The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
Infrastructure
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:01): by leave—I am very pleased to deliver the government's second annual infrastructure statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. In my role as Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, I am particularly proud of the significant progress that has been made over the past 12 months delivering the critical infrastructure needed in every state and territory. Today's statement continues to fulfil the coalition's commitment at the last election to make an annual infrastructure statement to the parliament. The purpose of this statement is to ensure that the people's House is kept informed and the government is held to account for progress on major infrastructure projects.
Throughout modern Australian history, government has played an important role in the development of Australian infrastructure. The coalition is determined to match the energy and vision of our forebears and, where possible, exceed it. We are building the infrastructure that will make our economy more productive, infrastructure that will support innovation in business and help Australians on the move arrive at their destinations quicker, easier and safely. As the Prime Minister has reiterated, the government is more than ready to finance infrastructure, road and rail, and will not discriminate between one mode of transport over another. We are determined to build on our partnerships with state and local governments, and the private sector, to deliver the critical infrastructure the nation needs, and we will do so while bearing in mind the need to put the budget on a sustainable footing. We see a very strong case for considerably more investment overall in infrastructure—but not just more investment; we need to look at more innovative investment arrangements than have existed in the past.
There is no magic pudding of funds. If we are to have the infrastructure we need to meet present and future demand, then we need to encourage the private sector also to increase investment in infrastructure. This is not the Commonwealth's burden to bear alone—the states and territories also need to ensure that they are developing the right projects and thinking of new ways to fund and finance them within a national approach. We are looking dispassionately at funding and financing options across all infrastructure, by exploring concessional loans, equity and value capture. Where appropriate, we are also pursuing a more equitable user charging system. These processes will support the construction of the infrastructure that improves productivity and grows the Australian economy. Regardless of the financing arrangements a poorly chosen project is fiscally imprudent and can reduce productivity. Helping this cause is Infrastructure Australia's rolling 15-year investment plan initiated by this government. For the first time, it is now a truly independent expert body.
I would like to detail some of the major projects underway in all states and territories. In New South Wales, one of Australia's biggest projects, WestConnex, has begun, with construction underway on two of the three stages. Stage 2 of WestConnex, which will more than double capacity on the M5 East, is beginning ahead of schedule because the Commonwealth is providing a concessional loan of up to $2 billion, on top of the $1.5 billion grant we have committed for all three stages of WestConnex. This project will help ease congestion in our largest city and improve accessibility to jobs. The loan, finalised on 20 November this year, is evidence of our commitment to finding new funding and financing solutions to meet our growing infrastructure needs.
I am also pleased to report that we are working cooperatively with the New South Wales government and are on schedule and on budget to upgrade the Pacific Highway by the end of the decade. I can advise the House that around 60 per cent, or 397 kilometres, of the upgrade has been completed, and another 149 kilometres is under construction. And following approval from the New South Wales government in January, construction on NorthConnex in Sydney has also begun. I can also report to the House that work is continuing apace on the preparations for the construction of the Western Sydney Airport with the government expecting to issue the notice of intent to Southern Cross Airports Corporation early in the new year. This is one of the most significant greenfield infrastructure projects in Australia for many decades. Combined with our Western Sydney roads package of almost $3 billion, the airport will generate tens of thousands of jobs and spur economic growth in Western Sydney. These benefits will flow through to the whole national economy. With New South Wales we have commissioned a major study to determine the passenger rail needs of Western Sydney, including the airport. And we remain on track to see the Western Sydney Airport taking its first passengers in the mid-2020s.
I will now turn to Victoria. The government is committed to ensuring the state of Victoria can reach its full potential—and it is clear this simply cannot occur if Melbourne is trapped in an ever growing traffic snarl. Following the disappointment of the Victorian government's decision not to proceed with the massive East-West project, we are awaiting advice on what other projects might be possible in the state. Projects such as the upgrade of the Western Highway, Tullamarine Freeway, the M80 and the duplication of parts of the Princes and Western highways are positive steps that continue to progress according to plan. We are also discussing other potential projects in Victoria and look forward to working with the Victorian government over the coming months to develop a new infrastructure plan.
In my home state of Queensland, the government has committed to a 10-year program of works on the Bruce Highway, targeted at improving safety, flood mitigation and reducing congestion. Eight major projects along the Bruce Highway have been completed. The Yeppen Floodplain project will be officially opened next week and work on the Townsville Ring Road is well ahead of schedule. Section A of the Cooroy to Curra four-laning is nearing completion and work has commenced on section C.
The government is also funding a range of road safety infrastructure projects totalling around $1.3 billion through the Bruce Highway Safety Package, overtaking lanes, and pavement widening works. Work has also begun on the Gateway Upgrade North and early works on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing in the coming months, so that major construction works for both projects can start next year. The government has also committed $508 million towards a package of works to upgrade the Warrego Highway between Toowoomba and Miles. Two major projects are underway, with a further two expected to commence in the coming months.
But our Queensland investment is not limited to roadworks. In October, the Prime Minister announced Commonwealth funding of $95 million for the Gold Coast Light Rail connection to the state's wider rail network. This commitment will enable the second stage to be completed in time for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. Its legacy will last well beyond the Games, smoothing passenger movement between Brisbane and the Gold Coast for decades to come.
Moving further north and into the Northern Territory, I am pleased to report that work on the next stage of the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive in Darwin is progressing well. This work will ensure better traffic flow and safety in the Northern Territory's largest city. Upgrades to regional remote roads are also underway, including Port Keats Road, Santa Teresa Road and the Buntine Highway, with the Commonwealth providing $90 million towards the $106 million Regional Roads Productivity Programme. Let me add that a rail overpass south of Alice Springs means that there are no longer any level crossings on the major road network in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has also enthusiastically embraced the Australian government's commitment to seal the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut, matching $20 million of Commonwealth funding.
Turning to South Australia, the Commonwealth has committed $1.7 billion to the first priority sections of the North-South Road Corridor upgrade. This includes the government's recent announcement of $788 million in funding to start work on the Northern Connector next year. Torrens to Torrens is already underway, and Darlington is about to start in the coming months. And I note that, together, these projects will support about 1,330 jobs during construction.
And over in the West, I am pleased to advise the House that the Gateway WA project, to which the government contributed $676 million, is on track for completion, nearly one year ahead of schedule and under budget. Planning for other major projects in Western Australia, including the $1.1 billion NorthLink WA project, are well underway, with construction to commence early next year. The Australian government has committed $894 million to NorthLink WA. Work is also underway on major upgrades in WA's north network following the Australian government's $308 million contribution to the Great Northern Highway between Muchea and Wubin and $173 million to the North West Coastal Highway.
And in Tasmania, the Australian government is making the Midland Highway upgrade a reality, with our $400 million commitment seeing six construction projects already completed and two more underway. We are also funding half of the cost of $119.6 million for an upgrade of the Tasmanian rail network. The planning and design phase for the extension of the runway at Hobart Airport is nearing completion and we have also pledged $60 million for a number of new irrigation schemes to increase economic activity in Tasmania.
For many Australians, the infrastructure that matters most are the local roads that they use every day. It is vital that these roads are as safe and well maintained as possible. The government has committed an additional $200 million over two years to the Black Spot Programme to improve road safety across the nation. I can advise the House that a total of 595 road safety projects have been approved for funding in 2015-16 alone. In addition, the government will invest $3.2 billion in the Roads to Recovery Programme, including tripling funding to local councils over the next two years for construction and maintenance where it is needed most. The government has also committed $300 million to the new Bridges Renewal Programme and an additional $200 million to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme.
Naturally, as Leader of The Nationals, I would like to emphasise that Australia's regions are huge reserves of untapped potential. The longest and largest mining boom in Australian history has transformed the northern economy and, indeed, the national economy. However, as the construction boom tapers off, many regional centres have recognised the need to attract new industries and new investment to harness the great opportunities that lie ahead. Energy self-sufficiency and the potential for major export agricultural contracts, the development of gas reserves, renewables, uranium, oil and coal, are all real probabilities that capitalise on our natural advantages.
Water security is also critical to the future of our regions and to farming. Accordingly, the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper included the government's announcement of a $500 million National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. I thank Minister Joyce for his tireless work on this important initiative.
Let me now turn to Northern Australia—the vast part of our landmass above the Tropic of Capricorn. The government has a very ambitious agenda given expression in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. We are offering $5 billion in concessional loans through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. We are investing $600 million on key northern roads and a further $100 million for roads critical to the northern Australian cattle industry. We are also upgrading important local airstrips to ensure access to remote communities.
Right across Australia, our $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund is delivering vital money for local infrastructure, with over $200 million in grants announced in May this year. Successful round 2 projects will be announced next week. Projects already funded include the upgrade of Bendigo Airport, flood mitigation in Seymour and a new cattle sale facility at the Dubbo Regional Livestock Markets. Unemployment in our regions is still higher than we would like, and sensible infrastructure investment such as I have described can help boost local economies, keep people employed and improve sustainability and quality of life in communities adjusting to external change, including serious drought and floods.
I will now comment on the government's cities agenda. Apart from city-states like Monaco and Singapore, Australia is the most urbanised nation in the world. Some 80 per cent of the dollar value of the goods and services in Australia is produced on just 0.2 per cent of our landmass—and nearly all this share is produced in our cities. We are working with the states and territories to make our cities more livable, accessible and productive and in September the Prime Minister created a new Minister for Cities and the Built Environment to deliver a cities agenda. Our cities agenda will focus on the delivery of three key pillars: better integrated urban planning, creating greater productivity in our urban centres, and promoting and supporting environmental sustainability. I look forward to working with Minister Briggs on this exciting new agenda and would also acknowledge the effort he has put in over the past few years in delivering infrastructure investment to our cities and communities as former assistant minister in my portfolio.
The government can play a key role working with state and local government to support nationally significant projects that make the most of the economic opportunities in our cities. For instance, Commonwealth funding will see the completion of the Moreton Bay Rail Link in 2016, realising a century-old dream. Our $4.2 billion Asset Recycling Initiative is also helping to revitalise Sydney's rail system and support the first stage of the Capital Metro in Canberra. Next year will see completion of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor, boosting the efficiency of both freight and passenger services running north from Sydney.
I would like to note that rail is no longer only being viewed as just a long distance and bulk carrier. Indeed, freight rail will need to play an increasingly important role in the movement of goods across the short distances between ports and land freight terminals. Effective rail connections to our national ports are vital for economic growth, and the government is committed to enhancing these connections. The government's Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) has signed an agreement with the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) for the development of the Moorebank intermodal terminal. The agreement will see SIMTA develop and operate an intermodal freight terminal and warehousing across both Commonwealth and SIMTA-owned land at Moorebank, with direct rail access to Port Botany via the Southern Sydney Freight Line. Combining the site into a single development optimises the outcomes and minimises taxpayer exposure.
The Australian government also remains completely committed to delivering the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail, which carries clear benefits for rail freight movement across the continent. The new freight line will reduce transit time between Melbourne and Brisbane by more than 10 hours—cutting the journey to less than a day. It will remove 200,000 trucks, or 5.4 billion net tonne kilometres of freight, from roads each year and add $22.5 billion to the Australian economy. We have received a detailed business case for Inland Rail developed by the Inland Rail Implementation Group, chaired by the Hon. John Anderson AO. This has been provided to Infrastructure Australia, and we look forward to seeing the outcomes of their assessment soon.
In today's world, high quality communications infrastructure is absolutely essential, and the National Broadband Network is the biggest and most complex infrastructure project ever undertaken in Australia. Our goal is to provide Australians with access to fast broadband as quickly and as cheaply as possible. By September 2018 the NBN build will be underway or complete for almost 9.5 million homes and businesses across the country.The NBN is essential infrastructure for a prosperous and innovative economy. It will help Australia become more competitive, more productive and more innovative. In October 2015, nbn co launched the first of two Sky Muster satellites, which will deliver better NBN services to the most remote parts of Australia. The Prime Minister should be commended on his commitment to this game-changing project and Minister Fifield has continued this legacy.
While the government has moved swiftly to get major projects moving on the ground, we are also focused on reforming the decision-making process, to ensure investment decisions are based on sound expert advice and offer the greatest social and economic dividends.
Following on from the reforms made by the government to Infrastructure Australia last year to improve its ability to provide independent and evidence-based advice, IA has delivered the Northern Australia Audit and the Australian Infrastructure Audit, Australia's first top-down assessments of nationally significant infrastructure.
Following extensive consultations with the states, industry and the community, Infrastructure Australia is finalising its first 15-year plan. It will help identify the top priorities for investment and reform. I expect Infrastructure Australia will release the plan in the coming months, and the government will lead a mature debate on how we achieve its objectives.
I conclude by noting that this government has embarked on the biggest infrastructure investment in Australia's history. It eclipses all that has come before us. We are fixing the worst bottlenecks in our cities and upgrading the key routes in our regions. I can assure the House that we will not rest until we are certain that every city and every region is well equipped to harness the immense opportunities before us as a nation. The next financial year will see the single biggest Commonwealth infrastructure investment to date, with over $9.7 billion in Commonwealth funding flowing across the nation. I want to emphasise that Australia is open for business and the government remain focused on delivering the infrastructure Australians expect and need to embrace the opportunities before us. I thank the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:24): When you review a government's performance, it is important to seek out the facts from independent sources. When it comes to infrastructure investment under the current government, there is no better source than the Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS figures show that between the September quarter of 2013, Labor's last quarter in office, and the June quarter of 2015, the latest figures, public infrastructure investment fell by 20 per cent—a cut of $1 in every $5.
The 2015 budget papers show that this government will cut infrastructure investment by $2 billion over this year and next year compared to its own 2014 budget. Victoria is down $812. Queensland is down $613 million. South Australia is down $318 million. Tasmania is down $31 million. The ACT is down $12 million, and New South Wales is down $43 million. These huge cuts to infrastructure investment at a time when the minerals sector is moving from the construction to the production phase and when infrastructure investment is so important mean that this government's rhetoric simply has not matched its reality.
Remember the former Prime Minister said he wanted to be the 'infrastructure Prime Minister'? Well, he has had a bit to say over the last couple of days. In his highlights of his achievements he ignores infrastructure—and no wonder. We were told that under a coalition government there would be cranes in the skylines and the sound of bulldozers at work within one year of their election. When you look at the facts two years later you see that there are no cranes on new projects and there are no bulldozers on new projects. There are just clouds of bulldust from a government that does not have the ability to put its words into action.
We have seen the cancellation of all funding for public transport projects that were not under construction—$3 billion from the Melbourne Metro, $715 million from the Cross River Rail project, $500 million from light and heavy rail in Perth, $31.5 million from the Tonsley Park project in South Australia, the cut to the Gawler line electrification that was already underway and the money that was there to investigate Hobart light rail has all been cut.
What has the money been put into? The money was put into three projects. One was the East West Link in Victoria that we know had a cost-benefit analysis of 45c return for every dollar invested. Yet the government made an advance payment of $1.5 billion contrary to their own policy that is now the subject of an Audit Office report. That payment has been sitting in the Victorian government's bank account for two financial years now. It is not creating any jobs and not building anything. It is a disgraceful performance.
Another project is the Perth Freight Link—a thought bubble that simply does not add up. The WA government themselves are saying they cannot proceed with stage 2. It is a project that goes through wetlands. It is a project that has no proper business case at all.
Then there is WestConnex in Sydney where, again, $2 billion has been made available to the New South Wales government and $750 million was prepaid to the New South Wales government. Yet we found out last week that the cost has blown out even more. The $10 billion project became a $12 billion project and then a $14 billion project and has now become an almost $17 billion project. The project began as a road to the port, but it goes nowhere near the port. It goes to St Peter's. It has an interchange in the most heavily congested area of Sydney. It is a project that requires, again, a proper business case.
This is a government that said for all projects above $100 million they would do a proper business case. But they have not done it. We have seen no progress delivering the much-needed inland rail freight line. We contributed just under $600 million for the existing part of the project and $300 million in the budget. They have not added one new dollar to that project. All we have seen is a perpetual magical infrastructure re-announcement tour running around the country trying to claim old projects as new.
Let's have a look at the starting point they had. In 2007, Australia was 20th in the OECD in terms of infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP. When the change of government happened, we were first in the OECD. We doubled the roads budget and built or repaired 7½ thousand kilometres of road. We rebuilt or repaired 4,000 kilometres of rail. One-third of the interstate rail freight network was rebuilt. We created Infrastructure Australia, an independent body that was taken seriously, of which all 15 priority projects were funded by the government. We allocated more to public transport projects than all previous governments combined from Federation right through to 2007.
We created the Major Cities Unit within the department of infrastructure to drive policies aimed at increasing the productivity, sustainability and liveability of Australian cities. We not only lifted funding; we put in place proper processes. We had Australia's first ever national urban policy: Our Cities, Our Future. We had the National Urban Policy Forum. We worked with local government to make sure that decision-making took place at the local level for local projects through the Australian Council of Local Government and the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Two years on and all we have seen is so much rhetoric from those opposite.
I used to say that the only hole that they had dug was the one that they buried the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in. But we know now that that is not quite true, because they dug a hole at Palmerston hospital. They dug a hole on a Friday for a media conference, and then, on the Saturday, they went back and filled the hole in. This is a project that had been funded by the former government in 2013 but not acted upon by those opposite. So they dug a hole for a media conference, at great cost to the taxpayer, and then filled it in—and work has still not progressed. That says it all about the government's substance failure and spin success, or its attempt.
Look at the projects the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in the statement he just read. We put $7.9 billion into the Pacific Highway compared with the Howard government's $1.3 billion under National Party ministers. The project has actually slowed as a result of the state government cutting funding for the Pacific Highway.
The MOU for NorthConnex in New South Wales was signed between the Commonwealth and the state in the coalition party room in Macquarie Street, funnily enough, by myself and Duncan Gay. It is the only time I have ever gone into a coalition party room, although, I must say that the National Party do have good Christmas functions, and I have been there. I concede that to the Deputy Prime Minister. The MOU was signed in June 2014, yet they gave it a new name and pretended that it was a new project.
I started construction on the Northern Sydney freight rail with then Premier Barry O'Farrell. It was funded in 2011. Moorebank Intermodal was established by us and opposed by them. Your member for Hughes ran a huge scare campaign against Moorebank Intermodal. Now they want to claim credit for it.
In the budget they cut funding for the M80 in Victoria, then they re-announced some of it and pretended it was a new project. There is still less money in there than there was when they came to office. Princes Highway East began in 2012. The Western Highway began in 2012. Regional Rail Link was opposed by those opposite, but the member for Corangamite keeps trying to pretend that it is new. It is open! People saw the work that was taking place on that project that kept Victoria going.
Then we go to Queensland and the Bruce Highway. I will make a prediction: next week, when Yeppen is open over the Yeppen flood plain, those opposite will pretend that they had anything to do with that project. Unfortunately for the Deputy Prime Minister there are photos of the construction on site, with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the then member for Capricornia, Kirsten Livermore; they were both there. It is just like the other Bruce Highway projects, where they have not put in a dollar.
They pretended the Cape York package was new. Again, it was funded by Labor. Gateway Upgrade North was funded by the former Labor government. Warrego was funded by the former Labor government. When we announced the Moreton Bay Rail Link during the 2010 election, their candidate for Petrie opposed it on Brisbane radio and said it was a waste of money. Now you cannot get the new member for Petrie away from it! He is camped outside the Moreton Bay Rail Link trying to claim credit for this project, which was first promised in 1895, but delivered by the federal Labor government. Townsville Ring Road began construction in 2012. I turned the first sod on the latest section of Tiger Brennan, which will complete the entire duplication of Tiger Brennan. Northern Territory regional roads was, again, a Labor government funded package.
I will say this: there is a project in the Northern Territory that is theirs: Outback Way. I concede that. They have allocated $20 million. It goes from Cairns to Perth! You could not get out a texta and draw a line from Cairns to Perth for $20 million! Yet they claim they are doing something on Outback Way—a project that goes thousands of kilometres in a part of the world where maintenance is extraordinarily expensive. Then we go to South Australia. They claimed the Torrens to Torrens project. It was actually in preconstruction, fully funded, at the time of the change of government. They stopped it. They stopped the work on Torrens to Torrens while they investigated Darlington down the road. Now they have continued it and pretended that it is new. Kate Ellis, Steve Georganas and I were there for the beginning of construction on that project in 2013.
Then we get to WA. This is one of the best. My friend, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, would be aware of this. Because, during the WA Senate election, they pretended that Gateway WA was a new project. This was a project where some of it had already opened! The project had 2,500 people working on it at the time it began construction in 2011. Then, in 2014, those opposite are pretending it is new—just like with the Great Northern Highway Muchea to Wubin, NorthLink and North West Coastal, which were all funded in the 2013 budget. Then we get to Tasmania and the Midland Highway, where they have reduced the funding from $500 million to $400 million. Tasmanian freight rail was included in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, and those opposite have actually halved its funding. They have halved the size of the project for rail revitalisation. Then, of course, we get to Roads to Recovery, where it was a result of Labor's initiative that you see such a big increase.
Indeed, I have here the full list of all of those opposite's re-announcements one by one. The Pacific Highway was re-announced 8 January 2014, 21 March 2014, 17 September 2014, 22 December 2014, 26 March 2015, 1 April 2015 and 28 April 2015. Moorebank Intermodal was re-announced 13 December 2013. You go right through all the projects. At the opening of Regional Rail Link those opposite pretended that they had something to do with it. The duplication of Clyde Road was re-announced 21 February 2014. The Princess Highway west was re-announced 31 December 2014. The announcements go on and on. If only, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, every time you announced something it actually meant more construction then maybe unemployment would not have gone up under this government.
Mr Truss interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The fact is that it is. Unemployment is now higher than it was at the time that you were elected.
Then to give the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development credit for courage, he went on to the national broadband network and mentioned the Sky Muster satellites and the fact that one of them was launched in October 2015. The coalition opposed it. The current Prime Minister opposed it. He said that it was a bad idea. He said that it was a waste of money. He said that it would not work. But now that it has happened, those opposite have the hide to come in here and try and claim this project as their own, which is quite extraordinary.
Those opposite also want to wipe out any of the memory that is there of their extraordinary decision under former Prime Minister Abbott, the member for Warringah, to withdraw all public transport funding and to withdraw any engagement—any involvement at all—with urban policy or cities for our national government. This is a place where 80 per cent of Australians live and where 80 per cent of our GDP derives from, yet they have removed urban policy completely from the Commonwealth agenda. They want to pretend now that they are actually interested in public transport. They can start by putting back the more than $4.5 billion that they have cut. They mentioned the Gold Coast Light Rail stage 2 project, but the funding of $95 million for that came from a save from the Moreton Bay Rail Link. The Queensland government had been desperate to use that save—a total of $150 million—for other productivity-boosting infrastructure and was not allowed to do so.
The Victorian government had been desperate for two years to use the funds that had been sitting in the bank account that have ensured that Victoria has received just eight per cent of national infrastructure under this government. They will come along—
Mr Truss: That is their own fault.
Mr ALBANESE: 'That's their own fault,' they say, 'that they won't breach an election promise.' They axed a project that had a cost-benefit analysis of 45c for every dollar. I will do a deal with you, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, and here is the deal: if you give me $1, I will give you 45c back; if you give me a grand, I will give you $450 back. See if you will do that! That is the deal that was on the table for the Victorian economy at a time when the Melbourne Metro—such a vital project for the productivity, sustainability and liveability of Melbourne—was cut by $3 billion. Down the track we might see some money put back into the Melbourne Metro. Then those opposite will say: 'Look, we're contributing this new funding. Forget about the cuts that were made.' It is like the Managed Motorway program for the Monash Freeway, where Greg Hunt—one of the five people apparently now in charge of cities for those opposite—pretended on page 1 of the Herald Sun that this was a new announcement. In fact, they cut it in the 2014 budget, they put some of that back a year and a bit later and they pretend, somehow, that people should be grateful.
