same time their profits soar by some 22 per cent. Not only are they slashing compensation funding but they are also looking to change the way payments are made—payments by instalments instead of a lump sum payment within three years. Does this mean that victims will now have to wait for their first instalment at the three-year point? As we know, this government is well versed in the art of making sufferers wait in a long and drawn out process to receive their compensation. Asbestos related disease victims do not die by instalments and they should not have their compensation in instalments either.
I would like to commend asbestos disease sufferers like Lou and many others, and their families, who have worked tirelessly alongside government representatives, unions and labour groups to increase awareness of the dangers of exposure to asbestos and the need for continual and increased funding for treatment and further research. As I said, keep your eye out for the blue lamington drive happening in your area. Give generously to Asbestos Awareness Day. It is a very worthy cause. I particularly mention Lou because I do not think I have met a person with such great inner strength and courage as Lou. We will keep fighting to help her and hopefully other victims to get the support they need and the medication they need that will help them live full lives.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:46): The member for Charlton cited a number of individuals who have made heroic efforts in this field. I would like to add, more particularly with the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, the former maritime official, Barry Robson, who has made it his life task to struggle for the victims. I also mention Taylor and Scott who, through association with the CFMEU, have also played a strong role. In this parliament, Senator Lisa Singh and the member for McMillan have been out there with regard to awareness, having forums and seminars during the year and, more particularly, raising the question of the continued use of asbestos by companies in the developing world when they have no excuse for saying they do not know about it.
Having grown up in Granville and Guildford, I am very cognisant of this reality. The former plant at Camellia employed up to 1,500 people, both at James Hardie and the former CSR related company, Wunderlich, with a predominantly Maltese and Lebanese Maronite workforce. In the course of my life, I had experience with my own father. Amongst multiple reasons for his death was asbestos related illness from having worked in breaking up building materials at the age of 15 or 16. I watched a friend, George Zeiter, die. With his wife, Kathie, we spent many social times. I saw him struggle for breath and, to my mind, at that stage he was paid a measly figure, and that is typical of the reality in this field. I was also able to make sure that my friend and now judge Anna Katzmann was able to rush to the home of metalworkers official John Wallace to make sure papers were filled, because of the very severe time limitations for people to wage their claims. From recollection, John made it by about two days before he died.
Whilst someone said earlier that it is a historic event, it is still contemporary. A previous speaker cited the reality that James Hardie is severely cutting their payments. The agreement was, of course, that it would operate on cash flows. I have to say that, in the case of this company, given its rather shabby history, one would have to have grave suspicions about the manipulation of company finances to avoid payments. One would have to have grave doubts that scheme, which was admittedly agreed to.
Another article recently highlighted James Hardie's nefarious conduct in this field. In The Saturday Paper on 7 November was an article by Susan Chenery. She spoke about the treatment of the Baryulgil people, an Indigenous community in Northern New South Wales where there was a mine. On the broader issue of asbestos in this country, Matt Peacock, the former ABC journalist and producer, played a very important role. It was only in 1977 that the people in Baryulgil knew what they were enduring. In the article by Susan Chenery, amongst points made, she said:
Walker was given a pension of “20-something” dollars a week when her husband died, after a lump sum of $40,000. “In 17 years, the pension is up to $80,” ... “That is not much money for losing the person who was the breadwinner for the family.”
Ray Jones says most of the Baryulgil people who died of asbestos-related illness “died without getting a cent or got a pathetic amount”. When Walker’s brother died, his wife was given $4000 by James Hardie.
The promised medical centre was only established in 1990, despite some discussions back in 1984. It further said:
"Has anybody ever mentioned that it can give you cancer?" I don’t think anybody had ever been made aware of the dangers of it. They were virtually swimming in the dust and kids crawling around in it.
That is the kind of reality on the ground for Baryulgil. That is the kind of conduct of James Hardie. They knew for decades of the dangers they were facing, and what was seen at Baryulgil was also practised in metropolitan Sydney at this plant. I have to say that, in a discussion with Matt Peacock some years ago, he made the point that there are still former executives of this company who know where there are significant dumps of asbestos in the inner west region of Sydney. These constitute a continuing problem, and it is quite alarming that these people have not come forward, years after their employment with the company, to expose where these dumps are. I have to say, they were multiple.
A situation where 11,500 people have been newly diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in Australia between 1982 and 2009 is certainly a matter that should entertain the interest of this parliament. I commend the mover, and I commend members in this parliament who have had a very strong involvement around the issue.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:51): I want to thank the member for Charlton for bringing this very important motion to the attention of the House. I grew up in Seven Hills in the 1970s, and Seven Hills forms part of what is commonly known in Sydney as the asbestos belt, where more than 30 per cent of fibro-clad houses existed in those council areas in the early 1980s. Today, I represent Blacktown City Council and part of Holroyd City Council, which remain in that great asbestos belt of Western Sydney. It is sometimes called the fibro belt. This is where the use of asbestos-containing products is especially concentrated. It was largely built around the 1950s and 1960s, and there are streets where every house was built using fibro sheets reinforced with asbestos.
Aside from that, one of the reasons why I consider this to be such an important issue is that asbestos eradication, identification and treatment is front of mind for many people in Western Sydney, including our local councils, home renovators and homeowners. You only have to go around to some of these areas, as I do on a regular basis, to see the large fences with the huge signs saying, 'Asbestos eradication in process; keep out,' to know that this is an issue that is going to be ongoing and which people in later years are going to find themselves suffering from.
I think it is incredibly important to also recognise the role that is played by local government and also by the community. In particular, we see cases of asbestos dumping. There are people who still think that it is okay and that there are no health ramifications caused by this. Just to bring to light some issues, recently asbestos scares happened after building waste fell from trucks. But I also want to point out something close to home. In May last year, we had a headline: 'Asbestos scare shuts down Blacktown Hospital upgrade works indefinitely'.We actually had tonnes of fill delivered to Blacktown Hospital's reconstruction laden with asbestos. The fact that this can go on today not only is an absolute blight on the systems of checks and balances but also highlights that this is going to be, as I said, an ongoing issue which is not going to go away overnight.
On that point, I want to congratulate our local councils for the initiatives that they have taken in this area, and I particularly want to congratulate Holroyd City Council. They have been back-to-back winners of various awards in excellence in environmental leadership and sustainability for their work recognising their innovation in asbestos management. They also run a website, for those viewers or people listening in: asbestosanswers.com.au. They have created a website that aims to answer questions that council staff are commonly asked in relation to asbestos in a simple, non-jargonistic way, and I congratulate them for taking that initiative.
One of the other big issues that have come to light in recent times as well is that we still have issues of asbestos being imported in building equipment. I note that an article on the ABC on 23 October this year said:
The Asbestos Industry Association said the potentially deadly material was discovered in cement compound board from China two months ago.
What is even more concerning is the samples were tested in Asia and a certificate was issued saying they were asbestos-free when in fact they contained white asbestos.
I also point out the fines for importing these types of products. The penalty is $170,000, when in 2012 Safe Work Australia estimated the average human cost of an asbestos related fatality was over $1 million and for asbestos related incapacity it was over $2 million. It is incredibly important to recognise that, unless something is done urgently, unless we have action on this, we are going see yet another wave of people suffering these asbestos related deceases—not just the people who dug it up, not just the people who lived in the houses, not just the people who have been knocking down the houses or being exposed to asbestos dumping. People today are using this in houses.
I just want to echo the sentiments that James Hardie must immediately step up to ensure that the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund is property funded. That is an absolutely essential element and I think we would all agree with that.
Debate adjourned.
Green Army Program
Mrs PRENTICE ( Ryan ) ( 11:56 ): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that many young Australians are environmentally conscious and interested in protecting our precious natural environment;
(2) recognises that the Government’s Green Army programme is providing practical opportunities for young Australians to participate in local environmental projects;
(3) acknowledges that participants gain practical skills and training that can assist them to prepare for the workforce and improve career opportunities;
(4) notes that four Green Army projects have commenced in the electoral division of Ryan, and hundreds more have commenced across Australia; and
(5) commends the Government for committing more than $700 million over four years to the Green Army programme.
My electorate of Ryan takes in the most beautiful and greenest parts of Queensland's most sustainable city. In thinking about how to save our planet from our own backyard and leaving our natural assets in better condition, a new generation of young environmentalists is enlisting in our Green Army. I am as optimistic as I am proud of this growing army of young environmental champions, especially those who also live, work and love Brisbane's leafy western suburbs.
The coalition government's Green Army will make a real difference in some of our country's neglected natural estate through restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers, and restoring cultural heritage areas. The Green Army initiative will bring our government's investment in natural resource management to more than $2 billion over four years from 2015-16.
In improving and rehabilitating our natural estate, actions speak louder than words. And, in climate policy more broadly, thinking globally requires meaningful action at the local level. That is why I am pleased to report that Brisbane is Queensland's most sustainable city for the second consecutive year and it was also Australia's most sustainable city last year and a finalist again this year. For a high-growth city like Brisbane to be consistently recognised as one of our nation's most sustainable is not something that is achieved by accident. It is not the product of unconstrained ideology, a union credit card and wishful thinking. The coalition is committed to good planning, strong leadership, hard work, an innovative and agile approach to policy design and a commitment to work with our community to deliver more affordable and better local solutions.
In my electorate of Ryan this year, for example, the coalition is supporting four Green Army projects. We are working with our community to restore about 1.5 hectares of bushland along Enoggera Creek that will include installing visitor interpretive signs, revegetating and planting native shrubs and trees, removing weeds and increasing resilience in the waterways. Following on from work already completed as part of the Two Million Trees Project, the Anstead Bushlands Environmental Restoration Project will restore a further 7.3 hectares of land. Then there is the Ashgrove Scenic Reserve Restoration Project and, following on from valuable work done by Habitat Brisbane, the Paten Park Restoration project, which will help remove weeds and replant native species in their place. These natural environmental improvement projects are a fantastic way to encourage and educate our youth about natural ecosystems, environmental conservation and how to care for the unique natural assets in our own backyard.
For young Australians aged between 17 and 24, the Green Army provides valuable practical experience and training while undertaking work that will improve the environment in our local communities right across urban, regional and remote Australia. It will be Australia's biggest ever team supporting environment action and will grow to about 15,000 young Australians by 2018. In our first year, the coalition government announced more than 700 projects. More than 350 projects have already been rolled out, and this will increase to about 1,500 projects right across Australia in four years. It is a great opportunity for us to work with our community leaders so that the natural assets in the special parts of our own backyard benefit from an innovative program that supports local environment and heritage conservation projects. I enjoy working with our community leaders, including Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and the council's chairman for environment, parks and sustainability, Councillor Matthew Bourke, to make sure our city has a cleaner and greener future.
The experience in Brisbane over the last decade has shown that to deliver the best possible environmental outcome it is important to develop and support practical actions for the whole community house by house, street by street, suburb by suburb. The results speak for themselves. While Labor and their union bosses are still gambling on a policy of action fuelled by ideology, the coalition will continue to deliver more affordable, more meaningful and more sustainable outcomes locally. Actions speak louder than words, and that is why I am proud to be an honorary ambassador for Queensland's most sustainable city and it is why I applaud the coalition government's Green Army program, because it will drive and support real local action and better environmental outcomes right across the Australian landscape.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Southcott ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:01): I second the motion put forward by the member for Ryan. Whilst I strongly condemn her politicising of the facts—that people being in a union is somehow a bad thing—I am happy to speak on the motion in terms of the contribution that the Green Army makes in my electorate of Moreton. On Thursday last week, I went out to the Oxley Creek Riparian Connectivity Phase 2 project and caught up with the young workers who were working on the banks of Oxley Creek at the Corinda Golf Course—375 Cliveden Avenue, Oxley, for those who are interested in a little game of golf. It is a little nine-hole golf course, one of the three in my electorate, with a little pitch-and-putt and a driving range on Oxley Road—a nice contribution to the local economy.
Oxley Creek drains an area of approximately 260 square kilometres. From the northern slopes of Mount Perry, south of Ipswich, Oxley Creek flows into the Brisbane River near Tennyson, which is the northern boundary of my electorate, just across the river from the member for Ryan's electorate. The Oxley Creek Catchment Association was formed in 1995 from collaboration between some members of the Oxley Creek Environment Group and the Australian Marine Conservation Society. They do fantastic work. This association developed the Oxley Creek Catchment Management Plan in early 1999. The association oversees the implementation of that plan and is guided by a fully endorsed catchment coordinating committee under the Department of Natural Resources and Mines integrated catchment management program.
In Australia every square metre of land is part of a catchment, even though some never reaches the ocean. Water falling in a catchment area will run across the surface of the catchment, becoming stormwater run-off or groundwater. It is important for the health of our waterways that associations like the Oxley Creek Catchment Association and their very dedicated and hardworking volunteers look after the health of our waterways. As water runs across the catchment area, some seeps into the soil and plant matter slows the flow so that, ideally, the water enters the creek slowly. Plants also naturally filter the water, keeping the creeks and rivers naturally purified. When the catchment areas are polluted, so too are our waterways, and then it flows out the Brisbane River to Moreton Bay and becomes a problem. In an urban environment like Moreton there are many factors that make it difficult to keep our waterways healthy and clean. Large sealed areas such as roadways and carparks make it impossible for the water to seep through into the soil, causing the flow to be too fast. The water will enter the creek without any filtering, carrying rubbish and polluting the waterways. That is a problem for wildlife further down the stream. It is crucial that the riparian creek bank vegetation is sturdy and healthy.
The work the Green Army is doing with the Oxley Creek Catchment Association is vital to the health of Moreton's waterways, be it Oxley Creek, Rocky Creek or any of the smaller tributaries. These hardworking young people I met last week, led by the two Joshes and Chris, include university students, school leavers and all sorts of people. These were young people who are very proud to be making a contribution to Australia's environment. Their assigned project involves managing weed species; cutting out a lot of the introduced species; removing debris, rubbish and litter; and establishing and maintaining a native riparian buffer. This will provide creek bank stabilisation and a natural filtration system for the overland flows that enter Oxley Creek, which—as anyone who lives around Rocklea knows—is a regular occurrence, even in some parts of Oxley and Corinda. The young people participating in this Green Army project are learning valuable skills and information about their local environment. They are learning from the Oxley Creek Catchment Association—people who are extremely dedicated and passionate about our environment. They are wonderful role models for these young people. It is this kind of practical mentoring in our society that will naturally promote sharing between generations of knowledge, practical skills and a little bit of that environmental passion.
Protecting our environment is everyone's business. We must all play our part. It is vitally important that our younger generations understand the importance of protecting our waterways, especially as dangerous climate change becomes a reality. This project will aid in preserving the environment and promoting knowledge and practical responses to dangerous climate change. I commend the Oxley Creek Catchment Association for hosting the Green Army, and I commend all of the young people working on that project—especially the young people I met last week. They make a valuable contribution to the environment in the Moreton electorate. They are doing a great job. I thank them again for their enthusiasm and for what they are doing to make sure waterways, such as Oxley Creek, are clean and healthy.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (12:07): I rise to speak on the coalition government's Green Army initiative, which continues to deliver very positive outcomes, particularly for our young people and the environment in the electorate of Macquarie and, indeed, across the nation. With projects regularly occurring across the electorate, we are seeing firsthand the benefits of the program on the ground in both the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains.
While supporting local environmental work and heritage conservation projects across Australia, the Green Army initiative is engaging young people aged 17-24 years, and providing them with opportunities to learn new skills to prepare them for a career path they may not have considered before being given this opportunity and gaining this experience. With more than $700 million committed to Green Army projects across Australia over four years, it is making a real difference to environmental assets by restoring and protecting habitats, removing noxious weeds, planting native plants, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage places. Recently I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the benefits of the initiative for the youth who have been taking part and who are having a go even if they did not feel particularly interested when they first began.
There have been many projects in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains which have achieved wonderful outcomes for the environment. The Bushells Lagoon project at Wilberforce in the Hawkesbury is one I will mention in particular. The Green Army team that has been working on this project for the last six months recently gave a progress presentation on its challenges, achievements and experiences. The volunteers spoke proudly and confidently about the processes they had been through to re-establish the health of the degraded lagoon and surrounding environment, along with the skills they had learnt and the opportunities that had arisen for future career paths. The Bushells Lagoon project has seen the Green Army team working with the Hawkesbury Environment Network over six months to assess the health and habitat values of the wetland, to provide staged works to remove invasive weeds, to propagate a wide range of suitably local indigenous plant species and to undertake a revegetation program along selected sections of the lagoon's foreshores.
It was great to seek how much the hard-working participants have gained in experience, knowledge, comradeship and the opportunities it is opening up for them. They are outstanding young people who demonstrated great skill and capacity to apply their learning into transformational outcomes for the environment. Many of those working on the project have also brought a wealth of knowledge on board, through bachelor degrees in natural resource management, water quality, riparian management and animal science which was incredibly valuable. For many, it also sparked the desire for them to continue to work within this field. The volunteers also recognised that the work that had been achieved must be maintained in the future. The project has allowed many to realise they enjoy working with the environment and want to see the hard work that they put in continue to have positive outcomes and continue to be maintained.
These projects would not be possible without the brilliant work and dedication of the sponsors and team leaders of the Green Army. For the Bushells Lagoon project, it is the Hawkesbury Environment Network and the team supervisor, Andy Araya. These sponsors and team supervisors make the experience educational and fun for volunteers while restoring and protecting our precious environment. I particularly want to thank and congratulate them for their dedication and commitment. The Hawkesbury Environment Network project coordinator, Robin Woods, said she too could see the benefits of the Green Army initiative on both the volunteers and environment. Ms Woods said, 'The team on the Bushells Lagoon project had established over 1,000 plants, undertaken invasive weed control and actively engaged with several landholders to re-establish a healthy natural environment.' Many landholders also spoke of their appreciation to have had assistance in restoring the natural environment on properties. Now is also the time for more young people to get involved in projects, with the next round planned to commence around the electorate of Macquarie—again both in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains.
The Green Army does provide young people across the country with a chance to take part in important environmental and conservation activities while at the same time receive training and skills. Participation is open to a diverse range of young people, including Indigenous Australians, school leavers, gap year students, graduates and job seekers. Participants must be aged between 17 and 24. I encourage the youth of Macquarie to get involved. You never know what you may discover about yourself and the environment.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (12:12): Whilst I welcome the member for Ryan's motion, this government has no credibility on the environment whatsoever. This is shown with the new Prime Minister continuing a controversial bill that would deny the rights to appeal projects developed on environmental grounds to allow all but those directly impacted with local interests. This denies people, anywhere in Australia—if there was ever an environmental issue about the Great Barrier Reef—not being able to have a say because they were not directly impacted. That legislation is still out there.
Their record is astounding: ranging from moving backwards on climate change, to risking our reputation for outstanding world heritage icons. The government disallowed the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to sea. The government also went against all reason and all advice and sneakily had the world's largest marine reserve re-proclaimed to undo the management plans that give them affect. So where is this government on the environment? It is nowhere. And whilst we might stand here and say nice things about the Green Army, it is not actually going to resolve the issue in front of us.
My electorate of Chisholm in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne is home to a variety of fantastic environmental groups, including Friends of Damper Creek Reserve, Friends of Scotchmans Creek and Valley Reserve, Friends of Wattle Park and many others. These amazing groups rely solely on volunteers from the community and receive little or no funding from any source—maybe some assistance from Parks Victoria and local council. The Green Army is not the answer to these groups and many of those involved are not young, but they are very enthusiastic and they are looking after the environment magnificently in my community.
The member for Ryan speaks of hundreds of these Green Army projects commencing throughout Australia, but to date none have commenced in my electorate of Chisholm and I have not heard of any being planned in the near future. One was allocated into my electorate, in the Chadstone food bowl project. But, sadly, when the group applied, they did not actually quite comprehend what they were going to be involved in in the overseeing of young people in a work type environment and they actually did not have the resources to dedicate to this sufficiently. They said that they would not take up the grant because they did not believe that they would be giving the best to the young people involved.
Before getting the job, the now Prime Minister promoted widely the need for real action on climate change. Where is he now? Taking action on climate change actually means reducing carbon emissions. It requires pollution levels to be reduced—significantly reduced. Creating a scheme which takes people off social security benefits and employs them into an army of very low-paid workers without any workplace safety, proper training or protection measures and getting them to plant some trees or do some weeding is not, in terms of emission reduction, practical action. Australia needs environmental solutions. We do not need to tanbark the country. The best solution to emission reduction still remains a price on carbon.
I agree with the member for Ryan that it is positive to see young Australians interested and participating in protecting our environment for future generations. Many of them are calling for that now. Labor believes that environmentally based work and training programs can be effective pathways to work for job seekers, as well as providing environmental benefits. Indeed, it was Labor, under the Keating government, who introduced LEAP, the Landcare and Environment Action Program, which was the genesis of many of these projects. But Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. Every individual who can work should be given that chance, but we know that can only happen with the appropriate support and protection.
The Green Army fails, purely on the grounds of human resources. Green Army volunteers will be paid the minimum wage for 30 hours a week. They will no longer be eligible for Centrelink payments and they will also lose any entitlements to rent assistance, healthcare cards and pharmaceutical allowance, leaving them no better off than if they did not volunteer. This, actually, is not assisting them into work and it is not assisting our environment. It is just a nice, packaged-up name with 'army' tagged on to it, which, I think, many young people have some difficulty with.
The government says that Green Army participants will be similar to the thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. But, unlike trainees or apprenticeships, participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth and are denied the status of Commonwealth employees. They will be left in no man's land, unprotected by acts that protect other trainees and apprentices and not given real training opportunities. Many of them will not even walk out with a certificate of training to indicate they actually undertook these roles.
While the Labor Party has always supported training and learning opportunities for young people to help them find secure and meaningful employment, this program fails by offering no guarantee that participants will actually receive useful and accredited training to help them find secure future employment. It fails people into the future. Many of them have not transitioned into work and many of them will go through this because they have to or are on no benefits. What we need is real action for young people and real action for our environment.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (12:17): I always welcome an opportunity to talk about the Green Army, because it is such a fantastic program. I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion to the House and I share her enthusiasm for the positive impact the program is having in our respective electorates. It is wonderful to see generations of young people taking not only a strong interest but also a strong sense of responsibility in the care of our local environment and natural habitats.
Just last week I attended the Wyong Shire Council’s Primary Schools Environment Program Awards ceremony. The program is a Wyong Shire Council initiative and it has been running for the last 27 years. This year's theme was 'All about that waste', encouraging students to consider waste in individual and community contexts and to consider the subsequent impacts on the environment and waste management systems. It was fantastic to see students so involved and aware of their surrounding environment and coming up with their own initiatives on how they can take care of it. I take this opportunity to congratulate The Entrance Public School for taking out the award for overall winner in the large school category, as well as winner of the waste audit and waste management plan; Tacoma public school, runner-up in the overall small school category as well as winner of the student oral presentation performance; Brooke Avenue Public School, runner-up in the large school category as well as winner of the schools eco-tour category; and Warnervale and Woongarrah Public Schools, who also received awards for their outstanding commitment to our local environment.
By providing education and practical hands-on experience through schools, tertiary institutions and at all levels of government, we are seeing our younger generations growing up with a greater awareness and positive attitudes towards caring for our natural environment. The government recognises the importance of harnessing our young people through education and participation and promoting and facilitating grassroots environmental action to affect real changes, which is the reason the Green Army program is specifically geared for young people aged 17 to 24.
The government's Green Army program is proven to be successful. The policy was built on a pre-existing platform from the Howard government which resulted in over 14 million trees being planted and over 50,000 hectares of weeds being cleared amongst other achievements. The coalition government revitalised the proven Howard program. Upon implementation this program has been strong. The evidence across Australia is clear. As it builds to a $700-million, 15,000-strong environmental workforce over the coming years, it will be our largest ever environmental deployment, taking practical and direct action to remediate and regenerate our local environment by employing the people who understand it best, the locals.
Since the launch of the Green Army in Dobell by Minister Hunt, I have visited numerous Green Army sites and met many outstanding participants. Last month I visited the young people involved in the new round of Green Army projects at The Entrance North and Tuggerah Lakes. They were enthusiastic, passionate and dedicated to the restoration project. The Green Army have been involved in removing lantana, improving vegetation and rehabilitating the landscape. They have collected seeds, propagated plants and removed weeds. They have undertaken revegetation of dunes, and installed public access-ways and fencing to reduce the human impact on the dunes and to prevent erosion. They have monitored flora and fauna by establishing photo points and using various surveying techniques.
Along with the practical labour, the Green Army are engaging with and educating the community, by erecting signage, distributing publications and conducting interactive seminars. The Green Army is an outstanding initiative for young people to be trained in environmental conservation under the supervision of approved project hosts. Program participants are paid an allowance during their placement with the Green Army and have an opportunity to formalise their participation with accredited training modules.
As I talk with different young people who are involved with the Green Army team, I am always impressed at their pride in what they are achieving; their self-confidence and their sense of team camaraderie. Many of the participants I have spoken to express a desire to continue working in the fields of conservation, natural resource management and other environmental fields. One recent graduate was beaming as he told me he had joined a Green Army program because he was unemployed, and through his participation he has now gained employment as a landscaper.
Green Army is creating real jobs and making a real difference in young people's lives. And it is generating tangible, environmental and conservation benefits for our community. I look forward to continuing to see the outstanding projects across Dobell in the future.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:22): I join with members that have acknowledged the fact that young Australians are very environmentally conscious and I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion to the House. Young Australians are interested in protecting our precious natural environment. That is why if you ask young people about climate change they are adamant that climate change is one of the biggest problems facing our society, and that they need governments to listen to what they are saying and to act. They want to make sure that when they have children and grandchildren there will still be an environment to enjoy. If we do not care and protect our environment, then we are doing a great disservice to young Australians, and especially to those young Australians who have been working on the Green Army projects throughout Australia.
The Green Army projects have delivered some real benefits to people who are involved in them. They have made some real changes in the environment in my area. In very little distinct projects that have been conducted it is one tiny aspect of what we as a nation need to do to protect our environment. We need to have strict legislation in place that prohibits the vandalisation of our environment; we need legislation that is not going to get rid of the environmental protection act—giving states the power to make decisions on very important environmental projects. And we need to carefully consider every decision that government takes in relation to that environmental protection. Of course, as I started off saying, no decision is more important than recognising the need to act on climate change and not to put our heads in the sand, because the Green Army will not lead to a change there.
On 29 October, I visited the graduation of two Green Army projects in Shortland. One was the second stage of a bush rehabilitation project on the Lake Munmorah and Budgie Lake foreshore. The young people that were involved in it had worked to combat coastal estuary and bushland degradation and to ensure that the sites had a suitable level of existing and new landcare group volunteers to continue the work—the Green Army working in conjunction with Landcare. It included applying best practice bush regeneration techniques, weeding, planting, erosion control, stormwater treatment, and looking at improving biodiversity and species habitat. That was one project.
The other project was a coastal dune care and lake foreshore project. This is a project I have had a close connection with for many years—not as a Green Army project but through my contact with the Dunecare group who have rehabilitated all the dunes in that area. The Green Army are assisting them to continue what they have been doing: best practice bush regeneration techniques, combined with combating coastal and lake foreshore degradation, undertaking further dune stabilisation and, in general, making sure that the area is enhanced and protected.