These are all lost opportunities. You need good evidence based policymaking. That is why Infrastructure Australia should not have been sidelined as it has been by this government. There is not a single project that has been funded by this government upon the recommendation of Infrastructure Australia. Not once has there been a project where Infrastructure Australia has said, 'This is a project that should be funded,' that has been followed by government funding. The State of Australian cities 2014-2015identified the phenomenon of drive in, drive out suburbs and identified urban congestion in our cities that will cost some $50 billion by 2031, if left unaddressed. They actually printed 200 copies of the State of Australian cities 2014-15 report and then, at great cost to the Commonwealth, they pulped it—all of that intellectual property. It is symbolic of the approach of this government towards rigour and evidence based decision making that they pulp a report that should have been the basis for good policy making.
This is a government that needs to actually deliver on more than just rhetoric. They need to make sure that they do not just ride on public transport, but that they fund public transport. It is not just the money that they should put back, but the additional projects that our cities need. We have a proud record of nation building when it comes to infrastructure development, and we would continue to do just that in the fine tradition of Labor. Those opposite have failed on infrastructure, and it is no wonder the member for Warringah is too embarrassed to mention infrastructure as a part of his legacy.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:46): I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:47): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015, and I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because the Bill contains provisions which make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations, and notes that this is yet another attempt by the Government to undermine Australia's superannuation system".
Our approach to this legislation is guided by one objective above all: to see that Australian workers get paid the super that they need and deserve on time. It says it all about this government that they dismiss the fair and timely payment of superannuation as 'red tape' to be discarded with the full stops and commas of another so-called repeal day. It says it all about this government that, when there is a serious and growing problem with the nonpayment of super in this country, they impose unnecessary and unwarranted changes which will actually make the problem worse. It says it all about this government that, when given the choice between doing the right thing by Australian employees and a shady deal that duds workers, they go for the latter whenever they can. That is what the core of this bill is all about.
Labor does not and will not support the attack on the super payments Australian workers are entitled to by law—payments that are so important to their prospects for a secure retirement.
It is obvious to anyone who comes to this issue in an objective way—in an open-minded way; in a fact based, evidence based way—that there is a problem with employer compliance with superannuation guarantee obligations. This is not an opinion; it is a fact. This is not just something that Labor says about this issue. The government's own auditor, the Australian National Audit Office, found in 2015—earlier this year—that between 11 and 20 per cent of employers could be noncompliant with their SG obligations. The Australian Taxation Office described noncompliance with super guarantee obligations as 'endemic'. I congratulate Cbus for the research they have done on this issue, which has put the serious problem we have with compliance in Australia on the agenda. That research by Cbus said that Australians are losing $2.6 billion a year in super. That figure is growing at around five per cent per annum, with 6.8 per cent of the workforce—something like 690,000 Australian workers—affected in some way by unpaid superannuation.
But, with all this evidence available to them, what is this government's response? On being elevated to the cabinet and given this task, the new Assistant Treasurer gathered her staff and the officials around the table. She was presented with all the evidence about noncompliance with super obligations. She was told about 690,000 workers being dudded, about the $2.6 billion in super that people are missing out on every year and about the growth rate of this problem. She was told that it is not just a big problem now but a growing problem. And what is this government's top priority? It is to weaken the penalties imposed on employers who do not pay their super on time.
This is not made up; it is not a joke; it is a problem. It is a problem which would be wilfully and intentionally exacerbated by a stupid, badly-motivated policy change. Incredibly, on this legislation, when the Assistant Treasurer was asked about this issue, she said that the government's priority is improving super compliance. They are taking people for mugs. Their actions in this area remind me of that saying, 'Things are never so bad they can't be made worse.' That saying applies to this situation with the noncompliance of super. There is only one possible outcome from the changes that the government is proposing in this chamber: to make it easier for employers to dodge their obligation to pay fair super on time.
As I said, it speaks volumes about this government that amongst its highest priorities in our super system—a super system which is the envy of the world, but still imperfect—is to make it easier for people to dodge their super guarantee obligations to their workers. It is insulting enough to Australian working people that their government considers fair payment of super, as I said, as 'red tape' to be discarded with the commas and hyphens of the government's repeal day farce.
The Assistant Treasurer added insult to injury when, four days after this legislation to lower the penalties was introduced, she said in the Fairfax papers, 'The government is focused on making sure employees get super guarantee payments.' The Assistant Treasurer should come into this place and fess up that the intention of schedule 1 of this bill is actually the opposite to what she has said publicly. The effect of this bill would be to make a bad problem with super compliance worse. The bill will make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations.
The Assistant Treasurer also claims, again dishonestly, that the changes in her bill are 'specific to the period in which penalty interest is charged'—again, wrong. The fact is that her legislation not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated; it has far more substantial and wide-ranging effects, which will make it easier for employers to pay super late. The Assistant Treasurer really should know this. Embarrassingly for her, unfortunately, it has not been her only gaffe.
The Assistant Treasurer is so distracted by her ideological obsessions against representative superannuation boards that she cannot even get the basic facts straight right across the superannuation system. For example, when asked about tax breaks at the top end of the superannuation system, the Assistant Treasurer said:
This idea that people can amass multi-millions of dollars in their superannuation funds is just simply not correct, it's simply not correct to say that.
Figures published by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA, in April this year reveal how completely wrong she was in making that statement. More than 200,000 people have superannuation balances in excess of $1 million. Half of those—100,000 of those—have more than $2 million in superannuation, and there are 475 people with account balances over $10 million. Remember, this Assistant Treasurer said it was not possible to accumulate millions of dollars, despite the overwhelming evidence that thousands and thousands of Australians have done so. It is not too much to ask the Assistant Treasurer to be across very basic details like this. She should spend more time getting across the details of her portfolio and less time on ideological rants which do nothing to improve the super system in this country.
Facts matter in this debate, and fund members—Australian workers—matter most; they matter above all. What everyone needs to understand—particularly those opposite, who are about to vote for these changes which will make it less likely that people will get their super on time—is that, where employers do not pay adequate SG contributions to an employee's nominated fund on time, they may be liable for a superannuation guarantee charge. The SG charge currently consists of the amount of superannuation not contributed, which is called the shortfall; an interest component, which is currently 10 per cent a year; and an administrative fee of $20 per employee per quarter.
This bill lowers the base of the calculation of the SG charge; decreases the period over which the interest is calculated, moving the start date from the start of the quarter to the end of the quarter plus 28 days, and moving the end date from the date of lodging SG statement to date of payment; and removes the $20 administrative fee, replacing it with the tax office general interest charge, which would be substantially lower in most cases. The Assistant Treasurer should come clean and admit that her legislation—the legislation that everyone on the other side of the House supports—will make it easier for bosses to avoid paying super on time. It will not improve compliance, as she claims, but it will make a big and growing problem in our economy much worse.
Labor has a strong record of making it easier for small businesses to meet their SG obligations. We set up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House in 2010, which is a free one-stop facility for small businesses to pay their super. This is how you get superannuation right for the small business sector in this economy: you make it easier for them to make their payment. You do not make it easier for them to dodge their payment, which is the effect of this bill. Unlike those opposite, Labor does not believe that workers receiving fair super on time amounts to 'red tape'. I say again: Australian workers deserve to be paid superannuation contributions correctly and on time. That is why Labor is not able to support the bill as long as it includes schedule 1. We have sought to move an amendment to this bill to remove the weakening of the superannuation guarantee charge. I have moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because the Bill contains provisions which make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations, and notes that this is yet another attempt by the Government to undermine Australia's superannuation system".
I will not go through all the other ways that the government is undermining super in this country—we do not have all day. But I think it is well known to members—it is certainly well known in my community and around the country—that the government is abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution, which will impact 3.6 million Australians, 2.2 million of whom are women. It is well known in the community that, over and over again, the government has frozen the increase in the superannuation guarantee. The Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer have been going around the country to these conferences saying, 'We really care about the gender gap in superannuation; we really care about adequacy,' and these sorts of things. I urge the Australian people to remember and to judge the government not just on their words but especially on their deeds. When it comes to superannuation, their record is on the table. The policy of the Abbott prime ministership and the Turnbull prime ministership is indistinguishable, with the abolition of the low-income super contribution and the freezing of growth in the superannuation guarantee.
That is the first schedule of the four schedules in this bill. Schedules 2, 3 and 4 contain what we consider to be uncontroversial measures or measures that we support. There is one which makes it easier for people with terminal medical conditions to access superannuation, one to remove duplication in dealing with unclaimed superannuation, one that modifies 'in receivership' disclosure rules and one that repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the taxation law. We have no problem with those. We do not intend to oppose schedules 2, 3 and 4. Our problem is with the first schedule, which will do so much damage to the superannuation balances of Australian workers.
It is our view that the government should not hold hostage those measures for the terminally ill to these other measures about the non-payment on time of superannuation. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the government to try and sneak through nasty provisions like schedule 1 in this legislation by burying them amidst all the meaningless changes in punctuation—commas and all of that. They have done it before. They did it when they attacked the cleaners in this building on one of the earlier repeal-day farces. They got out the red pen to make lots of the sub-editing changes to the legislation, while at the same time they hoped no-one would notice that they were attacking the cleaners in this building. That they would do that says it all really about this government's approach. Here is another repeal day with all this fanfare, all this spin and all this rubbish—at the end of the day, it is mostly punctuation changes to bills with something nasty snuck through. We are seeing that again on this particular repeal day.
Each of the four so-called repeal days in the life of this government is more pathetic than the previous one. Given that this is a repeal day bill, it is worth reminding ourselves that, amidst all the fanfare and all the noise, we have had three sets of bills that have totalled $56.8 million in regulatory savings, compared to the billions that are claimed. We have had the repeal of the law related to the registration of mules for Defence purposes; we have had the repeal of the law relating to state navies; we have had changes from e-mail to email and from facsimile to fax. We have had the removal of 40 hyphens, two commas and one inverted comma; we have had two full stops changed to semicolons, and one semicolon changed to a full stop. We have inserted one new full stop, one colon, one hyphen and one comma.
Some of this would be funny, were there not buried amidst all the trivia and sub-editing some genuinely damaging provisions like the one we are debating today. This bill is a sneak attack on working Australians and the superannuation balances they need to retire with dignity. Burying it among these other provisions does not make it any less damaging. It is a badly-motivated ideological change on super system, when there are so many other areas that need attention. Worst of all, as a piece of legislation, it will take a worrying and growing problem with super noncompliance and make it worse by weakening the penalties for employers who do the wrong thing. When 690,000 Australians are missing out on billions of dollars in the superannuation they are entitled to by law—the super they need and deserve—this is not good enough.
If the government wants to fight over the fair payment of super to workers, it can have one. If it wants is to go right around the country explaining to 690,000 Australian workers that it does not support the fair payment on time of the superannuation obligations, then, fine, we will do that. The member for Lalor will do that; I will do that. I will go next door to the electorate of Forde and point out to voters there that the member for Forde wants to weaken the penalties for employers who do not pay superannuation to their employees on time. We will point that out.
But there is a better way forward, before we get to that. The parliament should support my amendment so that we can defeat schedule 1 but pass the other worthy amendments. We do have the opportunity to spare Australian workers a big problem that is getting worse—a problem that will be made much worse by the government's attempts to weaken the penalties on those who do the wrong thing.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:03): I thank the member for Rankin for his contribution and I will say to the member for Rankin before he leaves the chamber that I fully agree with him that Australian business owners should pay the superannuation obligations to their employees on time. I do not think there is a single person in this House who would disagree with that notion. Yet, in respect of this bill, we see a situation where if an employer misses a payment by one day or a couple of days, under the existing rules they get hit with penalties. The purpose of this bill is to recognise the fact that the vast majority of employers do the right thing, but occasionally they may be a day or two late. They are still going to pay some penalties, but not the penalties will not be as punitive as they were. I think that is fair enough that they are penalised for being late, but it is not fair to backdate interest to the start of the quarter. If the payment was only due at the end of the quarter, then the interest payment should be for the period between when the payment was due and when it was actually paid, and not backdated to a date prior to when it was actually due to be paid.
I fully support this bill in the original form in which it was brought to this House and consequently do not support the member for Rankin's amendments. It is interesting to reflect that it has been more than 20 years since the superannuation guarantee was introduced and, as I have already touched upon, the majority of employers comply with their superannuation guarantee obligations. I know from my role as the chair of the Tax and Revenue committee one frequent topic of discussion with the Australian Taxation Office is how to continue to work with both the ATO and businesses to ensure that business is complying with their SG obligations. However, excessive and unnecessary regulation does reduced productivity and investment. It suppresses job creation, creates economic uncertainty and has a negative impact on consumer and investor confidence. This legislation in no way reduces the requirement for employers to pay their SG superannuation obligations on time.
I am proud to say that I am part of a government that has worked very hard over the past two years to reduce the red tape and regulation in our economy, and we have achieved some $2.5 billion worth of regulatory savings in those two years. This bill forms part of the government's commitment to repeal counterproductive, unnecessary and redundant legislation through the four schedules in the bill. The focus of the debate has been the changes to the superannuation guarantee charge. The superannuation guarantee charge was first introduced in 1992. It was quite a punitive measure designed to encourage employers to comply with their new SG obligations. The charge, imposed on employers who do not comply with their SG obligations, seeks to recoup the outstanding SG for employees with nominal interest to compensate employees for lost earnings. Administrative charges also apply and the Australian Taxation Office can levy penalties of up to 200 per cent of the SG charge for noncompliance.
In particular, the nominal interest was designed to be punitive. Nominal interest is calculated from the beginning of the quarter—instead of 29 days from the end of the quarter, which is when SG becomes outstanding —until an assessment is raised by the ATO. This means around four months of nominal interest was imposed for noncompliance with SG obligations. The SG charge is also calculated on a different and broader earning base than the SG, which adds another complexity for employers. I am sure we have all had in our office small business people complaining about SG charges of one form or other. Many deserved to be charged that SG charge, and I would not support their efforts to reduce it. But there was the odd one who missed a date. The current superannuation guarantee charge regime can be very punitive for employers who inadvertently pay their SG contributions late or short-pay by a small amount, and this can ultimately have a significant impact on the small business.
Key superannuation and industry bodies were consulted during this process and stakeholders generally supported reforming the SG charge to reduce the complexity of the regime and make the charge more proportionate to the noncompliance. As a result of this extensive consultation—there was often no consultation whatsoever when those opposite were in government—the government is making changes to the SG charge to make it more proportionate. The government is committed to employees receiving their superannuation so that Australians can save for their retirement. However, it is important to right-size the regulatory environment where appropriate.
Changes to the SG charge will include: aligning the earnings base for calculating the SG charge with the earnings base for calculating SG contributions—aligning them will reduce costs and confusion for employers; making the SG charge more proportionate to the noncompliance by aligning the interest component of any SG shortfall with the period contributions are outstanding—this is fairer and less complex for business; and removing the additional penalties under the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and aligning them with the administrative penalties under the Taxation Administration Act. This change will simplify penalties under the superannuation guarantee charge regime by having penalty rules which are consistent with those applied to other tax obligations.
These changes balance simplifying the SG charge and making the penalty more proportionate to the noncompliance while retaining significant penalties to encourage employers to comply with the superannuation guarantee regime. Administrative penalties of up to 75 per cent of the SG charge as well as administrative charges will apply to encourage employers to comply with the SG charge regime. Also, the SG charge remains non-deductible, which is considered a significant penalty by employers. While these changes will simplify the SG charge and make the penalty more commensurate with the breach, overall they will provide adequate incentives for employers to comply with their SG obligations in the future.
This bill is focused on achieving our commitment to the Australian people of reducing red tape and regulation because we recognise that it stifles job creation and economic growth. But let me make this abundantly clear to employers in this country: in no way whatsoever does this legislation give you a free pass that ameliorates your SG superannuation obligations. You are responsible for paying your SG superannuation obligations on time for your employees. That is your responsibility. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:14): I support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin to the motion that the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 be now read a second time. As was so clearly outlined by the member for Forde, this legislation is something that Australians should be worried about—hence our moving the amendment. Whenever you hear a member of the government use the term 'simplification', it is cause for worry if you are an Australian worker. 'Simplification' in this place is code for cutting back protections for workers, and it has been for some time. I note the member for Forde suggested that the legislation as it stands, without the amendment, would make penalties more commensurate with the breach. That is like suggesting: 'This is not a serious problem, so we will lessen the penalty for those who breach this.' I know workers in Australia who are in the position right now where they have not had their superannuation paid by their employer, and they would not consider a lessening of the penalty to be anything but unfair.
The government is trying to reduce the financial penalties for employers caught out not doing the right thing—not paying super and not meeting their obligations under the superannuation guarantee. The government has decided to frame this as 'fighting red tape'—extraordinary. It is extraordinary what the term 'red tape' has come to mean to this government, and I will talk about that a little later. The essence of this bill is really important. Noncompliance in superannuation payment is a huge problem, and this bill seeks to make it easier for employers to shirk their obligations. What possible benefit is there in reducing the penalties to, effectively, zero on employers who do not meet their super obligation to their workers? What benefit could there possibly be in this?
This government has warped priorities, and this piece of legislation demonstrates that. They have warped priorities when it comes to superannuation. It is yet another attempt to undermine Australia's superannuation system, and we have been down this road before. We have a government who cut the low income superannuation contribution. And who did that hurt, mostly? It hurt women, mostly.
There is a theme here with this government and women. We know that from the 2014 budget where, for the first time in years, the Office for Women did not review that budget—did not put a ruler over that budget to check its impacts on women. Similarly, the low income superannuation contribution being scrapped was not looked at in terms of its impact on women until after it was determined by this government to be good policy. And yet again, with the superannuation guarantee and the changes that are before us, it will be low income earners who are most likely going to be affected by this change, because it is low income earners who are most often the victims in a scenario where an employer shirks their responsibilities and does not pay that superannuation.
We know that this is a government that wants to act to hurt low and middle income earners, while at the same time protecting high income superannuants. We know that they have not seen any legislation on superannuation that they would not seek to change. Some of those changes are extraordinary: they are seeking to change governance arrangements—fiddling with industry superannuation, even though they are the best performing superannuation products.
Research by Cbus has found that Australians are losing $2.6 billion in superannuation annually, and that that figure is growing at around five per cent per annum. We have identified that there is a problem and we have identified that it is costing $2.6 billion in super for what will probably be low income earners and that it is growing at a rate of five per cent per annum. So, with penalties in place, it is growing. This government thinks it is a good idea, therefore, to remove the penalties, because they would like to see it grow. One would assume from their actions that they think growth in this area is an important thing.
This legislation seeks to hurt workers—6.8 per cent of the workforce or around 690,000 Australians are affected by unpaid superannuation. This is not a small thing. This is not a trivial thing. It is this year's nasty in the Repeal Day pack. As we said, amongst the commas and misplaced parentheses, they are sneaking this one through, thinking that those on this side might not be alive to changes in superannuation. Again we have demonstrated that there we are always alive to this government's tricks and the secret nasties they put in the name of repeal.
In 2015 the Australian National Audit Office found that as many as 11 to 20 per cent of employers could be noncompliant with their superannuation guarantee obligations. The ATO describes noncompliance with superannuation guarantee obligations as 'endemic'. As a school teacher and a school principal in a former life, if a problem, such as wagging school, was endemic then the last thing I would do would be to reduce the penalties; I would increase the penalties to see if I could get people to be compliant. But not this government—it seeks to reduce the penalties for those people doing the wrong thing.
Australian workers deserve to be paid superannuation contributions correctly and on time. It is insulting enough that the government considers on-time payment of superannuation as red tape to be repealed. It says it all about this government, and it says it all about this new Prime Minister that we have yet another change in this chamber that will impact negatively on workers and yet another change being introduced to superannuation—this time under Prime Minister Turnbull, showing once again that they may have changed their leader but they have not changed the sentiment and they have not changed the intent of this government. We have a government that considers fair payment of super as 'red tape', to be discarded along with all those other things in their red tape repeal days. Many people are affected each year by the late payment or nonpayment of their superannuation guarantee payments, and it affects up to 20 per cent of employers. And this government thinks that that is something that they should bring into this House, sneak into their repeal day, and change things.
We know what 'red tape' means. Although 'simplification' in this place is code for 'be careful, workers', 'red tape' is code for fairness and safety. On one of the earlier repeal days, I heard a speech about early childhood education where educators doing paperwork, which is actually planning for the learning of the children in their care, was described in this place as 'red tape'. So we on this side are now very suspicious of repeal days and very suspicious whenever this government describes something as 'red tape'.
We need to stop and think. Australians make assumptions that things that exist exist to make life fairer. We are the nation of the fair go, so they assume that WorkCover, Fair Work Australia and the superannuation guarantee mean that there are things in place that will protect them.
I suggest that, over the Christmas holidays, members opposite go and find people in their electorates and talk to them about those assumptions—for example, find someone who is chasing their superannuation because it has not been paid appropriately. Today, The Age highlighted a case where it had taken six months for someone to recoup unpaid superannuation—six months. As reported by The Age:
Dan Warne thinks it is 'ridiculous and counter-intuitive' that the federal government has moved to reduce the penalties on employers that don't pay superannuation to effectively zero.
This man has faced this issue. The article says:
After six months of 'hassling', the employer eventually coughed up. But it was an 'unpleasant process' and Warne was shocked at how little power he had to force the company to do the right thing.
That is the reality on the ground—that is the reality on the ground when there are penalties in place. What will the reality on the ground be without any penalties in place, without anything to guarantee that superannuation is paid to Australian workers?
The Assistant Treasurer added insult to injury when, four days after introducing the legislation to lower penalties for noncompliance, she said, as reported in the Fairfax papers:
The government is focused on making sure employees get their superannuation guarantee payments …
We just saw the member for Forde look straight into the camera, after seven minutes of defending this legislation and not supporting the proposed amendment, and tell employers that it is their obligation to pay. Remove the penalties and make a speech; that will make sure Australians get their superannuation! That is even though on the ground now that is not the case. That is not what is happening. The reality is that this bill will make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations.
The Assistant Treasurer also claims that the changes in her Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 'are specific to the period in which penalty interest is charged'. The fact is that her legislation not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated; it also decreases the base of the penalty calculation and entirely repeals the additional superannuation guarantee charge penalty of $20 per employer per quarter, as the bill's explanatory memorandum makes clear. The Assistant Treasurer should come clean and admit that her legislation will make it easier for bosses to avoid paying superannuation on time, not improve compliance, which she claims is the government's focus.
Schedule 1 of the bill, as I said, is the hidden nasty amongst the commas and the misplaced parentheses. Like the attack on pensioners, like the scrapping of the low-income superannuation contribution, this piece of legislation attacks workers.
Labor has a strong record of making it easier for small businesses to meet their superannuation guarantee obligations, including setting up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House in 2010, which is a free, one-stop facility for small businesses to pay their super. But, unlike the government, Labor does not believe that workers receiving fair super on time amounts to 'red tape'. Australian workers deserve to have their superannuation contributions paid correctly and on time. They do not deserve to have to spend six months going through what has been described as 'an awful process' to recoup what is rightfully theirs. They deserve to be paid their superannuation. They deserve it because they deserve a decent retirement. This government's actions across its first two years have been damaging to people's superannuation, particularly that of low- and middle-income owners.
The Assistant Treasurer should not hold the good measure of payment of super to people with terminal medical conditions hostage to the passage of these unfair superannuation guarantee charge measures. Again it is typical of this government to have a carrot and a stick in the same piece of legislation.
I strongly support the amendment moved by Dr Chalmers, the member for Rankin, that would see this section of the bill, schedule 1, removed. Let the good things this government wants to do go through this House by removing the hidden nasty in its repeal day legislation which we are becoming so accustomed to going through with a fine-toothed comb to find in such legislation. Australian workers deserve a government that cares about them. Australians deserve a government that will protect their entitlements. Australians deserve a government that will penalise people who do not follow the rules and support people who get up early and go to work and do follow the rules every day of their lives.