I congratulate each and every one of the people who completed and graduated from that program. Many of those involved in the program have degrees and they were using the Green Army projects to hone their skills. However, whilst I laud the projects and I thank from the bottom of my heart those young people who were involved, I call on the government to do much more in the area of environmental protection and caring for the future of Australia. (Time expired)
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (12:27): I would like to thank the member for Ryan for this important motion acknowledging the significance and success of the government's Green Army program. The Green Army is a major government commitment with more than $700 million budgeted over four years. It will become Australia's largest ever team-supported environmental action, building to around 15,000 young Australians by 2018. The Green Army provides young people across the country with a chance to take part in important environmental and conservation activities while at the same time receiving training and qualifications.
This year, 2015, has been a fantastic year for the Green Army in my electorate of Macarthur. Over the course of this year, I have had the pleasure of getting to know many young people who have had the courage and tenacity to take part in Macarthur's Green Army. Many of these young people have had difficult upbringings, and the Green Army has offered a positive environment to learn about the importance of conservation and develop a passion for this kind of work. The Green Army participants are supported to work towards certificate I and II qualifications or nationally endorsed skills sets to help them prepare for the workforce and improve their career opportunities. It is crystal clear from talking to people on the ground that the Green Army in Macarthur is making a real difference to the environment and the local community, transforming the lives of these young people by putting them on the right path in life and allowing them to fulfil their potential.
In March this year, Macarthur's first Green Army team graduated at the Australian Botanic Garden, Mount Annan, marking the achievements of a group of young Australians who have spent six months working on the Cumberland Plain Green Army project. The Australian Botanic Garden woodland regeneration program is of great benefit to the Macarthur region through the conservation of the Cumberland Plain's critically endangered ecological communities. The program focusses on conservation management, restoration and enhancement of the woodland, targeting both the Cumberland Plain Woodlands and the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest remnants, and looking to achieve weed control and assist regeneration and replanting in degraded areas.
Over the past 15 months or so, successive Green Army participants have been highly effective in eradicating invasive weeds such as African olive, Brazilian nightshade and prickly pear from the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodlands. In September, the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt, and I visited the garden to attend a graduation ceremony. It was incredible to see what the participants had learnt, including such things as specialised weed control techniques for use in sensitive bushland, as well as seed collection and plant propagation. It was a special day for the Green Army team and their friends and family, as well as their organisers—in particular project supervisor Jacinta Rheinberger and the Curator Manager of the Australian Botanic Garden, John Siemon, who have passionately supported this programme from the beginning.
I again congratulate the graduates: Amy Peacey, David Lefu, lsaha Wickey, Joshua Araya, Kodi Gaddes, Mark Rutten, Tasman Stoker and Tiffany Bliefnick. These terrific young people gained experience working in an ambitious and productive team environment, which will be invaluable to them as they move on to the next stage of their lives. As Minister Hunt said on the day, 'The team we're celebrating today is yet another example of how the Green Army is making a real difference for the local environment and community. Through their management, restoration and enhancement of the Cumberland Plain, these graduates have made a real difference to the area.'
There are two other Macarthur Green Army projects in operation in Camden and Campbelltown, in addition to the program at the Australian Botanic Garden in Mount Annan. The Campbelltown Green Army project, run by Bridie Gough, is involved in improving biodiversity within key threatened ecological communities in the Campbelltown LGA, such as Cumberland Plain Woodland, Shale Sandstone Transition Forest, River Flat Eucalypt Forest and Sydney Sandstone Iron Bark Forest. This will be achieved through the control of weeds of national significance, noxious weeds and environmental weeds; removal of gross pollutant waste; and revegetation activities. Participants are undertaking water quality monitoring using the council's bushcare water quality testing kits on a bi-monthly basis at Smiths Creek Reserve and Fishers Ghost Reserve, and gaining nursery related skills through training at Wollondilly Council Community Nursery.
Camden's Green Army participants have been busy creating habitat for a national vulnerable species, Camden white gum, by removing 2.4 hectares of its main threat, privet, and planting 1,000 plants, including 50 Camden white gums. The team were tasked with removing 8.85 hectares of African olive and African boxthorn in the Cumberland Plain Woodland at Gundungurra Reserve and at Elizabeth Throsby and Charles Throsby reserves. At the end of last month I had the pleasure of meeting the team and handing out certificates at the Camden Green Army's inaugural graduation. I was told by supervisors Adam Wood and Lachlan Baird that two people from this small team had already found jobs and that the others were in a much better position thanks to this great program. They explained that the community were quickly becoming aware of how good the program is and that, in the short time their project had been in operation, they had seen a dramatic increase in enquiries about joining Macarthur's Green Army. This year, 2015, has been an incredibly productive year for the Green Army in Macarthur. I look forward to these projects building on their success next year and beyond.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:32): I agree with the first part of the motion. I acknowledge that many young Australians are environmentally conscious and interested in protecting our precious natural environment. That is very true to say of many young people in my electorate. I ask every school group that comes to visit us here in parliament from my electorate what they would do if they were the Prime Minister of this country—what their key policies would be. Without a doubt in every school group, whether it be a primary school or secondary school, the students have said they would do more for the environment—that they believe in climate change and that they want this House to do more to protect the environment. So it is an issue that young people are passionate about. In fact young people have always been passionate about the environment. In my day, when I was growing up in Queensland on the Sunshine Coast, the environment and landcare was one of the early experiences that I had around campaigning and around grassroots activism. From the sixties and seventies it continued to be an issue. Young Australians have always been passionate about the environment.
What I disagree with in this motion is the suggestion that the skills people gain from being involved in the Green Army can lead to job opportunities. What jobs? Rather than having a policy that is focused on creating and securing jobs for young people, this government has disguised itself by saying that the Green Army will deliver the skills young people need. This is not an apprenticeship. This is not a plan to help a graduate recruitment system. What the government has done through the Green Army has taken money out of landcare and put it into the Green Army at the expense of a number of local landcare groups. It has said that it is a job opportunity—it will give young people from the ages of 17 to 24 an opportunity to gain skills that could lead to employment. Perhaps it will lead to employment in land management. Perhaps it will lead to employment within the Department of Agriculture or the Water Commission. It would be a bit hard to get a job in those areas, given that this government has sacked so many people working in these particular agencies.
What young people need is a serious plan from this government on how they are going to create real job opportunities, particularly for people in regional areas. In my own electorate youth unemployment is up. In areas like Townsville and in other parts of regional Australia, youth unemployment is up. The only solution the government has put forward is, 'That's okay—get some work experience with the Green Army.' It is simply not good enough.
What is also disappointing is that a large chunk of the funding for this program, $700 million, came directly from Landcare. In its first budget this government cut almost $500 million of funding from Landcare—almost a third of the funding that was cut. Yes, there is still $1 billion for Landcare based projects, but the bulk of the cuts to Landcare came from competitive grants rounds, where small community Landcare groups were able to apply for grassroots projects. This affected Landcare groups in my electorate, groups that were doing much needed work to help restore country, groups like the Golden Point Landcare group, the Newham and District Landcare Group, the Woodend Landcare group, the Castlemaine group, the Kyneton group—all of whom are working hard to restore rivers, waterways and land and ensure that we have good sound environmental landcare policy going forward. Many of these groups did not partner with local Green Army projects. They said that the requirements for local Landcare groups were too great. Instead they have gone back to good old-fashioned fundraising through sausage sizzles, doorknocks and subscriptions to try and get the money they need to purchase the equipment, plants and whatever else they need to complete their local projects.
Of course, it was not just Landcare that suffered from the funding cuts of this government. There have been huge cuts in regional Australia. Apart from slashing the Landcare scheme, this government also cut over 500 jobs from the CSIRO—people who were doing vital work in partnership with regional communities and Landcare groups, whether it was on soil, safe foods or work with our farmers. This government has its priorities wrong. The Green Army is a scheme that is not delivering for the environment the way that it could be, like our Landcare groups. It is also a weak excuse for a decent youth jobs policy.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:37): I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and to again express my support for marriage equality in this country. This legislation, if passed, would give same-sex couples in Australia the right to marry the person they love. After much thought over many years and much consultation, I am convinced the debate around marriage equality is fundamentally an argument about justice and that all people should be equal before the law.
Since I was elected the member for Canberra I have met with many, many constituents on this issue and I have been struck by the strength and passion on both sides of the argument. For the most part, both sides have been deeply respectful. However, I have also been struck by a very small handful of intolerant people in this debate who are basically calling for intolerance. I have also been offended by the suggestion that those who do not support same-sex marriage are necessarily homophobic. The constituents I have met who are opposed to same-sex marriage are not homophobic. Like those who support it, they are driven by a deep faith and deep morality, and I respect that. But I respectfully disagree. I respectfully disagree, particularly on the issue of the impact on children. Some constituents have written to me about the impact on children.
In the speech that I made when I first spoke on this issue, I said that I would have preferred that my father had not left my mother when I was 11 years old. It was not my choice; it was not the choice of my mother; it was not the choice of my sisters. It was the choice of my father, and I bitterly resent and take deep offence at the suggestion that I was not raised in a family, or that I am damaged or dysfunctional because I was raised by a single mother—because families come in many forms. Over the ages, children have been raised by aunts, by uncles, by grandparents, by siblings, by cousins, by friends, by benefactors, by the church, by the court, by nannies and by boarding schools. What is critical is that children in all circumstances are loved, respected, nurtured and safe. Coming from a single-mother family, I know for a fact—I speak from experience—that the construct of the family did not matter to me. What mattered to me was knowing that, when I got home from school, someone was there to reassure me, to nurture me and to tell me that I was okay and that life was okay. As I said, I respectfully disagree with those who make this point about the supposed impact on children.
In my own eyes, before the law of this Commonwealth, all women and men should be equal. That is why I voted to support same-sex marriage in the past and that is why I will continue to support it in the future, particularly after seeing the joy that marriage equality has brought to people in Ireland and the US recently. It is time we achieved marriage equality here in Australia, and the parliament has the power to do so. The High Court has made it clear that this parliament already has the power to legislate for marriage equality, and, in this parliament, we as law-makers have an opportunity to ensure our laws reflect the principle of equality. We do not need an expensive plebiscite on marriage equality. Opinion polls show two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality, compared with one-third a decade ago. We do not need a divisive plebiscite to tell us what we already know. If marriage equality is supported by the majority of Australians, it is time our laws reflected that. I am proud that the party I represent has a clear policy. A Shorten Labor government will introduce a government bill for marriage equality within its first 100 days.
People do not choose to be gay. They are born with characteristics that cause their sexual orientation to be what it is. They deserve happiness, they deserve equality, they deserve dignity, they deserve respect and they deserve an absence of discrimination in their lives, the same as the rest of us do. We are not here today discussing unions sanctioned by the church; we are talking about those sanctioned by the state. No church should ever be forced to marry same-sex couples, and I will never support that, but the state already recognises unions, like de facto couples, that the churches do not. Before the law of this Commonwealth, all women and men should be equal, no matter their colour, their creed or their sexual orientation. People have the right to choose the individual they love and, if they choose to marry, the state should not stand in their way.
Strong relationships are the foundation on which we build a strong community. It is great to see bipartisan support for marriage equality; we now need to see that support flow from the Prime Minister, who we know supports marriage equality yet will not allow his MPs a conscience vote. If he did, we could achieve marriage equality in Australia by Christmas.
Debate adjourned.
High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:43): I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2015, introduced by the member for Grayndler, a bill that I was very proud to second when it was introduced into the House last month. The proposed high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne, via Newcastle, Sydney and Canberra, is a project that should be made to happen. Unlike many other so-called nation-building projects, high-speed rail truly has the capacity to redefine the way we live, work and move. It would revolutionise interstate travel and turbocharge economic growth in the regional towns and cities along its path, like Newcastle.
The purpose of the bill before us today is to establish a high-speed rail planning authority to get the ball rolling with regard to the complex planning that is required for such a major project, a project that spans multiple state and local government jurisdictions. The bill would create an 11-person authority tasked with beginning detailed planning and, importantly, securing the rail corridor to prevent it being consumed by urban sprawl in the interim period. It is not the first time a bill to establish a high-speed rail planning authority has been introduced in this place, of course; the member for Grayndler first introduced a bill to do such in December 2013. Regrettably, the Prime Minister of the day had no interest in rail and refused to bring the bill on for debate. With a change of Prime Minister now—to a self-confessed public transport and rail enthusiast—the Member for Grayndler has re-introduced the bill. If the Prime Minister is serious about boosting mass transportation, he needs to act and not just tweet out snaps from his iPhone.
I do note that the need for high-speed rail from Sydney heading north was in fact identified by the current Prime Minister during one of his trips up to the Central Coast. On 5 February this year, the then communications minister sent out a series of tweets from a train travelling along the Hawkesbury River finishing with 'And now for some Hawkesbury River pix from the train! Very scenic if not rapid.' I agree; it is a beautiful trip from Sydney north. But it is a journey that now takes longer than it did 50 years ago. The 150 or so kilometre trip is taking up to three hours—indeed longer than three hours now. It is estimated that a high-speed rail trip would bring that journey from Newcastle to Sydney back to 39 minutes.
The economic case for high-speed rail is sound, delivering multiple benefits to the economy. The former Labor government established the facts with a two-part study, involving extensive consultation with industry and including international operators of high-speed rail, as well as significant community input. The study, published in April 2013, included the business case for the project, consideration of environmental issues, projections of patronage, proposed route, proposed stations and proposed time lines. It found that high-speed rail would return, for the Sydney to Melbourne section, $2.15 in economic benefit for every dollar invested; and, once fully operational from Brisbane to Melbourne, would carry approximately 84 million passengers per year. With the proposed route traversing more than 1,700 kilometres through four major cities, its delivery would demand significant cooperation between multiple governments in multiple jurisdictions, which is why Commonwealth leadership and coordination is essential.
In my electorate, support for high-speed rail is strong across the business sector and amongst the general public. Local representative bodies—including the local chapter of the Property Council, the Hunter Business Chamber and RDA Hunter—have all highlighted the business benefits high-speed rail would bring to Newcastle, as have local manufacturers. The University of Newcastle was also highlighted as a potential major beneficiary of high-speed rail for social and economic reasons the high-speed rail study.
As transport minister, the member for Grayndler, who has just entered the room, allocated $54 million in the 2013 budget for the authority to commence its work on getting this project started, but the incoming Liberal government cut all the funding. That action was short-sighted and irresponsible. The people of Newcastle want high-speed rail. The business, education, industry and community sectors all champion high-speed rail, and there is no doubt that our commuters most certainly want it. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:48): I praise the Member for Grayndler for this initiative. I also compliment him on his tennis ability, which is improving under his new coaching.
We have bipartisan support here, but we might have a little bit of a divergence on how we should get there. I have maintained a great interest in high-speed rail, but it was not an interest that came out of trains; it come as a result of work that we did on sustainable cities and the need for connectivity. We have some considerable problems with the overdevelopment of our major cities, the cost of those cities, the congestion of those cities, the loss of productivity and the congestion issues within those cities.
We often look at high-speed rail as a way of getting from A to B, from a transport position. The study did look at that and it looked at the return on such. The concern we have is about the real purpose for high-speed rail: why do we need it? We have an extraordinary imbalance where Sydney and Melbourne are amongst the five most expensive cities in the world. This is an extraordinary thing for Australia, whose single greatest asset is real estate. The imbalance that has occurred as regional areas have declined and our major cities have grown presents a perfect storm for the creation of a strategic decentralisation to create housing supply in regions where land is less expensive. The infrastructure to achieve that is high-speed rail. This was discovered in Japan in the sixties, when Tokyo was the most expensive city in the world and amongst the most congested cities in the world. High-speed rail has seen Japan decentralise, the creation of regional cities and the pressure taken off Tokyo.
We have that same opportunity. The formation by the Prime Minister of a standing committee—and therefore a bipartisan committee—on infrastructure, transport and cities is looking at this very issue. It is looking at the partnership that must be created, which is the funding mechanism, and it is looking at value capture. It is looking at value capture very intensely because of the perfect storm that has been created by this imbalance of settlement and imbalance of cost of living between regional areas and our major cities. High-speed rail will open up housing that might be 20 or 30 minutes from our major cities. This housing currently might only be in the vicinity of $150,000 to $250,000 for a dwelling, compared to the average price of a house in Sydney, which is now over $1 million, and yet, with high-speed rail, it may be closer to the CBD in terms of time, which is the way we look at commutes. We do not look at commutes as being 15 kilometres, 30 kilometres or 100 kilometres. We look at the time it takes to get to work. Goulburn would be 30 minutes from Sydney. The Southern Highlands would be 20 minutes from Sydney. Newcastle would be 39 minutes from Sydney—and a very reasonable commute with beautiful countryside to look at.
When you look at the uplift of those property values, those property values will be competing with Sydney and Melbourne property values—the second and fifth most expensive cities in the world as far as property values go. The uplift is apparent. The value that is created is apparent, and then it is up to us to find the right mechanism of value capture to fund high-speed rail. It is an easy sum to look at if we were to move one million people into this region between Sydney and Melbourne. It should be noted, also, that the Sydney to Melbourne air corridor is the third busiest in terms of flights and fourth busiest in terms of passengers. Yes, transport between Sydney and Melbourne is required, but, when you look at the real purpose, it is to strategically decentralise—to provide a higher quality of life, to provide housing for the next generation, and to provide the opportunity for us to be a more productive, efficient society with a better quality of life and a plan for future growth. The Sydney to Melbourne corridor is just the first of a series of corridors that need to be looked at. The tools should not be put down—then we should move to the Sydney to Brisbane corridor and beyond.
This investment in infrastructure is going to allow us to grow for decades and decades to come. Anthony, I look forward to working with you for decades and decades to come on this important issue.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Amendment (Mandatory Reporting) Bill 2015
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:53): I am pleased to be seconding this important bill, the Migration Amendment (Mandatory Reporting) Bill 2015, which makes it mandatory for people working in Australian operated immigration detention facilities to report cases of child sexual abuse that come to their attention.
Let me start by congratulating my friend the member for Corio for introducing this legislation. Like everyone in this House, the member for Corio understands that no society can consider itself civilised if it does not do everything in its power to protect children. Indeed, as Nelson Mandela said: 'There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.' Governing nations is a complex task and it is not always possible to satisfy all opinion when making decisions, but when it comes to protecting children there should be no differences of opinion. We should all start from the position that protecting children is a core responsibility of legislators, just as it is a core responsibility for all of us if we see abuse in our own communities.
This bill relates specifically to concerns about whether staff in Australian offshore detention centres might be breaking the law if they report evidence of abuse to authorities. In a recent debate, the Greens political party put forward an amendment that would guarantee mandatory reporting of abuse. It failed because the amendment had little to do with the actual bill. The debate coincided with the commencement from 1 July of the Australian Border Force Act and the introduction of strict secrecy and disclosure provisions for all immigration and border force staff, including tough penalties for noncompliance.
As a result of media coverage of these events, some members of the public became concerned about whether workers in detention centres could be prevented from reporting abuse. Last month health professionals held a rally at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne to call for the removal of all children from immigration detention the day before the member for Corio presented this bill. Labor believes that workers in detention centres who report cases of abuse are already protected under whistleblower legislation protections put in place by the former Labor government. That position is consistent with independent advice obtained by the opposition. It is important, however, that we respond to public concern. Given the duty we have to protect children in our care there is no room for even the smallest shadow of a doubt on this matter—hence why this bill is being brought forward.
The legislation requires any Department of Immigration and Border Protection staff member, contractor or subcontractor who witnesses physical or sexual abuse of a child to report it to the Commissioner of the Australian Border Force. If they fail to report it they will be committing an offence. The commissioner in turn would be required to report it to the relevant authority, whether that be state or territory police or the Australian Federal Police. The commissioner would also be required to keep written records of the reports received.
The fact that we are even talking about these issues is evidence of the need to redouble our efforts to get children out of detention in our offshore processing centres. Labor supports every move to continue the work that started under the former Labor government to move children and their families out of detention and into the community at the earliest opportunity—subject to national security issues and the welfare of the children concerned.
The government has now been in office for more than two years. Regrettably, too much of its activity has focused on seeking political victories, rather than processing claims for refugee status. People living on Nauru, for example, are still living in tents and basic medical facilities on Manus Island have been inadequate. A major concern about the treatment of asylum seekers is the government's obsessive secrecy. If authorities are using public money to take actions in Australia's name there must be transparency over their activities. The excuse of on-water operations was used again by the new Prime Minister as recently as last Friday. It is that sort of secrecy that has, in part, led to the need for the legislation before us. If the Australian public are denied details of the way in which asylum seekers are being treated it is no wonder that they find it difficult to believe assurances from the government that rights are being protected.
For many years Australians have watched the issue of asylum seekers and people smuggling unfolding day after day in news bulletins. Wherever people stand on this issue, there is broad understanding of the arguments at play. When a government suddenly decides its own citizens do not deserve to know the facts about how these matters are being handled it is no wonder people become cynical. The secrecy should end. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Wodonga TAFE
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (15:59): On Tuesday, 17 November, I had the absolute pleasure of attending the Wodonga College of TAFE awards night with over 150 people, including the Minister for Training and Skills from Victoria, Steve Herbert; the state member for Benambra, Bill Tilley; council members; and Professor John Dewar, the head of La Trobe University. It was the first time a Victorian minister has been at a TAFE awards night, and earlier in the day Minister Herbert had announced $3.7 million for Wodonga College of TAFE. During the evening, the vice chancellor of La Trobe University, Professor John Dewar, announced a special arrangement between Wodonga College of TAFE and La Trobe University—a seamless pathway for both vocational and higher education qualifications. It was a wonderful night.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Student of the Year award winner Ben Nicholson. Well done, Ben. The Apprentice of the Year award winner was Rachael Kron and the Koorie Student of the Year winner was Kiley Walkerden. The Industry Collaboration of the Year award winner was Bega Cheese. Terrific job, Bega Cheese. The Teacher/Trainer of the Year award winner was Cath Norris. Excellent work, Cath. The Client Service Support of the Year award went to Keryne Walsh. I congratulate the TAFE CEO Mark Dixon. The Wodonga TAFE Celebration of Achievement Awards night was so important in so many ways. Wodonga, you are doing a fantastic job; you are punching above your weight. I was so pleased that you made— (Time expired)
Electorate of Durack
Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:01): As 2015 draws to a close, I would like to speak about some of the things I have achieved in Durack this year. It would be remiss of me not to firstly speak about the government's Northern Australia white paper, which was released in June. Following the release of the paper, the Turnbull government will boost tourism in the region with a pool of $13 million—plus we established the Northern Australia Beef Roads Fund. These are just two of the many projects in the paper which will boost the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne in my electorate of Durack.
The Turnbull government's youth allowance reforms will encourage more students from the bush to further their education. Under the reforms, students will receive an average of an additional $7,000 a year. While on education, I have also hosted cyberbullying seminars in schools to combat childhood bullying and a higher education forum in Moora to shine a light on the barriers that students in the bush face getting a higher education. I have also improved Durack's mobile telecommunications reception, with 45 new or upgraded mobile base stations resulting in 123 new locations within Durack having improved coverage. This is just a very small but very important snapshot of all the things that we, together with the Turnbull government, are improving for Durack. I am very pleased to say that Durack's future is bigger, brighter and more exciting than it was 12 months ago. I'm very pleased to represent Durack.
Diamond Creek East Primary School
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:02): On Monday I had the very great pleasure of attending Diamond Creek East Primary School in the Scullin electorate for their regular assembly. It is always a pleasure to be with Diamond Creek East—their principal Rob Rostolis does a fantastic job—but it was a particular privilege to be there on Monday, because my attendance was to present a couple of certificates to the school and a particular teacher. The school was awarded the Victorian Anzac Day schools award for this year, which was a tremendous achievement. It follows on from also winning in 2011, showing the real strength of the school community. I was thrilled that there was a recognition not only of the community at large but also of the contribution of teacher Shane Nelson, who received an individual award. This was, I think, just recognition for the extraordinary work Shane put into organising quite a spectacular event that involved not only Diamond Creek East Primary school but a wide range of primary schools—and a high school as well—across that part of the Scullin electorate, bringing together more than 2,000 students for what was a very moving and entirely appropriate tribute to the Centenary of Anzac and its connection to the communities of Melbourne's north-east. The Diamond Creek East school community deserves to be congratulated and the leadership of Rob Rostolis and Shane Nelson acknowledged. It was a real privilege to be there to share in the journey they undertook through their Anzac heritage and the journey they will continue to undertake in connecting the past of their area to its bright future.
Hume Electorate: Relay for Life
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (16:04): Together we can beat cancer. That is the principle that defines the Relay for Life. Recently I walked a few laps of the Camden event. More than a thousand people in 130 teams took part, raising $160,000—an outstanding contribution from the community. I also joined the recent Goulburn relay, where about 600 people in 40 teams raised more than $56,000. Gloria Watchirs and Noah Berrisford were this year's relay ambassadors.
Cancer does not discriminate. To beat it requires a sustained show of force or, in the words of Camden relay committee chairman Rowan Moore, a spirit of oneness. This spirit was palpable at Camden, where tiny kids in prams, families, local businesses, community groups, the elderly, the healthy and the sick came together in hope. They united to recognise and celebrate local cancer survivors, patients and their carers and to honour and remember loved ones.
Cancer accounts for about three in 10 deaths in Australia, and in southern New South Wales it is expected to worsen as the population ages. I lost my own mother to breast cancer 27 years ago, and it is so important to me that, where we can, we support cancer research fundraisers: Relay for Life, Daffodil Day and Australia's Biggest Morning Tea. Congratulations to the organisers of local Relay for Life events for the great work they do bringing us together as a community.
Shortland Electorate: Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:05): On 18 October I attended the Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie Open Day on the shores of Lake Macquarie. Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie do a fine job in the area. They keep both the lake and the surrounding areas of sea safe. Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie, like all marine rescue services, are staffed by volunteers. They work tirelessly to provide education and training to their volunteers, and at the same time they protect those people that use the waterways in the area.
Lake Macquarie is the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, and people come from around Australia to enjoy the fishing, the sailing and the other water recreation activities. Sometimes they do not take the care that they need to take when entering the water. So thank you very much to Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie for keeping the people that are using our lake and ocean safe, but I would like to send a message to those people that are using our waterways: make sure that you are properly prepared and undertake safe behaviour whilst you are on those waterways, and do not make the job of marine rescue harder than it needs to be.
Royal Australian Army Chaplains Department
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:07): I wish to express my extreme disappointment with the recent reported decision of the Army to remove the motto 'In this sign conquer' from the 102-year-old hat badges of Army chaplains because it is perceived as offensive to Muslims. The vast majority of our Islamic community would take no offence at this, for it has nothing to do with the Crusades whatsoever. This decision is nothing other than appeasement of political correctness, and it is the decision to remove this that in itself is divisive in our community. Feeling offended is the price that we pay for living in our free, open and tolerant democracy. Just because it is perceived that something might cause offence does not give anyone the right to demand the obliteration of parts of our military tradition and our military symbols.
These badges were likely worn from the beaches of Gallipoli to the mud of the Somme and from Kokoda, Changi and Long Tan to the deserts of Iraq. We must protect them, because they represent our history, our heritage, our traditions and our values. What is next? State emblems? The Victoria Cross, the rising sun badge and our coat of arms, which all have the Maltese cross as part of their design?