I commend the amendment to this House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:28): Contrary to what the member for Lalor said, Australians do have a government that cares about them. Those opposite, seriously, have never seen a business they did not want a picket line out the front of or a business they did not want to bog down with red tape, with regulatory burdens, with taxes. Give the opposition another chance at government and I will tell you what we are going to get: we are going to get the mining tax back; we are going to get a carbon tax. If we thought the carbon tax was bad under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, it is going to be maxed out under the next iteration of Labor. That is all they are interested in—taxing small business, the engine room of our economy, and placing regulation upon green tape upon regulation on our farmers, the people who grow our food and fibre.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I know you don't understand that, members opposite—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! It being approximately 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Family Payments
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (13:29): It is clear that the family tax benefit cuts are a direct attack on the hardworking families in our community. In my electorate of McEwen, there are 17,345 families on FTB part A who will lose $726 for every child. There are just over 14,997 families on FTB part B facing cuts of $354 per family. Let's say that each of those families reflects the ABS average—that is, they have two kids. That is just over 64,000 kids in my electorate who will be hurt by these cuts if the Liberals get their way. What does this payment mean for families? It means kids having new shoes, clothes that fit or even a decent Christmas. Families are not a bottom line on a spreadsheet. They are doing it tough. Cuts like this will make it even worse. The Liberals have been trying to get these cuts through for two years and we have fought them all the way. That is because Labor stands up for families; we stand up for fairness. I do not know what the Turnbull government stands up for, but it is certainly not for these families. The Turnbull government does not care about the backbone of this country. What the Liberals are concerned about is maintaining fossil fuel and coal companies. That is because they need them. They need them to warm their cold, dead hearts. To the Turnbull government I say: it is very clear that, with your FTB cuts, you hate Christmas, you hate Santa and you want to destroy Christmas for all Australian families.
Boothby Electorate: Adelaide Test Match
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:31): The first day-night Test has just finished in Adelaide, and it was a roaring success. Attendance over the three days saw 124,000 people show up. These are the biggest crowds since the bodyline series in 1933. On average, more than 40,000 people attended the Adelaide Test daily, compared with 10,000 each day at the Brisbane Test. In recent years, it has become clear that support for cricket in Adelaide is strong. On a per capita basis, we have easily the highest attendance rate in the country. At the risk of starting a small war within the halls of parliament, I think Cricket Australia need to take a hard look at attendance numbers and facilities in other states when scheduling future events. The crowd numbers at the Gabba and the WACA are pathetic. The crowd numbers are not up to scratch and nor are the stadiums. I therefore call on Cricket Australia—and I am sure that, in the spirit of bipartisanship, South Australian Labor members will join me in this call; I see the member for Makin standing there—to recognise the strong support for cricket in Adelaide and start making scheduling decisions accordingly. Instead of playing international matches in empty stadiums, Cricket Australia should have held a one-day international in Adelaide this summer.
Family Payments
Goods and Services Tax
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:32): Christmas is a time of giving, but not for the Turnbull government, which is intent on taking. It wants to take money away from Australian families by cutting family payments and increasing their cost of living by increasing the GST or adding it to more items. In my electorate, under the Turnbull government's plan, 11,275 families receiving family tax benefit part A will lose $726 a year for every child and 9,423 families will also be hit with cut of $354 as a result of cuts to FTB part B. Single-parent families will be particularly hard hit when their youngest child turns 13, ending up $4,700 a year worse off. On top of these cuts, the Turnbull government wants to increase the GST, adding on average another $4,000 a year to the cost of living. For families already struggling with living costs, raising the GST by 50 per cent or adding it to essential items such as fresh food and medical costs will make their lives even more difficult. This out-of-touch government has lost control of its budget, with budget deficits projected to blow out by a further $38 billion, and it thinks it is fair to make those who can least afford it foot the bill. Labor will fight these unfair cuts and any GST increase all the way to the next election because Labor believes in a real fairness, where high-income earners and tax avoiders pay their fair share of tax. It will not take money away from families— (Time expired)
Illicit Drugs
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:34): Today I would like to speak on a community forum I will be hosting next week on the ice epidemic currently affecting my electorate of Bonner. This is a topic close to my heart. The statistics on methamphetamine use and its devastating impact on families and communities are of great concern to our community. What I found truly confronting are the personal stories my constituents have shared with me. Ice rips apart families and destroys lives. The scourge of ice is growing and it must be addressed at all levels. I was driven to hold the Bonner forum to help tackle this problem at a local level as part of the Australian government's wider measures to combat the scourge of ice. The purpose of the forum is to bring together local law enforcement, medical experts, school and community leaders and individuals whose lives have been impacted by ice. We will be answering the community's questions on ice and the government's measures to stop its spread. My aim with the forum is to start a dialogue within our community. The fight against ice can only be effective when the community and law enforcement work together and keep each other informed. I hope that, with this forum, more people will come to understand the extent of the ice problem and the role that they can play to help stop the spread of this terrible drug.
Indi Electorate: RACV Victorian Tourism Awards
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:35): The Y Water Discovery Centre in Yea has taken out the prestigious New Tourism Business category in this year's RACV Victorian Tourism Awards. Opened in August 2014, the Y Water Discovery Centre is the culmination of 16 years of planning, engagement, lobbying and fundraising by dedicated committee volunteers from the Yea Wetlands Committee of Management and the Yea Wetlands Trust. It is a landmark facility for Yea and a brand-new accredited visitor information centre and environmental education centre for Victoria. Staffed and managed by a team of more than 40 local volunteers and two part-time employees, the centre incorporates interactive interpretive displays that inform visitors about water resources and the local wetland ecology. Congratulations to Y Water Centre Association chairman, David Anderson, and to Murrindindi mayor, Margaret Rae, for all their work. The Murrindindi shire was well represented at the awards, with Holmesglen at Eildon's Rural Learning Centre and Conference Retreat awarded bronze in the same category and the fantastic Alexandra Truck Ute and Rod Show announced as a finalist in the Festivals and Events category. The Y Water Discovery Centre will now go on to represent Victoria at the Qantas Australian Tourism Awards be held in Melbourne in February 2016. Go Yea! Congratulations on all your wonderful work.
Foreign Investment: Housing
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:37): One issue that is continually raised with me is the concern that Deakin residents have with the rules around foreign investment in residential real estate and how these rules have been routinely ignored by investors, real estate agents and, quite frankly, governments in the past. Consequently, I hosted a community forum on the matter earlier in the year with local residents to provide them an opportunity to voice their concerns and provide feedback. We were fortunate to be joined by then parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, who had just concluded an inquiry on behalf of the government into the effectiveness of these rules. Minister O'Dwyer reported that the inquiry had found a poor history of monitoring and enforcement in this area by the Foreign Investment Review Board, particularly under the former Labor government.
I am pleased that from today greater investigation and compliance powers have been handed to the Australian Taxation Office and strict new penalties have been introduced for those caught breaking the rules, including fines of up to $675,000 for companies. Civil penalties forcing the forfeiture of any capital gains made as a result of a divestment order are also in place. Application fees have also been put in place to ensure that Australians who want to purchase their first home are not disadvantaged. I want to thank everybody involved in putting together these new rules. The test now will be for a Liberal government, a coalition government, to enforce the rules that Labor would never enforce.
Family Payments
Goods and Services Tax
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:38): Christmas is such a busy time for families around this country. I know that many of my constituents in Hotham, like my family, are focused on thinking about Christmas presents for our kids and what we are going to serve at Christmas lunch. It is also a time when I know that lots of families are struggling with pressures on their household budget. I want my constituents in Hotham to know that there are two proposals that are currently under consideration that could mean that next Christmas is a much tougher ask for your family than it has been this year. I want you to know that I am standing up these two proposals.
The first is a proposed cut to the family tax benefits. I want my constituents to know that this is not a figment of Labor's imagination. This is currently before the parliament and it is something that Labor is currently opposing. If these cuts to family tax benefits get across the line, more than 9,000 families in my electorate of Hotham will lose $725 a year and more than 8,000 families will lose $354 a year, and this is on top of cuts to the school kids bonus, the low-income super contribution, the proposals for $100,000 degrees, the pension cuts, the GP tax and $80 billion of cuts to schools and hospitals.
But there is more, and that is the proposal to increase the rate of the GST to 15 per cent and to broaden the base of that GST to cover off things like public transport, like food, like utilities—things that are currently exempt from the GST. Labor are opposed to these increases because we care about families in our electorates. (Time expired)
Hume Electorate: Telecommunications
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:40): The Crookwell community is about to have a great start to the new year—their TV reception is about to be fixed, thanks to federal funding. After years of little progress, I was made aware of the extent of the issue when I was a candidate, running for parliament. I have spent many months working on this issue, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now signed funding contracts with council and Regional Broadcasters Australia for a retransmission service which will give a strong TV signal for Crookwell.
I was out at Wades Hill just over a week ago, where the existing tower currently beams the ABC TV signal to the community. The federal government has committed $280,000 to buy equipment which will allow access to Prime 7, WIN, Southern Cross and SBS. In today's Crookwell Gazette, Chair of Regional Broadcasters Australia, Shirley Browne, says:
This is a very good result for the community.
… … …
… RBAH has completed ordering the hardware for Wades Hill.
I encourage the local council to continue working closely with major stakeholders to ensure a smooth installation. Mayor John Shaw has thanked the federal government and has pledged to keep the community regularly informed about the upgrade and how residents can access the new service early in the new year.
Family Payments
Goods and Services Tax
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:41): I regret to inform the House that there is going to be no cheer in the Christmas cracker for over 1.6 million Australian families. Tragically, this includes three million children. The reason for this is that tomorrow the Turnbull Liberal government intends to introduce legislation into the House which is going to savagely cut the family tax benefits for these Australian families.
In my own electorate, there are over 10½ thousand families who are going to be losing their family tax benefit part A, which is around $726 per annum, because the members over there are going to stand up and vote for it.
Ms Macklin: All of them.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: All of them are going to stand up and vote for it, and I guarantee that they will not be writing back to their electors saying, 'I stand for this $726 cut to your family tax benefit.'
On top of that, over 9½ thousand families in my electorate are going to have their family tax benefit part B cut to the tune of $354 per annum. This is going to be on top of the increased costs due to the government's plan to jack up the GST by over 50 per cent. This means $4,000 per annum to these households. What is obvious and what all of those opposite are going to be voting for is increased costs to these families. Clearly, there is more folly than holly in the plans for Christmas under these Liberals.
Robertson Electorate: Gosford City
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:43): The City of Gosford deserves a business, economic, infrastructure and cultural heart, and every single day I am fighting to help make this happen. Labor, on the other hand, is determined to mislead the people of the Central Coast as part of its own anti-jobs and anti-infrastructure agenda.
The former member for Robertson and now senator, Deborah O'Neill, has tabled motions in a feeble effort to attempt to sabotage the delivery of 600 federal jobs into the Gosford CBD. For a region where population growth is outstripping predictions, this is an extraordinary attempt to hold the Central Coast back for cheap political gain, at a time when we need more local jobs, sooner. The motions are also untrue. Labor claims a regional performing arts centre was 'earmarked' for the old Gosford Public School site. But the location of the centre was moved to the Gosford Memorial Park—and Labor knows this, because in 2013 and 2014, their own representative made very public statements that the performing arts centre would be on that site. Ultimately, the location is a matter for Gosford City Council. But we need the funding to help realise this dream. So I will continue to fight for the $10 million in funding to make this important civic attraction a reality.
Labor also makes allegations about government processes without checking the facts. The federal government is not buying this land or constructing a building. The federal government is leasing a building for 600 employees, which will deliver a massive boost to our local economy. Now is the time for Labor to stop its stunts and get behind the coalition's positive plans for Gosford. (Time expired)
Family Payments
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:45): Last Christmas the Abbott government sought to attack the wages and conditions of Australian workers. The then Treasurer sent his Christmas wish list off to the Productivity Commission, putting at stake everything that matters for everyone who works for a living. What has changed in a year? This year, they want to beef up the GST to make sure that families pay more for what they put under the tree and, indeed, for everything else. This Prime Minister's Christmas wish is to play the Grinch: to raise and broaden the GST and to cut benefits for families, especially single-parent families. In my electorate of Scullin, over 12,000 families will be $700 a year worse off due to family tax benefit A cuts, and nearly 11,000 families will lose $350 a year because of family tax benefit B cuts. If the Prime Minister gets his way, average families will be working harder and ending up with less in their bank accounts, while his mates—the mates of all of those opposite—will get off without paying their fair share. Let's make no mistake about this whatsoever: this Prime Minister, whatever he says, is just as committed as his predecessor to making Australia a less equal place. Let's also be clear about this: the Labor Party stands resolutely opposed to this agenda. It is resolutely opposed to raising and broadening the GST and to these unfair, regressive family payment cuts.
Forde Electorate: Sport
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:46): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the young athletes in my electorate of Forde who have recently received the Local Sporting Champions grant. The grant program is about helping young people pursue their sporting dreams, which can often be difficult when there are significant costs involved with attending competitions.
On Friday I had the pleasure of presenting certificates to some of our outstanding athletes who were successful in their grant applications, including Robert Fisher, who will be competing in the Australian Surf Life Saving titles in 2016; Tahlia-Ann Stewart, who is competing in the BMX state titles; Jeremiah Ieremia, who is competing in the National Rugby League carnival; Kayla Hanoc, for the Under 19 Women state softball; and Alexander Reeves, who is competing in the Rowing Queensland state championships. It was great to be able to talk to these young athletes about their wonderful achievements and their love of sport. I would also like to congratulate other Forde Local Sporting Champions grant recipients: Jade Willis, Joshua Moreland and Kate Gaudin for the Pacific School Games soccer; Layton Reid for Pacific School Games softball; Kyla McNaughton for the Inline Hockey National Championships; Kye Sutherland and Dillon Lewis for the Under 14 State Academy Championships for Australian Football; and Matilda Alexandersson for the Australian junior table tennis titles. I wish them every success in their future sporting endeavours.
Family Payments
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:48): The member for Jagajaga told us—she warned us—and she was right: they are back. The family tax benefit cuts are back. Merry Christmas, Australia! The fight against Malcolm Turnbull's cuts to family payments continues. We have been fighting these cuts for two years, and we are back in the chamber today to take the fight up again. The government will put the rest of these cuts back in here tomorrow. We have managed to protect grandparent carers from the worst of these cuts, but for 21,000 families in the electorate of Lalor and for 1.3 million families across this country we have to stand and fight again. To the people who were on my Facebook page this week who were not quite aware yet that the schoolkids bonus had been cut: we are going to have to fight again; we are going to have to keep this fight up to this government. This means 21,000 families in my electorate will be $4,700 a year worse off. Prime Minister, this is not agile. Attacking families is not innovative, and this is not new politics. This is bad news for families across this country, and I believe the member for Jagajaga when she says a GST is coming next because I have not seen her be wrong in two years. She was right about this and she will be right about the GST. Bear it up, families! We are in for a tough year.
Barton Electorate: Estia Foundation
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (13:49): It was a wonderful privilege to attend the grand opening of the Estia Foundation's new state-of-the-art, permanent group home complex yesterday. I was joined by the president and patron, His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, and the New South Wales Minister for Ageing, the Hon. John Ajaka MLC.
The Estia Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation that offers 24-hour respite and group housing services for young adults with intellectual and physical disabilities. The new facility will help to extend and continue exceptional care that caters to the needs of young adults permanently living with Estia. Their facilities provide security and peace of mind for both clients and their families to help relieve the stress of finding accommodation and appropriate care for loved ones with special needs. Not only do Estia deliver excellent accommodation and care services; they also focus on the opportunities available for individual development and independence. This ongoing support allows young adults to participate and express their many talents and abilities, which are not to be underestimated by any means.
This commitment from Estia's staff and volunteers does not go unnoticed and is truly admirable. Their ongoing support is something we should all be grateful for, and I know their new group home complex will continue to deliver positive change to our community and memorable moments in the lives of those who deserve it the most.
Family Payments
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:50): I cannot believe it has boomeranged already! Here we are again—this government is going to put more cuts before the parliament. How many times does this parliament have to reject their cuts to family tax benefits A and B? Let's just be clear about how many families in regional Australia this government is seeking to hurt by continuing to put these cuts before this House. In regard to both part A and part B, there are 20,000 in my electorate. There are about 20,000 in Murray, the seat to the north, and about 20,000 in Mallee, the seat to the west. In the member for Wannon's electorate it is even more than 20,000. Yet these people in this place—the National Party, the Country Liberal MPs—continue to vote for them, and you can bet that when this bill comes for a vote next year these MPs will do the same. So why don't they go home this Christmas and be honest with their voters and tell them the truth? What they want to give them this Christmas is a cut to family tax benefits A and B. Then next Christmas these families will be worse off because not only have they had their family tax benefit cut; they also want to whack them with a GST. They want to broaden out the base of the GST to 15 per cent. This government is just rotten to the core when it comes to standing up for low-paid families, boomeranging bad policy again and again. How many times do we have to vote it down before that they get the message? (Time expired)
Save the Tarkine
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (13:52): Last year I stood in this place and exposed the dire financial position of Save the Tarkine and accused it of entering into expensive legal action which was doomed to fail in the full knowledge it did not have the funds to pay costs if it lost. And it did lose. This week Save the Tarkine's Scott Jordan confirmed he has received a bill from Venture Minerals for the legal costs of at least one of its failed legal actions. The cost is believed to be in the range of $100,000 and, combined with the cost to taxpayers of federal action, the total liability could as high as $300,000 to $400,000.
If a business engaged in multiple reckless and frivolous legal actions with the full knowledge that it was unable to pay costs if it lost the directors would be hauled over the coals by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Company directors would be banned from holding positions in the future. They could end up being personally responsible for the debt and even end up in jail. But, because this organisation is registered under the Tasmanian Associations Incorporations Act, little action can be taken. Scott Jordan and the directors of Save the Tarkine will go to their 2015 Christmas drinks function without a care in the world. It will not concern them that they have cost jobs, it will not concern them that they have cost a mining company wanting to invest in local projects with local workers and it will not concern them that they have cost business and the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is 'lawfare' at its absolute worst. Bob Brown should stump up the money. He encouraged them to take the action. State and federal laws should be changed.
Cost of Living
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:54): With Christmas almost upon us, I thought it might be a good time to write a couple of lists for families on what this government is doing on their costs of living. We will call one list 'naughty' and the other list 'nice'. What is the government doing for Australian families this Christmas? What is it they doing that is naughty and what is it doing that is nice?
I am sorry to say that the nice list is very short. In fact, it is completely empty. What about the naughty list? That is a lot longer. It includes axing family tax benefit supplements. It includes cutting payments to leave a typical single-parent family $4,700 a year worse off. A typical two-parent family will be $2,600 a year worse off because of this government's cuts. Axing the schoolkids bonus will rip hundreds of dollars a year out of families' pockets. Of course, the naughtiest of all is the 15 per cent GST that will increase the cost of everything and hurt every single Australian family. They are hurting families instead of helping them. They are increasing their costs of living instead of easing them. There is no other way to describe it: the Prime Minister is the Christmas cost-of-living Grinch! (Time expired)
Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:55): Recently I welcomed the Treasurer to the electorate of Hindmarsh for the dedication of a plane for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The RFDS's new plane is, for all intents and purposes, a flying intensive care unit. The $7 million aircraft is the first of five new medically equipped Pilatus PC12 aircraft to replace some of their ageing aircraft. It features state-of-the art avionics and emergency services and will replace their current aircraft which for the past 13 years has transferred more than 10,000 patients.
The Treasurer was delighted to announce the $2.7 million contribution by the Commonwealth government towards this landmark capital project. As part of the announcement, there was a special donation of $600,000 by the Hackett Foundation to fund the medical fit-out that converted this aircraft into a flying intensive care unit. Simon Hackett was on hand as a representative of the foundation, and I congratulate him for his generosity. This is a major philanthropic outlay and I applaud Mr Hackett for donating some of the money that he made from the sale of his IT business, Internode, to help those in need.
The RFDS also receive significant support from corporate sponsors, such as BHP Billiton and Oz Minerals among others. Over the last two years I have supported and attended the RFDS Wings for Life Ball, another of the many fundraising activities for the organisation. I thank Charlie Patterson and his team for their fundraising activities and look forward to supporting them in the future.
Finally, like many organisations, the RFDS will need community support over the coming years but, under the leadership of Chairman David Hills and CEO John Lynch and their team, I am sure they will continue to succeed in delivering a world-class service.
HIV-AIDS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): It is just over 30 years since the HIV-AIDS epidemic began in Australia. Between 1984 and mid-1985 there was a 540 per cent increase in cases. My electorate, of course, was one of the worst hit. But the response that was led at that time by our then health minister Neal Blewett made all the difference. There was bipartisan support across the parliament and the work over the next decades of countless activists, researchers, health professionals, non-government organisations and public servants has meant that Australia now has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world. Our parliament thanks all of those who have been involved in this great effort over many decades.
Australia was successful because we put affected communities at the centre of our response to HIV and AIDS. Over the past 30 years we have continued to make great advances not just in treatments but in diagnosis, including the rapid HIV testing that was approved when I was health minister and PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis—the next big step forward in helping drive us to zero new infections. There is still very much to do but, on this World AIDS Day, we want to remember that an AIDS-free generation is possible. It is as possible as the elimination of smallpox and as possible as ending polio.
Wannon Electorate: Speaker's Visit
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (13:58): Mr Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the wonderful visit by your good self to the electorate of Wannon. The importance of educating the next generation in the way our political system operates is paramount. In taking the time to visit students at Bayview College, Portland Secondary School and Bolwarra Primary School, you helped educate and inform on the role of politics and representatives in Australia.
At each school students participated in mock elections, parliamentary debate and speaking competitions—some of which were on par with the quality in this House! At Portland Secondary School, for example, Christopher Weinberg and students participated in a mock election campaign with all the parties represented. As I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, all the party leaders did a sterling job. I say well done to Savannah Wittingslow of the Nationals, Emily Kindred of the Greens, Zac Barrington of the Labor Party, Zavier Burbridge of the Palmer United Party, Asha Sealey of the Liberal Democrats and Dana Mueller of the Liberal Party.
It was terrific to see young students engaged and enthusiastic about the democratic process and about politics in Australia. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for visiting Wannon and providing the opportunity for these students to engage so fully on the importance of our democratic system.
The SPEAKER: It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:00): The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Small Business will be away from question time today as she is unwell. The Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Climate Change
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to mention the government's woefully inadequate 26 to 28 per cent carbon pollution target even once in his speech to the climate conference in Paris. Is the government leaving room for a more ambitious target, or, like the foreign minister, is the government saying one thing in the conference room in Paris and another thing entirely in the party room in Canberra?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:01): I thank the member for her question. The government announced its targets for the Paris conference last August—publicly. There were press releases. It was, in fact, lodged with the UN. It is a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. The target has been the subject of many public announcements and statements. It is the same policy that we have had since August.
I really do question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking to make something of what is a public announcement by us and suggesting that we say one thing in Paris and another in Canberra. But the deputy leader does have form on this, you see. She so often says things that really are subject to some detailed consideration. Dare I say: she has been scaremongering again on the issue of climate change.
I think it is important not to engage in hyperbole when one is talking about climate change. I remember in 2011 when the deputy leader tried to scare the senior citizens on the Central Coast by saying that they were going to be subject to the ravages of climate change. Well, this is rather interesting. On 4 November, in relation to climate change, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on ABC radio that she had visited the Pacific islands:
… to see, well, where an island used to be, the island of Eneko—an island that had a home on it, a garden, spread fruit trees, palm trees, it’s just literally disappeared into the sea.
She said, 'literally disappeared into the sea'. That was news to me. That was certainly news to the post. That was certainly news to the residents of Eneko. Colleagues might be interested to see the island of Eneko.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Foreign Affairs knows the rules about props.
An honourable member: Table it!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I seek leave to table a picture of Eneko.