A fortnight ago at Remembrance Day we read the poem In Flanders Field. The last sentences are:
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe—
(Time expired)
Credit and Debit Cards
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:08): I rise today to raise some concerns around the contactless technology of some credit cards, also known as payWave and PayPass. PayWave and PayPass enable transactions to be made by holding a debit or credit card against a terminal, without the buyer needing to enter a PIN or sign for any transaction less than $100. I am sure many of us here are aware of payWave and probably use it, as I do, and probably enjoy the freedom that it provides, particularly when you are juggling a whole lot of bags. However, there are some in the community that have security concerns about this technology, and a number of Canberrans have contacted me in recent weeks after their cards were either stolen or lost and then used fraudulently.
In one case, a woman accidentally left her card in an ATM and then someone stole $500 using the payWave technology. What was so tragic about this was the fact that she had spent months saving up for a trip, a holiday. The $500 was her spending money for the holiday and it was gone in an afternoon.
As someone with a particular interest in cybersecurity, I am concerned that consumers do not have enough choice when it comes to opting in to this tap-and-go technology. It seems to have been introduced into the banking sector without thorough policy discussion or regulatory assessment. On behalf of those in my community who have contacted me about this, I believe that it is not only something the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council needs to look at but also something the broader community needs to look at and talk about.
Lyne Electorate: Landcare
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:10): It was my pleasure on Sunday to attend the Hastings Landcare Plowman's Picnic. We were hosted by John and Grace Eggert at their beautiful farm at Beechwood. The 2015 local landcare champions were announced and we unveiled the Yeomans picnic plow. The Hastings local landcare champions this year are Camden Haven landcare's Richard Cullen and Mid North Coast Microherders' Jeremy Bradley, whose partnership with the Port Macquarie Landcare Group and Port Macquarie council was also celebrated. Richard Cullen is a dedicated landcarer with 25 years contribution to the Camden Haven Landcare Group. His many achievements are well known. They include bush and riparian restoration, restoration of the Kendall historic walk and precinct, and integration of landcare with schools. Peter Michael and Julie and Steve Ho from the Port Macquarie Landcare Group were there as well. Jeremy Bradley, a self-confessed 'extreme carbon farmer' from my own region of Beechwood and Wauchope, was there because of his sustainable farming practices and his education. The National Parks Association and Hastings Landcare really have the runs on the board for thinking globally by acting locally.
Perth Freight Link
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:12): Yesterday more than 1,500 people gathered at Bibra Lake to protest against the WA government's proposal to build Roe Highway Stage 8 through the Beeliar wetlands as the first part of the disastrous Perth Freight Link. As I said at the rally yesterday, Bibra Lake is a place full of life—a place that embodies the full circle of life. It is a birthplace and a burial ground for the Whadjuk Noongar Beeliar people and it is an incredibly precious wetland ecosystem. There are unique species that live their entire life cycle, generation upon generation, in that place. There are internationally protected migratory birds that return there, generation upon generation, as they travel from north to south. It is a special, powerful, beautiful, ancient, fragile place. It is not the place to build a massive truck freeway. It is not the place to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars on a road to nowhere. It is not the place to lock Western Australia into a toll road and truck freight future.
To Premier Barnett the Rethink the Link Alliance says, 'You've picked the wrong place and the wrong time and the wrong plan—and you're messing with the wrong people.' The people in the Fremantle electorate, including the local council areas of Cockburn, Fremantle and East Fremantle, as well as the people of Kwinana, Mosman Park and Cottesloe have time and again expressed their strong opposition to the Perth Freight Link proposal and their desire to see appropriately planned infrastructure, including a new outer harbour, better public transport and more freight on rail. Abandoning the Perth Freight Link would free up more than a billion dollars to achieve this much-needed work. I am confident the community can and will win this fight. It is not too late to stop Roe 8.
Braddon Electorate: Innovation
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (16:13): Once again the north-west coast of Tasmania has shown its strength in the sector of advanced manufacturing and innovation. Last Friday I was very proud to officially launch the SFM Environmental Solutions Hydrowood project at MONA in Hobart. This project, which received a $5 million grant from the federal government, is delving into the deep waters of the West Coast's Lake Pieman to rescue forgotten treasures of speciality timbers like myrtle, blackwood, blackheart sassafras and celery-top pine. The SFM team have worked so hard to design and build the harvest and log barges through Tasmanian shipbuilders, and the purpose-built telescopic arm which harvests the logs from up to 20 metres under the water. Before the official launch, I visited Lake Pieman for a sneak peek at on-water operations that I can talk about. It was a stunning sight, seeing once-forgotten logs pulled out from under water to be given new life. Coming out of the water like the salmon of Macquarie Harbour were logs that without this project may have stayed 20 to 30 metres under water and been lost forever. The highly valued timbers will be processed into quality products to be sold into lucrative markets around the world. Showcasing local skills, products and resources, SFM is using local people to make the Hydrowood project happen. A local timber mill is employing new apprentices—full-time truck drivers. There are value-adding, wholesaling and retailing jobs resulting from sending these timbers all over the world. I congratulate Andrew Morgan, David Wise, Darren Crook and their team for the official launch of this magnificent project.
Bendigo Electorate: StandBy Response Service
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:15): Last week I had the great privilege to meet our local StandBy Response unit. The StandBy Response Service is a suicide prevention service. They support people who have lost a loved one to suicide. Locally, in the Loddon Mallee area, it is the Bendigo Community Health Services team that coordinates this vital service.
The StandBy Response Service was established in 2002 by a not-for-profit organisation based on the Sunshine Coast. It now operates in 10 other communities across Australia, including my own in Bendigo. We all know that suicide is hard. It is hard, particularly, for loved ones to cope with. That is why this service is so vital. They offer 24/7 phone support and face-to-face support assessing individuals' needs. They work closely with our local police to be there at the most critical time.
It is a free service that is there to help with everything from making sure that kids get to school on time to talking to bosses and landlords about what may or may not need to happen. Critically, this service is funded by the Australian government. They have asked that I ask this government, in this place, to continue to fund this vital service for when people most need support. The StandBy Response Service is one we can be proud of. I call on the government to continue to fight for this service. (Time expired)
Williams, Ms Sian
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:16): Sian Williams is a very determined eight-year-old young lady in my electorate who has overcome personal adversity and is an inspiration to other young people. As a six-year-old, Sian was the victim of bullying because of a stutter in her speech. Instead of allowing it to consume her, she bravely decided to seek a proactive solution to the wider problem presented by bullying. With the support of her mother, Azelene Williams, Sian founded Kidzucate, an incorporated non-profit charity organisation which began with Sian producing and starring in educational videos on YouTube to teach kids how to develop confidence and self-esteem. The videos were a big hit and began to have a positive impact on children. Encouraged, the mother and daughter team began to run educational programs at local schools and community centres. The organisation is making innovative use of social media and a network of ambassadors to spread information and the anti-bullying message.
Sian was recently awarded the 2014 Pride of Australia Young Leader Medal for Western Australia. She was also the youngest delegate in the world to receive a human rights award, which was presented to her at the 2014 Youth for Human Rights summit in Brussels, Belgium. This year, Sian was named as a finalist in the Constable Care Child Safety Awards for 2015. On behalf of the parliament, I congratulate Sian Williams. (Time expired)
Melbourne Electorate: Fitzroy High School Feminist Collective
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:18): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the outstanding work of the feminist collective of Fitzroy High School, located in my electorate of Melbourne. The Fitzroy High Feminist Collective started in 2013 following a student discussion about violence towards a female character in a book. It resulted in an elective class where students could discuss the everyday sexism they faced and observed, and how this could be addressed within the school.
This Thursday, the FHS Feminist Collective launched their student informed teaching resource Fightback: Addressing Everyday Sexism in Australian Schools. The resource is aimed at educating secondary school students about gender inequality, the objectification of young women's bodies and the use of sexist language. The resource also addresses the link between gender inequality and violence against women.
I speak to congratulate the students involved in preparing this excellent resource. We are aware of the appalling extent of violence against women in Australia, and that it leads to a significant number of deaths each year. So much more must be done to tackle gender inequality. It is fantastic that Fitzroy High School have given their support to their students to create teaching materials which address negative attitudes towards girls and women. This is brilliant student-led work, and I congratulate them. Fitzroy High School Feminist Collective, you have the support of your community.
O'Connor Electorate: Indigenous Ranger Program
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (16:19): Today I want to update the House on a very successful visit to my electorate by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Social Services, Alan Tudge. Minister Tudge visited Kalgoorlie on Wednesday, the 19th. Our first stop was at the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, which is the Indigenous body that represents the native title holders in the area. We met with Trevor Donaldson; Lawrence Thomas, who is the chair; and Darren Forster, the program coordinator. The main topic of discussion was the Indigenous ranger program.
I was very privileged to represent Minister Scullion here in Canberra two weeks ago when the Pew foundation handed in their report on the success of the Indigenous ranger program. I was very well aware that this program is working extremely well, but less pleased to hear that there is only one program operating across my electorate. The Ngadju people of Norseman have a privately funded ranger program in their area.
The main topic of conversation with the Goldfields Sea and Land Council and Minister Tudge was how we can get more Indigenous ranger programs happening in my electorate of O'Connor, particularly across the northern goldfields, because the benefits of these programs both to the environment and to the Indigenous landholders are very obvious. I am certainly very keen to support any future applications from the people in my area.
North East Multicultural Association
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:21): I would like to tell the House about the North East Multicultural Association and the wonderful event they organised to celebrate Deepavali in Wangaratta on 15 November. The North East Multicultural Association has the purpose of raising cross-cultural awareness, supporting new and established migrants, identifying and raising issues and advocating on behalf of multicultural people in the areas of Benalla, Wangaratta and the Alpine, Indigo and Mansfield shires. They do this excellently. It was such a delight to be at Deepavali—beautiful food, colourful dancing, henna, textiles, a superb setting in the grounds of The Close, attached to the cathedral, and many Indian families. I have a particular love of India, and it gave me great joy to celebrate Deepavali with these people.
To Ben, Sue, Karen, Janny and to all of the committee, congratulations on the wonderful work that you do. I would also like to acknowledge not only Deepavali as one of your projects but also the work you are doing in Wangaratta with the CALD Mental Health Connections project, the New and Emerging Migrant Connections project, the organisational support and transport that you offer and all of the multicultural events that you do, including King Valley Connections. You make our community better and richer, and we are all very grateful to you for the work you do. I wish all of the Indians who live in Indi a happy Deepavali. Thank you for bringing your culture to our community.
Dobell Electorate: 1st Noraville Scout Group
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:22): Recently I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the Central Coast Lakes Scouting District's newest scout group, the 1st Noraville Scout Group. Adam Crowther and the parent committee undertook much of the local legwork to get the new group up and running.
The new group was launched with an official ceremony, which started with the revealing of the new scarf colours. All scout groups have their own colours, and for the new Noraville scout group the scarf is royal blue edged with white and gold trim. The colours are characteristic of Noraville, representing the blue waters of the lake and the ocean, the white of the sand on the beach and the golden yellow of the sand at the lake. The scarves are proudly worn by all scouts, from the age of six, when they are Joey Scouts, through to the adult leaders who deliver the youth programs.
On the night I was extremely proud to be named an honorary member of the 1st Noraville Scout Group and was presented with their blue, white and gold scarf and a special certificate. Scouts has been part of the childhood of millions of people around the world for over 100 years. It is great to see Scouts membership growing from strength to strength in Dobell, fostering friendships, encouraging healthy and active lifestyles, learning values and responsibilities, community service and personal development.
Congratulations to the group's leader, Chris Chadwick, and cub scout leader, Liam O'Connell, and all of the members of the 1st Noraville Scout Group. I hope that you have many wonderful adventures together. They really are a credit to our local community. Well done.
Shortland Electorate: Reclaim the Night
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:24): On Friday, 30 October I joined with my colleagues at Lake Macquarie in the Reclaim the Night rally. I was there with the member for Charlton, the member for Swansea and the member for Charlestown, who is also the mayor of Lake Macquarie. We joined with women—and some men, too—as we walked along the foreshore of Lake Macquarie saying no to domestic violence, no to making the lives of women so perilous, and 'no more' to women losing their lives on a regular basis, as they have been.
It is an absolute disgrace that in our country two women are losing their lives every week. As a nation, particularly during this week, White Ribbon Week, we need to stand up and say: 'Enough's enough. It's got to stop. It's time for men to respect women.' Those men who joined with us as we walked around the lake absolutely gave unconditional support to women, as have many men—it was very pleasing to hear the debate here in parliament earlier today. It is time for everybody to take responsibility for what has been happening in our communities and see it come to an end.
Strickland, Ms Lucy
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:25): I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary young woman from my electorate of Ryan: Lucy Strickland. Lucy received the inspiration medal in this year's Pride of Australia awards for her work improving the quality of life for children in war and disaster zones. For the past 15 years, Lucy has worked for numerous international non-government organisations, such as UNHCR, World Vision, CARE, Oxfam and the Norwegian Refugee Council in more than 20 different countries. Her work in the areas of educational development and reconstruction in post-conflict and disaster zones has seen her coordinate an emergency drought response in Ethiopia, work in Haiti at the peak of the cholera outbreak in 2010, establish a school of the air in Sierra Leone to help children excluded from formal education due to the Ebola crisis and work with the Nepalese Ministry of Education after the earthquakes to create temporary learning spaces.
Lucy is currently based in northern Iraq, where she has established an education program for 160,000 children in refugee camps as part of her role as a UN global education in emergencies specialist. Congratulations, Lucy: you truly are an inspiration to us all. I know that my colleagues in the chamber agree with me when we acknowledge the fact that at any given moment there are tens of thousands of young Australians travelling the world, and they are not all on holidays. Some are working hard and making great contributions. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Radio 1RPH
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:27): Earlier this year I had the great pleasure of attending a lunch to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Radio 1RPH—radio for the print handicapped. Radio 1PRH provides an incredible service to Canberrans and the greater region. Radio 1RPH turns print information from newspapers, magazines, books and other printed materials into sound. Radio 1RPH listeners include people who are blind or vision impaired; have had a stroke; are quadriplegic or paraplegic; suffer from cerebral palsy, arthritis, multiple sclerosis or dyslexia; have trouble reading English or may have never learnt to read.
Around 15 per cent of the population has some form of reading difficulty, so it was absolutely wonderful to help celebrate this 30th anniversary—and I again congratulate 1RPH on the very necessary and invaluable service it provides to many Canberrans. Radio 1RPH relies on the services of more than 100 dedicated volunteers who provide more than 270 hours every week to ensure that the station has sufficient content to go to air. Several volunteers have dedicated their time to Radio 1RPH for more than 20 years. I want to thank those dedicated volunteers, as I did at the lunch, as well as members, listeners and supporters. Since that lunch, I have been fortunate to visit 1RPH not once but twice to be interviewed. I have really enjoyed the opportunity to talk to the volunteers who were working at the station, and I want to congratulate 1RPH on 30 years of successful operation. Thank you for everything you have done for Canberra. (Time expired)
White Ribbon Day
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:28): Friday is White Ribbon Day, Australia's only national male-led campaign to end men's violence against women. White Ribbon Day was prompted by a massacre of 14 female students at a school in Montreal in Canada. In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with a white ribbon as its iconic symbol. In 2003 White Ribbon Day began here in Australia.
Intimate partner violence is the most common type of violence against women, affecting 30 per cent of women worldwide. One in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them. Every week, three women are hospitalised for head injuries caused by their male partner. Every month in Australia, six women die at the hands of an intimate member of their family. This year, 62 women have died as a result of domestic violence in Australia, including, just recently in September, Tara Brown from near my electorate.
Domestic and family violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and their children. In my office, we have helped a number of women who have come to us seeking assistance, looking for help in leaving abusive relationships. We have been able to assist many of them by relocating them, getting them back on track and rebuilding their confidence. That is one of the wonderful parts of being a federal member: being able to help those in need. This is why I am showing my support for this wonderful cause and taking the White Ribbon Oath. I will stand up, speak out and act to prevent men's violence against women. I would like to encourage my colleagues and everyone on Friday to take the White Ribbon Oath. In doing so, we will send a message to young boys and men. (Time expired)
Bendigo Electorate: Women's Entrepreneurship Day
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:30): Many may not realise, but last Thursday, 19 November, was the first time that people around the world gathered to celebrate Women's Entrepreneurship Day. In Bendigo, the Bendigo Business Council and I hosted a joint event—a morning tea to recognise and support local female inventors and small start-up businesses. The event was organised to acknowledge their work; to share stories, whether they be good or bad; and, most importantly, to mentor and to encourage other women to have a go. The Bendigo Business Council said that they were delighted to jointly host the event, as it was an opportunity to showcase women entrepreneurs. Our region is known for them. We have a proud history of successful companies started and founded by women, including Fernwood Fitness and Jimmy Possum—just to name two of our many local success stories.
The day came about because a local mum, nurse and entrepreneur—Deb Herdman—heard about the day. She saw that it was advertised on the internet but wondered why there was not a Bendigo event. She is the creator of Nigh Nigh Sleepy Head, a baby sleep system that nurtures young children into a deep sleep. She contacted my office and, between Deb, myself, Jacinta and Elly, we were able to organise a great day.
Barton Electorate: St Ursula's College
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (16:32): I was very honoured to attend, representing the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the opening of facilities funded by the Capital Grants Program for Non-government Schools at St Ursula's College in my electorate of Barton last Friday. It was a proud day for the community, and no less so for the acting principal, Mrs Stacey Potts; students; staff; and parents of St Ursula's. New facilities are a real cause for celebration, because learning at schools happens in classrooms, in music rooms, on the stage, in the library, in science laboratories, in the schoolyard and on the sporting field. We want students to acquire the skills they need to pursue their passions and their goals and to contribute to our nation.
The new teaching facilities provided for under the Capital Grants Program for Non-government Schools allows schools to improve capital infrastructure where they may not have access to sufficient capital resources. State-of-the-art facilities enable leading teachers to enable students to reach their full potential. This is important if we want students to be innovative, to be leaders and to be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. The government is committed to helping provide the best quality education for school students and I am absolutely delighted that we on this side have been able to provide $3½ million for St Ursula's College for new learning facilities. For many years St Ursula's has enjoyed a strong reputation for academic success and pastoral care, not just in Barton but across New South Wales. I have no doubt that these facilities, when coupled with a robust curriculum, are drivers of continued quality education.
Chow, Ms Susan
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:33): Today I stand in Australia's federal parliament to warmly congratulate Susan Chow on her richly deserved Victorian Senior of the Year award. Susan has been president of the Fitzroy Chinese Women's Association since 2003 and President of the Fitzroy Chinese Association since 2006. In this time, she has made a huge contribution to my electorate of Melbourne. I am inspired by the Chinese community in Fitzroy and Yarra, because Fitzroy is a place where people care for each other. But we can all learn a lot from the way the Chinese community comes together to share experiences and activities and care for older members of the community. None of this would be possible without the incredible commitment and hard work of Susan and others.
For years, Susan has given so much of her time and effort to tirelessly volunteer on behalf of the community. Because of her work, the community has enjoyed regular shared activities and built lasting connections and friendships. If there is one word that all who know her use to describe Susan, it is 'selfless'. I am told that the award won by Susan included a prize of several hundred dollars and, rather than keep this money for herself, she used it to bring together over 100 community members for a free lunch and get-together. These are the values that have made the community what it is today. I have seen Susan in action. At every event that I go to in the Fitzroy Flats, Susan is there bringing people together. Whether it is a joint 80th birthday or a tour being organised in some part of outer Melbourne, Susan is behind it. Thank you, Susan, and the Fitzroy Chinese community for all that you do to make Melbourne a great place for everyone.
McMillan Electorate: Rose Lodge
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:35): Rose Lodge is an aged-care facility at Wonthaggi. I was grateful to be asked to visit the opening of their new $6.5 million aged-care facility. Rose Lodge was opened 65 years ago. The new wings of this beautiful facility were named after John Lindsay, Wendy Crellin, Graham Young and Barbara Shipp. Their own little op shop at Wonthaggi raised half a million dollars over six years for this facility. Under the strong leadership of Mr Bill Berry, this facility was created—and it is absolutely beautiful—with no federal government help, no state government help and no local government help. It was purely their own ingenuity and energy. Barbara Shipp died only recently. She was my great contact at Rose Lodge. I have to say in this address that her daughters, whom I met on that day, are beautiful, intelligent and very bright. I did that. It was absolutely marvellous.
Indi Electorate: Targa High Country
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:36): Targa High Country has been run and won in what is its sixth year. This is tarmac rallying at its finest and it showcases some of the best touring routes in my wonderful electorate of Indi. It goes from Mansfield to Mount Buller, Jamieson to Eildon around the lake, Merton to Euroa, and Tolmie to King Valley. Each of the 204 entries brings a group of supporters, crew and family who stay, play and pay before and during the event in a multimillion dollar economic boost for the region. Targa has a reputation for using great driving roads, so there is also a spinoff in visitation year-round. Mansfield regularly receives group bookings from car clubs around the country and its own club has grown to 80 members. Tarmac rallying is growing in popularity as it provides a controlled environment for the driver, using existing road infrastructure. Governed by CAMS, the event is run by a Targa Australia, with the support of its partners, Mansfield Shire Council. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Judy Dixon and the Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resort Management. It is a wonderful example of an event of state significance in regional Australia, returning significant social and economic benefits and worthy of multiagency support and co-operation. Thanks to all concerned. I look forward to seeing you back in the wonderful Indi electorate next year.
Adams, Ms Louise
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:38): I rise today to highlight the continued success of Louise Adams in this year's X Factor competition. Louise is a versatile performer and new mum from my home town of Mt Gambier. Louise has made it through to the grand final of this year's competition after surviving an elimination sing-off against Big T. It was a nail-biting contest which came down to a split judges' panel decision. The decision was turned over to the public to determine who went home and I am happy to say that Louise won the day.
It is fair to say that Mt Gambier has gone Louise Adams crazy. There is palpable excitement across the city as we approach the final of X Factor, which is to be held over the next two nights. Louise enjoyed a superstar homecoming to Mt Gambier when she visited last week with her mentor, James Blunt. Some 6,000 locals turned out to hear her perform and it was quite a show. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am proud of Louise's achievements this far. I know the whole electorate is behind her as she prepares for the final, and I know this is just the beginning of what is certainly going to become a successful career in the music industry. Louise is an inspiration to the people of Mt Gambier and I commend her on her efforts. I should note that I have had the privilege of working with Louise as a solicitor in Mt Gambier. I note that people across my electorate of Barker will join me with their continued support of Louise long into the future, regardless of the outcome of the X Factor competition, which I have every confidence Louise will win.
Shortland Electorate: Community Groups
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:40): Last week, I attended two Christmas functions of very special groups. One was the Swansea Pensioners Association and the other was Eastlakes Legacy Widows. At the Swansea Pensioners group, I learned that Theresa Parkinson, who has been the long-term secretary of that group, had retired. Tribute was paid to her by the group. She has been a driving force in that group and it is a very strong, successful group. They meet on the first Thursday of every month at the Swansea Pensioners Hall. I thank her for her commitment to the pensioners. I thank her for all the assistance that she has given me over the years and I know that she is still going to remain an active member of the pensioner group. Eastlakes Legacy Widows is a strong group of women whose partners have died and who now have the support of Legacy. The group has shrunk in numbers over the years, and I find that very sad, but I have some wonderful friends there. They are fantastic women who know how to organise a great time. They are women who give support to each other and spend time together outside their standard meetings. Both groups are very strong. They support each other and will continue to do so.
Cowan Electorate: Creative Catering
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:41): I wish to congratulate Creative Catering, a small business in Cowan, for their victory in the Small Catering category at the National Restaurant and Catering Awards for Excellence. Creative Catering exist because of the determination and dedication to quality and service of Jake and Natalie Ferreo, who together dreamed of and built a wonderful business and a true example of entrepreneurship. They are two distinguished chefs who met in a kitchen and then, when looking to start a family, started a catering business to enable that to happen. Financed by Jake going to the mines for a year, theirs is a story of sacrificing and dreaming. On his week off, he would work in the kitchen of the business, all whilst they were raising their first child. After that year, Jake was able to work on the business full time as it grew and kept growing. Jake now does more of the business development, including creating the website himself, while Natalie runs the kitchen, all in a small premises they now own in Wangara.
Creative Catering is not just the business name; it is the business philosophy, which they describe as 'being given the freedom to be creative'. Always fresh and never created elsewhere and resold, the food is of the highest quality, and that is why they are so popular with their clients. They employ 35 wait staff and six people in the kitchen and as many as eight events a night are catered by them. Creative Catering is a successful business, but it has been built on hard work. This has not been a free ride. It has come about entirely through hard work and commitment. I congratulate Jake and Natalie Ferreo for their efforts and their success.
Canberra Electorate: University of the Third Age
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:43): It is a great pleasure to rise today to speak about the University of the Third Age, Canberra, a fantastic organisation that provides lifelong learning opportunities for its members, who are in their third age. U3A Canberra has more than 4,000 members and offers more than 200 long and short courses across a broad range of topics. My mother is involved in a U3A group in Melbourne—it is called Current Affairs—and I have been along to speak to her and her group at Box Hill. I have been a long-time fan of U3A. Since I have been the member for Canberra, I have been fortunate to meet with and speak to a number of U3A groups. Recently, I met with the U3A Current Affairs group in Weston, where we spoke about a number of foreign policy and strategic issues. There was a strong sense of community and friendship. It really reiterated to me just how important U3A is in stimulating people and joining people together in community. Not only do U3A members have the chance to continue to learn; they also have the opportunity to meet new people and make new friends. U3A gives Canberrans and other older Australians a strong sense of belonging to community. That is important for all of us, no matter what our age, particularly as we age and become more isolated. I would like to thank U3A Canberra for all it does in the community. I look forward to being involved in the years ahead. I would also like to send a hello out to U3A Farrer and U3A Hughes.
Lyons Electorate: University of the Third Age
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:44): I join with the member for Canberra, because I am also going to talk about the U3A, but this one is the Port Sorell U3A in the north of my electorate. It is a wonderful organisation that has grown over the last two years to now have more than 230 members. I was privileged to attend their presentation evening last Friday night along with the mayor of Latrobe, Mayor Peter Freshney. Unfortunately Warren Lockett, who is one of the instrumental people involved, was on his way overseas, but Diane Kelly made me particularly welcome. It was an opportunity for that organisation, which has added so much to the fabric of the Latrobe, Port Sorell and Shearwater community, to thank all of the tutors, as well as all of the venue providers and owners who made their facilities available for the numerous courses that were offered throughout the last 12 months. It is a wonderful organisation that is indeed enriching the community of the Latrobe municipality. Over 120 people attended a wonderful dinner. It was a privilege for me to be in attendance, and I wish them more growth and every success into the future. It was a wonderful initiative.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member statements has concluded. If no member present objects, a grievance debate may commence at 16:45pm and continue for two hours.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Landry ) (16:46): The question is:
That grievances be noted.
National Broadband Network
Mr MARLES (Corio) (16:46): There is no issue which gains more attention within my electorate of Corio than this government's failed efforts in rolling out the National Broadband Network. We are at a point within our community in Geelong where we are becoming seriously disadvantaged by not having access to the kind of modern infrastructure which is going to define societies going forward. Quite frankly, we are at a point now where as a country we are lagging right behind. The current Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Communications—and indeed prior to that when he was the shadow minister for communications—talked a big game, but when it comes to delivery Australia has been left short.
Back in April 2013, the then shadow communications minister, now the Prime Minister, spoke about not delivering fibre to the premises and about how, instead, his fibre-to-the-node and multitechnology model would be faster, cheaper, rolled out faster and just as good for the purposes of the Australian public as fibre to the premises. The situation now is failure on all of those measures. In April 2013, the now Prime Minister talked about his model costing $29.5 billion, a figure he described as being conservative. A few months later in December, when he was now the Minister for Communications, he announced a $12 billion blow-out in that figure, but again said at that point that he thought the numbers in the overall program were conservative and achievable. In August of this year, he added another $15 billion to that blow-out and again said that Australians could have confidence in the numbers. All of this of course is a joke. We can have no confidence in any of that. We have seen a rolling disaster when it comes to the cost of this plan.
It has also, as is being felt by those in my electorate, been a rolling disaster when it comes to the delivery, and the timeliness of the delivery, of the service that had been originally promised. Back in April 2013, the now Prime Minister said that this would all be rolled out such that everybody would have access to fibre to the node by the end of 2016. But, of course, that time line has now been more than doubled, and we are talking about a time frame of 2020 before we actually see Australians getting access to what is now promised to be a second-rate service. All in all, it represents a disaster when it comes to how this has been delivered.
We were promised transparency when it came to how the nbn co would actually work, and yet we have not seen any of that transparency. Indeed, it has been the opposite: we have seen a situation where there is in this area of policy—like in so many other areas of the government's policy—a shroud of secrecy and spin overlaying this area. We still see basic financial information, such as financial forecasts for CAPEX, for OPENX and for revenue in relation to the NBN not being released publicly. This runs totally contrary to the kind of transparency which the now Prime Minister promised when he was the shadow minister and then the Minister for Communications.
All in all, I think that what we have witnessed here is communications and the National Broadband Network being the collateral damage of the current Prime Minister's ambition to get the top job. In all those years while he was focused on getting the top job he was neglecting Australians and, particularly from my point of view, those people in my electorate who are existing currently under a substandard broadband environment. This represents an enormous failure on the part of the now Prime Minister as the Minister for Communications. I can only say in relation to Minister Fifield, the new Minister for Communications, that he has an incredibly difficult job in restoring that state of affairs.
I have spoken on how the policy has played out at a national level but, of course, all of this has wrought a particular local impact in my electorate of Corio. I have had many constituents come to me, complaining about their lack of internet access and their ability to get the sort of information and data downloads that they need in a modern environment. Indeed, in many respects—as in the case of Rachel Drady last year—we actually saw the situation getting worse because the existing network is now completely clogged up as people are coming onto it. The need for the NBN to be in place is absolutely preeminent and we are seeing worse situations—worse data speeds—than we have seen in years past.
It was only when we were able to highlight the case of Rachel Drady in the Geelong Advertiser that she was able to gain any access to the internet in a completely urban part of Geelong, Herne Hill. We saw a similar situation with the Cerepinko family, who I visited earlier this year. They were really struggling to get access to the most basic internet services. There was a failure of communications policy when it comes to the rollout of the NBN.
We have seen it in respect of our schools—Geelong Baptist College and Kardinia International College have both approached me about their inability to get proper broadband connection for their schools. Of course, we are finding increasingly that education needs to be done online. The disadvantage in not having a good online connection for a school is much more significant today than it was 10 or 15 years ago because back then we were not living our lives online in the way that we are now. It is just basic, essential infrastructure in order educate our children in this day and age, and we are seeing Geelong schools miss out.
We are also seeing Geelong businesses miss out. Again, they have come and spoken with me about their inability to be able to exchange the kind of data that they need to in the timely way in which they need to. As a result, Geelong, as a place to do business, is nowhere near as attractive as it could be if we had a modern communications infrastructure environment.
That really brings me to the critical point here, in a sense. We do have a vision of what should be our future, just an hour to our north-west in Ballarat. Ballarat was one of the first parts of mainland Australia to have fibre to the premises rolled out under the National Broadband Network that Labor was putting in place. As a result, Ballarat is a connected city, whereas Geelong is a disconnected city in terms of communication, access to the internet and access to broadband. The ease with which a whole lot of businesses can operate is so much greater now in Ballarat than it is in Geelong, and we are seeing a situation where we are losing people who would come and invest in Geelong but instead go to Ballarat because they have modern infrastructure where our city does not.
Now we have been promised a rollout of the National Broadband Network in Geelong beginning in the third quarter of next year, and in suburbs like Belmont and surrounding areas from 2017. Of course all of that is after, whichever way you look at it, the next election—and there should be no coincidence in that. But we can have no confidence in that kind of timing. There is no credibility to this plan at all. What this plan suggests is that we will have this technology rolled out in front of a million houses by June of next year, and then there is the promise of something like 6.2 million houses benefiting from the rollout in the two years after that. It is simply incredible; it is not going to happen in that time frame. What it represents is an absolute disaster in terms of the way in which this government has managed its communication policy.
Labor is the party of optic fibre. Labor is the party which championed the National Broadband Network from the outset and championed it on the basis of fibre to the premises being a fundamental need of a modern society. We can see that future right here in the present when we look at Ballarat, but right now Geelong is the victim of the short-sighted, hopeless policy as it has been carried out by this Turnbull government.
Sport
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:56): There is no better sign of a healthy and cohesive community than sporting fields filled with players, spectators and volunteers every weekend. Anybody visiting Dobell on any given weekend will see hundreds of players on any given sporting field in colourful uniforms, smiling and energetic. Whether they be playing football, cricket, hockey, netball, oztag, basketball, tennis, swimming or any other sport, they are ready to give their best and, most of all, having fun while they do so.
Sports participation promotes healthy self-esteem and self-confidence, sportsmanship, cooperation and team spirit, dedication and persistence. Playing sport rewards effort and it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle. Sport is not only about the participants themselves, for without an army of volunteers, coordinators and parents on deck every weekend the sporting community would not be as strong as it is. Through the contribution of volunteers, sports clubs and organisations are able to facilitate multiple games with referees and umpires, man the canteen, clean facilities, set up and pack up fields and spectator areas, coach and provide first aid and administrative support. And it is not only on game day that volunteers give their time; many give their time during the week to coach teams, look after team administration, coordinate fundraising activities, wash uniforms and make sure that all the parents know where and when their children's game is being played on the coming weekend.
The value of our volunteers should never be taken for granted or underappreciated, for their contribution is invaluable to building a healthy, engaged and cohesive sports community. With two young rugby union players of my own I have a great understanding of the value of volunteers, having personally been involved as a volunteer with the Warnervale Wildcats family. I thank every volunteer and parent on the Central Coast who takes the time to contribute locally to their sporting club and facilitate their children's participation in sport.
Dobell has an outstanding sporting community across all ages, and I am proud of their outstanding successes. I have often shared with the House the fantastic sports achievements and athletes in Dobell, and today I would like to elaborate more on these accomplishments for the benefit of the House. Last Friday I had the honour of attending the 2015 Central Coast Sports Federation 2GO Sports Star of the Year Awards, an annual event that celebrates the outstanding achievements of the Central Coast sports community. The evening recognises and commemorates Central Coast sport coaches, volunteers, events, administrators and athletes in an event that has become an annual Central Coast sporting community highlight.
This year's sport on the Central Coast was not unlike previous years, with outstanding nominees in every awards category, which reflects an excellent standard of sport. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Central Coast Sports Federation for a great awards night and thank them for their ongoing support of Central Coast sport. The chairperson of the Central Coast Sports Federation, Kevin Dewar, said: 'This year's awards night was proof that the Central Coast sporting community is alive and well and is competitive on a world scale.' Winners across the 14 award categories received much appreciated prize money to support their ongoing training and development. The awards are supported by long-term sponsors and sporting advocates in our Central Coast business community.
The Central Coast Sevens were awarded the Central Coast Sports Event of the Year for the international blockbuster 2015 tournament, which was held over the last weekend of October. Hosted at Wyong Rugby League Club, the tournament featured some of the biggest names and strongest teams in the rugby sevens world. It was hailed as a major success by prominent international rugby sevens players and officials, with teams already expressing their desire to return in 2016. Some of the best teams in the world converged on the Central Coast for the tournament, including Fiji, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong and the USA. The Australian Thunderbolts mens team defeated the New Zealand team, Tabadamu, to secure the grand final victory, while the Australian Pearls womens team defeated defending champions the Canadian Maple Leafs to secure the grand final victory. Once again, well done and congratulations to the tournament director, Craig Morgan; the managing director of the Central Coast Academy of Sport, Ian Robilliard; and sponsors and players for their contribution to the overall success of a weekend of outstanding rugby on the Central Coast. The Central Coast Sevens should be immensely proud of their outstanding achievement in hosting the tournament and promoting our region so brilliantly. Their success has firmly established the Central Coast as an international destination for sporting tournaments and worthy of a global audience.
Also in rugby union it was great to see the Ourimbah Razorbacks awarded the local Team of the Year, a deserving award to the boys after their outstanding win over Woy Woy in this year's Central Coast first grade grand final. In another category, the Indigenous Sportsperson of the Year was awarded to Dobell resident Melanie Sutton. Melanie is an exceptional sportswoman in rugby league and oztag. This year alone she was one of three women who started the first women's rugby league team on the Central Coast, at Berkeley Vale. She captained the team to win the tier B grand final in the Sydney metro womens competition and was named the best forward at Berkeley Vale. In October she played in the Harmony Nines tournament in a team comprising teammates from Berkeley Vale and Indigenous rugby league players. The team was victorious over Victoria in the grand final to win the inaugural cup. Melanie was recently named in the New South Wales Indigenous rugby league team and will play Queensland on 28 November. Selections for the all-star squad will be made from this game for a February match, and I wish Melanie every success in this upcoming game.
Melanie also plays oztag and touch football in local teams throughout the year as well as league tag. In oztag she played in the state cup earlier this year and her team won the tournament. She subsequently represented New South Wales in the state of origin. Melanie has been named in the senior mixed Australian Indigenous team to play at the world cup in December on the Sunshine Coast. Her team defeated the Australian team in 2012, and they are keenly hoping to retain their title in 2015. I congratulate Melanie on being awarded the Indigenous Sportsperson of the Year. She certainly is deserving of this award.
Margaret Beardslee was presented with the award for outstanding service to Central Coast sport in athletics. Margaret is a seasoned athlete—two times world age champion in duathlon and world champion in the 2009 Masters Games 50 plus half marathon. Margaret coaches middle- and long-distance runners, duathletes and triathletes. She is secretary and coach at Mingara Athletics Club, an outstanding club that continues to excel in track and field. This year the club received three prestigious awards: they won the Athletics New South Wales Country Club of the Year award; they were winners of the Country Championships; and they were the New South Wales Good Sports Club of the Year.
Mingara Athletics Club directly attribute their ongoing success in track and field to the dedication of their team of volunteer committee members, officials, supporters and qualified coaches. This year members of Mingara Athletics Club have been competing at world, national and state events, including the Pan Pacific Masters Games on the Gold Coast, from which they brought home multiple medals. A select number of athletes from the club qualified at the 2015 national masters championships in Sydney for the world titles held in France. Rip Taylor was presented with the Coach of the Year award—a fitting award for someone who has a stellar coaching record in rugby league. Rip has coached for 36 years taking his teams through 30 final series and 23 grand finals and winning 12 premierships. Having only been around for three seasons, the Wyong Roos were at the bottom of the ladder at their debut, but after Rip took over just last year he guided the team all the way through to the Grand Final in the New South Wales Cup for 2015.
The big award, Sports Star of the Year, was awarded to Riley Fitzsimmons for his achievement in kayaking and surf lifesaving. It was an extremely competitive category this year, with many outstanding Central Coast international athletes nominated for this award. The nominees included Matt Dawson, a Killarney Vale local, who is studying to be a personal trainer and who recently joined the Kookaburras hockey squad as one of only two junior players.
Matt Graham was a runner-up in the same category for his outstanding accomplishments in mogul skiing. Matt started mogul skiing at the young age of six, at Perisher Winter Sports Club, and he has been skiing ever since. At age 15, he placed 27th in his debut at the final World Cup qualifications prior to the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. In 2013, he finished seventh at the Sochi Olympics test World Cup event and achieved fourth at his first World Championships in Norway. At the Sochi 2014 Olympics, he placed seventh in the men's mogul finals. Earlier this year, he won bronze at the World Cup in Tazawako, Japan, which followed a silver award in Deer Valley, USA, in January, and a second place in Canada. My best wishes to Matt, who is currently in Finland, and I wish him all the best at the upcoming World Cup season.
Other outstanding finalists in this category included Tim Schofield and Jack Moyes from Surf Life Saving, and James Webster from AFL. My congratulations to all the finalists and award recipients, but also congratulations to every participant in all sports across the Central Coast, because together they make up a wonderful community that we can all share and be part of. I am proud to represent an electorate with such fantastic sports participation and achievements, locally, state-wide, nationwide and even worldwide.
Climate Change
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (17:06): I rise today to speak about the challenge that climate change presents for Australia and the government's lamentable lack of real action. Labor and I and my electorate understand that Australia must contribute to the long-term objective of keeping global average temperature increase to less than two degrees. World-renowned authorities such as the Monash Sustainability Institute at Monash University, located in my electorate of Chisholm, state that we must begin to reduce emissions now to enable a smooth transition to a low-carbon Australia. Any delay means Australia faces a greater disruption and more cost. I have a well-educated electorate that understands this. I am contacted daily about the urgent need to act, and to act now. Indeed, many fear that we have left it too late.
Faced with this challenge, this government instead has taken us backwards on climate change. It has repealed the price on carbon, the ETS, in favour of a tax-funded dressed-up slush fund that everyone knows just does not work. We had the so-called Minister for the Environment every day talking about the previous great big tax they have got rid of on carbon. What he is really talking about is electricity prices, and I have not been inundated by constituents excited that their electricity bills have come down. Indeed, I actually have not had one person contact me since the repeal of the ETS that has found that their electricity price has actually decreased.
Instead of seeing any action, the government's first action, its Emission Reduction Fund, brought only 10 million tonnes of additional abatement for $66 a tonne. That is $660 million of taxpayers' money for a measly 10 million tonnes less carbon pollution. Leading analyst RepuTex has shown that no companies will be forced to cut their emissions under the government's pathetic Direct Action policy. Companies can adjust their baseline as they see fit, and Direct Action will do nothing to reduce Australians' carbon emissions. Indeed, we have seen nothing to date—regardless, again, of the government and the so-called Minister for the Environment crowing that we have seen reductions. We have not. Indeed, we did see reductions under the previous Labor government under an ETS model, a model that has been praised by world leaders and a model that many are saying should be taken by all countries into the Paris talks. RepuTex has found that Australia's biggest polluters will increase their pollution levels by 20 per cent over the next 15 years without exceeding the baseline set by the government's safeguard mechanisms.
Regrettably, it does not end there. The government is also holding an inquiry into the deductible gift recipient status of more than 600 environmental groups that currently qualify for that status. This is a transparent bid to nobble advocates who disagree with them on major environmental issues, particularly groups who believe in strong action on climate change. This is a disgrace. I have been written to by many in my electorate, not people who are actually involved in these groups but people who find that it is obscene that a government can nobble free speech.
This government has also made Australia a laughing-stock on the world stage by winning an unprecedented five fossil fuel awards at the climate change talks in Warsaw. Today I note from an article by Phil Hudson in The Australian that the first measure by Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister appears to be that he is going to stop 100 per cent recycled paper for government departments. If the government cannot lead by example on such things as recycled paper, what hope have we got? This is what the Prime Minister is going to take with him to crucial climate change talks in Paris.
As he has proved the case in so many ways, the Prime Minister may have changed, but the policy direction remains the same. We have seen a thaw in the Australian rhetoric on the issue of climate change with the new Prime Minister. That had boosted the hopes in the international areas that, going into the Paris talks in the international climate change community, the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, would bring Australia back to the centre of this issue and provide the kind of leadership that is needed to produce action on climate change and that Australia enjoyed under the Labor government. Sadly, it is just rhetoric and no action. On so many fronts on the issue of climate change the current government remains an international embarrassment.
In complete contrast, Labor knows renewable energy is Australia's future. That is why Australia's ambitious goal is to have 50 per cent of Australia's electricity generated from renewable sources by 2030. Many of us as individuals have signed up to green energy on our home bills because we know that that is the way of the future. This means more solar panels on homes and businesses. This will mean more wind farms being built with investor confidence about investing in wind power. This will mean huge advances in battery storage of renewable energy, seeing battery technology develop to the point where electricity from solar panels can be stored in our homes and small businesses. Critically, it will mean thousands of jobs for Australia and lower power bills for hardworking families and small businesses. Over $2.5 trillion is expected to be invested in renewables in the Asia-Pacific region in 2030. It is vital for the Australian economy to make sure that investment is made here.
Under Labor's plans, transitioning to renewable energy will reduce pollution and decarbonise our economy, but not at the cost of jobs within the coal sector. It is not an either-or; it is about a transition. It is about realising that the world in the future needs to be decarbonised. I just returned recently from Europe, where I was stunned to see home upon home upon home throughout Berlin, throughout Athens and throughout London with solar panels on the roofs and with solar hot water. We are not leading in this regard. We are actually going backwards. Every major economy is transitioning to renewable energy. Last year investment in renewables around the world grew by 16 per cent, whereas renewable energy investment dropped by 88 per cent in Australia—another indictment of this government. That is a direct result of this government's action.
When in government, Labor made significant investments in renewable energy. Jobs in the industry tripled, and Australia rose to be one of the four most active destinations of global renewable energy investment. In setting a strong commitment for renewables to 2030, we will provide more certainty for the industry. Under Labor, Australia was in the top four countries to make renewable energy investment in. We want to make that happen again—instead, we are going backwards—and we will do so by looking after the workers and communities affected by the modernisation of our electricity-generating system, working with industries, communities and unions. It is not about an either-or. It is about transitioning and taking communities with us.
Under the leadership of President Obama and President Xi Jinping, the leaders of the two largest emitters and the two largest economies, the US and China, it is clear that these two nations are committed to reaching in Paris an ambitious agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. Indeed, in both countries we have actually seen emissions reductions. In contrast, as the world prepares for the international climate talks in Paris at the end of the month, the Turnbull Liberal government is doing all the things you do when you are really doing nothing. Julie Bishop has confirmed that there is nothing new on the table for this vital Paris meeting: no strengthening of the emission targets, no additional contribution to the Green Climate Fund—just the same Tony Abbott plan. The Liberal Party may have a new leader but there is no change in the direction they are taking this country in.
Labor is the only major party with a sensible and effective climate policy, with renewable energy as the centrepiece of its policy—understanding that we need to transition, understanding that we need to take communities with us, to decarbonise for our future. I have said many times in this place—and sadly it is going to be true—we will be the first generation to leave the next generation worse off. I will be part of the first generation to leave its children's generation worse off. That is so in many areas, but most particularly in an environmental sense. If we do not have a strong environment, we cannot have a strong economy.
I want to urge people to show their support for action on climate change by attending a rally this Friday at the State Library of Victoria. There are rallies over this weekend across the board. They are not political; it is the community saying, 'We need to have action on climate change.' I will be there leading the Labor team at the State Library this Friday at 5.30. I want everyone to come on down. I want everyone to show their support for the future. If we do not take action, there will be no hope for future generations. If we cannot set an example for the next generation, what do we have to hold up as leaders in this place?
Solomon Electorate: Fuel Prices
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:16): In February this year, I spoke in this place regarding my community's anger and dismay about petrol prices in Darwin and Palmerston. I have been actively campaigning for a full investigation into petrol prices in my electorate. This morning the ACCC released their report into petrol prices in Darwin. I would like to put on record my thanks to the community and to the media who pushed and called for the ACCC to come and investigate the fuel pricing issues we had in the Northern Territory. I welcome the report, but it highlights that there is still more work to be done.
The ACCC found that, during 2014, Darwin petrol prices were amongst the highest in the country. They showed that, compared to other capital cities, Darwin residents were paying, in many cases, more than 10c a litre more during the period from June 2012 to 2014 than they had over the previous decade. The decrease in the number of independents in the Darwin market in recent years, combined with weak retail competition, led to higher profits. The report focused on the need for improved transparency in the Darwin market—and I note prices fell substantially in 2015, during the period of the ACC investigation, to below the average price paid in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. I note that the Deputy Prime Minister was in Darwin during this investigation and he said that petrol prices were certainly cheaper in Darwin than they were anywhere else in the country. That was something we had never before been able to claim.
Increased transparency and promotion of effective competition are the way forward. The ACCC's findings will enable the Northern Territory government to continue to consider policy measures that promote not only increased transparency but also greater competition—for example, through the encouragement of new entrants into the petrol market. I know that Platinum Petroleum have just come into the market. They have said to me that they are working with the taxi company and are going to be aggressive in the marketplace, which means petrol will be cheaper for Territorians. I will be writing to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to ensure that this important issue is considered and acted upon. I know that his government has been doing some work around this. It has certainly led the charge, so thanks to them for their support on this very important issue as well.
I would also like to welcome the Northern Territory government in considering its options to encourage more competition and transparency into the Darwin retail market to enable residents of Darwin to get a fair deal when they fill up at the petrol pump. As I said, there has not only been a lot of work done by the community, but also by the media outlets. We had NT News, 104.9 and Channel Nine work very extensively on a campaign to try to get fuel prices lowered. In actual fact, they were awarded an award on Saturday night at the NT Media Awards because of the outstanding work they have done in this area.
While I am on the subject of the NT Media Awards, I would also like to advise the House of a couple of other people who won some awards on the night. The NT News chief of staff, Ben Smee, had a great night. He was named the 2015 Northern Territory Journalist of the Year. Ben and his colleague Christopher Walsh jointly won the Gold Award for Excellence in Northern Reporting. Ben also won the Print/Text Best News Coverage for his 'Cash for access' story. The Print/Text Best Feature Writing award was won by Amos Aikman for his work, 'Of smoke and haze'. Amos is the local The Australian representative in Darwin. The Television/Radio Best News Coverage award was won by Kate Wild from the ABC for her story on Port Melville. The Television/Radio Best Broadcast Interview award was won by Kate O'Toole, who also works for the ABC, for her collection of interviews.
The Television/Radio Best Current Affairs or Feature award was won by the outstanding journalists Jane Bardon and Franco Pistillo from the ABC. Photographer of the Year was won by an extraordinarily talented man, Glenn Campbell, from Territory QMagazine. Best News Camerawork of the Year was won by Callan McLaughlin from Channel Nine. He is an extraordinary young man and I was very pleased to see him win that award as well. All Media Best Online Coverage was won by the NT News Online Group. Rachel Hancock, who is the editor, spoke on behalf of Maria Billias, Zach Hope and Michael Franchi. That award was won for their Cyclone Tracy expose. There was some tremendous work that was done in the commemorations of Cyclone Tracy. This award was actually jointly won by James Purtill and Eleni Roussos from ABC, whose work was also around Cyclone Tracy and stories from survivors, so it was moving work that they had presented.
The All Media Best Scoop—the Newsbreaker award—was won by James Oaten from the ABC for his work around the Norther Territory's Labor president, Matthew Gardiner, leaving Australia to take up the fight against ISIS. The All Media Best Environment/Innovation Reporting award was won by Jane Bardon from the ABC in relation to her story, 'Achieving action: Glencore and regulators forced to address Gulf pollution'. The All Media Best Sports Journalism award was won by Jordan Gerrans from The Centralian Advocatefor his story 'Violence in Central Australian Football League in Alice Springs'. The All Media Magazine of the Year award was won by Off the Leash. As I said, the Gold Award for Excellence in Indigenous Reporting was actually sponsored by the Australian government, and I was able to present that on behalf of Senator Scullion. Unfortunately, Amos Aikman, who was the winner, was not there on the evening, but it was good to acknowledge him anyway. As I said, Ben Smee, the chief of staff of the NT News, won the Gold Award for Excellence in Northern Reporting. The Pete Davies Memorial Campaigning Journalism Award is the one I referred to earlier, and that was jointly won by the NT News, Nine News Darwin and Mix 104.9 for their combined efforts in the fuel pricing campaign in my electorate. The gold award for Marchbanks Young Journalist of the Year 2015 was won by the ABC's Ruby Jones. As I said, the Journalist of the Year for 2015 was won by Ben Smee from the NT News.
On the night it was fantastic to see such young, talented people being acknowledged for the great work that they do. We politicians do not always feel like we get a good go, but I am really proud of the talented journalists that we have in the Territory, and their support staff. On the night there was some talk about the NT News because we had had the Prime Minister in Darwin and he talked about the NT News and said he was very proud of the wonderful work that the NT News does. That was in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who came to Darwin as well—he was there on the Monday. He held a media conference and he had Channel 9 and ABC there, but he forgot to invite the NT News. If you want to get a story up in the Territory, you need to include the NT News. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, and Barack Obama is now going to be subscribing to the NT News. Bill Shorten, if you want to know what is happening in the Territory, please, when you come, invite the NT News. They are a good paper; they are a reputable paper; they know what is happening in the Territory.
National Security
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (17:26): It was not long ago that Darwin was being bombed. Darwin has always been a critical component in the defence of Australia. Defence has a large presence in Darwin, as does our border force and Customs, which stand as the last sentries at the gate of our freedom and security. Darwin is more than just a city; it bears the marks of war and the defiance of a whole nation in times of adversity during World War II and against Cyclone Tracy.
Thousands of Australians have given their lives to preserve our alliance with the United States of America. The ANZUS Treaty requires continual consultation between the United States and Australia. Australia is part of the 'five eyes' and relies upon the support and access to intelligence to protect and defend Australia and the freedom we all enjoy under the law. The United States has shown a strong commitment to protect and defend Australia in times of war and in times of peace. The first obligation of the Australian government is to secure and protect the Australian people. President Obama had to bring the Prime Minister to account as to why the Australian government allowed the lease of the Port of Darwin to go to Chinese Communist government owned companies. Under the Gillard and Abbott governments we got a commitment from the United States to station forces in Darwin. If the Nazis had leased a port to the Allies in Normandy, it would have saved the Allies many lives and time building an unofficial harbour.
For the last five years I have stood as the last Australian trying to stop the Chinese government owned companies gaining control of my company and the port of Cape Preston in Western Australia. The Barnett government has done all that it can to pressure us to hand our port to the Chinese government controlled companies. Imagine providing control of a multibillion dollar port to a foreign government, right where our country produces 50 per cent of our export income. Is that the right thing to do? The WA Premier think so. He has been bending over backwards to sell, give, lease or grant Chinese government control over the new port at Oakajee in Western Australia. In New South Wales, the Chinese Communist government already has taken control over Newcastle's port in the Hunter Valley, which is one of the main ports responsible for the nation's coal exports.
Why does the Communist government of China want to control so many of our ports? If they can quietly gain control of our ports, they can decide in what proportion we export our commodities and to whom. They can and will manipulate prices, including port charges. And being in a monopoly position, they can ensure our companies receive less and that our production is according to China's central planning for China's needs. This will choke our exports, reduce our prices, control our industries and compromise our sovereignty. Why does the Australian government allow Chinese state owned companies to take control of crucial assets of the Australian economy?
A former Prime Minister, who shall remain nameless, said that Australia's relationship with China was based on fear and greed. It seems to me to be based on greed and stupidity. I cannot purchase Chinese ports—the Chinese government will not let me—so why does our government allow state-owned Chinese companies? They are not there just there to make a profit; they are there to pursue the policy and the long-term objectives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Two Chinese companies, both supported by the Chinese government, bid for control of the Woomera prohibited zone. When is our government going to wake up and defend Australian interests?