The SPEAKER: You do not need leave to table it.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Indeed, Eneko, the island that she says has literally disappeared into the sea, has in fact got a residence on it. It has a beautiful and accessible beach getaway. You can rent a bungalow for $50 a night. It is in good condition, we are told. There are houses, lawns, gardens. There is a toilet block, and there are picnic tables. It seems to me that, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes a claim, people had better test it very carefully. It is about scaremongering, exaggerating, hyperbole. It is really news to the people of Eneko. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There are far too many interjections on each side. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The member for Bass will cease interjecting. On my left, the members for Jagajaga and Hotham will cease interjecting—I warned them yesterday—and the member for Hunter, as well, who has given me a private assurance.
Ms Plibersek: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the speech by the Prime Minister in Paris, where he does not mention the pathetic targets of the government.
Leave not granted.
Infrastructure
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:05): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Acting Prime Minister please update the House on infrastructure projects that are currently underway in my electorate of Page?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for Page for the question. Earlier today I had the privilege of presenting the government's second annual report on infrastructure projects around Australia. It reported on our $50 billion commitment—the biggest in our nation's history—to build road and railway lines across the nation, and, of course, $14.9 billion of that investment is in New South Wales.
One of the biggest and most important projects in regional Australia is our $5.6 billion commitment towards the Pacific Highway. That work is now very much starting to focus on the member's electorate. So far 60 per cent, or 397 kilometres, has been upgraded to a four-lane divided road, and construction on another 149 kilometres is currently underway. The first contract has been let for 155 kilometres, the final section, much of which is in the honourable member's electorate, to complete that four-laning of the Pacific Highway.
This could never have happened had Labor been in office. Our commitment of $5.64 billion is $3 billion more than what Labor had committed to the project and, once more, $2 billion of what Labor had proposed to provide was not available until after 2019-20.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Mr TRUSS: We are committed to finishing it before the end of this decade. Labor would never have delivered on that formula. In addition to that, Labor was demanding that the New South Wales state government pay 50 per cent of the cost. Earlier today the shadow minister actually blamed the New South Wales state government because Labor had underperformed on the Pacific Highway. The reality is that Labor was trying to change the formula so that the project would never be built. It had no commitment to the Pacific Highway. We have restored the 80:20 funding link. That has made the project possible. That is why the people of New South Wales, and indeed all of those travelling up the coast, will have a four-lane highway all the way from Sydney to Brisbane before the end of this decade—something that Labor would never have delivered.
Age Pension
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:07): My question is to the Treasurer. The Productivity Commission report released today recommends that the family home be included in the pension assets test. Will the Treasurer give pensioners certainty in their retirement by ruling out including the family home in the pension assets test?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dobell will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:08): I thank the member for the question. I note that the Productivity Commission report to which she refers was a report to government not from government. It was also a report that was initiated by the Productivity Commission not by the government. The government's policy on this issue is very well known, and there is no change in the government's policy.
Economic Competitiveness
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (14:08): My question too is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how Australia is transitioning from the mining boom to a more diversified economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative plans that could hinder efforts to grow the economy and jobs and could damage Australia's transition?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for Reid for his question. He is someone with a great business record before coming into this House. He well understands the challenges in the economy. I commend him on his elevation to the role of Chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics. Australia is steadily making the transition from a once-in-a-generation mining investment boom to a more diversified economy. As our economy continues to grow—as it is, above the OECD average and at more than twice the rate of comparable economies like Canada, who have also had a resource base—the sheer scale of the resources boom means that there will be challenges as we go through this transition. Australians understand that, but they also are realistically optimistic about Australia's economic fortunes, and there have been very positive signs in the course of the last week which give them cause for confidence.
The Australian manufacturing sector has expanded for the fifth straight month in this November. That is the first time that that has happened since July 2010. Secondly, the gross operating profits data this week was the first positive growth in profits recorded since March of 2014. This week's growth in wages and salaries over the past two quarters is the strongest since June of 2012. Of course, we have had the balance of payments data today, which the Minister for Trade and Investment will be very interested in because it shows that exports of goods and services in the September quarter rose by 4.6 per cent. That is the largest quarterly increase since 2000. This is a significant improvement in our balance of payments when it comes to exports. As those on this side of the House know, this government has been running the most ambitious trade agenda of any government in recent memory, led of course by the Minister for Trade and Investment as we have seen those agreements come into place. We have also seen employment continue to grow over the past year. We have seen unemployment fall. We have particularly seen youth unemployment fall to a level now which is below what it was at the time of the last election. Some 231,700 jobs have been created just in this year. That is the fastest growing calendar year growth in jobs since 2006.
What we will continue to do is work through the issues of growing our economy and growing jobs as we move through this transition. Australians understand that our economy is in transition. They know the things that they need to do. They are looking for a government—and they have found one—that will back them as they work, as they save and as they invest as they move through this transition in their economy. There are alternative approaches like those put by those opposite. This economy had enough help from the opposition when they were in government—of their very special brand of help—we have had by far enough of that. This government is putting in place the strong platform for jobs and growth that our economy needs as we go through this transition.
The SPEAKER (14:12): I inform the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon the winners of the My First Speech competition, who we have just been with. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Goods and Services Tax
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:12): My question again is to the Treasurer, and I refer to the Treasurer's previous answer. Given that the Treasurer just ruled out including the family home in the pension assets test by affirming that the government's policy will not change, why won't he also rule out increasing the GST to 15 per cent, which will push up the price of everything for pensioners?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dobell will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:12): The government has the same position as the opposition when it comes to the matters to which the member refers. I am happy to confirm that our policy has not changed when it comes to the issue of family homes, and nor should it. This is something that I think is understood around this chamber. The members opposite make reference to the goods and services tax. Again, we are going back to where we were a few weeks ago and where we were last week.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will not interject.
Mr MORRISON: The government has no such proposal and has not put forward any such preferred option or set of options. What the government has done is respond to the request from states and territories who have raised the issue of the GST. The only other group that I am aware of in this parliament who has raised it and had modelling and assumptions worked out on a GST increase is the member for McMahon, when he was the Treasurer, with the well-known scenario 3. We are still waiting for the opposition to give authority for the release of all the modelling that they did on an increase in the GST and an expansion of the GST. They will not allow that information to be released, and I would encourage the shadow Treasurer—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: When he is not having a go at the member for Fowler—he is a great bloke, the member for Fowler. He is a tremendous bloke. I cannot understand why the member for McMahon would have so much against the son of a policeman. I think that he has something against policemen, as we learnt at the last election.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. Through that answer, the member for Jagajaga continued to interject. I now warn her. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will not interject.
Renewable Energy
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. The government has already cut almost a billion dollars from clean energy and public good R&D and still plans to axe Australia's leading clean energy agencies, ARENA and the CEFC. If you really want us to believe the government has travelled down the road to Damascus on the way to Paris, instead of ripping out another $23 billion from clean energy research, development and investment, will you commit, here and now, to retaining the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and doubling their budgets?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:15): I am glad to see that the Greens and Labor are, once again, in a very strong alliance on these issues. There is a very strong alliance between the Greens and Labor when it comes to these issues, when it comes to economic policy and when it comes to how money should just be spent willy-nilly well off into the future. There is a strong bond between Labor and the Greens on these issues—a bond which will never be broken, I suspect.
But when it comes to the matters that the member has raised, the government's policy remains exactly as we have presented it to the Senate and we have no plans to change that. What we have done is: we have gone down the path of actually meeting our Kyoto Mark 1 targets. Australia is meeting those targets. It will meet that target, and we are going to that conference in Paris with a target of 26 to 28 per cent, which is a measured, responsible, calibrated response to the challenges that we face.
There is an alternative proposal, which I know the Greens would be very interested in—and I suspect they wrote the crib notes for the opposition on what it should be—with a 45 per cent reduction in emissions. That is what those opposite are proposing, egged on by the Greens. What we see from those opposite, when we come to this, when it comes to the economy is: some of us in this place will remember the older computer game, Pac-Man; the opposition and the Greens, when it comes to this issue, are like a pacman, just going around gobbling up jobs, gobbling up the economy and gobbling up the budget. Do you know what happens at the end of Pac-Man? It is game over—and that is what it would be for the economy if you were ever let near it again.
Climate Change
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on developments at the Paris climate change meeting and on what the government is bringing to the climate change negotiations? How does this compare with other proposed approaches?
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth is warned!
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:17): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. Overnight, the Prime Minister joined about 150 world leaders at the climate change meeting in Paris. They are all calling for a strong and effective global agreement to respond to the challenge of climate change, seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis. The Prime Minister highlighted Australia's considerable economic effort in reducing our share of greenhouse gas emissions. While our contribution to global emissions is just over one per cent, our target of a reduction of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 is one of the biggest reductions by any G20 country. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said in the speech to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred, 'We will be reducing our emissions per capita by half.' As I have noted in previous answers, that is a reduction per unit of GDP of about two-thirds.
Recognising that innovation in technology will be essential to reducing emissions and driving economic growth—and, of course, the Prime Minister has put innovation at the heart of our policy agenda—the Prime Minister has announced that Australia will support the doubling of investment in clean energy innovation over the next five years. Further, the Prime Minister also announced that Australia will ensure that at least a billion dollars, over the next five years, from our existing aid budget will help to reduce the impact of natural disasters in our region and to prepare them for the risks of natural disaster, because, of course, the Pacific—our part of the world—is one of the most natural-disaster-prone regions in the world. So, in consultation with development partners, particularly in the Pacific, we are taking practical steps which will strengthen our development programs with Pacific island nations in particular. That is why we are co-chairing the Green Climate Fund—to ensure that there is a focus on Pacific nations.
The opposition, in contrast, continues in its desperate attempt to grab a headline with this reckless and ill-considered 45 per cent emissions target and 50 per cent renewable energy target. They will not give you any details on how they are going to do it because they know it means a supercharged carbon tax. The Climate Change Authority's analysis, commissioned by Labor, shows that Labor's 45 per cent reduction would wipe more than $600 billion off the economy. It would mean that employment by 2030 in the coal and gas industry would be 23 per cent lower than otherwise and jobs in the construction industry would be 11 per cent lower, and this Climate Change Authority analysis, commissioned by Labor, says the electricity sector would lose tens of thousands of jobs. Workers would lose jobs, and we know this because Professor Garnaut said the carbon tax would lead to vulnerable, large-scale loss of livelihood across— (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey—Speaker) (14:20): I inform the House we also have present in the southern gallery, to my left, the winners of the Country to Canberra competition. On behalf of the House, I pay them a very warm welcome and I thank the member for Canberra for pointing that out.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's answer earlier in question time in which he talked about the economy but did not mention capital expenditure. How much did capital expenditure fall in the September quarter? How much has it fallen since the last election?
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I now warn the member for Bass!
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:21): Capex fell in that quarter by 9.2 per cent. It is down by 9.2 per cent and it is 20 per cent lower than it was a year ago.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Mr MORRISON: I am happy to take his interjection.
The SPEAKER: No, the Treasurer will resume his seat for a second. The member for McMahon has asked his question. He will not interject and he will not seek to ask supplementaries by way of interjection.
Mr MORRISON: I know why the member opposite asked this question: because he seems to be in denial that Australia is actually moving past the investment phase of the mining boom. The rest of the country and the rest of this side of the House understand that the Australian economy is going through a transition. They will know that resources investment in this country has gone from about eight per cent of GDP down to about three per cent of GDP. That is what happens when you move out of the investment phase of a mining boom. That might become news, because those opposite seemed to think that resources and mining were going to fuel their spending forever and ever, and that is why they never did anything to curb spending.
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under direct relevance. The Treasurer appears unaware that non-mining investment is down as well.
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: The shadow Treasurer is right to point out that non-mining investment also fell. He does not understand that, when an economy transitions, the investment follows the demand. What I outlined in my earlier answer, if he chose to listen, is that what we are seeing is a pick-up in the demand side of the economy. As the economy transitions, in the investment side of the equation, currently what we are seeing is them picking up and utilising existing capacity, and they are moving into that existing capacity as the demand picks up. And, as we continue to support policies that promote growth and jobs, then investment will follow at a later stage. That is what happens when an economy transitions.
Those opposite may pick out simple points of data to engage in their pessimistic view of the Australian economy. They may wish to do that. But the good news is that the majority of Australians are confident about our economy—and there are more optimists than there are pessimists about the Australian economy, according to the Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey. Those opposite may want to indulge in their parade of pessimism when it comes to the economy, but the Australian people are going to be backed by this government, because they are out there working and saving and investing, and we are going to back them to do that. Those opposite are simply going to seek to discourage them, and that is why they do not deserve to sit on this side of the House.
Agrifood Sector
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science. I remind the minister that the Business Council of Australia today released a report on Australia's comparative advantage in the agrifood sector. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's actions in innovation and science will help drive paddock-to-plate productivity and help drive growth in regional Australia?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:24): I am very pleased to get a question from the member for Lyne about the Business Council of Australia's report which they handed down today, Building Australia's comparative advantages: a 21st century agrifood sector, because his electorate of Lyne has a very diverse economy. It encompasses agriculture, food manufacturing and mining as well as industry and advanced manufacturing.
Mr Bowen: Is that a Gryffindor tie?
Mr PYNE: Mr Speaker, they are always dealing with the big issues on the other side of the House, aren't they? Focusing on my tie is apparently the big issue for the shadow Treasurer. Apart from replacing the member for Fowler, the other issue he is concerned about is whether my tie is a Hogwarts tie. I can assure you it is not; it is a Cosmos Club tie from Washington DC.
Back to the important question I was asked by the member for Lyne. The Business Council of Australia's agribusiness report today was the first of their five deep dives on the economy that the Business Council of Australia have promised to do. It is a very interesting document. In it, Jennifer Westacott says that one of the important things is:
… realising this opportunity requires a shift in mindset and approach from government and industry. Policies need to shift from a focus on agriculture alone to one that encompasses the broader agrifood sector.
That is why, member for Flynn and the rest of the House, the government is focusing on a national innovation and science agenda, which will be released next week, which will have great advantages to the agribusiness sector. It will help to drive businesses like SwarmFarm, in the member for Flynn's electorate, and Forager Foods, in the member for Lyne's electorate, in Tasmania. These are businesses that are using new technologies to drive jobs and growth in the Australian economy, in rural and regional Australia.
All four themes in the national innovation and science agenda, whether culture and capital, as an exemplar, or talents and skills, or collaboration, will have big impacts in rural and regional Australia. Take collaboration as just one example. We already support rural research and development corporations. Ag-focused competitive research centres have been very successful, with the CRC on pork, for example. As the minister for agriculture would know, it will soon form a limited company as the next iteration of its existence. CSIRO has a dedicated agriculture business unit. Lots of aspects of the national innovation and science agenda will help to turbocharge that part of the economy in agriculture, mining and food manufacturing right across rural and regional Australia. I am very much looking forward to it, as I am sure is the rest of the House. I welcome the Business Council's support of the government working to diversify the economy.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Justice. When was the Minister for Justice or his office first informed of the Australian Federal Police's intention to execute a search warrant at the home of the Special Minister of State?
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (14:28): I do not need to be careful. Thank you the question. As is usual practice, the Australian Federal Police informed me just prior to it being executed.
Agriculture
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how agriculture is supporting both jobs and innovation in the Northern Territory and right across the nation more broadly, and how is this helping to boost the Australian economy?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for her question. She, more than most, would understand the improvements that are happening in agriculture by reason of innovation. She would know because of the work that she herself has done in the IT sector over a long period of time.
It is great to see that the Northern Territory in some instances is at the forefront of the innovation sector. Australian Agricultural Company has recently opened a new abattoir, and it is great to see that the Australian Agricultural Company have had a massive turnaround in their profits.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari.
Mr JOYCE: There are 350 new jobs in that area.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari is warned!
Mr JOYCE: It is great to see that, in the six months to September, they had a $50 million profit. That compares to a $3.59 million loss in the prior, corresponding period. This is the first profit they have had since 2007, and it just goes to show the turnaround in the agricultural sector and how this is inspiring jobs and bringing a better outcome and a better standard of living for people in the Territory.
It is not just in the Territory, but it is also in South Australia with companies such as Thomas Foods, which has an annual revenue of $1.3 billion and employs 2500 people. The benefits of this are now seen even in my electorate—in Tamworth, their expansion is going to bring about another 200 jobs. It is happening all across our nation, and innovation goes hand in hand with new jobs. This morning I read about the upgrade and innovation by Steritech, which does gamma irradiation of mangoes and which is allowing the export of a new product into the United States, and so further expanding our capacity to export this product from all around South-East Queensland. The Acting Prime Minister is obviously very aware of those issues.
Robotics has also come to the fore, as the minister for innovation has been saying. These robotics in modular units are being used for the control of weeds and the more effective delivery of chemicals to land. Then there is the extension of drones to control weeds. And let us not forget the massive investment that the federal government—$¼ million in the ag portfolio alone—in matching R&D funding. In excess of $12 billion has been spent on water upgrades to the Murray-Darling Basin to get more effective delivery of water and a better return per unit of land. In the last week I have also had the pleasure of releasing a new grass, a tall fescue—not surprisingly, its name is Barnaby.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:31): My question is to the Minister of Justice. Given that the minister was informed of the Australian Federal Police's intention to execute a search warrant at the home of the Special Minister of State, did the minister or his office inform any of his ministerial colleagues, including but not limited to the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Special Minister of State, other ministers or any of their respective officers?
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is now warned.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (14:32): After the warrants were executed, as I would normally do in a matter like this, I informed the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Attorney-General as the cabinet minister in the portfolio.
Climate Change
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is helping our Pacific neighbours respond to the challenges posed by climate change?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:33): I thank the member for Macquarie for her interest in this. The fact is that a number of Pacific Island families face real challenges as a consequence of climate change. In particular, we know that Vanuatu, Tonga, Solomon Islands and PNG are among the top 10 most at risk countries when it comes to natural disasters. So in this respect Australia is playing a very important role—I am happy to inform the member for Macquarie—when it comes to helping our Pacific neighbours. We know, for example, that we are going to take responsible action in relation to climate change, because under the coalition government the target that we have taken to Paris represents a 50 per cent per capita reduction. This reinforces the strong message that Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with the Pacific Island family when it comes to taking action that is responsible and consistent with their needs. That is why I was so pleased that the Prime Minister announced overnight $1 billion that will go towards helping climate resilience in vulnerable countries, particularly those in the Pacific.
Australia is going to continue to work with a number of our program partners—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith is warned.
Mr CIOBO: in delivering these programs. The Green Climate Fund—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham is now warned.
Mr CIOBO: the World Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank are just some of those we will be working with. Since I have served as Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I have had the opportunity see on the ground the action that Australia is taking together with program partners to help bring about resilience and change in the Pacific. For example, in Niue I had the opportunity to visit and launch a state-of-the-art tidal gauge facility, which is going to play a critical role in providing scientific information, real-time measurements to not only Niue's national weather service but also the knowledge base that we have in Australia.
In Fiji's Yasawa islands—a remote chain of drought prone islands—we are seeing a community food bank project that is helping to produce resilient crops and improve farming techniques. In Kiribati we are seeing Australia's programs working with the local community to protect freshwater supplies and the sea wall and to assist communities to respond to drought.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
Mr CIOBO: We are also making sure that our investments are resilient. We are making sure that the infrastructure we build is resilient to climate change—whether it be roads, ports or bridges. The fact is that the coalition has a strong investment plan to help boost our region, and that stands in contrast to a Labor opposition which does not know where it stands—whether it is in favour of an emissions trading scheme; whether or not it is ripping funds out of Kiribati and the Marshall Islands. It was 30 per cent from the Marshall Islands and 20 per cent from Kiribati. The difference could not be more stark.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:36): I inform the House that in the last few minutes we have been joined by an Indonesian parliamentary delegation led by His Excellency Mr Irman Gusman, Speaker of the Regional Representatives Council. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:36): My question is to the Special Minister of State. On Thursday last week during question time the minister said:
I refer you to the findings of the full bench of the Federal Court, which dealt with all of the evidence put before it and found entirely that I acted appropriately.
I have read that judgement from beginning to end, including paragraphs 122 to 124—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr DREYFUS: Can the minister name the paragraph which finds that he acted appropriately? If there is not one, has not the minister misled the parliament?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will cease interjecting. Members on my right will contain themselves. I need to hear the question and I was only just able to hear it. I remind those on my left—
Mr Danby: Can he name the paragraph?
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports is warned. I call the minister.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:37): Just to help the honourable member, this is what the judgement of the Full Bench of the Federal Court says:
We are also of the opinion that there was no basis for the primary judge to conclude that Brough was part of any combination with anyone … to the commencement of these proceedings with the predominant purpose of damaging Slipper in the way alleged or at all.
Mr Albanese: It doesn't say that—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I made it clear in earlier answers that I am going to deal with interjections on questions where the opposition are seeking to follow up on previous answers. I need to hear the answer. If anyone interjects in the minister's answer I am going to eject them.
Mr BROUGH: I conclude by continuing with the findings of the Full Bench of the Federal Court:
Despite Brough's hesitation at seeing Ashby he did so and referred him to Russell QC. There is absolutely nothing untoward about those matters.
Superannuation
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:38): My question is to the Treasurer. On 20 November I spoke at a well-attended forum in Launceston convened by the Association of Independent Retirees. Strong concerns were expressed at that meeting about the possibility of unexpected or retrospective changes to superannuation. Will the Treasurer outline the government's approach to superannuation, and is he aware of any policy risks to the hard-won superannuation savings of everyday Australians?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:39): Those of us on this side of the House understand and acknowledge the contribution made by Australians who have worked their whole lives for one particular purpose, and that is becoming a self-funded retiree. Becoming a self-funded retiree, an independent retiree, not dependent on government payments and things like that, together with homeownership, is one of the great aspirations of Australians. These are the things that we want to continue to encourage as a government. We also note that the pension is there for those who because of whatever circumstances in life have been unable to get themselves in a position of being fully independent in retirement. It is an important payment, it has to be a sustainable payment. The government has no plans to make any changes to the pension. Those matters were dealt with earlier this year when we ensured that those most vulnerable pensioners, those with the lowest level of assets, would be getting an increase in the pension—something those opposite voted against.
When it comes to superannuation, it is important that we understand there must be stability and certainty. Those opposite wrote the book on creating instability and uncertainty when it came to superannuation during their time in government. They saw the superannuation savings of Australians as a plaything for unions. This side of the House will not do that. This side of the House is focused on building a better superannuation system which encourages Australians and backs Australians to be independent in their retirement. That means there needs to be greater choice, there needs to be better governance. We note that to this day those opposite still resist and oppose the idea of better governance of superannuation funds. They do not want independence in government superannuation funds—what they want is unions controlling workers' money. That is what they want. On this side of the House we think there should be choice.
Ms Burke interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: We think there should be better governance. We think there should be better information. When we talk about superannuation we are trying to help Australians be independent in their retirement.
Ms Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned.
Mr MORRISON: When it comes to superannuation, they just see a big bag of cash that they want to tax so they can chase higher and higher and higher levels of spending. On this side, we are interested in providing certainty for retirement—certainty and stability which ensures that those who have saved and invested over their lifetime are not subjected to uncertainties in their retirement phase. I note those opposite want to crash the party when it comes to people in their retirement phase. They have made that pretty clear. When it comes to superannuation, we want to help and support and back Australians who are seeking to reach that aspiration of being a self-funded retiree. For those who cannot get to that level, we will ensure through our strong fiscal management that the pension will always be there for them.
Ms O'Neil: So you are going to make changes?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Isaacs, I have warned the member for Hotham on numerous days, a number of times, and she continued to interject during the Treasurer 's answer. If she interjects again, she will be ejected from the chamber.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:42): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. If the Federal Court judgement found that the minister acted appropriately, why did the Australian Federal Police raid his home?
The SPEAKER: I am ruling the question out of order. It is asking the minister to answer for somebody else.