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer must take immediate action to stop all future acquisitions of ports and major strategic assets, to resume all Australian ports that have been transferred to Chinese state-owned companies and to pay compensation as required under our Constitution. The incompetence and negligence of advice that the government has received from the Public Service in this matter is beyond belief. The pen-pushers at Defence say that the Darwin port is not used by the Navy. That is just not true but, even if it were true, for the so-called Defence experts the question is not what the current use is but what use it could be put to and how that would threaten Darwin and the US and Australian bases there.
President Obama could not believe that our government allowed important strategic assets to be sold. Let us face it: the Northern Territory government is one of the most disorganised governments Australia has ever seen, propped up by contractors and lobbyists who are interested in work or advantage for themselves, with members of parliament who one day are Liberal and the next day are Independent and a Chief Minister who lost the leadership and who refused to go. The ultimate responsibility for the Northern Territory government must rest with the Commonwealth of Australia. It is time to intervene for the benefit of all Australians and, in particular, for the citizens of the Northern Territory.
I am calling on the Prime Minister to resume all Australian ports leased by or under the control of foreign powers, and to restore our obligations under the ANZUS treaty to consult with our US allies on these and many other important matters. There are a few times in history when Australians have been called upon to protect their freedom and to save their way of life; this is such a moment. The Chinese consul who defected in 2005 told the government and stated publicly that the Chinese government have over 1,000 spies in Australia who have been involved in kidnapping, surveillance and hacking Australian commerce. China has secured control of land surrounding ASIO's new headquarters here in Canberra. They have shipped over $700 million worth of iron ore concentrate from my company's mining leases in Western Australia and they have not paid for it. It seems to them that the China free trade agreement means that trade with Australia is free.
The extent of Chinese Communist government infiltration into Australia and its businesses is a concern for the President of the United States of America. The Prime Minister and the government must act, not to get platitudes but to get tangible results to stop the Chinese government from controlling our water, our power, our ports and our daily lives. The Chinese government will print as much money as it takes to get the job done.
In the final analysis, is freedom for sale? Is our sovereignty for sale? Is our democracy for sale? What sort of people would we be? How could we face the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have gone to war to protect our liberty if we sold our country?
Asylum Seekers
Lalor Electorate: Economy
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (17:43): I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the electorate of Lalor, my community. It could be said that, if lightning is going to strike, it will strike in Lalor. It is a microcosm of Australian society. Every decision of government in this place has an impact in my community. The community, of course, is diverse and growing. It is a place of opportunity where young families come and join thousands of other young families to raise their children, attend our local schools and build a better life. That brings with it challenges and opportunities. Tonight, I would like to talk about some of the challenges and opportunities my community faces. Most of these are by virtue of geography—25 kilometres from Melbourne's CBD and 20 kilometres from Victoria's second city, Geelong. It was, of course, going to be a place of intense, fast paced growth, and it has been for some time. As a result, we face significant challenges around infrastructure, congestion, child care, schools, university access, water and health. The fact is that we are a young community with young families who have high demands for services. In a suburb like Werribee, the average income is $52,000 a year; yet it is communities like mine that this government has decided to target.
To put it bluntly, I am tired of seeing my electorate in the top 10 when it comes to those impacted by the cuts of this government—from the $267 million in cuts to the Medicare safety net to the legislation in the chamber now around cuts to family tax benefits. In the community, we have 60,000 families and, of those 60,000 families, 21,000 will be impacted by the FTB cuts. That means that, on the ground, there will be a direct impact on our local economy. That is just one of the challenges being brought about by this government in this month of parliamentary sitting.
But we face many other challenges. We face a challenge in building and maintaining a cohesive society. It is a place of breadth. People come from other suburbs in Melbourne to buy their first home. People come from all over the world. I am often heard saying in the electorate that we learn so much about the world when we share our stories and our history with one another on the ground. On the weekend, I attended a citizenship ceremony. We generally have four a month, with 120 new citizens at each session. On Saturday, I attended one such session and there were people from India, France, Bangladesh, Colombia, Brazil, Germany, China, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, all becoming Australian citizens in my community and all thrilled to be taking that pledge, having made that decision to seek citizenship and make the commitment on that day. This makes our community one of extraordinary opportunity. There is an extraordinary opportunity for us to learn from one another and build what Australia is so proud of—that multicultural, cohesive society. In Lalor, this place of opportunity, that happens every day. Families arrive; families find networks; families dig in, buy that home and send their children to school.
One of the things about this community is that it is incredibly resilient. It is a place where people get on with things. People get on with raising their children, but sometimes they do that to their detriment. I remember sitting in a school as an assistant principal when the drought broke in Victoria. The drought breaking was great news across Victoria. It was not such good news for many schools in the western suburbs of Melbourne, which found themselves having not had enough maintenance or having design flaws. The school I was in had a flat roof and downpipes inside the walls. The drought broke and children were sitting in classrooms with the rain coming straight in on their heads. I will never forget the regional director coming out to see me and saying, 'Joanne, what do the children do when it starts raining inside the classroom?' I said, 'They pick up the chairs and tables and move out of the line of the water.' She said, 'That is the problem: sometimes we are too resilient, sometimes we put up with too much.' There is a fine line in my community and getting that line right is critical for the future of this community. We need foresight. We need clever thinking. We need to know when to demand. We need to get that balance between demanding what we deserve and our fair share and appearing to be negative about our own community. The people of Lalor have done that. They do it every day.
I will give you an example of some of the other challenges. We have our beautiful new stadium in Lalor. Thousands of kids are playing sport, and if I think about the schools and the joys of living in a community like this, I think about sport and I think about the thousands of kids out playing sport every weekend in Lalor. There are 11 junior football clubs in the WRFL with their home in the city of Wyndham—many of them with multiple teams in every age group. It is a fantastic thing to hear those whistles all over the community on Saturdays and Sundays as the kids run out onto the ground. How do we ensure the quality coaching for numbers like these? How do we ensure that our new communities are embraced and invited when clubs are bursting at the seams? How do we ensure that girls are encouraged to play AFL football in that kind of environment? The answer is that families work hard. They work hard through the week and then they work hard to create those communities and make sure that their kids are involved on the ground in the things that they need.
There are 80 babies a week born in the city of Wyndham. I want you to stop and think about what that means for sport, what that means for schools and what that means for early childhood education. It means a constant demand for new schools. It means a balance between determining whether a community will get a new school that is desperately needed and whether that other bucket of money that will maintain existing schools will also be accessed for our community. I have been on my feet before to explain that in our schools we can have up to 12 classes of preps—an extraordinary number. How do you make sure the quality is on the ground in those classrooms? Just like the football teams, just like the basketball teams, just like the netball teams—these are some of our challenges.
We have other challenges. We have challenges around employment—challenges around casualisation and third party labour hire arrangements. What impact with the digital disruption have in a community like ours, and how do we plan to meet those challenges? How do we turn micro businesses into small businesses? How do we grow our own micro economy? How do we ensure that we get the digital infrastructure we need to make sure that this digital disruption does not completely derail our community and that we are able to grow our economy with it? The answers are in quality representation and inclusive consultation. The answers are in strategic planning.
In education circles, we have a saying that we need to get off the dance floor sometimes and onto the balcony to get a strategic view. I would suggest that what Lalor needs most is a federal government prepared to get off that dance floor and to get onto that balcony; a federal government that understands these challenges and considers them when they write policy—from water policy to taxation policy, from infrastructure policy to education policy. My community needs a government at the federal level that is prepared to look at all of the learnings around city development, at all of the learnings around how we build community and at all of the learnings in terms of what we are going to need when we approach this digital disruption. So far this federal government has failed in these areas, and it makes meeting the challenges more difficult. They have failed to take into consideration the things that my community needs. Every decision they make has an impact directly on this community—this community of young families where people are accessing the supports to raise those families.
Fortunately, we do have some things on our side. We have cohesion. We have optimism. We have people learning to work together and learning to mount the arguments to demand the respect to ensure that the strategic planning happens. I commend my community to the House.
Page Electorate: Education
Page Electorate: Sport
Mr HOGAN (Page) (17:53): I would like to acknowledge this afternoon that four senior Indigenous students from South Grafton High School, who have been selected to perform for the 2015 Aboriginal dance ensemble at the 2015 Schools Spectacular in Sydney. Three of the Students, Nicholas McGrady, Thomas McGrady and Mason Graham, have just completed their HSC, while the fourth student, Shonta Morris, has just commenced her year 12 year. This is the second year that Shonta has been accepted into the New South Wales Public Schools Aboriginal Dance Company, a company run by the prestigious Bangarra Dance Theatre. The Bangarra Dance Theatre is a very well-known professional group that facilitates and promotes the Indigenous Children Australia program throughout New South Wales public schools.
Earlier this month, the four South Grafton students attended a week-long troupe rehearsal in preparation for the spectacular. I would also like to acknowledge South Grafton High School for giving the students this opportunity—in particular, the school's dance teacher, Sarah McCann, and the Aboriginal support teacher, Wendy Dalton. The Maclean High School will feature at the spectacular with several of their students selected to perform in the combined schools choir.
After a lengthy audition process, 12 students from years 0, 10 and 11 will perform This Is Our World. Year 11 student Kate Thomsen will play the violin in the orchestra, while the other 11 students will perform as part of the secondary arena choir. Those students are Andrew Butler and Lachlan Fischer, both singing baritone. Singing in the alto section will be Shannay Davis, Natasha Glaser, Koa McCaughey, Lillian O'Neill and Lauren Essex. Singing soprano will be Mary Evans, Bella Ridgeway, Freya Ramsey and Maneesha Davis. I congratulate all these students and good luck to all of them from both South Grafton and Maclean high schools at the Schools Spectacular.
I recently went to TheDaily Examiner Clarence Valley Sports Awards, held at Maclean, a couple of Fridays ago. The evening was well attended with local sports identities and teams. Key speakers during the night included Brent Livermore, the former Kookaburra and hockey gold medallist and Tegan Harrison, a local young lady who is following her dreams of becoming a well-known jockey. Peter Connor, from Southgate, was the sportsperson of the year. He beat 728 competitors to win the Mort & Co Rockhampton Open Draft in July. The coach of the year went to Dallas Waters for his turn-around of the South Grafton Rebels, taking them to their first premiership in four decades, and that was a great game. Laura Moloney won the Australian under-13 girls squash championship in October last year, and she followed that impressive result in April this year when she won the under-15 title. This earned her the female junior sportsperson award. The male junior sportsperson of the year went to Cody Walker, who represented the Australian Rugby Union schoolboys against Samoa and New Zealand.
The Lower Clarence Pony Club won the award for the Club of the Year. The club has over 50 junior members and 11 of them were on hand to receive the award from country jockey Tegan Harrison, who is an ex-member. The recipients on hand were Shannon and Abi Moran, Matilda and Isabelle Addison, Jackson, Harrison, Georgie and Bryson Lee, Lachlan and Caleb Foster and George Sutherland.
The Ernie Muller Award for leadership was presented to Tim Ryan. The award recognises leadership, administration and commitment to sport in the Lower Clarence. Tim has spent the 15 years guiding the Yamba Touch Football Association and advocating for better sporting facilities. The Max Godbee Award for dedication to sport went to Kerry Godwin. As a youngster, Kerry played rugby league and excelled at athletics, winning the Macksville Gift in 1971 and the Brunswick Valley Gift in 1976. He has been the conditioner-strapper for the Grafton Ghost Rugby League team since 1977.
The Masters Sports Award went to Brian Elvery for his impressive year on the International Triathlon Circuit. His efforts during the season saw him placed 18th in the Hawaiian event, eighth in the Chicago Triathlon and 11th in the Austrian event. The People's Choice Award went to Di Ellis from Wooloweyah. Di competed in the over-35 women's longboard surfing festival after overcoming serious illness leading into the event. The contributor of the year went to Peter Hughes for his weekly column called 'Within the Peloton'. It kept readers up to date with all of the information from the local cycling scene. The photographer of the year, for the second year in a row, went to Shane Sedger for his outstanding photo coverage throughout the hockey season.
The Grafton under-15 hockey team won team of the year after their impressive tournament win in the New South Wales state titles. Coaches, Rick Sampson and Sam Young, had tremendous success, with the team scoring 34 goals, whilst goalkeeper Toby Power only conceded one. Abe Herbert was named player of the tournament.
In The Daily Examiner Wall of Fame Brent Livermore, formally of Grafton, was inducted for his dedication and success with Australian hockey team the Kookaburras. He was also the guest speaker and gave some wonderful insight and knowledge into how you can excel at your chosen sport. The second recipient was Harold Kratz. Harold is 88. He was inducted for his outstanding contribution to rowing. Harold has been an administrator, coach and competitor for many decades. As a competitor, he has been a medal winner at the masters events every year since 1994. Last year alone he won three gold medals in Adelaide. He is a life member of the Clarence Amateur Rowing and Sculling Club and the Combined High School Rowing. Congratulations to all those people.
A group of high school students from Kyogle have done a great job representing the region at the New South Wales Combined High Schools athletics competition. I would like to acknowledge the athletes: Veronika Kosmider, James McPaul, Sam Walters, Mikailah Piggot, Shania Porter, Carletta Owen, Tegan Graham and Larry Condon, as well as Juliarah O'Donahue who attends Casino High but lives in Kyogle. Between them they won two gold, three silver and a bronze medal in their various sporting disciplines. To reach this level the students had to compete at school, the Zone carnival and the North Coast Regional Athletics before reaching the state athletics championships in Sydney. I congratulate all of them.
It was a very momentous day for many people on Friday, 20 November in Lismore when a well-known business icon and local identity finally called it quits. John Daley, better known to many as Toby or the Woodlark Street 'Mayor', finally retired after 55 years in homewares. He was known to many for his friendly personality and great customer service, as well as his good quality manchester. John commenced work at 15 years of age in a business known as Glynns homewares, which later became McLeans. In 1989, along with his wife, Noeleen, he decided to take the plunge and start up his own business known as Daley's Homeware and Monogramming Specialists. The business commenced in the Strand Arcade in Molesworth Street and later moved to its current location in Woodlark Street. John's wife, Noeleen, retired from the business eight years ago, but John continued along with his loyal staff, Noeleen Riley and Val Hayward. Both staff continue with the new owner, John's cousin, Mathew Healey. I would like to congratulate and thank John on his 55 years of quality customer service and wish him well with his retirement.
Illicit Drugs
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (18:02): I am very glad to have this opportunity to talk about the importance of drug law reform in Australia and to make an argument for the future direction and shape of that reform. It is clear to me, and to many others, that our approach needs to change. We need to treat drug use first and foremost as a health issue, not as a matter of criminal behaviour. We must start by admitting that the so-called 'war on drugs' has been a failure. It has created, reinforced and exacerbated all the harm it was supposed to combat, as wars tend to do.
Drug use and regulation reach into so many aspects of Australian life, a great number of which are beneficial or benign and some of which are very harmful and costly. We should acknowledge at the outset that the taking of substances with a mental and physiological effect is a practice as old as human life. Taking drugs is part of our sophisticated health system, it is part of our everyday social life, and it has always been a behaviour that a small minority of people cannot effectively control. Let's remember that until very recently a fatal addiction to tobacco was commonplace and completely acceptable. Let's not overlook the fact that we continue to celebrate a number of 'high-performing' alcoholics, from John Curtin to Winston Churchill, and that the ability to work hard and play hard, as the saying goes, is certainly not seen as a bad thing, whether drinking to excess occurs at the end of the professional footy season or on the last night in the prime ministerial suite. Indeed, the delivery of opiates through a syringe can equally represent the gift of modern medicine or the depravity of modern addiction.
Let's be honest with ourselves and recognise that some of the worst harm associated with drug use involves substances that are completely legal and that some of the worst social ills caused by drugs are brought about through regulation rather than use. In essence, I accept the argument and the evidence that show our current approach is not working and that by criminalising drug use we have created a self-sustaining system in which terrible health and social outcomes, high rates of incarceration and a highly profitable criminal black market all work to reinforce one another. This is an argument made through an utterly compelling series of chapters in a book published this year called Chasing the scream: the first and last days of the war on drugs by Johann Hari. Hari reminds us that the war on drugs began in the United States as a policy and a program shift without evidentiary basis; a shift fuelled almost entirely by prejudice, stupidity and profound ignorance of medical science.
The only group in society to benefit from the war on drugs is organised criminals. This war has caused great harm to individual drug users and their families; to public health through the spread of disease; and to the wider community through the property crime and violence that is created—quite understandably—when you turn drug users and addicts into criminals, massively increase the cost of drugs and ensure that they are only available through a hardened, greedy, ruthless criminal network. In fact, it is astounding that the metaphor of a war on drugs has survived at all, because any reasonable examination of our approach to illicit drugs shows a self-perpetuating system in which the law enforcement apparatus works to protect the black market conditions and deliver the often crushing oppression of drugs users that together sustain the illicit drug trade with all of its horrors.
Perhaps in extreme circumstances one could make a case for laws that are, to some extent, unfairly punitive or discriminatory if they actually worked to achieve a greater good, but it is becoming clear that our drugs laws do not work. The Global Commission on Drug Policy was established in 2011, and includes former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, former US secretary of state George Schulz, four former presidents and leading UK businessman Sir Richard Branson. The commission concluded in 2011 that the global war on drugs has failed with devastating consequences for individuals and societies.
It is hard for anyone in Australia to argue that drug prohibition and criminalisation has been a success, when former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer has made the observation that 'Australian police are now better trained, generally better equipped and resourced, and more operationally effective than at any time in our history. But on any objective assessment, policing of the illicit drug market has had only a marginal impact on the profitability of the drug trade or the availability of illicit drugs.'
The greatest harm and the greatest costs are done and caused by tobacco and alcohol, yet they are entirely legal. Indeed, they represent important industries both in Australia and across the globe. In the case of tobacco it is interesting to go back to the National Tobacco Strategy 2004-09, which acknowledges that:
Tobacco is a unique consumer item: tobacco products cause premature death and disability when used as intended by the manufacturer; and they are addictive. No company trying to introduce cigarettes into Australia today would succeed in getting them onto the market.
Slowly, we have made progress in reducing the use of tobacco, most recently through Labor's plain packaging reforms and also in Labor's decision to refuse donations from tobacco companies. We should be proud that Australia has taken a world-leading role in that effort. At the same time, we should be alarmed that tobacco companies continue their efforts to profit from poison, including through the use of investor-state dispute resolution clauses and free-trade agreements.
Of course we know that illicit drugs cause significant direct and indirect harm too. Their use is widespread. The 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report found that 15 per cent of people aged 14 and over had used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months. In that survey it was particularly interesting to note that tobacco use had fallen to 15.8 per cent. Recent cannabis use was at 10.2 per cent. The proportion of people who engage in drinking at a level that creates a lifetime health risk was 18.2 per cent. The fact is that drug use—in some form or another—is ubiquitous in Australian society. Some of it occurs with a beneficial health purpose. Some of it occurs in a relatively low-harm fashion, involving drugs that might be legal or illegal. Some of it is harmful in the extreme, but again this is true of both legal and illicit drugs. For comparison's sake, in terms of disease, in 2010 it was estimated that tobacco smoking was responsible for 8.3 per cent of the burden of disease in Australasia, 2.7 per cent was attributable to alcohol use and a further 2.6 per cent was attributable to the use of illicit drugs.
The clearest distinction when it comes to drug use is an artificial one—namely, the distinction we draw between drugs that are legal and illegal, and the consequences that flow from that distinction are stark. There are 33,000 adult prisoners in Australia, and 12 per cent of them are in jail for illicit drug offences. For women prisoners, the proportion 17 per cent. Three in five prisoners have been in jail before. Jail does not address the health or addiction issues that drug users might have. Indeed, access to illicit drugs and all of the criminal culture that goes with the drug trade exists in prisons in concentrated form. What do we achieve by putting drug users in jail? We increase the disadvantage they will face in future life and we increase the likelihood that they will be in jail again. Who do we inflict this upon? We inflict this further suffering and disadvantage in hugely disproportionate and discriminatory measure on people from remote and regional Australia, on people who experience poverty and mental ill health, on people who are victims of abuse and—most scandalously of all—on Indigenous Australians.
A visitor from another planet given the chance to examine our history of drug discovery, use, commercialisation, regulation and criminalisation would find themselves adrift in a field of paradoxes. They would see that the most harmful drugs are legal and that the illegal drugs are widely available. They would see that the people who need the most help and who are in the most pain are made subject to punishment and that the people who benefit most from the war on drugs are the worst criminals.
I am sorry that this government has shown little interest in the need for radical drug law reform. If anything, there have been moves to obstruct the reform effort and to double down on the existing failed approach. This government was wrong to abolish the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia. As my colleague the shadow assistant minister for health has pointed out, it has been more than 500 days since the Review of Australia's drug and alcohol prevention and treatment services sector was handed to government without that review being released.
The government's decision to cut $800 million from the flexible health funds has flowed through in cuts to the Substance Misuse Prevention and Service Improvement Grants Fund. At the same time, there has been no clarity given as to whether the NGO Treatment Grants Program will be continued beyond the current financial year. Despite those very disappointing actions, there have been signs of bipartisan interest and even progress when it comes to the enormous potential for drug law reform. I have been glad to work with fellow parliamentarians from across the political spectrum in the Parliamentary Group on Drug Law Reform, and we have been part of a community-wide effort that is delivering positive change in relation to medicinal cannabis.
There is scope for so much more positive change in this area of policy regulation and program investment. Australia has spent far too long following the track blazed by some incredibly misguided and incompetent American bureaucrats. Now there are states in America and nations in Europe, like Switzerland, that are showing what can be achieved by breaking through what has been a terrible fog of war.
I encourage members of this place and members of the general public alike to put aside your assumptions and really open your mind to the evidence on this subject, to reconsider your acceptance of the status quo and to look at the real story of the war on drugs. Johann Hari's book is an excellent place to start where he writes:
Drugs are not what we think they are. Drug addiction is not what we have been told it is. The drug war is not what our politicians have sold it as for one hundred years and counting. And there is a very different story out there waiting for us when we are ready to hear it—one that should leave us thrumming with hope.
Banks Electorate: Local Organisations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:11): I am very pleased this evening to have the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the important work of a number of organisations in my local electorate of Banks. Yesterday, I was very pleased to attend the first game of the new cricket season for the Georges River District Cricket Club.
The Georges River District Cricket Club draws on a wide range of areas in southern Sydney and particularly within my electorate of Banks. The under-24s were looking forward to this season, because they are the defending premiers, having won the championship last year. It was nice to be there yesterday to congratulate them on their success and to wish them success for this year as well.
I also want to congratulate the ground staff at Bexley Oval and its groundsman Trent Malley, who has again won the best ground in the Sydney cricket area for curation at Bexley Oval. Congratulations to Trent. I was very pleased to present the Frank Gray Shield and the premiership cap to the captain Daniel Yates. I very much enjoyed the visit. I had a good discussion with the president Kevin Croom who was there and I also want to thank Matt Ellis from the club for all the work he does in making Georges River such a strong and successful club in our area. It was a very good visit, and I thank the club for it.
Last week, I was also able to visit Kogarah Community Services and to visit the new community services hub. This is a magnificent space next to Kogarah's Jubilee Oval, which would be well-known to fans of rugby league as one of the home grounds of St George. Next to Kogarah's Jubilee Oval, Kogarah Community Services has a great new home from which to run its many community services. The opening of that community hub coincided with the 40th anniversary of the organisation. It is a very wide-ranging organisation that services seniors' activities, has various activities for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds and activities for families with children. It takes a very active role in leading our community in fighting against the scourge of domestic violence. Indeed for a number of years now, it has run the One Billion Rising event at Kogarah which encourages local people to take action against domestic violence.
There are about 50 people who work at Kogarah Community Services and they serve many hundreds of members of the local community. I would particularly like to thank the CEO, Shelley Ross, who is very ably assisted by the other senior managers, Cathy Nisbet and Oonagh McCallan, both of whom do a great job. I said in my speech the other day that one of the things I really like about Kogarah Community Services is the very optimistic and positive environment the organisation has. That stands it in great stead and has been a great part of its success, I think, in dealing with so many different issues and challenges in our community.
There is another organisation which I was also able to visit on Friday—and indeed I helped launch its brand-new name. That organisation, formerly known as the St George Migrant Resource Centre, is now known as Advance Diversity Services. Advance Diversity Services is one of the largest community organisations anywhere in the St George region, but interestingly its services are now extending not just through the St George region but further afield as well. Initially the Migrant Resource Centre was set up in the early 1980s to service the needs of recent immigrants to Australia from all parts of the world. Over time its activities have expanded to include disability services, aged-care services and various other activities.
Earlier in the year I worked very closely with Advance Diversity Services on a fundraising activity I held after the Nepalese earthquake. In conjunction with Advance Diversity Services and with the support of many other great organisations—Penshurst RSL, for example, and various others—we were able to raise well over $17,000 for the Red Cross Nepal Region Earthquake Appeal. I want to thank Chura Belbase and Rishi Acharya for their work, particularly in the Nepalese community, as well as the chief executive, Antoinette Chow, who provides very strong leadership to Advance Diversity Services. It was terrific to help them launch their new name last Friday.
In recent weeks, I was also able to visit the Salvation Army corps at Panania. This is a very important and central organisation in the Picnic Point and Panania region of southern Sydney. It is run by corps officers Nathan and Kylie Hodges and undertakes church services and various other community activities for seniors, young people and so on. For some years the Salvation Army has run a really important retail outlet, the Panania Family Store. It is a thriving retail store that services people in our community, providing goods at a very low price thanks to the generosity of our local community in donating clothing and various other items.
Each year the Panania Salvation Army runs a Christmas appeal. Last year, through their efforts, food and toy hampers were provided to over 500 local families. That is something that is enormously appreciated in our community. The money raised from the store goes directly to fund the work of the Salvation Army in the Panania area. There are a range of activities and one of the most interesting is Mini Muzos, which is a kids playgroup run at the Salvation Army each week. The kids have fun, meet new friends and learn about music too. To Nathan and everyone at the Salvation Army at Panania: thank you so much for what you do.
Also earlier in the month I attended a Deepavali function at St George Girls High School. It was a particularly timely function, celebrating as Deepavali does, the triumph of light over darkness. As we have seen through the horrific events in Paris and elsewhere there is, as there always has been, darkness in the world. But for literally thousands of years Deepavali has celebrated the enduring triumph of good over evil. Whilst horrendous things do happen in our world, in the long run our world gets better and improves. I think Deepavali encapsulates that sentiment.
It was a terrific night at St George Girls High School. There was dancing, with lots of presentations by local kids and some very talented musicians and others who performed on the night. Two really important local organisations organised this event: the South Asian Hindi School, which is led by its very charismatic principal, Madhulika Roy, who is a very strong advocate for the Hindu and Hindi-speaking community in the St George area, and my good friend Sudha Natarajan at the Resourceful Australian Indian Network, who is also a wonderful leader who provides a great deal of support to the Indian community in my electorate.
The RAIN community is so strong that when they decided that they wanted to get a community centre for the Indian community, the community came together and bought a house. I think that demonstrates the depth of their commitment to community activities.
So thank you to the organisers for that Deepavali function. It was a tremendous event.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): An unusual situation: the member for Fairfax is presenting himself to the chamber. I understand that you have already participated in this debate?
Mr Palmer: I seek leave to speak again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For yourself or on behalf of someone?