Industrial Hemp
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Health. As the minister is aware, I have been campaigning on behalf of Mr Phil Reader, a constituent in my electorate of Lyons, and others, for the legalisation of low-THC industrial hemp grown in Australia to be approved for human consumption. The benefits of such changes for Tasmanian farmers is considered significant. Imported hemp food products are currently available; however, the Australian grown equivalents are not. Can the minister please provide an update on the recent ministerial advisory council meeting deliberations and the decision making process required to see industrial hemp approved for human consumption in Australia?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (14:43): I thank the member for Lyons for his question. I well remember a meeting I had with the member for Lyons at Deloraine, when he was a candidate, with some very feisty vegetable growers. The Acting Prime Minister might remember that group as well. I am pleased to say that here in this House the energy and enthusiasm that I saw in the honourable member on that day is undiminished. At the recent meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, members discussed a progress report on work being undertaken to address information gaps relating to concerns with adopting low-THC hemp as a food. As the member for Lyons would be aware, several studies are currently being undertaken, commissioned by the food forum, which seek to address the gaps in information. The studies centre around matters such as labelling, distribution, legal and treaty issues and, in particular, law enforcement matters. The law enforcement study will consider, for example, if you are pulled up for roadside testing, having consumed low-THC hemp in food, what that might mean. It is expected that all but one of the studies will be completed in time for the forum on food regulation meeting early next year. However, the law enforcement study is very complex and will take until later next year. In the absence of any major issues arising from the other studies, the forum and our regulatory agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand—FSANZ—can begin preparing the necessary changes to regulations so that, if the law enforcement study ticks all the appropriate boxes, the government can move swiftly to make the necessary regulatory changes.
I report that to you in detail because it is specific; it does involve a forum where the Commonwealth has one vote, every state in Australia has one vote and New Zealand has one vote, and decisions are made as a group. So it is not something that we can wave a magic wand and get happening. I applaud the enthusiasm of the member for Lyons in this area to provide a broader economic base for the agricultural constituents in his region and for the rural economy in Tasmania more generally. I will keep him up-to-date and again I commend him on his advocacy.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:46): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Isn't it true that the Federal Court judgement was handed down before the minister admitted on national television to procuring copies of the former Speaker's official diary? By claiming the judgement exonerated him, hasn't the minister misled the parliament?
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dobell has been warned.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:46): I have two things for the member's advice: firstly, in relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question; secondly, let me reiterate again what the full bench had to say, just in case in your lengthy reading you missed it: 'We are of the opinion that there was no basis for the primary judge to conclude that Brough was part of any combination with anyone in respect to the commencement of these proceedings with the predominant purpose of damaging Slipper in any way alleged or at all.'
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
Mr BROUGH: And further: 'Despite Brough's hesitation at seeing Ashby he did so and referred him to Russell QC.' There is absolutely nothing untoward about these matters. Do go on, in your 'year of ideas'.
Paterson Electorate: RAAF Base Williamtown
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs representing the Minister for Defence. Will you update the House on what the coalition government is doing to contain the PFOS firefighting chemical contamination at Williamtown RAAF Base? What actions has this government taken so far, and what plans are in place to restore the livelihood and the lifestyle of my constituents affected by the PFOS contamination?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:48): I thank the member for Paterson for his question and I note his concern for his constituents in relation to this matter. I am advised that Defence is taking this issue of contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown very seriously. Surface and groundwater contamination has been detected in and around the base as a result of past use of firefighting chemicals. The products have been used in firefighting for decades in every major military base and civilian airport, not just in Australia but internationally—so this is a worldwide issue, as the member knows.
The land at Williamtown is generally low and flat, and the watertable is very close to the surface—only half a metre down in some places, I am advised—presenting significant challenges to containing these chemicals. Through worldwide and Australian research, it transpires that few effective or viable large-scale remediation techniques—other than incineration of contaminated soil—have been identified. So incineration is an option that Defence is examining, and I am advised that the Minister for Defence met with officials about this in Canberra last week.
I am also advised that Defence is undertaking a range of control measures, including a rigorous testing regime. I know Defence are happy to provide the member with details. For example, to ensure that people have access to safe drinking water, to date Defence have visited 170 properties and tested about 186 private bores, 139 rainwater tanks and 17 swimming pools. I am also advised that the Department of Human Services has processed claims and paid about $155,000 for financial assistance to claimants to date. In addition, the New South Wales government has applied bans on commercial fishing in Fullerton Cove and Upper Tilligerry Creek since September. The federal government has implemented a financial assistance package of up to $25,000 per commercial fisher who derives the majority of their income from those areas. We are working with the New South Wales government in that regard.
There will be a Senate inquiry into this contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown. Defence will continue to work with federal, state and local authorities to appreciate the full scope of this issue at Williamtown and future remediation options. The Senate inquiry will also look at other Commonwealth, state and territory sites. The government fully supports this inquiry and we look forward to Defence's full participation and cooperation with the Senate inquiry. I trust that that answers the member's question.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:51): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. Yesterday and today the minister has referred to paragraphs 122 to 124 of the full Federal Court's judgement in the matter of Ashby v Slipper. Paragraph 124 states that the minister was 'the recipient of copies of some of Slipper's diary entries'. Given that even the judgement the minister mistakenly clings to as some sort of defence finds that he received copies of the Speaker's official diary, isn't it time the minister resigned?
Mr Whiteley interjecting—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Braddon is warned. The member for Corangamite is warned.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:51): A truly remarkable statement from a QC: clinging to the judgement of the full bench—how pathetic of me! Did you read the rest of that paragraph that said there was nothing inappropriate about me having any diary notes, or has that slipped your memory?
Trade
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (14:52): My question is to the Treasurer. How are the opportunities provided by Australia's free trade agreements helping to promote jobs and growth at companies such as A2 Milk in Smeaton Grange, in my electorate of Macarthur?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:52): I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. I enjoyed being out there with him in Smeaton Grange, at A2 Milk, a great Australian success story. It may have been born in New Zealand, but it came here and has experienced spectacular growth. It is a very visionary company. I was very pleased to be invited to join the member for Macarthur there, because it shows the tangible benefit of the extraordinary free trade agreements that have been negotiated by the minister for trade and it demonstrates how this government's strong national platform for growth and jobs is delivering on the ground in south-western Sydney and all around the country.
This is a company that, since the negotiation of the free trade agreement with China, has put on a full extra shift—a full extra shift—out there in Campbelltown. People coming predominately from the local area are getting those jobs, which come from exporting Australian milk produced locally, by cows out at Forbes, and that milk is coming into the surrounding areas of south-western Sydney. And this milk is on its way to China. I am sure that the announcement of the end of the one-child policy in China is also going to do wonderful things for the sale of infant formula and things of that nature to China as well.
That is an opportunity that is going to be able to be realised because of the extraordinary work by the minister for trade and a government that is committed to expanding our trade frontiers—a government that understands that we are a country that needs to earn more, that needs to earn our way, and that we will not have the opportunity of high commodity prices or an investment boom in the mining sector to carry us in the years ahead, so every inch will have to be won. The Australian people know this, and Geoff Babbage out at A2 Milk understands this.
I am pleased to report to the House that the Reserve Bank also understand this, because while we have been here in question time I note that they have decided to keep the cash rate at the same level, and in their commentary they say:
… the available information suggests that moderate expansion in the economy continues in the face of a large decline in capital spending in the mining sector. … This has been accompanied by stronger growth in employment and a steady rate of unemployment.
They go on to say:
… the Board again judged that the prospects for an improvement in economic conditions had firmed …
The reason they have firmed is the outstanding work that is being done by people like Geoff Babbage, who are out there working hard, investing and setting themselves up in China. They put seven staff up there into China to ensure that they could seize the opportunity, and when the opportunity came, courtesy of the minister for trade, they were in there. They are in there and they are securing those markets, and that is securing jobs for Australians of all ages out in south-western Sydney and all around the country.
The member's colleagues from Tasmania and other parts of the country will know that the improvement in trade conditions, particularly with China for dairy products, is one of the great things that this government has been able to achieve, and it is going to secure future employment prospects for Australians all around the country but particularly in the member for Macarthur's electorate in south-western Sydney. (Time expired)
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:55): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's previous answers and I refer to comments made by James Ashby in today's Australian:
'So I went home and pulled the copy of the diary out of my cupboard, took some pictures of the relevant dates and sent them to Mal. He couldn't read them and texted me and asked if I could send them again … '
Did the minister receive those unauthorised copies of the former Speaker's diary? Is conduct of this nature consistent with the standard this government applies to the minister's portfolio?
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:56): Again, for the shadow minister's I am not quite sure what—contemplation? To the question 'did I receive any further correspondence of any kind from Mr Ashby', the answer is no.
Mr Dreyfus: Unauthorised copies.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!
Mr BROUGH: Call it whatever you like. I refer the shadow Attorney-General to a radio interview today by Alan Jones on 2GB of Mr James Ashby, where Mr Jones asked:
Did Mal Brough ever ask you for a copy of Slipper's diaries?
JAMES ASHBY: No …
Trade Unions
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure the safe passage of holiday-makers and Christmas cargo over the Christmas period? Is the minister aware of anyone planning to stall the country's Christmas cargo, or Santa, his reindeer and his many helpers, and ruin the festive period for many Australians?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:57): I thank the member very much for his question. I was not aware he was going to include all of that in his preamble! He is going to attend, I understand, the Rotary carols at North Ryde Common, which is the second largest carols event in Sydney, expecting 15,000 attendees. So, well done, Member for Bennelong. He is a great local member.
As every Australian knows, over Christmas there will be 3½ million border crossings and over three million cargo consignments. It is a very busy period for the Australian Border Force staff, and they do great work on a daily basis to keep our country safe. But there is a problem, because I understand that, even though there is going to be an increase of Border staff to cope with the increased numbers, particularly at international airports, the CPSU, who are no friend of families this Christmas, are planning on industrial action to target cargo and freight, including ports, airfreight terminals and international mail centres.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: We hear the objections from the sea of union bosses opposite, because they are here as puppets of the union bosses around the country—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: which again gets another rise. The fact is we have seen examples of union leaders putting their hands into the pockets of Australians before. In the past, Craig Thomson was one such example, where he used credit cards and the fees—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Gorton he has been warned.
Mr DUTTON: that had been paid by good, hardworking union members. But there is a new approach by the CPSU this Christmas. Not only are they saying to Australians, 'You are going to have a delay in receiving your Christmas packages,' but they are asking for this to be paid for by crowdfunding so that their members can be back-paid for stopping the free passage of cargo. This is a unique approach, but we expect it from the CPSU. Imagine asking Australians to crowdfund union activity that is going to stop Christmas presents flowing across the country. It shows how out of touch the CPSU is with the Australian public. It shows how out of touch the current Labor Party is with the Australian public, and it demonstrates how, this Christmas, the CPSU and the union leaders across this country will once again do the wrong thing by the Australian public.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:00): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's previous answer, where he claimed that he did not request a copy of the former Speaker's diary when he sent a text to James Ashby in 2012 that read:
Can that be emailed James it is hard to read Mal.brough2@bigpond.com
If he was not asking for the diary, what on earth is the parliament to think that he was asking for?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I remind members on both sides that I will deal with interjections.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (15:00): On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Monday and Tuesday: the same questions. I ask the shadow Attorney-General a question: have you been able to ascertain one skerrick of evidence at all—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. This is a very specific question referring to—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister is 15 seconds into the answer.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I warn members on both sides: do not interject. Do not interject while I am making a ruling.
Mr BROUGH: Despite the best efforts of the opposition, they have not put one thing forward that was not already in the Federal Court and that has not already been dealt with by the Federal Court. I stand by all of my actions as being entirely appropriate and entirely honest.
Hughes Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:05): My constituency question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Enfield intermodal, once described as a test case for the viability of an intermodal at Moorebank, is now years overdue, with the operator pulling out. With competitors planning intracity intermodals in superior locations, including Chullora, Villawood and St Marys, is there not a grave risk that the government investment in a proposed intermodal at Moorebank is destined to be a white elephant?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for his question. He has been a strong advocate for his community and has spoken out on numerous occasions about community issues associated with the construction of the Moorebank terminal, in particular issues like noise and traffic. But I can assure the honourable member that I am confident that this is a sound project.
It is a project that has been supported by both sides of politics. Indeed, the initial agreement to build this terminal was actually signed by John Anderson and Craig Knowles, so it goes back a very long time. There have been a number of iterations of the proposal. What has happened now, under this government, is that our intermodal terminal company has come to an agreement with SIMTA with a view to jointly building an intermodal terminal on their land and on the Defence land that adjoins it. This will be a very substantial facility. It will be connected to Port Botany by rail, and connected to the interstate rail network so that it can be a real distribution point and a very important hub for business investment in Sydney.
It is estimated that there will be about 1,300 jobs involved in the construction and over 7,000 jobs once the facility is in place. The planning for the proposal does involve careful consideration of environmental issues and dealing with the concerns of the community. It will also look at how to best move freight in and out of this facility and address the concerns that the local community has. Because of the way in which we put together this deal, the commitment and involvement of the Australian taxpayers has been substantially reduced and we are confident that it will return good rewards as a business proposition to the Australian government, but, most importantly, that it will be a key hub for the creation of jobs in the member's electorate and in surrounding areas of Sydney.
I think this is an innovative project. It is being funded in an innovative way. It is a good example of cooperation between the private sector and the public sector and there is a real awareness of the importance of making sure that this major new facility is also a good local citizen—that they work with their community to make sure that the jobs that are created are not at the cost of the lifestyle of the people who live in that region.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS ( Isaacs — Deputy Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 15:05 ): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's previous answers, and I refer to reports in today's The Australian that the Assistant Minister for Innovation provided James Ashby with a sheet of paper that included instructions to obtain a copy of the former Speaker's diary. The Australian reports:
Mr Ashby said his lawyers had the sheet of paper and it " would undoubtedly have Wyatt's fingerprints on it''.
Is conduct of this nature consistent with the standard s this government applies ?
Mr BROUGH ( Fisher — Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State ) ( 15:05 ): I am aware of the media reports, and I have nothing further to add.
Brisbane Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms GAMBARO ( Brisbane ) ( 15:06 ): My constituency question is to the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Thousands of my constituents in the electorate of Brisbane spend their mornings stuck in traffic along Kingsford Smith Drive. They are waiting long periods of time to move a very short distance. Could the minister please outline how the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade, partly funded by this government, will benefit the locals in my electorate of Brisbane, and are there any obstacles standing in the way of this vital piece of infrastructure?
Mr TRUSS ( Wide Bay — Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development ) ( 15:07 ): I thank the honourable member for her question. I refer again to the statement I made earlier today in relation to the government's $50 billion infrastructure program. Amongst its broad range of measures there are $13 billion worth of projects in Queensland, including some very substantial projects like the Gateway Upgrade North, which is being funded by this government and is now under construction. The previous government had said they would build this project but only if it was tolled—and they knew it was not possible for it to be tolled. So, in practice, that was one of the opposition's empty promises in relation to infrastructure construction.
I appreciate the issues that the honourable member has raised. Kingsford Smith Drive is a very attractive entrance to Brisbane but in peak hours in particular it is choked with traffic. So Brisbane City Council's initiative to spend about $600 million on upgrading Kingsford Smith Drive is commendable. When Labor was elected to office in Victoria they immediately moved to cancel the East West link project—and now we have complaints that they are not getting their share because they cancelled the most important project! Even though the contracts had been signed, Labor ripped them up and threw them away. You would think that Labor would have learnt from that lesson, with roadworks and construction in Victoria stalled as a result of that precipitous action. Lo and behold, Labor's Lord Mayoral candidate for Brisbane is proposing to rip up the contract for the Kingsford Smith upgrade if he is elected. They would rip up a contract signed with Lend Lease to build this project.
In true Labor style, following the lead of Premier Andrews in Victoria, they will rip up the contract and the project will not be built. In Victoria hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation had to be paid to those whose work was taken away from them. How much compensation will the ratepayers of Brisbane have to pay because the Labor Party intends to rip up this contract? Fortunately, Labor is not likely to win the council election in Brisbane—but nobody thought they were going to win government in Victoria either. The reality is that this is a vital project for Queensland, a vital project for Brisbane, and it cannot afford to have a Labor government that is going to tear up the contract.
Mr Truss: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. After 54 questions in two days, I think that is a pretty good effort!
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:10): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr HOWARTH: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr HOWARTH: During his response to a ministerial statement today, the member for Grayndler made a statement that was totally false. Firstly, he implied that, as a candidate in the 2010 election campaign, I did not support the Moreton Bay rail link. Secondly, the member for Grayndler also said: 'He has now changed his mind. You can't get him away from it. He's camped out the front of it'. I want to place on record that I was not the candidate in 2010. The first time I stood as a candidate was in the 2013 election. I want to place on record that I always supported this project and the coalition government has kept its promise in relation to this.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:11): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do indeed.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: In response to the ministerial statement on infrastructure today I did indeed state that the Liberal candidate for Petrie in 2010 opposed the project. He did that on ABC radio in Brisbane when Julia Gillard and I announced the project in 2010. The Liberal Party opposed it. Construction began in 2012.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler has pointed out where he believes he has been misrepresented.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Today in question time the Foreign Minister said that I said on ABC radio on 4 November 2015 that the island of an Eneko, in the Marshall Islands, disappeared into the sea. That is incorrect. Listening to the original recording clearly shows that what I actually said was the island of Anebok, which is correct. The minister may well wish to check a full recording of the interview—at one minute and eight seconds in—which is publicly available on the ABC website. To be fair to the minister, there is an error in the transcript which may have led her astray. I seek to table a photo of the now submerged island of Anebok—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will not use props, as I asked the foreign minister not to do.
Ms PLIBERSEK: along with written comment from Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum confirming that this is tragically correct. I must say that I am very surprised that members opposite are laughing about this.
Leave not granted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Climate Change
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:14): Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The SPEAKER: The minister may proceed.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I wish to add to an answer. I seek to table the transcript on the Labor Party website of the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, where she describes Eneko as 'an island that had a home on it, a garden, spread fruit trees, palm trees, it’s just literally disappeared into the sea'. That is a description of the island of Eneko—E-n-e-k-o. I table the transcript, the Labor transcript.
Ms Plibersek: That's a political point!
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. I am moving to the next item of business. If members keep interjecting they will be ejected.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The SPEAKER ( 15:15 ): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 10 of 2015-16 entitled Records management in health: Department of Health.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:15): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Australia's Political System
The SPEAKER ( 15:15 ): I have a received a letter from the honourable member for Isaacs proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The House was informed that Mr Dreyfus had proposed that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely, “The importance of integrity, accountability, responsibility, and acting in the public interest in Australia’s political system”.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:16): It is past time for the Special Minister of State to go. Day after day, he trudges up to the dispatch box—the government benches fallen deathly silent around him, the members wanting nothing at all to do with the member for Fisher, the member at the dispatch box. They know his position is untenable. Everyone can see through his dissembling answers. Everyone can see through the inconsistencies in the member's statements.
The facts are simple enough. On 17 November 2015 the Australian Federal Police raided the home of the member for Fisher in the execution of a search warrant. A copy of the Australian Federal Police warrant, published by The Australian newspaper, sets out the criminal charges being considered against the member for Fisher and these are serious matters, indeed. It is alleged in that document that the member for Fisher counselled and procured a member of the former speaker's staff to take parts of the former Speaker's diary. This would be a serious criminal offence. As The Australian newspaper pointed out today, it carries a maximum sentence of two years jail.
Over the last two weeks I have asked the member for Fisher a series of simple questions, questions about his involvement in the grubby Ashby affair, questions about how it is that as a government minister he came to be raided by the Australian Federal Police, questions about the standards of integrity that this government holds itself to, standards which as Special Minister of State he himself is responsible for maintaining. He has so little interest in this matter that the member for Fisher, the Special Minister of State, is not even in the chamber.
These are simple questions and the member for Fisher owes it to this House and to the Australian people to give a full and frank explanation for his conduct. He ought to be able to explain why he should be permitted to continue as a minister, especially given that he is the minister responsible for government integrity. That is what makes this matter so particularly serious—that the Prime Minister of Australia, knowing what he must have known about the member for Fisher's involvement in the grubby Ashby affair, chose to appoint him as the Special Minister of State, the minister who is responsible to the Australian Electoral Commission, responsible for standards in the entitlement system, responsible for the Presiding Officers in this House and for a whole range of matters that go directly to the heart of integrity of government in this country.
He ought to be able to explain what the disclosure was that he made—if any—to the Prime Minister about these matters before the Prime Minister appointed him to the ministry. The member for Fisher refuses to do even one small part of the explanation he is called on to make. He has given a variety of reasons for this and they are all worth examining closely. In response to some questions he has told the House that 'there is nothing to see here'. He has previously said that he was exonerated—his word—by the Full Court of the Federal Court in 2014.
In this place he said, 'The Full Court of the federal court 'dealt with all of the evidence put before it and found entirely that I acted appropriately'. The member for Fisher may yet have his day in court but he certainly has not been exonerated nor has it been found, as he would say, that he acted appropriately. He has not been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. There has never been a finding by a court that he acted appropriately. In fact, the paragraphs of the court judgement that the member for Fisher keeps referring to in this place—as if they exonerated him—in fact, confirmed that he received the parts of the diary that were taken from the former Speaker of this House. They confirmed that he was in receipt of these documents. They confirmed the crux of the serious criminal allegations now levelled against him. They confirm without a shadow of a doubt the factual basis of the criminal allegations that the Federal Police are considering charging this member with.
There is nothing in the judgement that contradicts what the member for Fisher said to 60 Minutes journalist Liz Hayes, in 2014, when she asked him this question: 'Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you? This was the answer from the member for Fisher: 'Yes, I did.' That admission has been corroborated by Mr Ashby who, today, is quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying:
I met with Mal and he said at one stage that he was interested in Slipper’s use of taxpayer entitlements and about a few trips he had taken to New Zealand and I said I had a copy of his diary and would check it out,’’ he said.
So I went home and pulled the copy of the diary out of my cupboard, took some pictures of the relevant dates and sent them to Mal. He couldn’t read them and texted me and asked if I could send them again …
There is no room left for doubt in this matter.
Remember, the documents produced in the Federal Court case that was brought by Mr Ashby—not a case that the member for Fisher was a party to—reveal that News Ltd journalist Steve Lewis had emailed the member for Fisher asking about the former Speaker's travels to New Zealand and certain Cabcharge records. For his part, the member for Fisher denied in the House on Monday that he had obtained these things for any journalist. As I have said, the member for Fisher was not a party to the Ashby case in the Federal Court or the appeal. It was a civil matter; it did not consider the criminal allegations against the member for Fisher that are now being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. So there can be no suggestion that the member was exonerated of criminal wrongdoing by a court of law and there can be no suggestion that he has been cleared. He was not the focus of the litigation—no. The member for Fisher was only lurking in the shadows of the Ashby matter when it was before the Federal Court. Now, through his extraordinary admissions on the 60 Minutes program, made long after Ashby's civil case was heard, and with his appointment by the Prime Minister as Special Minister of State, he is right out in the open—and it does not look good, does it?
This facade—this fanciful claim that he has been cleared by the Federal Court—is not the only excuse that the member for Fisher gives as to why he will not answer the substance of Labor's questions to him in this place. No; sometimes he says he has been cleared, but at other times, in answer to other questions, he says he could not possibly comment because he is under investigation. On Tuesday last week, for instance, I asked the minister about the contradiction between his comments on 60 Minutes and his statements in the House. The minister refused to comment. He said:
… I thank you for the question and remind you that these matters are subject to other inquiries. There is nothing further that I can add to what I have said in the statements.
There are two different arguments from the minister. On the one hand, he says he has been cleared; he says he is exonerated; he says he is vindicated. On the other, he admits that he is under investigation; he admits he is the subject of inquiries by the authorities; he admits that he has been raided by the Australian Federal Police. They are two different answers, but, as I said, the facts are clear.
This minister is subject to a criminal investigation. A search warrant has been approved, meaning that there is a judge who considers there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of this, and the ministerial standards are clear about these matters. The Statement of Ministerial Standards, as of September 2015, published by the current Prime Minister, says this:
… it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether and when a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct.
Ministers will be required to stand aside … if the Prime Minister regards their conduct as constituting a prima facie breach of these Standards.
It is clear what the Prime Minister needs to do. The member for Fisher has himself admitted that he has procured the disclosure of official documents. The Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that he received these documents. The Federal Police evidently think that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that, in doing this, the member for Fisher committed a serious offence. He is the subject of a police investigation, something which he sometimes admits to, when it suits him in dodging a question in this place.
There is no room for more ducking and weaving by this minister—no more half-baked excuses; no more stonewalling. It is time that he stood aside. If he will not, it is time the Prime Minister came home and directed him to do so.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order!
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Assistant Minister for Defence) (15:26): What a sad and embarrassing spectacle we have just witnessed. It is with overwhelming sadness that I see before me the hollowed-out wreck of what was a grand old party of Australian politics.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: We will get to that one, Member for Chifley. In this, Labor's year of big ideas, they have descended right into the gutter, with a litany of smear and innuendo. The contrast between this side of the House and that side of the House has never been clearer. While we have a nation-building program, they have a gutter-building program. I am an optimist by nature and I always try to look on the bright side. The benefit for those opposite of being in the gutter is that they get a great view of the roads that Warren Truss is building—sorry, the minister for infrastructure is building—right around Australia. To sit here and get a lecture on integrity from the party of Eddie Obeid and Craig Thomson is more than a little bizarre. It is like getting a lecture—I do not know—on marriage advice from Tiger Woods. It is like getting a lecture on hairstyling by Donald Trump. It is even more bizarre—and the member for Chifley will like this: it is like comparing the member for Gippsland to George Clooney. It is completely implausible. We are seeing some truly bizarre behaviour by those opposite.
There are so many important issues that Australians are focused on, so I genuinely appreciate this matter of public importance because it goes to the heart of how this government is acting in the public interest and delivering for all Australians, particularly regional Australians, who have been so often ignored by those opposite. The contrast between the government and those opposite has rarely been so stark. While on this side of the House we have been focused on matters of genuine public importance—national security, economic prosperity and building infrastructure for the 21st century—all we see from those opposite are more scare campaigns and gutter politics. Australians deserve so much more from Her Majesty's opposition than they are receiving at the moment. This matter of public importance could have been on national security; it could have been on job creation; it could have been on infrastructure; it could have been on economic prosperity.
This government is getting on with the job of delivering. Just today, we had the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development delivering his annual ministerial statement on infrastructure, and it was an extraordinarily impressive list. I am disappointed the member for Grayndler is not here, because he actually thinks the world started with him. The member for Grayndler thinks he invented fire; he thinks he created the wheel; I think he even believes he built the pyramids. What else does the member for Grayndler think he—
Mr Coleman: Stonehenge?
Mr CHESTER: Stonehenge—the member for Grayndler did Stonehenge as well. What else did the member for Grayndler build?
I tell you what the member for Grayndler should build—the member for Grayndler needs to build a bridge and get over it!
Minister Truss has been part of this very successful coalition government that is building for the future. We are working with other levels of government—as you would expect, as the Australian people would expect—and getting on with the job. We are building infrastructure that will create jobs during construction and well into the future. Instead of building gutters and taking cheap political shots, using political tactics, we are focusing on the issues the Australian people want us to be focused on. We are building the roads, the bridges, the mobile phone blackspot program, rolling out towers—
Mr Mitchell interjecting —
Mr CHESTER: Come in spinner! In seven years there was not one mobile phone black spot tower built by the previous government—in seven years not one. The member for McEwen comes in here and talks about infrastructure—he wants a mobile phone black spot program. I could not hear him when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. I could not hear him when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister. Because they did not build any mobile phone black spot towers. You could not complain about the program, Member for McEwen, because there was no program. There was nothing to complain about; there was no Mobile Black Spot Program. This government is getting on with the job of building the infrastructure of the 21st century—exactly what the Australian people expect from us.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: The matter of public importance refers specifically to the public interest in Australia's political system, and we are acting in the public's interest by building the infrastructure of the 21st century. The minister himself, today—for those who missed the ministerial statement by the member for Wide Bay—pointed out that in the next financial year will see the single biggest Commonwealth investment to date, with over $9.7 billion in Commonwealth funding flowing across the nation.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I am loving the interest being shown in infrastructure by those opposite! It is a pity they did not show it when they were in government. In New South Wales, WestConnex has begun with construction underway on two of the three stages. It is a very popular program; I am not surprised the member for Banks is a strong supporter. This government is on schedule and on budget to complete the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by the end of the decade. And construction on NorthConnex in Sydney has also begun.
It is not just New South Wales. In Victoria there are projects such as the upgrade of the Western Highway, the Tullamarine Freeway, the M80 and the duplication of parts of the Princes Highway in my electorate, and the western highways. They are all positive steps that continue to progress according to plan.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I am glad the member for Griffith is suddenly interested in road-building programs in my electorate. It is going very well, Member for Griffith, and I am impressed that you are deeply interested in the safety of the people of Gippsland!
In Queensland as well, this government continues to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. Eight major projects on the Bruce Highway have now been completed. For those who have not had the opportunity to drive on the Bruce Highway, I had the great pleasure—the member for Chifley will enjoy this—of driving the entire Bruce Highway with the member for Wide Bay.
An opposition member: That would have been a long trip!
Mr CHESTER: He is a really zany guy. You would enjoy time with the member for Wide Bay! We were cracking jokes all the way to Cairns. It was a terrific road trip. All the way along he was making plans for the roads he was going to build when he had the chance and when he was the minister, and that is what he is delivering right now.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I would encourage the member for Chifley, if given an opportunity to take a road trip with the member for Wide Bay, go along with the member for Wide Bay. You will learn something, Member for Chifley. You will learn about regional Australia, about how if you invest in infrastructure, then you increase the productivity and the prosperity of those regions, and you save lives.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I will arrange the invitation for you, Member for Chifley. I will arrange for the member for Wide Bay to take you on a road trip.
Ms Butler: They don't want him in Queensland!
Mr CHESTER: I take up the interjection, Member for Griffith. I know you would not want him in Queensland, but every now and then he has to broaden his horizons and move outside of the sheltered life he leads. Bring him to Queensland to see a little bit more of the country.
Also in Queensland the Yeppen floodplain project is going to be officially opened next week. Members opposite will be happy to hear that, I am sure. Work on the Townsville Ring Road is well ahead of schedule. The enthusiasm of those opposite for these great infrastructure projects being delivered by the coalition is something I greatly appreciate.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I greatly appreciate the support you are showing. There are more infrastructure projects in Queensland. The government has committed $508 million towards a package of works to upgrade the Warrego Highway between Toowoomba and Miles. There are some rough roads around!
Ms Butler: Are they 'Brough' roads?
Mr CHESTER: No, they are rough roads. The Outback Way, Australian's longest shortcut, which has a $20 million Commonwealth funding commitment, is being supported by the Northern Territory government. In South Australia, the Commonwealth has also committed $1.7 billion to the first priority sections of the north-south road corridor upgrade. These are the real issues that the Australian people are raising with the government. These are the real issues of genuine public interest that the Australian people are raising with us as members of parliament as we go about our jobs in our electorates.
In Western Australia the Gateway WA project is well underway. The federal government contributed $676 million. It is on track for completion nearly one year ahead of schedule and under budget. In Tasmania the Australian government is making the Midland Highway upgrade a reality with our $400 million commitment seeing six construction projects already completed and two more are underway.
Mr Stephen Jones: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have the deepest sympathy for a member of the National Party who has been sent in to defend a Liberal Party minister. He has one minute left. Do you think in that one minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, he might try and defend the minister?
Mr CHESTER: As we continue to act in the public interest, as we roll out these important programs—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I am sorry, members opposite, that we do not have the gutter-building program you so desire! As we are out there building the future for regional and metropolitan Australia, these are the issues that Australian mums and dads are raising with us on a daily basis. Members opposite will be interested to know that employment surged by 58,000 in October, taking this year's tally to 231,000. What we are seeing today is further proof that those opposite are simply not ready to govern the greatest nation in the world.
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (15:36): Integrity is an important quality at the heart of public service. Anyone seeking public office, realises it is not about him. It is service for all of us. Members must repress personal interests to put people's interests first. When, on 30 May 2008, Bruce McIver, former President of the National Party and the LNP, and Gary Spence, former President of the Liberal Party and current President of the LNP, signed a memorandum allowing the Liberal Party and the National Party to merge as the LNP, they supressed their own political ambitions for the benefit of their members.
Eighty-five per cent of the Liberal membership voted for the merger, and 95 per cent of the Nationals. But then there was Johnny-come-lately, the member for Fisher, who arrived, promoted by the Victorian Liberals, to knife the Liberal Party president, Gary Spence, in the back. The member for Fisher was now the president of the Liberal Party. Was this a man who would supress his political ambition for the benefit of the people he served, for the greater good of both Liberal and Nationals party members? Or was the member for Fisher more interested in power—power at any price and at any cost? Would he stand in the way of what the membership wanted, for his own selfish gains?
In the days before the vote the member for Fisher visited me demanding the presidency of the LNP, demanding that I tell Bruce McIver he could not be the president; only the member for Fisher could be the president of the LNP. The member for Fisher said that if he was not the president the merger would not go ahead, regardless of the views of the membership of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
Six times in the two weeks leading up to that vote he visited me—
Opposition members: How many times?
Mr PALMER: Six times—and he made public announcements that Bruce McIver could not stand as president of the LNP, and he never wanted to at all; he thought we should have a new president. We met on separate occasions and then together. The vote was supposed to be held when the members of each party would meet on a Saturday and decide that they wanted to merge, and then they would meet together and merge as one party.
The member for Fisher challenged McIver publicly to confirm that he would not stand and that I would only support the member for Fisher to be the president of the LNP. Bruce McIver remained silent, prepared to step aside for the benefit of the membership if required. That is real integrity, which the member for Fisher does not have. Leading up to the vote—two days before the vote—the member for Fisher delivered an ultimatum to me: if Bruce McIver does not declare that he will not stand for president, the merger is off.
Mr Chester: Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: against the standing orders, the member for Fairfax is impugning the motives of another member.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I will ask the member for Fairfax to be very careful about where he points his comments and make sure that he does not reflect too much on the member for Fisher.
Mr PALMER: The member for Fisher told me that he would call a meeting of the Liberal Party executive on the Thursday night and bring the president of the Liberal Party of Australia, Alan Stockdale, up from Victoria to attend the meeting and kill the merger if I did not guarantee that he could be president of the LNP. And a motion was passed at the state executive meeting on the Thursday not to allow Liberal members to attend the meeting on the Saturday and vote. On the Friday night I funded a challenge in the Supreme Court of Queensland to overturn the motion of the member for Fisher, and the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the meeting go ahead in spite of any opposition of the Liberal Party. Members of the Nationals and the Liberal Party would be free to vote in our democracy, free to have their say.
I can still here the boos the member for Fisher received that Saturday, on a crisp morning, when he arrived very, very red faced after the Supreme Court said that he had to come to the meeting. I nominated Bruce McIver for the presidency of the LNP, and he was elected with acclamation. The member for Fisher, with his tail between his legs, got out of town. He went down to Victoria with Alan Stockdale. He was promised that he would be the member for Higgins, but it never happened. He returned to Queensland to eat humble pie: the member for Fisher should be Prime Minister. You ask him; he would tell you at the time.
When he did the things he did, now subject to a police investigation, the member for Fisher was very desperate. He should step aside as minister while this investigation is on. Integrity of this House and this government should be maintained. (Time expired)
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:41): We should spend our time in this chamber on things that matter to the Australian people, and we should conduct ourselves in these debates in a way befitting the privilege of serving in this place. Debates should be initiated about policies that people care about. No personal attack ever created a job. No personal attack ever put food on the table or helped someone get a better education. No personal attack ever started a business or helped a struggling town to get back on its feet. No personal attack ever helped an entrepreneur to come up with her first idea. Most of all, no personal attack ever encouraged our kids to dream bigger. Personal attacks are dispiriting for the Australian people, because they remind them of everything they dislike about Canberra.
This motion about Australia's political system talks about the public interest, and that is why we are here—to pursue the public interest and to do the work of the public. The government, in pursuing the public interest, is pursuing the vision we believe is best for the nation and being honest about the challenges we face. That is what this government is doing, and that is what those opposite miserably failed to do when they were in government. We are respecting the good sense and wisdom of the Australian people. We are thinking not just about today or tomorrow but about 10, 20 and 30 years from now. The question is: how do we best harness the incredible energy, creativity and spirit of the Australian people in order to make this era our greatest yet?
The Prime Minister is treating the Australian community like grown-ups, unlike the opposition. As much as those opposite would like us to play silly games of ruling things in and out, we are not going to do that. Our goal is to set Australia up to drive the next wave of jobs and growth. That means a jobs-friendly tax system and competition polices that increase national productivity. It is a big agenda and a big conversation, and we are not going to cut it short. We are not going to circumvent a national conversation just so those opposite feel a little better. They are going to worship at the altar of politics as usual, and we are going to get things done. They are going to talk to ever-smaller circles of people about ever-smaller topics. We are going to talk with the whole nation about the biggest issues we face. They are going to seek to narrow the debate to small places where they feel most comfortable. We are going to enlarge the debate. Soon we will announce an innovation package that will have wide-ranging impacts across our economy. It will be ambitious and bold. It has been produced not through negative attacks but through creative thinking, broad consultation and old-fashioned hard work. It is the definition of the people's business.
Personal attacks will not help us deal with the change that is happening in the global economy at an ever-increasing rate. There is no point saying that economic change is easy; it is not. And, while change can be hard, it also represents an immense opportunity as new markets open up every day. To capture those opportunities, we need to have an honest, grown-up conversation, and in order to have a grown-up conversation you need to have a government that is behaving like grown-ups. The Australian people are well aware that the challenges that we face as a nation are significant and the opportunities are even bigger. If the economy changes, we are incredibly well positioned to benefit from that. But if we want to benefit from the opportunities of the future, we need to focus our attention, our energy and our debates in this place and elsewhere on the issues that matter the most to the Australian people. Those issues revolve around the economic future of our nation. If you want to build international trade, which we do, you need a government that is closing deals with the biggest countries in the world, not an opposition that is pandering to the worst instincts of its union base.
Australia is better than personal attacks; the opposition, sadly, is not. Today's debate is a good example of the very clear difference between the government and its alternative. The future of Australia is immense. The opportunities are enormous. What we need to do on all sides of this place is to focus our intellect, our energy and our ideas on positive plans that benefit the next generations of Australians.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (15:46): I have never been in a debate, seen a debate or heard a debate where the people defending a government minister entirely fail to mention him in two contributions.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr DANBY: As the member just suggested, we dare not speak his name. The current member for Fisher stood in this chamber and declared the Federal Court had exonerated him with regard to claims that he encouraged James Ashby to breach section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 and section 478.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 by procuring the former Speaker's official diary. This was forensically drawn out by the member for Isaacs over several question times.
The current member for Fisher said in this chamber last Thursday, 26 November, in defence of his and the government's integrity:
… the findings of the full bench of the Federal Court, which dealt with all of the evidence put before it … found entirely that I acted appropriately.
The current member for Fisher has subsequently made numerous references to the Federal Court decision, including yesterday, when he made explicit references to paragraphs 122 and 124. But the Federal Court has made no judgement on this. The current member for Fisher was found neither guilty nor innocent of this allegation, as the member for Isaacs pointed out. For him to suggest otherwise signifies, at the very least, a misunderstanding of judicial process. If the current member for Fisher continues to make this claim, he would run the risk of misleading this parliament. To recount, on 12 December 2012, Judge Rares threw out James Ashby's claims against Peter Slipper on the grounds of abuse of process. In that decision, the judge savaged many people, not least the current member for Fisher. Judge Rares found:
… Mr Ashby and Ms Doane … were in … combination with Mr Brough to cause Mr Slipper as much political and public damage as they could inflict on him.
Further, the judge added:
Mr Brough was unlikely to have been offering to assist Ms Doane and Mr Ashby … out of pure altruism. Realistically, his preparedness to act for them was created and fed by their willingness to act against Mr Slipper’s interests and assisting Mr Brough’s and the LNP’s interests in destabilising Mr Slipper’s position as Speaker and damaging him in the eyes of his electorate.
Ashby sought leave to appeal, and that was granted on 27 February 2014. In that judgement, their Honours held in paragraph 122—the very paragraph that the current member for Fisher cited:
That Brough was prepared to … look at evidence produced by Ashby … does not necessarily mean that his purpose was to harm Slipper politically.
It is just as the member for Isaacs pointed out when he said 'does not necessarily mean'. The current member for Fisher mistakenly believes this vindicates him, but the paragraph is clear that the court did not decide the question of procuring the diary excerpts. It merely stated it 'does not necessarily mean' that the current member for Fisher was motivated in that way.
Later, and more importantly, on 9 February 2015, the Federal Court upheld Ashby's appeal on the grounds of procedural fairness. The judges once again addressed the current member for Fisher's involvement, but once again did not pass judgement on it. Paragraph 46 of that judgement in February 2015 says:
There is no doubt that Slipper’s allegations in relation to Ashby’s purposes for instituting the primary proceeding were serious. As it transpired, the Full Court … did not share the view of the primary judge … it was correct to have acceded to the summary dismissal application. That did not amount to the Full Court making positive findings in favour of Ashby … It did not invoke any specific findings of fact in his favour.
The judges said:
There had not then been a trial of all issues. The relevant evidence had not been given, and the reliability of the witnesses had not been exposed to testing by cross-examination. In the event, as noted above, that will not occur because Ashby has discontinued his proceeding.
The court said that the evidence had not been tested. There is new evidence that will come out, however, if this is looked at further. As the member for Isaacs pointed out, on 60 Minutesthe journalist, Hayes, asked the member for Fisher, 'Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary? The current member for Fisher answered, 'Yes, I did.' Hayes continued, 'Do you think it was the right thing to do?' The member for Fisher answered, 'Let others be the judge of that.' That is exactly what this parliament is doing. We are making a judgement on the ethics, morality and integrity of this government and the member for Fisher, and I am sure it will be found wanting if those claims made on 60 Minutes are accurate.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (15:51): This matter of public importance is important, because integrity, accountability, responsibility and acting in the public interest in Australia's political system is a case in point. When I go home to my electorate and I have coffee or a Friday afternoon chat with my colleagues at Finnian's, they often talk about disengagement with the political system. Let's talk about that. One of the biggest criticisms that is levelled at me when I meet with people across the electorate—the entire spectrum of the electorate; young and old—is their disengagement. They all refer to the behaviour in question time. No wonder they are disengaged. Scuttlebutt, firing arrows across the chamber, snide remarks—you name it, we see it in question time. Thank goodness the MPI is not being broadcast as well, because it is at about the same level.
For goodness sake, it is so transparent: Christmas is coming and those opposite want an early Christmas present. They are like little kids. In terms of tactics, Mr Deputy Speaker, you just have to connect the dots. They are looking for a scalp. Hallelujah! It is so obvious. We are not getting policies. We are not getting good government. We are just looking for a scalp. So, in terms of tactics, my humble recommendation to my colleagues on the other side is that, instead of this tactic, which seems to be going up a blind alley, maybe you should address the creeping advancement of your political 'frenemies', the Greens, who seem to be keen to do a deal with the government at any opportunity so that they are seen as the responsible ones in this place rather than what was traditionally the position that the major party in opposition occupied. A suggestion, humble though it may be from a backbencher who has only been here a little while, is: trust me; they are doing it.
Maybe this MPI is also a distraction by those opposite, because they are moving away from any issue of substance. A couple of wise sayings come to mind. 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' is the first one. I do not rely on scuttlebutt. When I was asked to speak on this MPI, I took the time to look up court cases. There were some cases a couple of years ago. Did something go wrong with justice in Australia? No-one was charged or anything like that then. The quote I have from the full bench on appeal is that Justice Rares had 'no basis to conclude that Brough was part of any combination with anyone in respect to the commencement of these proceedings with the predominant purpose of damaging Slipper in the way alleged or at all'. They are not my words. They are the words of the decision of the full bench. So, rather than following this tactic, which, as I said, seems to be going down a blind alley, maybe those opposite should use something else to get the attention of the Australian public.
We have had various members who have had selective memory loss—the member for Dobell in the last parliament—about all sorts of things. We have the member for Grayndler, who, every now and then, appears at places like William de Groot—the man on the horse, who turned up at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge because he wanted to open it! I have often advised the Deputy Prime Minister that, at the next opening he attends, he should watch out for any horses, because the member for Grayndler might be on it, with his sabre. We, instead, have been focusing on delivering things like getting roads and bridges built—the Pacific Highway. There are three bridges in the Lyne electorate. We have fixed wireless towers. We have fibre-to-the premises in the Manning. The CBD of Taree is now being wired up. We have the Skymaster satellites. We have unemployment down. We have pensions up. We have Work for the Dole rolling out. We have three trade agreements. We have funding for two bridges in the Bucketts Way. The Pacific Highway is delivering 900 direct jobs. (Time expired)
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:51): I have to say that I deeply enjoyed the member for Lyne's contribution. What was he talking about? The bit where he said 'the Messiah', I can only assume that that was an oblique reference to Handel's Messiah, because it is Christmas. When he said, 'Hallelujah, hallelujah', I assume that was what he was talking about—the Messiah. I assume that is why he would mention 'hallelujah'. Perhaps what was on his mind was that maybe Mal Brough, maybe the member for Fisher, is the Messiah. Is that why you mentioned hallelujah, Member? Maybe he is the Messiah? Is he the Messiah or is he just a naughty boy? It is a good question at this time of year.
I do not know whether you could call him the Messiah, a very naughty boy or the Special Minister of State—that is his actual title, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not that you would know it from any of the contributions that have been made by the other side in this debate this afternoon. Not one of the first two speakers managed to mention the Special Minister of State. The third speaker, towards the end of his contribution, wandered in and thought that he might mention the Special Minister of State. And aren't we pleased he did! Because finally someone has actually decided to talk about what this debate is all about.
But you have to wonder: why are the National Party being sent in to defend the Special Minister of State? Why aren't there any Queenslanders here defending the Special Minister of State?
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
Ms BUTLER: Not yet, Member, but maybe we will hear that at the end of the debate. Why haven't we heard from Queenslanders? Why haven't we heard from Liberals? Why haven't we heard from any of his fellow ministers? Why is there no other minister in this House who is prepared to stand up for the Special Minister of State? Was it in fact the sound of a bus driving past that we heard in the middle of question time? Are we hearing ministers being thrown under a bus? I will tell you who is not the Messiah—speaking of people who are not the Messiah. Apparently the Prime Minister is not the Messiah.
Mr Dreyfus: Oh, really?
Ms BUTLER: I know this is going to come a shock to people. I know that he is seen as a bit of a beacon in this place for people on the opposite side. But let me tell you what a good Prime Minister would have done. What would a good Prime Minister have done? Do you think a good Prime Minister would publish in September a statement of ministerial standards and then ignore it in October, November and December. Would a good Prime Minister publish a statement of ministerial standards that talks about public office being a public trust, that talks about accountability, that talks about responsibility, that talks about integrity and then in October and then in November and then in December disregard entirely those words in that statement of ministerial standards when one of his own ministers was the subject of a police raid—an Australian Federal Police raid?
I know a lot of people in this House have read the warrant, but maybe some people outside it have not. If you read the search warrant, it refers to section 478.1 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence for somebody to have unauthorised access to restricted data, and there is accessorial liability as well. The search warrant also refers to section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which also makes it an offence to give someone a document that you get as a public Commonwealth officer. What is the penalty for each of those two offences? The penalty is two years imprisonment. That is the seriousness of those offences that have been cited as a basis for the search warrant being issued.
When you hear the members of the government benches standing up and saying, 'This isn't important. There are other priorities. What are you talking about this for, opposition? I want to talk about infrastructure for five minutes,' unfortunately for the members of the government benches, integrity is important. Integrity is important because trust in politics is important. If you do not understand the importance of integrity, then none of you is fit for public office, because integrity matters to the Commonwealth. Integrity matters to the Australian people. Integrity matters to faith in our democracy.