Mr Palmer: I have Cathy McGowan's spot. She asked me to come down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just seek some clarification? Is the speech your speech, or are you speaking on behalf of the member for Indi?
Mr Palmer: I cannot speak on behalf of the member for Indi. She has asked me to come to deliver a speech—to take her place. I am quite happy not to deliver the speech.
Leave not granted.
SHEEAN, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy)
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (18:23): I have previously spoken in the Parliament about a Tasmanian legend: Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean, commonly known as Teddy. It is fair to say that the fight to get Teddy Sheean the recognition his bravery deserves is a long and continuing story. That is because there are so many people in the Tasmanian community and further afield who are determined to ensure that Teddy gets the higher recognition his bravery deserves.
I acknowledge this is a difficult case. It has been considered previously, including by the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal. It is especially difficult because the events in question occurred almost 75 years ago. We are trying to distil from history's record the proof that justifies a fresh look—a different decision. But that is exactly why Teddy Sheean's case deserves that extra consideration, because we have the documented history to rely on.
I can recall first becoming really aware of Teddy's story in the early days of my military career. Who could forget Dale Marsh's famous painting that now hangs in the Australian War Memorial? A young man on a sinking ship, the HMAS Armidale. And there, strapped to an Oerlikon gun and doing his best to defend his mates is Teddy Sheean, trying to stop Japanese aircraft from strafing his shipmates in the water.
It was no surprise to me that when the honours and awards inquiry was established on 16 April 2011 to consider Teddy's case and others, the then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence used Teddy's valour as a way of setting the scene for the inquiry's deliberations. That is because Edward 'Teddy' Sheean may have been an ordinary seaman, but his actions were certainly extraordinary to generate over 70 years of respect and admiration—to have a submarine named after him, songs and a historical walk dedicated in his honour and to be the subject of books, articles and hundreds of media stories, including Australian Story. As I have said in previous speeches and public comments, the respect afforded to Teddy's memory reinforces that the tactical actions of an individual in war can inspire others. Teddy's sacrifice set in motion a historical ripple that continues to lap against the hearts and minds of many Australians.
It is hard to think of someone so young having the maturity of spirit to do what Teddy did. We often search for motivation when acts of conspicuous bravery occur. Teddy cannot tell us himself why he did it, because he died during his act of bravery on 1 December 1942. He cannot tell us what prompted him to stagger back to an Oerlikon gun to fire at enemy aircraft shooting his mates in the water and to keep firing while the ship sank. But the history tells us that what Teddy Sheean did on that day was very special indeed. Those who read histories say that they are often stark and chronological in their description of events that today would dominate the news cycle. So it is with the Navy's history of World War II. On page 218 of volume 2, it states simply:
The bomber fell to Ordinary Seaman Sheean at the after oerlikon, who remained at the gun when the ship sank.
It was around 20 words, that is all. We are fortunate, however, that there is a footnote on the same page from Teddy's shipmate, Ordinary Seaman RM Caro, who adds some colour, movement and pathos to the story:
Teddy died, but none of us who have survived, I am sure, will ever forget his gallant deed … None of us will ever know what made him do it, but he went back to his gun, strapped himself in, and brought down a Jap plane, still firing as he disappeared beneath the waves.
So it is no surprise that amidst the carnage of that day, HMAS Armidale's commanding officer, Commander Richards, singled Teddy out for special mention and the eventual award of a Mentioned in Despatches.
But that is not good enough, I say. Despite being wounded, Teddy put the lives of his mates before his own. We often look for benchmarks and comparisons to gauge the relative value of things. The test that I applied to Teddy's bravery was to have a look at those who won a Victoria Cross on either side of the date that HMAS Armidale was sunk. A great resource is Lionel Wigmore's book They Dared Mightily. It is a handy reference listing Australia's Victoria Cross recipients during that time. Had Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean won a Victoria Cross on 1 December 1942, he would sit between the citations for Flight Sergeant Middleton, who earned his Victoria Cross during 28-29 November 1942, just three days before Teddy died. Flight Lieutenant Newton was the next VC recipient in chronological order, on 16 March 1943. Teddy's story clearly deserves a place between these creases of history. Let me read just a few lines from these other two citations to illustrate my point.
Flight Sergeant Middleton was the pilot of a Stirling aircraft attached to the Royal Air Force 149 Squadron. He died after attacking the Fiat works at Turin. Low on fuel and having to make the decision whether to proceed to the target area or turn back, Middleton pressed on. Despite being severely wounded by shell splinters from a light anti-aircraft gun, he dropped his bombs and got the aircraft back to England, with most of the crew parachuting to safety. Middleton died in order to complete his mission and protect his mates.
Flight Lieutenant Newton was a Boston pilot with No. 22 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, in New Guinea. While leading a low-level bombing attack on Salamaua on 16 March 1943, his aircraft was hit repeatedly by ground fire. He completed his mission, flew his heavily-damaged aircraft away from the enemy, made a skilful water landing, and swam ashore with one of his crew. Sadly, they were captured and subsequently executed by the Japanese, but Newton did his best to complete his mission and protect his crew.
I say that Sheean's act of extraordinary valour is not out of place in the company of these two very brave Royal Australian Air Force officers. But, unlike the Air Force commanding officers of Middleton and Newton, Australian Navy commanders in 1942 could not specify the nature of the award they were submitting. Australian Imperial Force and Royal Australian Air Force awards were decided by Australians in Australia, but our Navy, at that time, had to submit its recommendations to the Admiralty in London for consideration by an honours and awards committee. Sheean's heroism—in my view—was not adequately acknowledged in competition with British navy recommendations. It is also worth noting that Sheean's deeds were suppressed from public knowledge by a decision of the Department of Defence on 9 December 1942 to 'impose a complete publicity ban upon HMAS Armidale's story'.
It has been a long journey to get adequate recognition of Teddy Sheean's bravery, but hope springs eternal in many hearts—including mine—that one day justice will be done for Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean. Why can we not be the Australians in Australia that reward his bravery with the higher honours he clearly deserves? As a former soldier, officer, and senior Defence public servant, I say to this parliament that Sheean's actions fit the criteria for much higher recognition. They were conspicuous and daring, and they constituted a pre-eminent act of valour and self-sacrifice against impossible odds. His was a display of rare and mighty courage.
Finally, let me acknowledge the indefatigable efforts of Teddy's nephew, Gary Ivory—who lives in my electorate of Bass—former Senator Guy Barnett, surviving members of the Sheean family and many Australians around the country who continue to fight on for Teddy's cause. They have been voices of reason, persistence and dedication, and I respect them for their devotion to Teddy's cause. Last week in the Tasmanian parliament, former senator Guy Barnett—now a member of the Tasmanian parliament—tabled a petition with over 7,000 signatures. Renowned singer Lee Kernaghan has written a song titled Forever Eighteen about Teddy's bravery, which is a finalist in the Heritage Song of the Year in the 2016 Golden Guitar Awards in Tamworth. It is only one song on Kernaghan's 'Spirit of the Anzacs' album, but he says that Forever Eighteen is the one that stays with him. Kernaghan said:
It's strange, how the story of a man that I've never met can make you feel such a connection.
Lee Kernaghan is right, as are the tens of thousands of Teddy Sheean's supporters around the country.
I urge this Parliament to get behind the cause to give Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean the recognition that his valour and sacrifice so richly deserve.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (18:33): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18 : 33
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
National Gallery of Australia
(Question No. 789)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 May 2015:
In respect of the $25,534.41 tender to the National Gallery of Australia (CN3005572): (a) what is the event; (b) how many people will attend; (c) what is the full itinerary, including social events and meals; and (d) what is the total cost of all associated activities.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The official dinner hosted by the former Prime Minister and Mrs Abbott on 18 March 2015 for the Guest of Government visit by His Excellency Mr Nguyen Tan Dung, Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Madame Tran Thanh Kiem.
(b) 175 people attended the dinner.
(c) Key elements of the dinner included the meal itself and speeches by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Representative of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
(d) Additional costs associated with the event were $18,864.94 (GST exclusive).
'Woolcott Research Pty Ltd: Tender
(Question No. 841)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 10 August 2015:
In respect of the $67,128.60 tender to 'Woolcott Research Pty Ltd' (CN3249872): (a) what research is the department undertaking; (b) what policy areas does the research relate to; and (c) what are the results of this market research.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The research set out to take a snapshot of what Australians really think about government services, a 'baseline' measurement that will allow the Digital Transformation Office to track community sentiment and perceptions over time.
(b) The research related to the Digital Transformation Agenda.
(c) The findings of the research can be found: https://www.dto.gov.au/blog/how-do-australians-really-feel-about-digital-government-services
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Contracted Services Payments
(Question No. 888)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of fees for late or delayed payment of contracted services or products by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (a) which services or products do these fees relate to, and (b) what sum was spent.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The department paid $21,398 in 2014-15 in respect of fees for late payments for the supply of goods and/or services.
Attorney-General's Department: Contracted Services Payments
(Question No. 890)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of fees for late or delayed payment of contracted services or products by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (a) which services or products do these fees relate to, and (b) what sum was spent.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The department has made two (2) payments in relation to late fees both for (a) IT equipment (b) the total amount spent was $58.86.
Department of Defence: Contracted Services Payments
(Question No. 897)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of fees for late or delayed payment of contracted services or products by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (a) which services or products do these fees relate to, and (b) what sum was spent.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Fees for late or delayed payments in 2014-15 relate to the following services:
education services;
technical and engineering support/services;
estate maintenance/equipment;
ICT goods and services;
medical services;
military equipment/services;
psychological services;
recruitment services;
relocation services;
research services/equipment;
security services/equipment;
strategic advisory services;
training services;
transport services; and
veterinary goods and services.
(b) The total Departmental amount spent on fees for late or delayed payment of contracted services for the 2014-15 financial year was $28,000.
Attorney-General's Department: Office Space
(Question No. 908)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of office space leased or owned by the Minister's department(s), (a) where are these offices located, (b) how much space (in square metres) is in each office, (c) how much of this space is unused, and of this what is the cost of (i) rent per month (ii) utilities, including electricity and/or gas, telephone and internet, (iii) office furniture and/or hired equipment, including artwork and plants, and (iv) any associated services.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Building |
Location |
Leased/Owned |
Size (m2) |
Unused Space (m2) |
Cost Unused Space |
University of Canberra Innovations Centre |
Level G, Building 23, University Drive, Bruce ACT |
Leased |
783 |
Nil |
N/A |
Kenneth Bailey Building. |
71 State Circle, Yarralumla ACT |
Owned |
460 |
Nil |
N/A |
Classifications |
23-33 Mary Street, Surry Hills NSW |
Leased |
1,874 |
Nil |
N/A |
NOC |
24 Wormald Street, Symonston ACT |
Leased |
4,720 |
Nil |
N/A |
Robert Garran Offices |
3-5 National Circuit, Barton ACT |
Leased |
20,384 |
Nil |
N/A |
4 National |
4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT |
Leased |
9,400 |
Nil |
N/A |
Edmund Barton Building |
Cnr Macquarie Street & Kings Avenue, Barton ACT |
Leased |
2,764 |
Nil |
N/a |
Coronation Drive |
Suite 1101, Level 11, 3012 Coronation Drive, Milton QLD |
Leased |
320 |
Nil |
N/A |
Rabo House |
Suite 1702,Level 17, 155 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW |
Leased |
147 |
Nil |
N/A |
Castlereagh Street |
Suite 302, Level 3, 1 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW |
Leased |
125 |
Nil |
N/A |
Piccadilly Tower |
133 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW |
Leased |
120 |
Nil |
N/A |
Artbank – Sydney |
198-222 Young Street, Waterloo NSW |
Leased |
1,094 |
Nil |
N/A |
Artbank – Melbourne |
845 High Street, Armadale VIC |
Leased |
445 |
Nil |
N/A |
Market Street |
Level 17 and part Level 19, 55 Market Street Sydney NSW |
Leased |
1,447 |
Nil |
N/A |
Governor Macquarie Tower |
Level 16,17,28 and part 19 1 Farrer Place Sydney NSW |
Leased |
4,182 |
Nil |
N/A |
Governor Phillip Tower |
Level 26 1 Farrer Place Sydney NSW |
Leased |
1,400 |
Nil |
N/A |
Attorney-General's Department: Offices Efficiency Upgrades
(Question No. 926)
Mr Conroy: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015
In respect of the Minister's departmental offices, has the building(s) had energy efficiency upgrades; if so, (a) when, and (b) how has this upgrade affected (i) average energy use, and (ii) average energy cost.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
No departmental office buildings have received energy efficiency upgrades.
Attorney-General's Department: Comsultants
(Question No. 944)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of the use of (a) consultants, and (b) contractors, by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (i) what total sum was spent, (ii) what services were provided, and (iii) which firms provided the services.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Information on arrangements the department has entered into with consultants and contractors is publicly available on AusTender (www.tenders.gov.au). AusTender reports the total estimated contract value, not the total sum payable in 2014-15, for each arrangement.
Department of Finance: Consultants
(Question No. 956)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of the use of (a) consultants, and (b) contractors, by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (i) what total sum was spent, (ii) what services were provided, and (iii) which firms provided the services.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Services Provided |
Consultants $'000 |
Contractors $'000 |
TOTAL $'000 |
Services to support the sale of Medibank Private Limited |
12,932 |
44,502 |
57,434 |
Services provided for whole of government procurement activities |
587 |
4,072 |
4,659 |
Other non - SES contract staff |
0 |
11,652 |
11,652 |
Consultants - Business Advice |
8,031 |
- |
8,031 |
Consultants - Legal Advice |
3,492 |
- |
3,492 |
Consultants - Policy/Technical advice |
2,706 |
- |
2,706 |
Consultants - IT |
726 |
- |
726 |
Consultants - Communications Advice |
761 |
- |
761 |
Consultants - Actuarial Services |
566 |
- |
566 |
Consultants - Accounting/Finance |
195 |
- |
195 |
Consultants - Probity/Contracting Advice |
155 |
- |
155 |
Consultants - Other |
204 |
- |
204 |
TOTAL (GST Exclusive) |
30,355 |
60,226 |
90,581 |
A list of firms and individuals who provided the services is attached.
List of Consultants 2014-15 |
3PM Consulting Pty Ltd |
Accenture Australia Pty Ltd |
Acquia, Inc. |
Ajilon |
Alison Turner |
Aquitaine Consulting Pty Ltd |
Aquitaine Consulting Services |
Ashurst Australia |
Aust Govt Solicitor |
Australasian Shared Services |
Australian Government Actuary |
Australian Valuation Solutions |
Belbridge Hague Solicitors |
Belgiovane Williams Mackay Pty Ltd |
Bethomas Consulting Pty Ltd |
Broadleaf Capital International |
Building Effectiveness Pty Ltd |
Business Wide-Consulting Support |
C&M Associates |
Candle ICT |
Capability Driven Aquisition |
Carlson Wagonlit Travel |
Chris Faulks |
CIMB Corporate Finance |
Clayton UTZ |
Coffey Environmental Australia |
Cogent Business Solutions Pty Ltd |
Cordelta Pty Ltd |
Corkery Consulting |
CPT Global Australia Pty Ltd |
CSC Australia Pty Ltd |
CSIRO (ACT) |
DBM Consultants Pty Ltd |
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu |
Deonvale Pty Ltd |
DLA Piper Australia |
Editor Group Pty Ltd |
Enth Degree Pty Ltd |
Ernst & Young |
Finite Group APAC Pty Ltd |
Five Consulting (Vic) Pty Ltd |
Greenhill & Co. Australia Pty Ltd |
Greg Williams |
Grosvenor Management Consulting |
List of Consultants 2014-15 (continued) |
Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd |
Herbert Smith Freehills |
HP - EDS (Australia) Pty Ltd |
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers |
Iridian IT Pty Ltd |
Isabella Weger |
ITNewcom Pty Ltd |
Jackson Management Consulting |
John Ignatius |
Jones Lang LaSalle (Vic) Pty Ltd |
K Colgan & Associates Pty Ltd |
King & Wood Mallesons |
KPMG Actuarial Pty Ltd |
KPMG Australia |
Law Consulting Services Pty Ltd |
Lazard Pty Ltd |
Len Early Pty Ltd |
Limassol Consulting Pty Ltd |
Louise Saave-Fairley |
M & R Payroll Solutions Pty Ltd |
Maadmob Pty Ltd |
Maddocks |
Malcolm Forbes Consulting Pty Ltd |
Malcolm Hazell |
McBeath Pty Ltd |
Mercer (Australia) Pty Ltd |
Michael Danaher |
Mills Oakley Lawyers |
Newgate Communications Pty Ltd |
Oakton AA Services |
Office of Parliamentary Counsel |
Oliver Winder Pty Ltd |
OPC IT Pty Ltd |
Orima Research Pty Ltd |
Outsourced Client Management Pty Ltd |
Patrick Doyle |
Peak Usability |
peckvonhartel |
Peoplebank Australia Ltd |
Peter Carr Advisory Pty Ltd |
Peter Outteridge. |
List of Consultants 2014-15 (continued) |
Peter Veneris |
Precept Consulting |
PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities |
PricewaterhouseCoopers |
Projects Assured Pty Ltd |
Protiviti Pty Ltd |
Psychological Health Interventions |
Robert Butterworth |
Robert Yezerski |
SAGE Legal Services Pty Ltd |
Sinclair Knight Merz |
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom |
Sorensen Consulting |
Sparke Helmore Lawyers |
Special Kay Pty Ltd |
Specialized Services Pty Ltd |
SRA Information Technology Pty Ltd |
Stay Tuned Consulting Pty Ltd |
Synergy Group Australia Ltd |
TFG International |
The Loch Group Pty Ltd |
The Nous Group |
Towers Watson Australia Pty Ltd |
Usabilityone Unit Trust |
UXC Saltbush Consulting Pty Ltd |
Value Sourcing |
Vision Australia |
Wallaga Pty Ltd |
Webber Quantitative Consulting Pty Ltd |
Wes Spencer |
Willoring Apiaries Pty Ltd |
Wisdom Learning Pty Ltd |
Workforce Strategies Pty Ltd |
Wright Training |
|
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd |
Ajilon |
Andrews Office Furniture |
Ashurst Australia |
Aust Govt Solicitor |
Australian National University |
Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd |
Biosis Pty Ltd |
C3 Business Solutions Pty Ltd |
Callida Consulting |
Canberra Consulting Pty Ltd |
Canberra Institute of Technology |
Candle ICT |
CIT Solutions Pty Ltd |
Clicks Recruit Pty Ltd |
Coffey Environmental Australia |
Computershare Investor Services |
Cordelta Pty Ltd |
DBM Consultants Pty Ltd |
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu |
Deutsche Bank AG, Sydney |
Dowse Projects |
Effective People Pty Ltd |
Emantra Pty Ltd |
EnhanceHR Pty Ltd |
Environmental Resources Management |
Eric Martin And Associates |
Face2Face Recruitment Pty Ltd |
Finite Group APAC Pty Ltd |
Five D Holdings |
Frontier Software Pty Ltd |
Geoff Carmody and Associates |
Gilimbaa Pty Ltd |
GML Heritage Pty Ltd |
Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd |
Greythorn Pty Ltd |
Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd |
Hays Personnel Services |
Holocentric Pty Ltd |
HP - EDS (Australia) Pty Ltd |
Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd |
JJM Holdings Pty Ltd |
List of Contractors 2014-15 (continued) |
Kardex VCA Pty Ltd |
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd |
King & Wood Mallesons |
KPMG Australia |
Link Digital |
M & T Resources Pty Ltd |
Macquarie Capital (Australia) |
Mediabrands Australia Pty Ltd |
Michael Honan |
Mitchell & Partners Australia Pty Ltd |
Oakton Contracting & Recruitment |
Oakton Services Pty Ltd |
Orima Research Pty Ltd |
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd |
Pelle Architects |
Peoplebank Australia Ltd |
Planar Pty Ltd |
Prensa Pty Ltd |
Professionals Online |
Rider Levett Bucknall ACT Pty Ltd |
Semaphore Alliance Pty Ltd |
Smalls & Associates Pty Ltd |
SMS Consulting Group Pty Ltd |
Southern Cross Computing Pty Ltd |
Sue Hodges Productions Pty Ltd |
Ticketech Solutions Pty Ltd |
Umwelt Australia Pty Ltd |
UXC Saltbush Consulting Pty Ltd |
Wilton Hanford Hanover Pty Ltd |
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Media Monitoring
(Question No. 960)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on media monitoring and associated services in 2014-15.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15 DFAT's total media monitoring costs were $433,620. This compares with costs of at least $441,083 in 2012-13 for media monitoring expenditure by DFAT and AusAID.
Department of Finance: Media Monitoring
(Question No. 974)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on media monitoring and associated services in 2014-15.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Department of Finance spent a total of $292,408 (exclusive of GST) in 2014-15 for media monitoring services.
Department of Foreign Affairs: Market Research
(Question No. 978)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on market research and associated services in 2014-15, and what policy areas did this inform.
Ms Julie Bishop : The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15, the Department expended $196,000 on market research and associated services. The market research was related to the Smart Traveller campaign, which provides essential information to Australians travelling overseas. Advertising is procured and approved in line with DFAT and Government procurement policies and delegations.
The amount spent in 2014-15 was considerably less than the $315, 358 spent by DFAT and AusAID in 2012-13.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Advertising
(Question No. 996)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on advertising and associated services in 2014-15, and what policy areas did this relate to.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15, the Department expensed $880,779 on advertising and associated services. This includes advertising for job vacancies, Smart Traveller, phone and other directories and other notices. Advertising is procured and approved in line with DFAT and Government procurement policies and delegations.
The amount spent in 2014-15 was considerably less than the $3.55 million spent by DFAT and AusAID in 2012-13.
Attorney-General's Department: Office Equipment
(Question No. 1016)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015
What sum did the Minister's department spend on the purchase and/or lease of (a) food and beverage equipment, and, (b) exercise equipment, for staff in the (i) Minister's office, and (ii) departmental office(s).
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Attorney-General's Department did not incur any expense for (a) food and beverage equipment, and (b) exercise equipment for (i) the Minister's office or, (ii) departmental offices.
Attorney-General's Department: Legal Services and Credit Cards
(Question No. 1034)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on (a) legal services, and (b) credit cards.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The amount spent in 2014-15 financial year on (a) legal services is $14,705,067.90; and (b) credit cards is $12,076,760.49.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Mobile Phones and Tablets
(Question No. 1050)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/or lease of (a) mobile phones, and (b) tablet devices for (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
(2) What sum was spent on telecommunications contracts associated with these devices by (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1)
|
(a) Mobile phone purchases^ |
(b) Tablet device purchases^ |
(i) Foreign Minister staff |
$14,335 |
$3,794 |
(ii) Departmental staff |
$691,010 |
$218,176 |
^ The department does not lease mobile phones or tablet devices.
(2) The department spent $3,568,468 on telecommunications contracts for mobile phones and tablet devices in 2014-15. Ministerial staff telecommunications contract costs are covered by the departmental telecommunication contract.
Attorney-General's Department: Mobile Phones and Tablets
(Question No. 1052)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/or lease of (a) mobile phones, and (b) tablet devices for (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff. (2) What sum was spent on telecommunications contracts associated with these devices by (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The total costs for departmental and Ministerial staff for mobile phone and table devices for 2014-15 financial year are provided in the table below.
Agency |
Total Cost |
(a) (i) mobile phones - Ministerial staff |
$15,447.20 |
(a) (ii) mobile phones - departmental staff |
$152,708.80 |
(b) (i) table devices - Ministerial staff |
$5,505.00 |
(b) (ii) table devices - departmental staff |
$112,778.80 |
(2) The total costs of all telephone and communication services for the department is $1,515,752.50 To attempt to provide further information for these costs would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources
Attorney-General's Department: Office Refurbishment
(Question No. 1070)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015
What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on (a) office refurbishment, and when and where did this occur, and (b) the purchase and/or lease of office furniture.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Attorney-General's Department did not undertake any office refurbishments in 2014-15. The department spent $176,464.20 on office furniture in 2014-15. This expenditure includes the purchase of ergonomic desks for staff and to replace damaged items of office furniture.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1172)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15, the sum spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff was $44,361.
Goods replaced were:
mobile phones;
laptops;
remote access tokens; and a
tablet device.
Attorney-General's Department: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No 1174)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The department replaced two (2) mobile phones which were lost by departmental staff during 2014-15; the replacement cost was $1,047.36.
Department of Defence: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1181)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014‑15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Equipment expenditure is recorded in Defence financial systems. However, Defence is unable to identify the amount spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment. To provide a response to this question would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Ministerial Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1193)
Mr Conroy: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
$1,023 was spent on replacing one iPhone for a staff member in the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Department of Defence: Ministerial Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1210)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on Monday, 17 August 2015:
2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
No equipment of Ministerial Staff was reported as lost, stolen or misplaced in
2014-15. As such, there were no costs incurred by the Department of Defence in relation to the replacement of this equipment.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental Staff Domestic and International Travel
(Question No. 1222)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on: (a) domestic travel; and (b) international travel, for departmental staff.
(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel; (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel; and (c) for what purpose was the travel.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The total cost of the Department's travel for financial year 2014-15 was:
(a) domestic $11,033,987 (GST exclusive); and
(b) international $867,518 (GST exclusive).
(2) Details of international travel for the Ministers are provided at Attachment A. The Department does not record travel data in a way that enables such data to be identified for domestic travel. To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
The Hon Tony Abbott MP
Date |
Location |
Purpose of Trip |
Number of Departmental Staff accompanying the Prime Minister |
2014 |
|||
30 Jul to 1 Aug |
Palau |
Pacific Islands Forum |
2 |
10-14 Aug |
Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Netherlands and United Kingdom |
Response to MH17 Tragedy |
4 |
3-7 Sept |
India and Malaysia |
Bilateral visit |
6 |
23-28 Sep |
United States |
United Nations General Assembly |
5 |
19-21 Oct |
Papua New Guinea and Indonesia |
Bilateral visit to Papua New Guinea and Inauguration of Indonesian President |
6 |
9-14 Nov |
China and Burma |
APEC Leaders Meeting and EAS |
7 |
2015 |
|||
3-7 Jan |
United Arab Emirates and Iraq |
Bilateral visit |
4 |
27-28 Feb |
New Zealand |
Annual Leaders Talks |
5 |
29-30 Mar |
Singapore |
Funeral of former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew |
3 |
19-20 Apr |
New Zealand |
Dedication of Australian Memorial |
4 |
21-28 Apr |
Turkey and France |
100th Anniversary of Gallipoli Landings and Bilateral visit to France |
7 |
27-30 Jun |
Singapore |
Bilateral Visit |
5 |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash (as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women)
Date |
Location |
Purpose of Trip |
Number of Departmental Staff accompanying the Minister |
2015 |
|||
6-17 March |
United States |
59th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, participate in International Women's Day events and to conduct bilateral meetings. |
2 |
24-25 April |
Thailand |
ANZAC day ceremony at Hellfire Pass. |
Nil. |
The Hon Christian Porter MP
Date |
Location |
Purpose of Trip |
Number of Departmental Staff accompanying the Minister |
2015 |
|||
23-25 April |
Papua New Guinea |
To attend ANZAC day commemorations |
Nil. |
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Departmental Staff Domestic and International Travel
(Question No. 1224)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff.