In a time when there is so little faith in our democracy, a time when Lowy Institute polling is showing that people are not convinced of democracy as a concept and that there is disengagement across this nation from our democracy and from trust and faith in politics, these people have the gall to turn up here and say, 'It doesn't matter. What's integrity? Why are we talking about integrity?' We are talking about integrity because integrity goes to the heart of any government's character, and character goes to the heart of any government's ability to be trusted. Without trust, without character and without integrity, this government has no mandate and no basis. The Prime Minister should take action now under his own Statement of Ministerial Standards and stand up for integrity.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:02): I love to listen to the member for Griffith. She is a very good speaker. She was obviously a lawyer. She is very animated. She is a bit monotonous at times but a very good speaker. If the member for Griffith wants to talk about integrity, I am happy to do it, because I just do not understand the previous speakers. They all want to talk about the member for Fisher, but he is not even on the MPI. I thank the member for Isaacs for the MPI because I agree with it wholeheartedly—I really do—but let's read the MPI:
The importance of integrity—
Which, obviously, the member for Griffith has just spoken about—
accountability, responsibility, and acting in the public interest in Australia's political system.
I agree with it wholeheartedly. I just do not know why you did not put the member for Fisher in it, if that is what you want to talk about.
But the point is that it is a great MPI. As the member for Petrie, I wholeheartedly believe in this MPI. We should have integrity, accountability, responsibility and public interest in everything that we do. I note that the students up in the gallery are listening to this. I say to them: these are great principles. We should abide by these things here and in everything we do in life. I say to the people of Petrie who elected me: as your federal member, that is what I strive to do every day when I am in this place.
I looked at a few definitions. What is 'integrity'? It is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. What is 'accountability'? It is being responsible, or being required or expected to justify actions or decisions. What is 'responsibility'? It is the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something. What is 'public interest'? It is the benefit or advantage of the community as a whole—the public good. All these are great things.
As members of this place, we know that we really do live in the greatest country in the world. We have freedom of race and religion. Business and work opportunities abound. We have a fair and strong democratic voting system, and our Constitution is brilliant. We are also a strong Commonwealth and we have had a strong democracy since we federated in 1901. These four points are all important in what we do. As the member for Petrie, I want to abide by those things every day when I come into this place.
As a federal coalition government, we are getting the budget back under control. We are trying to be 100 per cent responsible for the next generations—like those behind me in the gallery and like my children. But what do we see? Let's look at the facts. In 2007, when the previous federal coalition government left, how much debt did we have? We had zero.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: Then the member for Chisholm and her friends and everyone else got in in 2007 and racked up $400 billion in six years. They are talking about responsibility? Give me a break! Fair dinkum. It is unbelievable. What else have we done in relation to the public interest? There is jobs. When I was elected, I know that jobs was a big issue, and it is something that I continually talk about. I have recently run a job seeker boot camp. We have delivered for small business and helped them with tax cuts for businesses that have under $2 million turnover and also with the instant asset tax write-off.
What is in the public interest? The public interest is about supporting jobs outside of this place and helping business thrive. What is not in the public interest? They talk a lot about accountability. Are those opposite prepared to be accountable for the decisions they made when, in 2007, they said they would be economic conservatives and they said they would not change the Howard government's Pacific Solution? I have spoken about this before. What we saw was 50,000 boats and 1,200 dead at sea—and you talk about accountability. Are you prepared to be accountable for that?
The member for Scullin wants to wind back the TPVs. He got up in this place and so proudly said, 'Yes, we're going to wind back TPVs.' What signal is that going to send, member for Scullin? You want to be accountable. Fair dinkum. Give me a break and get off your high horse! Member for Griffith, the first bloke I ran against when I ran for a state seat was a bloke called Gordon Nuttall. Do you remember him? He was the Labor member for Sandgate. He just did seven years jail.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (16:07): I would like to start by commending the member for Petrie on his wonderful speech, but I just could not possibly do that as he did for the member for Griffith because it was a rambling tirade of irrelevance to this debate today. Anyone can submit a matter of public importance. Maybe the government should have done that today. Then it could have asked the Speaker to determine what was more important to debate today—the integrity of parliament or some rambling tirade about a road trip with Warren Truss. Maybe we could have talked about jobs. That would be good, because unemployment has risen under this government. Maybe we could have talked about debt. There has been a doubling of the debt by this government. Maybe we could have talked about infrastructure. But where is that infrastructure?
This is an absolute shame. Shame on you, government members, for not having any respect for this parliament and for not one of you treating with any dignity the actual topic under discussion today. Where is a senior minister from the Liberal Party prepared to be here today to talk about integrity and defend the Special Minister of State? This is no ordinary member of parliament. This is the member of parliament enshrined with protecting the integrity of this parliament. This is the man who was raided by the Australian Federal Police under a warrant relating to criminal offences not two or three years ago but just several days ago on 17 November 2015 when he had already been appointed Special Minister of State. All of this has been hanging over his head for a very long time.
The new Prime Minister—Abbott, Turnbull, Turnbull, Abbott, whoever we have this week or that—talked about an adult government and talked about government integrity. Mind you, the government also said, 'Good government will start today,' and a whole lot of rambling things along the way. Let's not forget that. But one of these days good government is going to start. Good governments starts with integrity. How can we have integrity and good government when we have a Special Minister of State with an enormous black cloud over him?
Let's talk about what was going on in this issue. This issue goes back a long way. I am probably more intimately acquainted with it than anybody in this room. Let's talk about how the Liberal Party denigrated the previous member for Fisher and former Speaker. Let's talk about how this all transpired. Let's talk about how those opposite were going to bring him down at any cost, how the now government and opposition of the day were going to have their way and topple a hung parliament. Let's put this into perspective. Let's talk about integrity. Let's talk about them not showing any respect for what the voting public had determined. We did not determine to have a hung parliament; the voting public gave us that parliament. It was then up to the parliament to ensure it ran appropriately—and it did. It ran appropriately. It introduced bills and passed legislation. That is unlike the current government, which has a whopping great majority but no legislation coming through. Those opposite talk about being a good government and doing things, but like what? Name one thing. I would be fascinated to hear about it.
We had the individuals in Peter Slipper's office trawling through his personal diary. We all have a great relationship with our staff, and we should. Think about this individually. Do you trust your own staff? Surely we should be able to trust our own staff, because we all choose them and employ them? Surely the former member for Fisher had the right to have trust in his own staff? His staff were asked to plot against him because those opposite believed he had been up to criminal intent. Indeed, in the last few minutes 60 Minutes has released the entire transcript about what happened on that day. They asked Mal Brough: 'Why did you do that? Why did you ask him to get the diary entries?' He answered, 'Because I believed Peter Slipper had committed a crime.' If he believed it, he should have taken it to the police— (Time expired)
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:12): I cannot believe my good fortune—in fact, the good fortune of everybody on this side—in being invited to talk about the importance of integrity, accountability, responsibility and acting in the public interest in Australia's political system. Talk about an own goal! Here we go. I hope I will get to talk with sufficient time to detail the worst case I know of to do with lack of integrity, lack of accountability, irresponsibility and not acting in the public interest—the destruction of the irrigation system in northern Victoria under a federal government policy instigated under Labor's watch.
It began during the worst drought on record when Penny Wong, senator for South Australia and the then minister for the environment, hit on a great idea. We all knew that there had to be water found for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The expectation was that it would be used for environmental works and measures. But someone whispered in her ear, 'Irrigators are desperate. The banks have their foot on irrigators' throats. They want them to relieve some of their drought debt. Why don't you put a tender out and suggest irrigators sell their water to the Commonwealth? The banks will make them do it.' She thought that was a brilliant idea. It was an untargeted, uncapped $50 million tender in the middle of the worst drought on record.
Tragically, half of my irrigators in the Goulburn-Murray irrigation district, an irrigation system as big as Tasmania and once the food bowl of Australia, were forced to sell by the banks and by their lenders. That water disappeared out of their irrigator market for all time.
Not sufficiently satisfied with that dismantling of our irrigation system, the Brumby-Bracks Labor government also saw an opportunity to pipe irrigators' water to Melbourne. Melbourne was not at any time considering recycling water. Their desal plant turned out to be a white elephant—too expensive to turn on.
There was a first stage of the project, where the state government provided $1 billion to help shut down the system, but then Tony Burke, the then minister for the environment, had another marvellous idea. He said: 'Look, those irrigators all sold their water, didn't they? Half of them sold their water when the minister for the environment offered that tender, so they mustn't want to be irrigators anymore. Let's go in and put another $1 billion of federal money into a second stage of the project. We will then take another 204 gigalitres out of that system, with the first 224 gigalitres going to Melbourne Water and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder.'
The 224 gigalitres plus the 204 gigalitres to go to the Commonwealth are the equivalent of the whole volume of Sydney Harbour. It also means the death, potentially, of dairying in northern Victoria—the jobs that go with that, the transport sector, all of the marketing and the exports. Labor did not care. They just rubbed their hands with glee and said, 'Bring it on. We'll get another 204 gigalitres for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. No, it can't use the water it's already got—it's only used half in its pool—but let's rip another 204 gigalitres off the irrigators. It sounds like a good idea.' In fact, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder carried over more than 350 gigalitres last year because it could not use it for the environment. It just put 22 gigalitres on the market the other day because it could not use it for the environment. I wonder what the integrity was in that!
We just had a mid-term review of the great project, which is now called the Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project mark 2, of the then minister for the environment, Tony Burke. The mid-term review says that this is an abomination. The project aims are unclear. Reporting is inadequate and confused. The amount of water savings the project can deliver remain unclear. Forecasting data points to a project falling further behind each month. The governance and communication between all parties mean the risk is not communicated, understood, managed, elevated and actioned between parties in a timely manner. Communications with landholders include confusing, inconsistent and delayed interactions.
This is an abomination. The plan ordered by Labor and paid for by the federal government never once looked at the agricultural productivity in the GMID, the sustainability of the infrastructure leased to Goulburn-Murray Water to manage afterwards, the value for money for the investment by taxpayers, or the long-term sustainability of the irrigation system itself. That is why I say that the opposition lacks integrity, accountability and responsibility. It has not acted in the public interest. It has destroyed the lives of my irrigators. It should hang its head in shame.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The discussion has concluded.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Parliamentary Delegation to the 133rd Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Geneva
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (16:17): I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 133rd Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 October 2015, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mrs MARKUS: I am pleased to present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation that participated in the 133rd Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 October this year. It was my privilege to lead this delegation, which also comprised the member for Berowra, Mr Ruddock, who is present in the House, Senator Sterle and Senator Lines. As the assembly occurred while the Australian parliament was in session, the member for Forrest and Senator Bernardi were unable to attend due to parliamentary commitments, so the member for Berowra and I were asked to join the delegation for the assembly.
As the report confirms, this was a hardworking and successful delegation, and all members played an active role at the various proceedings of the assembly. The delegation attended all formal meetings of the assembly and its governing council and participated in meetings of the Asia-Pacific and Twelve Plus geopolitical groups, as well as participating in the meeting of women parliamentarians.
During the assembly, Mr Ruddock and I both spoke in the general debate on the topic of the imperative for fairer, smarter and more humane migration. Another important item of business at the assembly involved two sessions of the meeting of women parliamentarians, which Senator Lines and I attended.
Once again, we were able to participate in the work of the various standing committees. Members of the delegation attended an important debate as part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development and Trade on ensuring lasting protection against destruction and deterioration for the tangible and intangible cultural heritage for humanity.
I was able to contribute to the work of the Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights and drafted a resolution on the freedom of women to participate in all political processes fully, safely and without interference: building partnerships between men and women to achieve this objective. I am pleased to report that, following a ballot, this resolution was adopted and will be further considered at the next assembly in March 2016.
It is important to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague, the member for Berowra, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP. Mr Ruddock was asked, at short notice, to be part of the delegation, but, due to other commitments, was not able to arrive in Geneva until after the assembly had commenced. Nonetheless, Mr Ruddock was able to join me in contributing to the general debate on migration and, in his contribution, drew on his experience as a long-serving immigration minister and Attorney-General. He also made a significant contribution to an important panel discussion on parliamentary action in meeting international commitments to counter terrorism.
One of the key benefits of every assembly is the opportunity for delegates to participate in formal and informal discussions and meetings with a wide range of representatives from other parliaments and international organisations. The Australian delegation held a formal meeting with our Swedish counterparts at which we received a detailed briefing on the challenges that Sweden is currently facing in providing assistance and support to the large influx of migrants arriving at its borders.
Since 2010, the Australian and New Zealand delegations have facilitated meetings of delegations from the Pacific to discuss issues of mutual interest and build on capacity-building activities undertaken through regional parliamentary forums. Once again, this meeting took place, and, while the number of Pacific region nations attending this assembly was less than in previous years, useful discussions were still held with the delegations from Fiji and Timor-Leste.
The challenge that the parliamentary delegations from the Pacific face in attending IPU assemblies was the subject of discussions with the IPU Secretary-General, Mr Martin Chungong. At the same meeting, Mr Ruddock briefed the secretary-general on the work of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Australian parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade in relation to referrals from the IPU to the Presiding Officers, concerning possible abuses of the human rights of parliamentarians. Following this successful meeting with the secretary-general, Mr Chungong asked Mr Ruddock to share this information in the plenary meeting of the Governing Council the following day, and this contribution attracted interest from other delegates.
The IPU Assembly continues to offer a unique opportunity for delegations and individual parliamentarians to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest, to develop an understanding of different parliamentary models and to strengthen parliament-to-parliament relationships. On behalf of the Australian travelling party, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this successful delegation. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the support provided by Australian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization, Mr Hamish McCormick, and his staff in Geneva. I would also like to extend the delegation's thanks to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and to staff of the Parliamentary Library for providing comprehensive and timely briefing materials prior to the delegation's departure.
Thanks are also due to Mr Brien Hallett, who so ably served and supported us during our visit to the Assembly. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Mr Russell Chafer, Mr Geoff Barnett and other staff of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office for the high standard of support provided to the delegation. Finally, I thank my fellow delegates for their thoughtful participation in the delegation's meetings and their commitment to our program of work. I commend the report to the House.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (16:24): by leave—I wish to briefly add to the remarks of the member for Macquarie and thank her for her leadership of the delegation. It was certainly a great deal of work that she undertook. As you can see from the report and her statement of the activities that were undertaken, it was wide-ranging and successful.
I did want to emphasise particularly the opportunity that I had to speak of the activities of this parliament—through the subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade —in taking up the plight of those members of parliament who, from time to time, are charged inappropriately and sometimes tortured, and some who lose their lives. This parliament is one of the few around the world that has a structured approach to following up the inquiries that the IPU makes on behalf of parliamentary colleagues who suffer this fate. To be able to report on it in the parliament in the detailed way that we did, I think, brought great credit to this parliament and to Australia, because I do not think that the same structured approach is necessarily undertaken in too many other countries.
COMMITTEES
Human Rights Committee
Report
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (16:25): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Thirty-second report of the 44th Parliament.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr RUDDOCK: by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 32nd report of the 44th Parliament.
The report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 23 November to 26 November 2015 and legislative instruments received from 30 October to 12 November 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of six responses to matters raised in previous reports.
Two new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns, and the committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents in relation to two other bills and two legislative instruments. The committee has also concluded its examination of seven other bills.
This report considers the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. The committee—and I emphasise this—recognises the importance of ensuring that national security and law enforcement agencies have the necessary powers to protect the security of all Australians. Moreover, the committee recognises the specific importance of protecting Australians from terrorism. The Australian government has the responsibility to ensure that laws and operational frameworks support the protection of life and security of the person. In addition, Australia has specific international obligations to detect, arrest and punish terrorists.
Legislative responses to issues of national security are likely to engage a range of human rights. For example, legislative schemes aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts may seek to do so through measures that limit a number of traditional freedoms and protections that are characteristic of Australian society and its system of government.
Human rights principles and norms are not inherently opposed to national security objectives or outcomes. Rather, international human rights law allows for the balancing of human rights considerations with responses to national security concerns.
In this regard, the committee has assessed 11 of the 17 schedules in the bill as not raising human rights concerns. In relation to the remaining six schedules, the committee considers that further information is to be usefully provided by the Attorney-General to fully explain how those measures are compatible with Australia's human rights obligations.
As one example, the bill includes provisions lowering the age at which control orders may apply to 14- and 15-year-olds. This is in direct response to a terrorist attack here in Australia—regrettably, in Parramatta—by a 15-year-old this year. There has been much debate and contest around the compatibility of control orders with Australia's human rights obligations, because control orders engage and limit a number of human rights.
The control orders regime is necessarily coercive in nature, but allowing controls to be placed on individuals to protect others against the threat of terrorism has to be examined. Control orders pursue the legitimate objective of protecting Australians from such threats.
For those aged under 18, the bill includes a number of additional requirements and safeguards before a control order can be issued on a child. For example, a control order may only be issued for three months as opposed to 12 months for adults. In addition, the court must appoint an individual advocate for the child to act in proceedings in the best interests of the child.
Notwithstanding these additional safeguards, the committee has requested more information from the Attorney-General to explain how these safeguards will fully ensure that the control orders regime imposes only proportionate limitations on the range of human rights engaged by control orders. This includes more information about how the child's best interests will be taken into account in applying for a control order and how the policy intent that control orders be used only rarely is reflected in the legislation.
The committee also considered the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015, and they do so in this report. The committee's report recognises that mutual obligations are an appropriate feature of Australia's social welfare safety net and that imposing reasonable requirements on those receiving welfare is compatible with our human rights obligations. However, the committee has made two recommendations to best ensure the human rights compatibility of this bill.
The first relates to a measure which provides that a penalty may be deducted from a job seeker's social security payments where a job seeker acts in an inappropriate manner, and without reasonable excuse, during an appointment such that the purpose of the appointment is not achieved. The committee has recommended that the term 'inappropriate behaviour' be defined based upon objective standards. Some committee members thought this should be by amendment to the bill; others thought it was sufficient to do so by way of a legislative instrument.
Some committee members also considered additional safeguards should be applied to ensure that those with legitimate mental health concerns are not unfairly or harshly affected by the provision.
Lastly, the committee has made a recommendation in relation to a measure which would remove Centrelink's ability to waive a penalty for not accepting a suitable job without a reasonable excuse. The minister has advised that this measure responds to the fact that the high waiver rate is caused by job seekers avoiding a penalty by undertaking additional compliance activities. While recognising this as an important objective, the committee considers that maintaining a waiver in genuinely exceptional circumstances would better protect individuals who, for a range of genuine reasons, refuse suitable work yet fail to meet the reasonable excuse test.
As always, I encourage members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's thirty-second report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
BILLS
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015
Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2015
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (16:33): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:34): I will not detain the House long in my contribution because I understand there are a number of issues for us to get through in the parliament today. The Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 before us is one where government amendments have now been circulated. We will be opposing the bill in its current form for the second reading debate, but, if the government then moves the amendments—as we understand they will, after the second reading debate—we will be supporting the amendments and then supporting the bill in its amended form.
The bill itself has four different measures: schedule 1 deals with the conversion of student start-up scholarships into income contingent loans, schedule 2 is the efficiency dividend on higher education funding, schedules 3 and 4 deal with the removal of the HECS-HELP discount and voluntary HELP repayment bonus, and schedule 5 deals with the interest charge on certain debts. We have previously opposed all of these measures on the basis that the first few were originally proposed by the Labor government specifically in the context of the funding for the Gonski education reforms. The government abandoned the Gonski education reforms and, therefore, got rid of any reason that Labor would have had for supporting the measures.
While the government has repeatedly, since that time, used an argument of, 'These were your measures; why won't you still support them?' the answer has always been pretty straightforward. They were supported in order to fund a significant improvement in school education, which the government promised they would keep to but then abandoned. The government having done that, we were no longer going to support the measures to provide the revenue for something that they were not going to do. It is a pretty simple symmetry. So the title of this bill, where it refers to 'Labor budget savings measures' as though there was some automatic obligation for Labor to support these, completely ignored the fact that the context in which they were being supported by Labor in government was the context of the Gonski education reforms, which the government subsequently abandoned.
There are two reasons why, on two of these measures, Labor will be changing its position. The first is the deteriorating state of the budget. Since we first established our position on these different measures, we have seen the deficit double from one year to the next. Let us not forget: the government's figures, where they say the deficit has doubled, have been on the basis that even if they got all of these measures through there would still be a doubling of the deficit. The fiction we hear from those opposite is that, somehow, the doubling of the deficit is the fault of Labor opposing individual measures—no, no, no, it does not work that way, because the budget papers always presume that every single measure will get through.
The second issue is that we have now announced our own higher education policy that does not involve imposing $100,000 degrees on students. In that context, we are making some decisions to further close the fiscal gap. We will therefore support the conversion of students start-up scholarships into income contingent loans. This is a saving of $920 million over the forward estimates. We will also support the removal of the HECS-HELP discount and voluntary HELP repayment bonus, which is a further saving of $200 million over the forward estimates. We will continue to oppose the imposition of an efficiency dividend on higher education funding and the introduction of an interest charge on certain debts.
Last year we supported over $20 billion worth of government measures that improved the budget bottom line. Since this year's budget, we have already supported a further $10.7 billion worth of government measures that improve the budget bottom line. Our position here, as a result of the support we will be providing to the amended bill—not the bill in its current form—represents a further $1.1 billion in improvements to the budget bottom line. I understand that the government will be moving amendments later, at the consideration in detail stage, that will remove the measures that we do not support and leave the measures that we do support. In that specific context, it will be unsurprising that will be opposing the bill at its second reading, because it will still at that point contain measures which we oppose. At the point at which the government amendments have gone through, which I certainly expect they will—unless the mathematics of government and opposition somehow added up to something different—we will be able to support the bill in its amended form.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:39): It is very pleasing to hear that the Labor Party in opposition have finally come on board and started to realise that, as a result of the fiscal mess they have created in this country, there is a need to support the government to undertake the necessary work to repair the budget. Before the member for Watson leaves the chamber, I say that it was very disappointing to hear him peddle that misleading statement about $100,000 degrees for students. I would encourage every Labor member of parliament to refrain from that complete and utter deception, because it scares students.
We want to encourage students to go to university. We want to encourage students to take up degrees. Even with the government's changes, a student will have, on average, half of their degree funded by the Commonwealth. The taxpayer will pay for half of their degree. The student will be asked to fund the other half, and they will only have to do that once their income rises to a certain level, to about the mid-$50,000 mark, and they will pay it back by way of a higher income tax. It is cheap political point scoring to talk about $100,000 degrees. It threatens to deter students from taking on degrees. I would ask members of the opposition not to continue to repeat that misleading statement to the students of this nation.
It is pleasing that the opposition are finally supporting this bill. I hope they at least start to have some appreciation of the fiscal mess and the problems they have created for this government. The history is worth repeating. When the previous coalition government were elected back in 1996, they inherited cumulative deficits that had created a debt of $96 billion. Year after year, the previous coalition government made hard decisions to wind that debt back. For every one of those decisions, they were criticised from pillar to post by the Labor Party, who wanted to continue spending. The previous coalition government, the Howard and Costello government, did the right thing and slowly pegged it back. When they got it back to zero they then had another $40 billion that they were able to put into the Future Fund. It is worthwhile mentioning what the Future Fund is used for.
The inheritances of previous Labor government decisions go back to the Whitlam government. Rather than account for military pensions, military superannuation and certain public servants' superannuation in the year in which the liability was incurred—as is done in the rest of the economy—they decided to put these on the never-never so that the government would not have to put aside any funds. That would just be paid for sometime in the future. For years and years since that time, we in this nation have continued to build up an unfunded liability of what the Australian taxpayer owes retired public servants. There are currently somewhere around $170 billion of liabilities. The Future Fund, started by Peter Costello with money from the Howard government surplus—thank goodness they did that—is now at more than the $100 billion mark, so we still have an unfunded liability of $50 billion. If Peter Costello had never set up that Future Fund, that $167 billion liability would be tacked on to the obligations of future taxpayers of this nation. That is on top of the existing debt.