(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was the travel.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The department's staff spent $33.7 million on travel costs during the 2014-15 financial year. The department does not record travel data in a way that would readily allow all travel to be separately captured as domestic and international. To provide such details in this format would entail a significant diversion of resources and in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
The amount spent in 2014-15 was considerably less than the $41.74 million spent by DFAT and AusAID in 2012-13.
(2) These details were provided in the response to Budget Estimates Question on Notice 33.
Attorney-General's Department: Departmental Staff Domestic and International Travel
(Question No. 1226)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff. (2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was the travel.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The total costs for departmental staff travel are provided in the table below.
Agency |
Total Cost |
(a) Domestic staff Travel |
$3,272,180.10 |
(b) International staff travel |
$974,194.31 |
Attorney-General's Department total |
$4,246,374.41 |
(2) The Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, has undertaken five (5) official overseas ministerial visits.
(a) Date and Location |
(b) number of Departmental staff |
Purpose of travel |
July 2014 London |
2 |
Attend Quintet Meeting of Attorneys General and meet with counterpart Attorneys-General |
February 2015 London |
2 |
Attend Five Country Ministerial (FCM) Meeting and meet with ministerial counterparts from the US, Canada, UK and New Zealand |
February 2015 Washington |
2
|
Attend the White House CVE Summit and meet with relevant key counterparts in relation to national security, counter terrorism and intelligence |
April 2015 London |
Nil |
Attend Anzac Day Centenary events on behalf of the Australian Government |
May 2015 Venice & Rome |
1 |
Open the new Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale and meet with relevant key counterparts in Rome in relation to culture and the arts; national security and countering violent extremism; people smuggling; and anti-corruption. |
The Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, has undertaken Four (4) official overseas ministerial visits.
(a) Date and Location |
(b) number of Departmental staff |
Purpose of travel |
August 2014 Jakarta, Semarang & Denpasar |
2 |
Meet with relevant Indonesian ministerial and key counterparts in Jakarta, Semarang and Denpasar, and attend 10th Anniversary of the joint Australian-Indonesian Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC) in Semarang |
November 2014 Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Monte Carlo, London, The Hague, Amsterdam, Kiev, Ankara
|
1 |
Lead Australian delegation to the Ministerial Meeting to open the 83rd Annual INTERPOL General Assembly in Monaco and to meet with relevant ministerial counterparts in each country to discuss issues in relation to law enforcement, cooperation and capability development, national security, and combating transnational and organised crime. |
December 2014 Port Moresby |
Nil |
Attend Australia-Papua New Guinea Ministerial Forum (APNGMF)
|
March 2015 Tokyo, Hong Kong
|
2 |
Lead the Australian delegation to the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (3WCDRR) hosted by the United Nations and the Government of Japan and meet with relevant counterparts in attendance at the event. Meet with Hong Kong counterparts to discuss transnational crime, law enforcement cooperation and anti-corruption |
Federal Departments: Minister and Ministerial Staff Domestic and International Travel Costs
(Question No. 1240-1241, 1243, 1245-1247, 1249-1256, 1258, 1260-1263, 1265-1266, 1268-1271, and 1273)
Mr Conroy asked the Ministers listed below, in writing, on 17 August 2015 and 12 October 2015:
(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for the (i) Minister, and (ii) Minister's staff.(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (b) how many Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was the travel.
1240 Prime Minister.
1241 Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
1243 Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.
1245 Minister for Foreign Affairs.
1246 Minister for Trade and Investment.
1247 Minister representing the Minister for Employment.
1249 Minister representing the Attorney-General.
1250 Minister representing the Minister for the Arts.
1251 Minister for Justice.
1252 Treasurer.
1253 Minister for Small Business.
1254 Assistant Treasurer.
1255 Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
1256 Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training.
1258 Minister for Social Services.
1260 Minister for Human Services.
1261 Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science.
1262 Minister representing the Minister for Defence.
1263 Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
1265 Minister representing the Minister for Communications.
1266 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
1268 Minister for the Environment.
1269 Minister representing the Minister for Finance.
1270 Special Minister of State.
1271 Minister for Health.
1273 Minister for Sport.
Mr Brough: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Details of expenditure for costs related to official travel paid by the Department are published every six months in the report Parliamentarians' Expenditure on Entitlements paid by the Department of Finance. The six monthly report for 1 July to 31 December 2014 is available at: finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/parliamentarians-expenditure-P35/. The report for 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2015 will be available December 2015. To provide this information in an alternative format would be a significant diversion of the department's resources.
To provide the sum spent on Ministerial staff travel and details of how many staff accompanied the Minister on the travel would be a significant diversion of the department's resources.
The purpose for domestic travel is not known by the Department of Finance.
Department of Defence: Ministerial Staff Training
(Question No. 1314)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, (a) what sum was spent on training for Ministerial staff, (b) on what date(s), and at what location(s), did the training occur, and (c) what outcomes were achieved.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In 2014-15, Defence did not incur any costs associated with training for Ministerial staff.
Special Minister of State: Ministerial Staff Training
(Question No. 1322)
Mr Conroy asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, (a) what sum was spent on training for Ministerial staff, (b) on what date(s), and at what location(s), did the training occur, and (c) what outcomes were achieved.
Mr Brough: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For the former Special Minister of State:
(a) $1,000 (ex GST).
(b) and (c)
Date |
Location |
Outcome |
20 January 2015 |
Brisbane |
Skills to support employees through coaching, mentoring and effective performance management. |
27 October 2014 |
Canberra |
Leadership development. |
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Ministerial Media Events
(Question No. 1349)
Mr Conroy: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs holds many media engagements while prosecuting Australia's interests, both in Australia and when representing Australia overseas. To provide further details would entail a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Department Conferences
(Question No. 1380)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
DFAT hosts many conferences, meetings, functions, gatherings and events to advance Australia's foreign, trade and development interests, both in Australia and at Australian Government Posts. To provide further details would entail a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Attorney-General's Department: Department Conferences
(Question No. 1382)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015
Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
2014 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the 2014 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery on 14 July 2014 at Parliament House, Canberra.
(b) The total sum spent on the Roundtable was $8,421.65 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—catering $2,920.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) The 2014 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery provided an important consultative mechanism between government, NGOs, business and industry, and unions, with a focus on emerging issues relating to human trafficking and slavery in Australia and beyond. Outcomes from the meeting included the announcement of almost $500,000 in funding for projects to prevent and address forced marriage and a new $2 million project to combat the exploitation of female migrant workers in South East Asia. Attendees discussed priorities for the future of Australia's strategy to combat human trafficking and slavery and were consulted on a preliminary draft of the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19.
Security In Government conference
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the 26th Security in Government (SIG) conference on 1-3 September 2014 at the National Convention Centre in Canberra.
(b) Total expenditure for SIG was $595,454.00 (inc GST). Registration fees and sponsorship fully offset the cost.
(i) Meals and accommodation—3 international and 10 domestic speakers $7,964 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—3 international and 10 domestic speakers $34,241 (inc GST)
(iii) Social events—Conference Dinner at Parliament House (for 400 attendees) $77,012 (inc GST)
c) The conference was attended by approximately 449 delegates. It is the marquee security event for the Australian Government. The conference enabled delegates to engage with public and private sector security experts from a diverse range of fields. The attached trade exhibition featured over 80 security-related service providers who work closely with both the government and private sector to provide cutting-edge solutions to protective security issues.
National Child Protection and Family Law Collaboration Meeting
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted a National Child Protection and Family Law Collaboration Meeting on 12 November 2014 at 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT.
(b) The total sum spent on the meeting was $1,749.28 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—lunch costs $788.40 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) This meeting involved Department of Social Services, the Family Law Courts, State and Territory legal aid commissions and child protection departments and academics. The key outcome from the meeting was the sharing of initiatives in jurisdictions to improve the interface between the family law and child protection systems.
Commonwealth Fraud Liaison Forum
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the Commonwealth Fraud Liaison Forum on 20 November 2014 at the Australian Taxation Office, 26 Narellan St, Canberra.
(b) The total sum spent on the Fraud Liaison Forum was $4,491.67 (ex GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—catering $4,200.00 (ex GST)
(ii) Travel—guest speaker $291.67 (ex GST)
(iii) Social events—Nil
c) The Forum provided information on key Commonwealth fraud control topics and issues to approximately 200 delegates from over 50 Commonwealth agencies. The topics included the new Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework, the AFP Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre, Public Interest Disclosure Act, ID security and insider threats. The Forum also facilitated sharing of information and best practice on fraud control activities between fraud control officers from across the Commonwealth.
Attorney-General's Department fourth International Law Colloquium
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted its fourth International Law Colloquium on 28 November 2014 at 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT.
(b) The total sum spent on the colloquium was $5,476.81 (ex GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation – catering $2,319.54 (ex GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events - for drinks reception following the Colloquium $540.00 (ex GST)
(c) The Colloquium brought together leading international lawyers from the Australian Government, academia and private practice to discuss emerging and cross-cutting international law issues and forecast trends ahead. It draws on the experience and research expertise of Australia's international law community and strengthens existing relationships by enabling more open and detailed discussions than are generally possible at larger conferences.
2014 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery Officials Meeting
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the 2014 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery Officials Meeting on 2 December 2014 at 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT.
(b) The total sum spent on the officials meeting was $2,823.00 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation $756.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) The Senior Officials' Meeting is held to supplement the ministerial-level National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery. The 2014 Senior Officials' Meeting featured presentations on current issues and Government representatives provided attendees with updates on key policy issues, including the Human Trafficking Visa Framework review and the work of the Communication and Awareness and Supply Chains Working Groups.
Non-Government Organisation (NGO) Human Rights Forum
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the NGO Human Rights Forum on 10 December 2014 at the Australian Human Rights Commission, Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney.
(b) The total sum spent on the forum was $5,177.66 (ex GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation - catering, accommodation and meals $2,904.35 (ex GST)
(ii) Travel $1,873.31 (ex GST)
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) The NGO Human Rights Forum is an annual consultative forum between the Australian Government and peak NGO bodies in the human rights space. The Forum is an opportunity for the Government to engage in discussion with civil society concerning human rights issues. The 2014 Forum focused on Australia's international human rights reporting obligations, including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and other international conventions such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The 2014 Forum was attended by 27 NGOs representing a wide range of interests. These NGOs engaged constructively in discussion of human rights issues, and had the opportunity to comment on an early stage draft of Australia's UPR report and receive an update on Australia's reporting to a number of UN human rights committees.
Bali Process Regional Symposium on Trafficking for the Purposes of Labour Exploitation
(a) The Attorney-General's Department co-chaired a Bali Process Regional Symposium on Trafficking for the Purposes of Labour Exploitation with Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from 25‑26 March 2015 at the Royal Orchid Sheraton and Towers in Bangkok, Thailand.
(b) The total sum that was spent on the symposium was $85,467.57 (ex GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation for AGD staff, AGD-funded delegates, and speakers $20,768.45 (ex GST)
(ii) Travel—Flights for AGD staff, AGD-funded delegates and speakers, and local transport costs $48,732.91 (ex GST)
(iii) Social events—Official dinner at the Royal Orchid Sheraton & Towers (included in conference package $11,164.44 (ex GST)
(c) The symposium fulfilled an outcome from the 2 April 2013 Bali Process Ministerial Conference. It was the first event hosted by a new Bali Process Working Group on Trafficking in Persons, also established as an outcome from the 2013 Ministerial Conference.
The symposium enabled AGD to promote international standards on and best practice responses to trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling. Presentations included an overview of relevant international standards in responding to trafficking in persons, including UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, the Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, and the Protocol on Migrant Smuggling, in recognition that smuggled migrants are more vulnerable to being trafficked.
Key issues raised at the symposium informed the Forward Work Plan for 2015-17 of the Working Group on Trafficking in Persons. Participants at the symposium identified key issues in responding to trafficking in persons for further consideration, which were examined at the first meeting of the Working Group on Trafficking in Persons on 27 March 2015. Items that respond to the key issues identified were incorporated into the group's work plan.
Constitutional Law Symposium
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted a Constitutional Law Symposium on 1 May 2015 at 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT.
(b) The total sum spent on the symposium was $4,140.00 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—morning tea and lunch $1,275.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—post conference food and drinks $811.00 (inc GST)
(c) The Symposium brought together leading constitutional lawyers, academics, policy makers and commentators to discuss topical federal and constitutional issues. The Symposium helps the Department to give the best possible advice to the Government in relation to the development of law and policy, particularly on constitutional issues. Topics discussed were:
recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution
the federal balance and the white papers on reform of the federation and Australia's tax system and
counter-terrorism and border security.
Critical Infrastructure Resilience (CIR) Conference
(a) The 5th CIR conference was held at the Pullman Sydney Hyde Park, from 21-22 May 2015.
(b) Total expenditure for the CIR 2015 conference was $43,049 (inc GST). This was fully offset by registration fees.
(i) Meals and accommodation –11 interstate speakers and conference catering $26,237.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—including transfers for 11 interstate speakers $4,962.00 (inc GST)
(iii) Social events—Reception held at the conclusion of conference day one $3,360.00 (inc GST)
(c) This annual event is a key initiative of the Australian Government's CIR Strategy. It brings together stakeholders across private sector, government and academia, to increase understanding and awareness of strategic issues and trends; and their impact on the operating environment of critical infrastructure. The Australian Government's new CIR Strategy was also launched by the Attorney-General at the conference. The conference attracted approximately 100 delegates.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Symposium
(a) The Attorney-General's Department co-hosted a UNCITRAL Symposium with UNCITRAL Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific and the United Nations Coordination Committee for Australia on 29 May 2015 at 4 National Circuit Barton, ACT.
(b) The total sum spent on the symposium was $1,083.00 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—catering for attendees $611.50 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) The Symposium showcased the work that the UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for Australia (UNCCA) has done since 2013 to assist in the development of international commercial law through attendance and contributions at UNCITRAL Working Group meetings. UNCITRAL's six Working Groups aim to formulate modern, fair, and harmonized rules on commercial transactions, specifically in relation to small and micro business, arbitration and conciliation, electronic commerce, insolvency, security interests and online dispute resolution. The event was attended by international guests including Joao Ribeiro from the UNCITRAL Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific, and esteemed Australian legal practitioners including Chief Justice Allsop of the Federal Court.
Australia's Regional Summit to Counter Violent Extremism
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted Australia's Regional Summit to Counter Violent Extremism on 11-12 June 2015 at Pier One and Shangri-La Hotel, Sydney.
(b) The total sum spent on the summit was $540,000.00 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—Conference package including all catering; accommodation for some international and domestic delegates $165,350.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel $95,600 (inc GST)
(iii) Social events—Official welcome reception at the Sydney Opera House $48,800.00 (inc GST)
( c) The Summit provided regional governments, industry and civil society organisations the opportunity to discuss the spread of terrorist propaganda and to agree concrete actions to respond to this challenge. In addition to the formal Summit program, the Australian Government delivered a number of practical capacity building workshops including to build the capacity of regional government practitioners and civil society organisations to more effectively challenge terrorist propaganda using social media. The five official Summit outcomes are set out in the attached Official Statement.
Annual Australian Government Legal Network (AGLN) Conference
(a) The Attorney-General's Department supported the Second Annual AGLN Conference on 19 June 2015 at Hotel Realm, Canberra.
(b) The total sum spent on the conference was $61,701.26 (inc GST). $59,850.00 (inc GST) was offset by registration fees.
(i) Meals and accommodation—accommodation for speakers $398.00 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Flights, petrol and taxi fees for conference speakers $3,781.43 (inc GST)
(iii) Social events—additional catering for networking session $1,786.00 (inc GST)
(c) This is a forum for government lawyers to discuss strategic issues for Commonwealth lawyers. The topic of the conference was 'facing the future together.' The keynote session focussed on the topic 'the future for the delivery of in-house government legal services'. Other topics discussed at the conference included:
mental health in our workplace and the challenge of disclosure
current issues in constitutional law
inquiries and royal commissions and
public interest disclosure.
2015 Financial Action Taskforce Plenary and Working Group meetings
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the 2015 Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) Plenary and Working Group meetings from 21-26 June 2015 at the Sofitel Central, 249 Turbot Street, Brisbane.
(b) The total sum spent on the plenary and working group meetings was $512,591.94 (ex GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—catering for six days, accommodation for event staff and translators $210,157.63 (ex GST)
(ii) Travel—travel for event staff, interpreters and two planning visits $8,242.52 (ex GST)
(iii) Social events—Steering Committee Dinner, Heads of Delegation Dinner, Welcome Reception and President's dinner $69,337.37 (ex GST)
(c) The June 2015 Plenary and Working Group meetings were hosted by Australia as the outgoing President of the FATF. The meetings were attended by over 500 international delegates representing the more than 180 member jurisdictions comprising the FATF global network. Five Working Group meetings were held over three days to progress detailed discussion on a wide range of issues, while the Plenary met over three days to debate and decide a long list of agenda items. Notable outcomes included: the issuing of two public documents identifying jurisdictions that may pose a risk to the integrity of the international financial system; the in-depth consideration and adoption of the mutual evaluation report of Malaysia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime; the issuing of a statement on situations where financial institutions terminate or restrict business relationships with categories of customer (so-called "de-risking"), clarifying the proper application of the FATF Recommendations when establishing correspondent banking relationships; continued work on terrorist financing and the threats posed by ISIL and foreign terrorist fighters; and adopting and publishing papers on combatting the abuse of non-profit organisations, the risk-based approach to virtual currencies, and a typologies paper on the money laundering and terrorism financing risks and vulnerabilities associated with gold.
2015 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery
(a) The Attorney-General's Department hosted the 2015 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery on 22 June 2015 at Parliament House, Canberra.
(b) The total sum spent on the Roundtable was $8,666.13 (inc GST).
(i) Meals and accommodation—catering $3,122.50 (inc GST)
(ii) Travel—Nil
(iii) Social events—Nil
(c) The 2015 National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery provided an important consultative mechanism between government, NGOs, business and industry, and unions. Outcomes from the meeting included the announcement of extended access to the Adult Migrant English Program for trafficked people on temporary visas as well as the waiving of the Newly Arrived Residents Waiting Period for trafficked people on permanent visas. Attendees also had the opportunity to provide initial feedback on the draft third edition of the Guidelines for NGOs: Working with trafficked people and discussed key aspects of Australia's strategy to combat human trafficking and slavery, including reforms to the Human Trafficking Visa Framework and mechanisms to address labour exploitation.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Ministerial Conferences
(Question No. 1401)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs hosts many conferences, roundtables, events, functions and gatherings while promoting Australia's interests, both in Australia and when representing Australia overseas. To provide further details would entail a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Attorney-General's Department: Ministerial Conferences
(Question No. 1405)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015
Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
No.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Departmental Hospitality
(Question No. 1432)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) For 2014-15, the total amount spent by the Department on catering and hospitality was $5,379,693. The bulk of this was expenditure by Heads of Mission and other DFAT officers at overseas posts as part of their engagement with host government officials and key stakeholders.
Overseas posts also provide hospitality for visiting Government and Opposition Members of Parliament.
(b) Details of specific catering and hospitality functions are maintained on individual files across the Department's domestic and overseas network. To provide these details would entail a significant diversion of resources and, in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
(c) Refer to (b).
(d) Refer to (b).
Attorney-General's Department: Departmental Hospitality
(Question No. 1434)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Expenditure on catering and hospitality is recorded in various accounts within the department's financial system depending on the circumstances in which the expenditure is incurred. For example catering associated with training may be coded to training, or venue hire if an external venue is used. In addition, catering/hospitality provided to official visitors may be coded to meeting costs. As this information is not centrally recorded, to attempt to provide a full and complete response in the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.
The department does maintain one central account that records most of its hospitality expenditure. For the 2014-15 financial year, expenditure totalling $104,823.27 has been recorded against the department's hospitality expense account in its financial system. This amount includes $38,545.45 associated with the hosting of the Financial Action Taskforce meeting in Australia.
The Department manages hospitality expenditure in accordance with obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Department of Health: Departmental Hospitality
(Question No. 1447)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
A list of all functions at which hospitality costs were incurred in 2014-15 is below. Corporate systems do not split out hospitality staff costs. These are included, where applicable, under other costs.
Department of Health
Date |
Location |
Purpose |
Total cost (GST excl.) |
Meals (GST excl.) |
Drinks (GST excl.) |
Other (GST excl.) |
1-Jul-14 |
Department of Health, Canberra |
Farewell of Secretary |
$232 |
$181 |
$51 |
$0.00
|
18-Jul-14 |
National Press Club, Canberra |
National Press Club - 2014 International AIDS Forum |
$659 |
$659 |
$0 |
$0 |
23-Jul-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$3,176 |
$1,045 |
$0 |
$2,131 |
20-Aug-14 |
National Press Club, Canberra |
National Press Club - Social Determinants of Health forum |
$293 |
$293 |
$0 |
$0 |
21-Aug-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$3,357 |
$995 |
$0 |
$2,362
|
5-Sept-14 |
Park Royal, Melbourne |
Specialist Orthopaedic Clinical Advisory Group (SOCAG) Working Dinner |
$2,256 |
$1,150 |
$0 |
$1,106 |
8-Sept-14 |
Sheraton on the Park, Sydney |
Ophthalmic Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (OPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,799 |
$611 |
$40
|
$1,148 |
12-Sept-14 |
Novotel, Brisbane |
Spinal Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (SPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,239 |
$500 |
$100
|
$639 |
23-Sep-14 |
Konoba Restaurant, Canberra |
Official dinner for the Gene Technology technical advisory committee (GTTAC) |
$897 |
$897 |
$0 |
$0 |
9-Oct-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,216 |
$627 |
$0 |
$1,589
|
31-Oct-14 |
Hotel Realm, Canberra |
Expand Awards conference and dinner |
$3,386 |
$3386 |
$0 |
$0 |
31-Oct-14 |
Novotel Brisbane |
Spinal Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (SPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,241 |
$500 |
$100
|
$641 |
3-Nov-14 |
Sheraton on the Park, Sydney |
Ophthalmic Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (OPCAG) Working Dinner |
$2,050 |
$727 |
$0 |
$1,323 |
12-Nov-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,563 |
$628 |
$0 |
$1,935 |
17-Nov-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Vascular Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (VPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,175 |
$532 |
$0 |
$643 |
10-Dec-14 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,928 |
$682 |
$0 |
$2,246 |
10-Dec-14 |
Bellucis, Canberra |
Meeting with the Secretary & other Executive |
$96 |
$79 |
$17 |
$0 |
12-Dec-14 |
The Hotel Windsor, Melbourne |
lunch for Independent Medical Research Institutes (iMRI) meeting |
$397 |
$393 |
$0 |
$4 |
12-Dec-14 |
Bellucis, Canberra |
Meeting with head of Asian Cup organising committee |
$96 |
$79 |
$17 |
$0 |
20-Jan-15 |
Department of Health, Canberra |
Purchase for minor ad hoc hospitality events |
$159 |
$0 |
$159 |
$0 |
29-Jan-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,983 |
$600 |
$0 |
$2,383 |
12-Feb-15 |
Hyatt Hotel, Canberra |
Dinner with Director General NSW Health |
$135 |
$75 |
$60 |
$0 |
3-Mar-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Official dinner for Secretary's meeting with Health CEOs |
$445 |
$445 |
$0 |
$0 |
12-Mar-15 |
Pendolino, Sydney |
Farewell dinner for Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Chair |
$2,929 |
$2,230 |
$416 |
$283 |
16-Mar-15 |
Swissotel, Sydney |
Ophthalmic Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (OPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,237 |
$548 |
$0 |
$689 |
19-Mar-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$1,396 |
$950 |
$0 |
$446 |
20-Mar-15 |
Novotel, Brisbane |
Spinal Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (SPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,564 |
$528 |
$100
|
$936 |
24-Mar-15 |
Royal Botanic Gardens - Sydney |
Participation in the Amazing Race Botanic Gardens Course – team building activity after staff planning meeting |
$1,820 |
$0 |
$0 |
$1,820 |
7-Apr-15 |
Ottoman Cuisine, Canberra |
Dinner for Chinese delegation led by Vice Minister for Health |
$1,188 |
$827 |
$361 |
$0 |
7-Apr-15 |
Lilotang Restaurant, Canberra |
Official dinner for the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC) |
$1,198 |
$1,198 |
$0 |
$0 |
13-Apr-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Vascular Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (VPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,746 |
$650 |
$0 |
$1,096 |
15-Apr-15 |
National Press Club, Canberra |
Staff attendance at the address by the CEO, National Health & Medical Research Council |
$220 |
$220 |
$0 |
$0 |
17-Apr-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,954 |
$1,050 |
$0 |
$1,904 |
24-Apr-15 |
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra |
National Stakeholder engagement and Networking event – a part of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) forum |
$7,697 |
$5,435 |
$2,021 |
$241(wine bottles for guest speakers) |
5-May-15 |
The Chairman & Yip, Canberra |
Farewell dinner for Chair, Audit Committee |
$800 |
$800 |
unknown |
unknown |
8-May-15 |
Novotel, Melbourne |
Spinal Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (SPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,621 |
$709 |
$0 |
$912 |
8-May-15 |
D'Browes Restaurant, Canberra |
Lunch for Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom. |
$204 |
$137 |
$62 |
$5 |
20-May-15 |
Palais des Nations (UN Building), Geneva, Switzerland |
Australian reception for Member States of the Western Pacific Region of the World Health Organization |
$2,393
|
$1,157
|
$1028
|
$208 (for Security) |
25-May-15 |
Swissotel, Sydney |
Ophthalmic Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (OPCAG) Working Dinner – this meeting was cancelled however due to short notice, the Dept. was charged 100% of the cost. |
$912 |
$727 |
$0 |
$185 |
11-June-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) Working buffet dinner |
$2,870 |
$900 |
$0 |
$1,970 |
17-June-15 |
Stamford Plaza, Sydney |
Vascular Protheses Clinical Advisory Group (VPCAG) Working Dinner |
$1,686 |
$473 |
$0 |
$1,213 |
17-June-15 |
Turkish Pide House, Canberra |
Lunch for Review Panel Committee meeting |
$91 |
$91 |
$0 |
$0 |
19-Jun-15 |
OGTR office, Canberra |
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) awards |
$240 |
$0 |
$127 |
$113 (Decorations & Cake) |
25-Jun-15 |
Department of Health, Canberra |
Divisional Rewards and Recognition |
$1,698 |
$687 |
$264 |
$747 |
Trade and Investment: Ministerial Hospitality
(Question No. 1454)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Trade and Investment, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Mr Robb: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Hospitality and attending and hosting functions form an essential part of overseas visits by Ministers. These services are managed by all areas across the Department including Australian Government Posts. To provide further details would entail a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Attorney-General's Department: Ministerial Hospitality
(Question No. 1457)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The table below provides details of the (a) costs, (b) purpose, and (c) dates for catering and hospitality paid for by the Attorney-General's Department in 2014-15:
Cost |
Purpose |
Dates |
$60 |
Briefing to the Attorney-General on the Foreign Fighters Legislation from AGD, AFP and security services representatives |
10/09/2014 |
$1,394 |
Working lunch with NZ AG and bilateral discussions relating to national security |
15/10/2014 |
$452 |
Working lunch with Indian Attorney-General and members of the Indian Supreme Court |
04/03/2015 |
$99 |
Working lunch on Constitutional Recognition |
15/04/2015 |
(d) It is not possible to provide a breakdown of spending on meals, drinks, hospitality staff and other costs as this information is not captured in the department's financial information system.
Sale of Bulimba Barracks
(Question No. 1487)
Ms Butler asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 20 August 2015:
Will the Minister support an Australian Government contribution, in the amount of 10 per cent of the sale price of the Bulimba Barracks site, to the Brisbane City Council to defray infrastructure costs incurred as a consequence of the development of this site.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
No. Proceeds from the sale of surplus Defence property will be reinvested in support of the Australian Defence Force.
OneSKY Project
(Question No. 1490)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 7 September 2015:
(1) Will he consider putting the OneSky project on hold until Australian airspace is upgraded sufficiently to enable the OneSky system to be used effectively.
(2) Will he support the introduction of National Airspace System (NAS) reforms, based on the North American airspace system where all aircraft flying in cloud are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace.
(3) Will he discuss with Airservices Australia, moving ahead with the NAS policy of increasing controlled airspace for instrument flight rule aircraft when in cloud.
(4) What is he doing to mitigate concerns that Airservices Australia is using 'commercial in confidence' to avoid disclosing information.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) OneSKY is a flexible air traffic management system, designed to adapt to current and future Australian airspace architecture.
(2) and (3) The Australian Government's Airspace Policy Statement provides for the adoption of proven international airspace systems, including the United States NAS, to be considered and implemented as appropriate for our conditions and level of traffic in Australia. Airspace classification and air traffic services requirements are determined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the aviation safety regulator, after undertaking a detailed risk assessment. All passenger flights in Australia are supported by continuous air traffic services throughout their entire flight.
(4) Airservices Australia is required to meet a range of legislative and parliamentary accountability requirements. I am unable to comment further without supporting information on the derivation of the concerns.
Learning Potential app
(Question No. 1495)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 7 September 2015:
In respect of the Learning Potential app, (a) what is the cost of all activities associated with the product, including (i) research and development, (ii) advertising, and (iii) ongoing maintenance, and (b) how many times has the app been downloaded as at Monday 7 September 2015.
Mr Hartsuyker: The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Learning Potential app was developed as part of the government's Parent Engagement campaign to support parents to get more involved in their children's education. A total of $5,267,000 has been committed to cover the cost of all activities associated with the campaign.
This includes: $609,059 for market research; $399,791 for app development; and $3,495,000 for media advertising.
As at Monday 7 September 2015 the Learning Potential app had been downloaded 83,018 times. Of the 83,018 downloads, there were 22,796 Google Play installs for Android and 60,222 App Store downloads for IOS (iPhone). As at Wednesday 2 September 2015 Learning Potential was the number one free education app and highly popular online.
Australian Government: Torres Strait Communities Visit
(Question No. 1513)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 7 September 2015:
In respect of the Australian Government contingent that visited Torres Strait communities in Far North Queensland in August 2015, (a) what are the (i) names, and (ii) roles, of each person who attended with her, (b) can the full itinerary of activities involving her be provided, and (c) what was the total cost to her department including (i) flights, (ii) accommodation, (iii) ground transport, (iv) meals, and (v) miscellaneous expenses.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Health does not hold this information.
Investiture Photography: Tenders
(Question No. 1523)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 9 September 2015:
In respect of tenders from 7 September 2013 to 9 September 2015 for 'Investiture Photography' for the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, (a) what services were provided, on what dates, and for what official purpose(s); and (b) are the investiture photographs publicly available; if so, from where.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) A photographer was engaged to take photographs at investiture ceremonies held at Government House of each recipient receiving their award, a group photograph of all recipients and candid photography afterwards at the reception.
The dates of the investiture ceremonies were:
Two ceremonies (morning and afternoon) 12 September 2013
One ceremony (morning) 13 September 2013
Two ceremonies (morning and afternoon) 2 May 2014
Two ceremonies (morning and afternoon) 19 September 2014
Two ceremonies (morning and afternoon) 17 April 2015
The Governor-General, as the Chancellor of the Order of Australia and
Her Majesty's representative in Australia, is fulfilling a ceremonial role in conducting the investiture of awards within the Australian honours system.
Award recipients are provided with an individual photograph free of charge as a memento.
(b) Additional investiture photographs can be viewed and purchased from www.idphoto.com.au after each investiture. Media are also invited to attend each investiture ceremony.
Attorney-General: Office Alterations
(Question No. 1532)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 15 September 2015
In respect of the $15,119.50 tender for office alterations (CN3290566), (a) what is the (i) scale, and (ii) the scope, of works to be provided, and (b) to what office location(s) does the work relate.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) (i) Minor changes in office accommodation to house a new configuration of staff following the establishment of a team to implement a new priority of government.
(ii) The scope of work included workspace partitioning and alterations and power and data connections.
(b) 3-5 National Circuit, Barton.
Attorney-General: Furniture
(Question No. 1533)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 15 September 2015
In respect of the $18,529.50 tender for furniture (CN3290565), (a) what furniture is to be provided, and (b) in what office(s) will the furniture be located.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) The furniture acquired under this tender was cupboards, desks and shelving.
(b) The furniture is located at 3–5 and 4 National Circuit, Barton.
Swell Design Group Pty Ltd
(Question No. 1541)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2015:
In respect of the $58,415.50 tender to Swell Design Group Pty Ltd for 'Provision of Promotional or Advertising Printing' (CN3290691), (a) which services/products were provided, (b) how many of these units were supplied, and (c) to which policy(s) or initiative(s) does this tender relate.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) and (b) Swell Design Group Pty Ltd was contracted to develop guidance for the branding and design of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade communications material, including publications, correspondence, banners, and internet and intranet pages.
(c) The development of guidance material is part of an initiative to create a single, consistent and professional brand and design for the Department and to improve efficiencies in the production of communications materials for the public.
Australian Hearing
(Question No. 1550)
Mr Champion asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 September 2015:
What locations are currently serviced by Australian Hearing via (a) permanent offices, (b) non-permanent offices, and (c) Australian Hearing's outreach program.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
As at 17 September 2015, Australian Hearing has a total of 138 permanent offices and 407 non-permanent (visiting) offices. It also visited 231 outreach sites in 2014/15.
A non-permanent visiting site is a site without permanent staff that is visited by Australian Hearing staff on a regular basis. These sites are usually, but not always, located in a regional area.
An outreach office is a site that provides services to Indigenous Australians and can be in an urban, regional or remote location.
A further breakdown of the locations of these sites as provided by Australian Hearing is as follows:
(a) Australian Hearing has 138 permanent offices:
Australian Capital Territory |
|
|
Canberra |
New South Wales |
|
|
Albury, Ballina, Bankstown, Batemans Bay, Belmont, Blacktown, Bowral, Broken Hill, Campbelltown, Campsie, Cessnock, Chatswood, Coffs Harbour, Dee Why, Dubbo, East Maitland, Erina, Gosford, Grafton, Hornsby, Hurstville, Lake Haven, Laurieton, Lismore, Liverpool, Macquarie University, Maitland, Maroubra Junction, Miranda, Newcastle, Nowra, Orange, Parramatta, Penrith, Port Macquarie, Salamander Bay, Shellharbour, Springwood, Sydney, Tamworth, Taree, Toronto, Toukley, Tweed Heads, Wagga Wagga, Wallsend, Wollongong, Woy Woy |
Northern Territory |
|
|
Alice Springs, Darwin |
Queensland |
|
|
Aspley, Atherton, Beenleigh, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Caboolture, Cairns, Caloundra, Cleveland, Gladstone, Hervey Bay, Ipswich, Logan Central, Mackay, Maroochydore, Maryborough, Mount Gravatt, Noosaville, Palm Beach, Redcliffe, Robina, Rockhampton, Sherwood, Southport, Toowoomba, Townsville, Wynnum |
South Australia |
|
|
Adelaide, Christies Beach, Elizabeth, Marion, Modbury, Mount Gambier, Victor Harbor, Woodville |
Tasmania |
|
|
Bellerive, Burnie, Devonport, Glenorchy, Hobart, Kingston, Launceston |
Victoria |
|
|
Ballarat, Bell Post Hill, Belmont, Bendigo, Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Caulfield, Cheltenham, Colac, Cranbourne, Croydon, Dandenong, Drysdale, Epping, Forest Hill, Frankston, Geelong, Greensborough, Hamilton, Horsham, Knox, Lilydale, Melbourne, Melton West, Mildura, Moonee Ponds, Morwell, Pakenham, Reservoir, Rosebud, Shepparton, Sunbury, Sunshine, Wangaratta, Warragul, Warrnambool, Werribee, Wonthaggi |
Western Australia |
|
|
Bunbury, Cannington, Fremantle, Karrinyup, Mandurah, Morley, Perth |
(b) Australian Hearing has 407 non-permanent (visiting) sites:
Australian Capital Territory |
|
|
Tuggeranong, Belconnen, Gungahlin, Woden |
New South Wales |
|
|
Albion Park, Armidale, Balgowlah, Banora Point, Bathurst, Bega, Blackheath, Bondi Junction, Bonnells Bay, Boolaroo, Burwood, Cabramatta, Camden, Cardiff, Caringbah, Carnes Hill, Casino, Castle Hill, Castle Hill, Charlestown, Chester Hill, Cooma, Coonabarabran, Cootamundra, Corowa, Corrimal, Cowra, Cronulla, Culburra Beach , Culcairn, Dapto, Dareton, Deniliquin, Dural, Earlwood, Eastgardens, Eastwood, Edensor Park, Engadine, Epping, Fairfield Heights, Forbes, Frenchs Forest, Gladesville, Glen Innes, Goonellabah, Goulburn, Granville, Griffith, Gunnedah, Hamilton, Ingleburn, Inverell, Katoomba, Kempsey, Kiama, Killarney Vale, Kincumber, Kingsgrove, Kyogle, Lambton, Lithgow, Marayong, Marrickville, Mayfield, Medowie, Merrylands, Milton, Mona Vale, Moree, Morisset, Moruya, Mosman, Mount Druitt, Mudgee, Mullumbimby, Murwillumbah, Muswellbrook, Nambucca Heads, Narellan, Narooma, Narrabeen, Narrabri, Narrandera, North Rocks, Ocean Shores, Parkes, Pennant Hills, Pottsville Beach, Queanbeyan, Raymond Terrace, Revesby, Richmond, Riverwood, Rockdale, Rooty Hill, Roselands, Sans Souci, Scone, Seven Hills, Shoal Bay, Singleton, South West Rocks, St Georges Basin, St Marys, Strathfield, Sussex Inlet, Sutherland, Swansea, Tahmoor, Tenterfield, The Entrance, Thirroul, Toongabbie, Toormina, Tumut, Tuncurry, Ulladulla, Walcha, Warrawong, Wauchope, Wellington, West Ryde, Wetherill Park, Windsor, Wingham, Winston Hills, Woolgoolga, Woongarrah, Woonona, Yamba, Yass, Young, Bourke, Cobar, Condobolin, Lightning Ridge, Walgett |
Northern Territory |
|
|
Coolalinga, Katherine, Palmerston, Tennant Creek |
Queensland |
|
|
Acacia Ridge, Albany Creek, Annerley, Ashgrove, Ayr, Bargara, Beaudesert, Beerwah, Biggera Waters, Biloela, Bli Bli, Boonah, Bowen, Bribie Island, Brighton, Browns Plains, Buderim, Burleigh Waters, Burleigh West, Burpengary, Bushland Beach, Capalaba, Carindale, Charters Towers, Childers, Chinchilla, Clayfield, Cooroy, Currimundi, Dalby, Eagleby, Edmonton, Esk, Everton Park, Fernvale, Forest Lake, Geebung, Gin Gin, Goodna, Greenslopes, Gympie, Helensvale, Highfields, Inala, Ingham, Innisfail, Jimboomba, Kallangur, Kenmore, Kingaroy, Kirwan, Laidley, Loganholme, Maleny, Mareeba, Marsden, Mitchelton, Morningside, Mossman, Mount Morgan, Mount Ommaney, Nambour, Nerang, North Lakes, Ormeau, Paradise Point, Port Douglas, Proserpine, Rochedale, Rosewood, Runaway Bay, Sarina, Smithfield, Stanthorpe, Strathpine, Sunnybank, Sunnybank Hills, Tamborine Mountain, Tewantin, Toombul, Toowong, Tully, Victoria Point, Warwick, Waterford West, Yeppoon, Charleville, Collinsville, Cooktown, Cunnamulla, Gayndah, Longreach, Monto, Mount Isa |
South Australia |
|
|
Aldinga Beach, Berri, Daw Park, Flagstaff Hill, Goolwa, Henley Beach, Leabrook, Loxton, Marleston, Morphett Vale, Mount Barker, Murray Bridge, Nailsworth, Nuriootpa, Oakden, Port Adelaide, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Renmark, Rostrevor, Salisbury, Two Wells, Whyalla |
Tasmania |
|
|
Alonnah, Bicheno, Bridgewater, Bridport, Campbell Town, Cygnet, Deloraine, George Town, Huonville, Kings Meadows, New Norfolk, Nubeena, Oatlands, Port Sorell, Queenstown, Riverside, Scottsdale, Smithton, Sorell, St Helens, Swan Hill, Triabunna, Ulverstone, Wynyard, Flinders Island, King Island |
Victoria |
|
|
Altona, Altona Meadows, Apollo Bay, Ararat, Ashburton, Bacchus Marsh, Bairnsdale, Ballan, Balnarring, Bannockburn, Beechworth, Bentleigh, Bentleigh East, Berwick, Brighton, Brunswick, Bundoora, Camperdown, Carnegie, Carrum Downs, Casterton, Castlemaine, Chelsea, Clayton, Coburg, Cowes, Craigieburn, Daylesford, Doncaster East, Dromana, Eaglehawk, Echuca, Eltham, Fairfield, Fawkner, Footscray, Frankston South, Glen Waverley, Glenroy, Grantville, Grovedale, Hastings, Hawthorn, Heywood, Inverloch, Ivanhoe, Kangaroo Flat, Keilor Downs, Kerang, Kilmore, Lara, Leongatha, Leopold, Lower Templestowe, Maffra, Maryborough, Moe, Mordialloc, Mornington, Mount Beauty, Mount Martha, Narre Warren, Northcote, Oakleigh, Ocean Grove, Port Fairy, Portland, Preston, Richmond, Ringwood North, Robinvale, Rosanna, Rosebud West, Rye, Sale, Smythesdale, Somerville, Springvale, St Albans, St Kilda, Swan Hill, Terang, Torquay, Traralgon, Warracknabeal, Williamstown, Winchelsea, Wodonga, Yarrawonga |
Western Australia |
|
|
Albany, Armadale, Augusta, Balcatta, Bentley, Busselton, Cloverdale, Collie, Esperance, Geraldton, Hilton, Joondalup, Kalamunda, Kalgoorlie, Kelmscott, Merriwa, Midland, Mirrabooka, Moora, Northam, Pinjarra, Rockingham, Victoria Park, Broome, Carnarvon, Karratha, Kununurra |
(c) Australian Hearing visited 231 outreach sites in 2014/15:
Australian Capital Territory |
|
|
Winnunga Aboriginal Medical Service (AMS) |
New South Wales |
|
|
Armajun Aboriginal Health Service, Awabakal Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS), Biripi AMS, Booroogen Djugen, Bourke Acchs, Bugalwena Health Service, Condobolin, Cunnamulla Primary Health Care Centre, Daruk AMS, Dubbo AMS, Durri AMS, Forbes, Galambila Aboriginal Health Service, Griffith Aboriginal Medical Centre, Gunida Gunyah, Illawarra AMS, La Perouse, Marrin Weejali Aboriginal Corporation, Marumali, Narooma, Pius X AMS, Redfern AMS, Tharawal AMS, The Mens Shed Blacktown, Tobwobba AMS, Walgett AMS, Winanga-Li , Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community |
Northern Territory |
|
|
Ali Curung, Amanbidgi, Amata (Sa), Ampilatwatja, Angurugu, Barunga, Beswick, Bickerton Island,Borroloola, Bulla, Bulman Community Health, Canteen Creek, Croker Island, Docker River, Epenarra, Finke, Fregon (Sa), Galuwinku (Elcho Island), Gapuwiyak, Haasts Bluff, Hermannsburg, Imanpa, Jabiru, Jilkminggan, Kalkarindji, Kalumbaru, Kintore, Kiwirrkurra (Wa), Lajamanu, Laramba, Laynhapuy Homelands, Maningrida, Mataranka, Milikapiti, Milingimbi, Minyerri Community, Mt Liebig, Mutitjulu, Nauiyu Community, Ngukurr, Nhulunbuy,Numbulwar Community Health, Nyrippi, Oenpelli, Palumpa Community, Papunya Peppimenarti, Pigeon Hole, Pine Creek, Pipalyatjarra (Sa), Pirlangimpi (Garden Pt), Ramingining, Santa Teresa, Tennant Creek, Ti Tree, Timber Creek, Titjikala, Umbakumba, Urapunga, Utju (Arreyonga), Utopia,Wadeye (Pt. Keats), Wurli Wurlinjang Health Service, Wurrumiyanga, Yarralin, Yirrkala, Yuendumu |
Queensland |
|
|
Aboriginal And Indigenous Community Health Service Woolloongabba, Aurukun, Balaclava State Primary School, Bamaga, Boulia, Cairns West State School, Camooweal, Cherbourg Ahspia, Cloncurry, Coen Ahspia, Cooktown Multi Purpose Health Service, Dajarra, Dalby, Djarragun College, Doomadgee Community Health, Douglas Shire Multi Purpose Health Services, Eidsvold Community Health, Gordonvale State Primary, Hopevale, Kalang Respite Care Centre, Kalwun Aboriginal Medical Service, Kambu, Kowanyama, Kuranda, Lockhart River, Mamu Health Service, Mapoon, Mareeba, Midin Clinic Atherton, Mornington Island Community Health, Mossman Gorge, Mt Garnet, Mt. Isa, Murray Upper, Murri School, Napranum , Nhulundu Wooribah, Normanton Community Health, Palm Island, Parramatta State Primary School, Pormpuraaw, Ravenshoe Shalom Elders Village, Thursday Island, Townsville Aboriginal And Island, Tully, Woorabinda, Wuchopperen Health Service, Wujal Wujal, Yarrabah, Yulu - Burri - Ba |
South Australia |
|
|
Ceduna/Koonibba,Coober Pedy, Ernabella, Indulkana, Leigh Creek, Meningie, Mimili, Oak Valley, Pika Wiya, Raukkan Health Clinic , Winke, Yalata |
Tasmania |
|
|
Cape Barren Island, South Eastern Tasmania Aboriginal Centre (Setac) |
Victoria |
|
|
Aces Elders Host, Bairnsdale Co-Op, Ballarat Co-Op, Bendigo Acchs, Cummeragunja Acchs, Dareton Acchs, Echuca Acchs, Goolum Goolum Acchs, Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust, Lakes Entrance Cge, Mildura Acchs, Moogji Co-Op, Morwell Co-Op, Ramahyuck (Sale), Robinvale Acchs, Swan Hill Co-Op, The Gathering Place, Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, Wathaurong, Werribee Gathering Place, Yarra Valley Acchs |
Western Australia |
|
|
Aboriginal Corporation (Narrogin), Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service (Grams), Bayulu Remote Community, Bidyadanga, Blackstone, Broome Regional Aboriginal Medical Service (Brams), Cotton Creek, Derbal Yerrigan Health Service, Derbarl Yerrigan, Derby Aboriginal Health Service, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Hedland Health Campus, Jamieson, Jigalong, Kalgoorlie (Amana Living), Kalgoorlie (Bega Garnbirringu), Kanawarrji, Karalundi-Karl, Katanning Aboriginal Health, Kununurra, Laverton, Leonora, Marble Bar, Meekatharra, Menzies, Moora Community Health, Moorditj Koort Aboriginal Health And Wellness, Mt Magnet, Newman Puntukurnu Aboriginal Medical Service, Nookanbah, Northam Hospital, Nullagine, Punmu, Roebourne, Strelley/Warralong Community, Tjuntjuntjara, Wanarn, Wangkatjungka, Warakurna, Warburton, Warmun (Turkey Creek), Wiluna, Wingellina, Wirraka Maya Aboriginal Medical Service, Wyndham, Yandeyarra |
Foreign Workers
(Question No. 1556)
Ms Rowland asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the recent publicity surrounding the exploitation of workers in the convenience store and agricultural sectors, (a) what measures is the Government taking to protect vulnerable workers from similar exploitation, (b) will the Government consider implementing a regime for the licensing of labour hire firms before they are able to engage in brokering such arrangements, and (c) how many convictions have there been of employers in cases of labour exploitation.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) All foreign workers have the same protections under employment law as any other worker in Australia. The Department of Employment and the Fair Work Ombudsman are the Commonwealth agencies with the portfolio responsibility and regulatory power to directly address exploitative practices, via their administration of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Government has recently established a ministerial-level Working Group to consider a cross portfolio response to the issue of foreign worker exploitation, and to ensure a cohesive and coordinated approach to the issue. The Working Group will be chaired by the Minister for Employment, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, and include:
the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon Peter Dutton MP;
the Minister for Justice, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, and
the Minister for Small Business Minister and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.
From an Immigration and Border Protection portfolio perspective, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has recently introduced a number of initiatives to address the issue of exploitation of foreign workers. These include:
the formation of a joint Fair Work Ombudsman and Department of Immigration and Border Protection taskforce – Taskforce Cadena – to investigate allegations of exploitation;
increased awareness raising amongst foreign workers of their workplace rights and protections, including contact details for the Fair Work Ombudsman, via updated visa grant notification information, website content and social media; and
examination of visa programme settings and adjustments where feasible.
For example, the Department recently introduced a new integrity requirement, effective from 31 August 2015, requiring applicants for a second Working Holiday visa need to provide the Department with pay slips covering their three month period of specified work in regional Australia, to ensure that their employment has been appropriately remunerated.
(b) The possibility of a new licensing regime for labour hire companies has been raised with Government. The newly established Working Group will consider policy options to protect vulnerable foreign workers in Australia.
(c) The number of workplace law breaches based on findings of workplace exploitation is a matter for the Fair Work Ombudsman to clarify as the responsible enforcement body.
Temporary Visas
(Question No. 1560)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In the 2014 calendar year, how many applicants for the (a) Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa, and (b) Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa, nominated with each of the following professions and were granted visas: (i) Nurse Practitioner 254411, (ii) Registered Nurse (Aged Care) 254412, (iii) Registered Nurse (Child and Family Health) 254413, (iv) Registered Nurse (Community Health) 254414, (v) Registered Nurse (Critical Care and Emergency) 254415, (vi) Registered Nurse (Developmental Disability) 254416, (vii) Registered Nurse (Disability and Rehabilitation) 254417, (viii) Registered Nurse (Medical) 254418, (ix) Registered Nurse (Medical Practice) 254421, (x) Registered Nurse (Mental Health) 254422, (xi) Registered Nurse (Perioperative) 254423, (xii) Registered Nurse (Surgical) 254424, (xiii) Registered Nurse (Paediatrics) 254425, and (xiv) Registered Nurses nec 254499.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Table: Subclass 457 and 485 primary visas granted in 2014 calendar year where the nominated occupation is in selected nursing occupations
Nominated Occupation (ANZSCO) |
Subclass 457 |
Subclass 485 |
254411 Nurse Practitioner |
16 |
23 |
254412 Registered Nurse (Aged Care) |
312 |
10 |
254413 Registered Nurse (Child and Family Health) |
23 |
0 |
254414 Registered Nurse (Community Health) |
9 |
< 5 |
254415 Registered Nurse (Critical Care and Emergency) |
137 |
< 5 |
254417 Registered Nurse (Disability and Rehabilitation) |
21 |
0 |
254418 Registered Nurse (Medical) |
208 |
31 |
254421 Registered Nurse (Medical Practice) |
66 |
< 5 |
254422 Registered Nurse (Mental Health) |
106 |
< 5 |
254423 Registered Nurse (Perioperative) |
109 |
0 |
254424 Registered Nurse (Surgical) |
121 |
< 5 |
254425 Registered Nurse (Paediatrics) |
15 |
0 |
254499 Registered Nurses nec |
61 |
870 |
Total |
1204 |
947 |
Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2015 (BE8815.01)
Note 1: Figures exclude the following nursing ANZSCO occupations:
254111 Midwife
254211 Nurse Educator
254311 Nurse Manager
411411 Enrolled Nurse
Note 2: ANZSCO was introduced in DIBP on 1 July 2010. Applications lodged prior to that date using the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) 2nd Edition have been converted to an ANZSCO code using a standard DIBP mapping approved by the ABS.
Note 3: Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visas granted includes the Graduate Work visa stream only.
Immigration and Border Protection: BHB Printing
(Question No. 1579)
Mr Conroy: asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $12,710.50 tender (CN3290631) to BHB Printing for notebooks for the Australian Border Force (ABF), (a) can he provide details of (i) the country of manufacture, (ii) the number of products ordered, (iii) the cost per item unit, and (iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and (b) how will these notebooks enhance the operation of the ABF.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
Contract CN3290631 was the purchase of B390 Receipt for Goods books at a cost of $11,555 excluding GST.
1000 units were purchased at a cost of $11.56 per unit excluding GST.
Books were manufactured in Australia and supplied by BHB Printing Pty Ltd.
The B390 Receipt for Goods is issued to travellers when goods have been detained by the Department. In the case of goods being held for revenue purposes, reasons for detaining goods may include payment of duty or taxation, pending valuation, goods requiring identification, goods pending re-export or goods awaiting clearance. The B390 is also used for suspected prohibited import pending decision on seizure. The form is necessary for appropriate record keeping and accountability for both the Department and the traveller. It is the accountable form used as a legal and accountable record for the Department to hold goods.
Venue Hire: Shangri-la Hotel Jakarta
(Question No. 1591)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Trade and Investment on 12 October 2015 :
In respect of the $21,972.00 tender to Shangri-la Hotel Jakarta for 'Venue Hire for the OZMINE Conference and Networking Dinner' (CN3293410), (a) how many (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff, attended the conference and its associated events, (b) what outcomes were achieved, and (c) what was the itemised budget for (i) meals, (ii) travel, and (iii) other allowances.
Mr Robb: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) Nil.
(ii) Three Austrade staff from Australian Embassy Jakarta and two staff from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, participated in support of the conference.
(b) The 2015 Ozmine Conference promoted Australian mining equipment, technology and services (METS) companies. The conference successfully provided an opportunity for companies to: showcase their products and services; learn about opportunities for participating in Indonesian mining value-chains; and understand recent developments in mining policy and regulation in Indonesia. The conference also facilitated introductions for Australian companies to leading Indonesian miners and mining contractors. Indonesia is now the number one export destination for Australian METS.
(c) (i) Conference dinner for 100 persons cost 56,265,000 IRp (approximately $5,700 at current exchange). Other catering costs (for lunch, morning and afternoon tea) were packaged with venue hire and conference facilities. Cost was budgeted on 200 attendees at 750,000 IRp per person (approximately $76 per person at current exchange).
(ii) Nil.
(iii) Nil.
Foreign Affairs: Little National Pty Ltd
(Question No. 1593)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $23,310.00 tender to Little National Pty Ltd for 'Provision of Hotel Rooms' (CN3293395), (a) what was the purpose of the accommodation, and (b) who stayed in the rooms, including (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The purpose was to accommodate New Colombo Plan (NCP) alumni participating in the NCP Alumni Forum program.
(b) New Colombo Plan alumni (Australian undergraduate students) stayed in the rooms.
(i) Nil.
(ii) Nil.