Getting back to the history, that $96 billion was paid off—we paid that off—but what is often forgotten is that along the way the previous coalition government had to pay off the interest as well. And that interest was $54 billion. So $96 billion was paid off, but then there was another $54 billion in interest on the debt and then there was another $40 billion put in the Future Fund. All up, the coalition government had to take $200 billion from the economy to fix up the previous Labor government's debt. We will never know what could have been done with that $200 billion. We will never know what hospitals could have been funded, what infrastructure could have been built—what roads, what public transport—what schools and what extra care we could have given the kids with disabilities. But we had to fix up the mess that was inherited from previous Labor governments.
As they say, things go around in cycles, and that cycle came back around with the election of the Labor government back in 2007. I remember the previous Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, standing up and saying that he was that a fiscal conservative and that he was going to keep the nation's finances in good measure. We know what happened—history records what happened: they borrowed and they borrowed and they borrowed and they borrowed and they borrowed and they continued to borrow. They ran up deficit after deficit and they locked in expenditure that will tie the hands of the current government for years. It is very easy for governments to give out money to this group and that group, but it is very difficult to wind it back—it causes a lot of political pain.
Even after doing all of that, today we are still borrowing $100 million every day—we will borrow that $100 million today, we will borrow it tomorrow and we will borrow it the day after. All we are doing is putting the liability on our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren to pay the principal off. We are also tying the hands of future governments in this country to meet the interest liabilities. Already this government faces a interest liability from the previous Labor government's debt of $1 billion every month—every 30 days we need to find $1 billion. We take that from the taxpayers of this nation, hardworking men and women, in higher rates of tax just to pay the interest on Labor's debt.
We have come into this parliament and we have put up proposals to make budget savings that were actually part of the previous Labor government program and they have the hide to block them in the Senate. What fiscal irresponsibility to block their own legislative debt! It is a tawdry political stunt to try and put extra financial pressure on this nation by blocking them in the Senate. Today I was very pleased to hear the member for Watson say that he will finally support this bill. I hope that when it goes across to the Senate that there is no game playing, because we face a very serious issue with our finances. It is going to take a long time and a lot of hard work for us to get this budget back into repair. We have many things down the track that we need to find the dollars for. We want to find funding to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Both sides of the House agree that is a fantastic initiative, but an initiative is one thing—unless we can find the tax dollars for it, it is worthless.
The other issue that I am greatly concerned about is the story being peddled around that if only we could only tax these large multinational companies, everything would be all right and rosy. There are some multinational companies that could be doing more to meet their tax obligations to this nation, but we need to be careful that we do not drive that investment off overseas. If we were to place higher taxation obligations on them, they would to raise their costs and their prices for Australian consumers. Even if we adopted every single one of the Labor Party's plans that would supposedly crackdown on multinationals—and they had flow-on effects in cost or investment or employment—it would raise $1.6 billion. Yes, that is a significant sum, but it is just a drop in the bucket when compared with the consolidation of this nation's finances we need to get our budget back into repair.
We have seen the opposition make claims about what they will do with their renewable energy target. We know how reckless they have been in handling the finances of this nation, but if you want an example of how reckless they might be in the future, Deputy Speaker, just look at their plans for the renewable energy target. Yes, it would be wonderful if we could have more renewable energy, but it has to be cost-effective. What has been revealed? This plan of theirs is likely to cost $600 billion. Where does the opposition think this nation can get $600 billion from? Money in this country does not grow on a money tree. We cannot just print currency to get out of this problem, and we cannot borrow our way out of the hole that we are in. The only way we can do it is to produce, and to do that we need to do everything we can in this nation to encourage more entrepreneurial activity. Yet, every time members of the Labor opposition stand up, every time they come up with some policy, they undermine the culture of entrepreneurialism in this country—they undermine the very thing we need for growth, employment and investment.
The five schedules of this bill will involve student start-up loans, the efficiency dividend from higher education grants, the removal of the up-front payment discount and voluntary repayment bonus, and the interest charge for certain student income support debts. I am pleased that the opposition have finally come on board—I hope there is more of it. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:54): My Labor colleagues and I support two of the measures in the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015—the conversion of student start-up scholarships into income contingent loans, which will produce savings in the budget of $920 million, and the removal of the HECS-HELP up-front payment discount and the voluntary HELP repayment bonus, which will save the budget $200 million, a total of close to $1.1 billion worth of savings for the federal budget. However, my Labor colleagues and I are opposed to the efficiency dividend for higher education funding and the imposition of an interest charge on certain debts such as Abstudy and Austudy.
We are opposed to these savings measures because when Labor originally proposed them it was on the basis of fully funding the Gonski reforms—the Gonski better schools program. We all know that our education system is in need of more funding, particularly for students in need. The person who prepared this report and did this thorough study into our nation's education system was certainly no slouch. It was David Gonski, a well-respected businessmen, the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, in my electorate, with a board of experts in the education field that included the likes of Kathryn Greiner. This was not a partisan committee, it was not a biased committee—it was a committee that was specifically looking at how we could improve educational outcomes, particularly relating to literacy and numeracy. They specifically recommended the introduction of a needs-based funding model. Instead of the old funding model with the battle between the state government systems, the private systems and the Catholic system that has plagued our education system in the past, all schools would get additional funding, particularly in respect of the needs of students who have a disability, are from a non-English speaking background, are from small schools, are from regional schools or have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. Finally we were going to fund our education system based on the needs of the students. Over time funding on this basis would produce better literacy and numeracy results for students throughout the country. To fund the program Labor needed to divert funding in the federal budget, and we proposed this series of budget savings measures when we were in government in 2012 as a means of implementing that important and necessary reform to our education system.
We opposed the budget measures in this bill when they came before the parliament last year. The reason we opposed those measures was that, as I mentioned earlier, they were proposed by Labor on the basis of funding Gonski. We all know that the Abbott-Turnbull government has withdrawn funding for Gonski. They have ripped $28 billion out of the Commonwealth schools budget over the forward estimates—in particular the important funding for years five and six of Gonski. The original Gonski funding has gone into the budget, and in my electorate it is making a difference. I have seen at schools the additional funding for support for students with disabilities. Yet this government wants to cut back—it has cut back—that funding, importantly for years five and six of Gonski, in the federal budget. As I said, it is a $28 billion cut to schools in this country.
This says everything about the government's values when it comes to education in this country. That is why we oppose what is proposed with a couple of the measures in this bill—because they do not relate to funding the Gonski education years five and six proposal. Those measures purely relate to an ideological attack on education in this country, and I will not be supporting them. We do not support the introduction of an efficiency dividend into our higher education system. This is the proposal from this government to introduce $100,000 university degrees—effectively locking out kids from low socioeconomic and middle-income families. That is something that I do not support, and I have campaigned vigorously on behalf of my community to oppose that. I have to say that I am extremely proud that the new vice-chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Professor Ian Jacobs, has come out and opposed the introduction of $100,000 university degrees—the first leader of the Go8 universities throughout the country to do so. So full credit to Ian Jacobs for the leadership stance that he has taken. He is standing up for higher education in our community and in this country.
What this bill seeks to do in schedule 2 is to impose an efficiency dividend on universities in 2014-15. These are retrospective measures. Universities have already received these moneys. These savings were originally proposed for the purpose of funding Gonski, but, as I said, because this government is not investing in Gonski, we are opposed to them. The government walked away from that Better Schools plan and instead decided to cut $28 billion from the education budget. The coalition has a record of cutting higher education. They have sought to cut 20 per cent from universities as part of their delayed $100,000-degree plan. They have cut equity funding, research funding and science funding. I and my Labor colleagues will not be party to these education cuts. That is why I am opposed to that particular measure in this bill.
The other measure that we are opposed to is interest charges on certain debts. This would introduce certain charges on debts relating to Austudy payments, Fares Allowances, Youth Allowance payments to full-time students and apprentices, and ABSTUDY living allowances. Today we have a government that is intent on piling on debt for students who are seeking to get an education and, ultimately, make themselves more employable and get ahead in our society. This includes the $100,000 degrees that they are attempting to have students shoulder. This would only add to that burden. Again, on this basis, this particular measure is also opposed.
In conclusion: Labor has demonstrated by supporting two of the measures in this bill that we are keen to look at responsible savings measures and we are willing to support responsible savings measures in the federal budget, but those measures need to be fair and they need to be targeted to ensure that they do not affect the poor and middle-income families and people in our society. I mentioned earlier that there are means of raising additional revenue in the budget, particularly cracking down on multinational profit-shifting—the likes of big companies such as Google, Microsoft and others that make whopping big profits here in Australia and offer internal loans to other subsidiary companies, or cousin companies in other countries, as a means of avoiding tax in this country. If this government was serious about cracking down on that sort of thing then we would be able to raise additional revenue for the budget to fund some of these important programs, particularly the important education programs.
Labor is keen to see responsible savings made to the budget. Our support for two of the measures in this bill is proof of that and it adds to the already close to $30 billion worth of savings that Labor has agreed to in the budget. But not only will we agree to savings measures; we will also seek to raise additional revenue, particularly from large multinational companies and particularly by removing the massive tax concessions that were introduced by the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, that were unfunded in the budget. When you talk about a reckless approach to the budget and fiscal irresponsibility, look no further than what Peter Costello did in 2007 by introducing those massive high-end superannuation tax concessions that were unfunded in the budget. There was no means of funding them into the future—that is the record of the previous coalition government when it came to our budget. And that is one of the reasons why the budget is in such a parlous state at the moment and, unfortunately, under this government, is getting worse—and I note that Access Economics predict that the budget deficit is going to blow out to $38 billion. So not only have they doubled the deficit but they have added to it.
In conclusion, Labor will support responsible savings measures. We will support two of these measures in this bill. But we will not support the ideological attack on education which is contained in the other two measures that we are opposing.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (17:05): Another year and yet another 12 months that Labor still has not learnt from their mistakes. I am pleased today to rise to speak to the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015. As those who frequent this chamber have heard me say before, 'Good economic management is a part of this side of the chamber's DNA. Poor financial management is in Labor's DNA.' We, on this side of the chamber—the Turnbull-Truss coalition government—understand economics and we understand business. This government will have reduced Labor's budget deficit from $48 billion in 2013-14 to just $7 billion in five years. Yes, those opposite sometimes have a knack for producing the glossy posters and, perhaps, the catchy slogans, but it is this government who understands that it is business not governments who create jobs. It is government's role to support business and when you support business you support jobs. It is the excellent management of this government which has presided over a drop in the unemployment rate from 6.2 per cent to 5.9 per cent in the month of October. This year alone, 231,702 more Australians are in jobs. It is worth repeating: 231,702 more Australians are in jobs, and unemployment has dropped to 5.9 per cent. These are key indicators that this government is a superior financial manager.
Last week, the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, acknowledged that there were several positive signs of how our economy was performing through the transition to a more diversified economy. Business investment is growing as the Australian economy transitions from the investment phase of the mining boom to a more diversified economy. Mr Stevens said our economy was performing positively through this transition period.
Including defence and public corporations, this government has increased Commonwealth investment to 6.3 per cent of total investment, which is 1.2 per cent higher than under the previous, wasteful regime. When we look more broadly at public investment, there are currently 88 major infrastructure projects under construction in Australia, with a further 95 projects in the pre-construction phase. The Turnbull government is providing $50 billion in infrastructure funding between 2014-15 and 2019-20. This incredibly mammoth drive in investment will not only deliver much-needed amenities and services across Australia but drive growth in this great country of ours, not forgetting the jobs that it will create along the way.
This is real action compared to the Leader of the Opposition's glib infrastructure ideas announcement that we heard in October. Not a single one of Labor's proposed nine projects were in Western Australia. I am disappointed that, despite the member for Perth's nearly 20 years of experience in state and federal parliament, she defended these nine infrastructure projects, given none of them were in Western Australia and, of course, none of them were in my electorate of Durack. I would say that is pretty embarrassing for the member for Perth.
The government's two-year report Sticking to our plan: backing hard-working Australians highlighted many key economic facts about our government. For example, jobs growth in Australia has been stronger than in every other G7 nation over the past year; there have been over 335,000 additional jobs created since we were elected in September 2013; and—something I am particularly pleased about—female workforce participation is at record levels, with over 171,000 more women in jobs since we came to office. And this is just a small snapshot of the government's record.
Hardworking families from right around the vast electorate of Durack—from as far north as the Kimberley to as far west as the Gascoyne, to the deep south of Durack and the great wheat-belt towns like Cunderdin, Tammin, Kellerberrin and Merredin—thank me for the rise in consumer confidence over the last few months. Consumer confidence has risen nine per cent since mid-September. Consumer confidence leads to increased spending, which builds confidence in the business community. This leads to more part-time and casual jobs for people of all descriptions, from senior citizens to students and mothers in my regional, rural and remote towns.
The Turnbull government are working towards getting the budget back into surplus by controlling expenditure and growing Australia's economic pie. That is what good financial managers do. If we had remained on Labor's spending path, the budget would be almost $80 billion worse off over this budget year and the forward estimates.
The Labor Party claim to the party for the working class. However, if this were true, then 98 per cent of voters would vote for them—but of course they do not, because they know that we on this side of the chamber, the government, are truly the team for the working class. We save Australians money. We pay back debt, which reduces taxes for all Australians in the long term.
When those opposite were in office, they funded everything and anything. Who can forget the pink batts installation disaster? Everyone and everything who came a-knocking got a cheque. Irrespective of purpose or priority, the previous, Labor government were the best friends of groups like vigilante protesters and extremist green groups. Small minority groups who stood for little other than self-interest loved the previous, Labor government—and why wouldn't they—while hardworking Australians had to shoulder the burden left by a populist and irresponsible government. While in office, the Labor Party irresponsibly set us on a trajectory towards $667 billion in the red. Their legacy was also $123 billion in cumulative deficits.
Since coming to office, this government has reduced real growth in government expenditure, from 3.6 per cent on average per annum when those opposite were in office, down to 1.5 per cent on average annually over the 2015-16 forward estimates. We have made massive savings for hardworking Australians, to the tune of $9.4 billion in expenditure from the 2015-16 budget. As a result of this government's budget measures, the budget bottom line is around $110 billion better off over the relevant forward estimates period, with many of these improvements structural and improving over time. This is good news for the hardworking people of Durack.
This bill is a necessary reform for higher education students, who are embarking on arguably the greatest investment of all. Part of this bill includes an efficiency dividend for Commonwealth contributions to higher education grants under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. I believe these reforms are fair. They are also essential in making significant budget savings. While those opposite echo their scare campaign of $100,000 degrees and other aspects of higher education reform—and we have heard it here today—it is worth noting that the Higher Education Loan Program only comes into effect when the former student earns a certain income.
This bill will also allow interest to be charged on certain debts incurred by students on youth allowance, Austudy, ABSTUDY living allowance and fares allowance. It is completely unacceptable and, more importantly, unfair that those who have a debt to Centrelink avoid repaying the debt, and that is also covered in the bill we are debating. These measures, where applicable, encourage those with a debt to repay it if they have the financial capacity to do so. This means those who have a debt have an incentive to make a repayment to avoid an interest charge in the future.
In conclusion, I encourage those opposite to support these budget savings. For my grandchildren's and for their grandchildren's sake, we must continue to find ways to save money in the budget. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:14): I rise to speak on the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015. Labor and the Liberals are joining together to put students into more debt. The average student is going to end up with $6,000 more debt as a result of Labor agreeing today to support the Liberals' way of trying to balance the books. Instead of saying, 'Maybe we could go after unfair tax breaks for the very wealthy, the top one per cent, or maybe we could wind back on some unfair superannuation tax concessions,' Labor and the Liberals have joined together to come after students. It is almost as if they do not understand just how tough many students are doing it at the moment. People are graduating with very large HECS debts. We know that the cost of a HECS debt is forcing some to rethink whether to go to university at all or whether to stay there. But they are doing it, and they are coming out at the other end with a very big debt already. As they are trying to work their way through university, they are doing it at a time when youth allowance and other payments have not been put up for many years. As a result, students are getting nowhere near enough from Youth Allowance. But the cost of rent is skyrocketing, especially in major capital cities, where many of the universities are. Students at the moment are in more debt, they have less money in their pocket from government assistance and the cost of rent is going up. So what is happening to students at the moment? Students are having to work more hours in paid work to try to make ends meet. But, because the cost of rent is so high and because they have to work more, students are often living far away from the campus that they are studying at. That means more time is spent trying to get to and from work and to and from classes. As a result, the idea that maybe the Liberals and Labor have in their heads about the life of the university student being a life of leisure is not the modern-day reality. Students are working around the clock to make ends meet and are doing it under significant pressure.
One thing that gave students a bit of relief was the Student Start-up Scholarship. It was a little bit of money that arrived at the time when you might need it to pay for books, meet some other outstanding bills or meet those fees that are part and parcel of going to university and being a student. It was useful. Anyone who thought that it meant that students could live the high life does not understand the life of a student at the moment. This was going on essentials. Rather than saying, 'How can we make life easier for students?' the government and Labor have now decided to add that money on to students' HECS debts. So now, in an attempt to balance the books because they have not got the guts to stand up to the very wealthy, the top one per cent, and ask them to pay a little bit more, Labor and the Liberals are coming after students. This is going to have a big impact on people. The idea that you can just keep loading up debt on students is not fair and is not right.
When I was a student many years ago, we shared a three-bedroom house in Fremantle, and the cost of rent for me was about half of what I was getting in Austudy, as it then was. The rent was $60 a week and Austudy was $120. That meant I only had to work one shift a week to live a comfortable but frugal lifestyle as a student. Now in my area of Melbourne, if you wanted to rent a very average three-bedroom brick home in Collingwood, you would be lucky to get change out of $600. That is almost $200 per bedroom. That is about as much as people are getting in Youth Allowance. A person's Youth Allowance is gone just on rent, and then come all the other costs. We should be looking for ways to make life easier for students and saying, if we truly believe it, that education is critical for Australia in the 21st century. If we want to be the high-tech, high-value economy that the Prime Minister and others talk about, we are going to rely on an educated population. We are not going to be able to compete with China or India on wages, and nor should we try to. Our big advantages include our people and our smarts, so we should be doing everything we can to try to keep people in education and put more money into it. Instead, we are cutting university funding, budget after budget, and now we are coming after students as well.
There are many better places to look if we want to raise money. At the moment, most people in Australia who fill up their car with petrol are paying about 38c or 39c a litre in tax. When the likes of Gina Rinehart put diesel fuel in their trucks, they get a tax rebate that Australians pay for. Let's keep the rebate for the farmers—no-one is arguing to take the diesel fuel rebate away from the farmers—but, in relation to the miners, it costs Australian taxpayers $2 billion a year in subsidies so that the likes of Gina Rinehart can buy cheap diesel. Then we wonder why there is not enough money and we come after students. Labor joins in with the Liberals to come after students instead of going after Gina Rinehart. If we were really serious about raising the revenue we need to fund the services that Australians expect, we would close that unfair tax break and get rid of that fossil fuel subsidy. We would say to those top few per cent of income earners who get massive benefits from superannuation, 'If you've got a superannuation balance of half a million dollars or so, maybe you don't need more help from the government.' Maybe that money could be better spent somewhere else.
We would start by winding back some of those super tax concessions, because, at the moment, if we do not do that, the cost of superannuation tax concessions alone will soon outstrip the cost of the age pension. In other words, we set up superannuation in order to take the burden off the budget so that people were not reliant on the pension. But, soon, it is going to cost us more to prop up this superannuation system than it will to prop up the pension. So there is a place we could look to save some money. What about asking millionaires—people who earn over a million dollars a year—to pay an extra 5c tax on their marginal rate, just for the money that they earn over $1 million? That would bring in a few hundred million. If we asked millionaires to pay a bit more tax, if we had a millionaire's tax rate, the top one per cent in this country, then we would not need to come after students to help balance the budget.
So the question is: if we have got to raise money, what is the fairest way to do it? Who is in the best position to bear a little bit of extra cost to help balance the books? Well, it is not students. The answer is not to put students into more debt. Any time Labor and the Liberals gang up on a budget savings measure, you know it is going be bad news. In the last parliament it was single parents. They came after single parents to try and balance the budget. This is a group of people who are already working hard at home looking after their kids and who are the highest proportion of people in paid work who receive welfare. They know they need that extra money to make ends meet. Labor, with the support of the Liberals, came after them last time. Why? Unlike the mining industry, single parents do not tend to have a spare $26 million lying around to run an advertising campaign against the government. So the government went after the easy target, and they are doing the same again with this legislation.
We in this parliament have got to stop going after the people who can least afford it and asking them to pay more. It might be easy to do because they do not patrol the corridors of this parliament with well-paid lobbyists and they do not have millions of dollars to threaten running against people in marginal seats and saying, 'You can vote for this measure, if you like, but then I'm going to run a campaign to turf you out.' Our job is not to give in to the special interests, which then have a cost on the budget. Our job is to act in the public interest, and that at times means having the strength to stand up for what is right. It means, especially if you call yourself an opposition, not agreeing to just putting students in more debt in the hope that they will not protest. It means saying, 'No, perhaps there are fairer ways of raising the money.'
I am very, very disappointed to be here speaking on this bill, because I thought it was one that we could knock off in this parliament, that if enough people joined together we could send the government back to the drawing board and say: 'Don't come after students to try and balance the books. Go after some people who can afford it a bit more and who are getting substantial tax breaks.' But, no, here we are yet again finding that it is the Greens who are standing up for the community. We are not standing up for special interests but standing up for the community. So I think students will very clearly know this, as we go to the next election. They will look back at previous governments and understand that $2.3 billion was being ripped out of universities by the previous Labor government. When students look at how much is coming in in their youth allowance or other payments, they will realise that those payments have not gone up for a very long period of time. They will know when they try and make ends meet, when they try to find enough money for rent and see that it is not there and when they have to work more and more or spend less and less time at university that it is only the Greens in this parliament who are standing up for students and it is only the Greens who are saying that there are much fairer ways of raising the money we need to fund the services that people expect than coming after those who can least afford it.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:26): It is always interesting to follow the member for Melbourne, who was brought to the parliament by Labor Party preferences. He says that the Greens are the only ones sticking up for students. Where was he in the last parliament when the independent rural youth allowance debate was happening, when it was raging? Were the Greens in there trying to help rural country students get a fairer deal? No, I think he was siding with Labor. I think he was actually in cahoots with Labor, blocking those important funding measures to help regional students—to help students in my electorate of Riverina. It is all well and good to come in here now like a voice in the wilderness to talk about how he is the only one sticking up for university students. Well, I have to tell the member for Melbourne: there are university students outside the bright city lights of Melbourne and outside the bright city lights of Swanston Street.
The Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 is important legislation because it goes to highlighting Labor's $52 billion budget black hole. But before I get into the real nitty-gritty, the real context of the bill, I want to also refer to some comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith in his contribution on this legislation. He talked about Gonski—the Gonski cash flow to schools—after Labor, thankfully, justifiably and rightly lost government in September 2013. The member for Kingsford-Smith was not in the House of Representatives in the last parliament but he was in the Senate, and he should know that we are governing for all of Australia. He should know that is why we call it a 'common wealth', because it is not just a few states and one territory. We govern for all of Australia. We govern for all states and both territories. But the Gonski reforms, the Gonski funding, did not cover all states and it did not cover both territories. Indeed, the model put forward by Labor, who suggested that it was going to go in the out years and cover five or six years outside the forward estimates, did not even consider Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. To come in with a funding model for the Commonwealth, you need to be able to consider all the states and both territories.
I am reading here from a report entitled the educator which talks about how the new Queensland government has changed the funding formula for 2016, implementing the needs based system envisaged by the Gonski review. It talks about Sam Pidgeon, the vice-president of the Queensland Teachers' Union, who says that many successful programs have been enacted across Queensland as a result of Gonski funds. That is correct. They have. But Ms Pidgeon also needs to understand that the Gonski model, as proposed by Labor, was not signed up to by all states and territories.
I have to tell the member for Kingsford Smith for his information that, under the coalition government, nine out of 10 teaching students have passed an Australia-first pilot test to evaluate their literacy and numeracy skills. On the plus side, of the 5,000 teaching students who participated in the pilot program, 92 per cent passed the literacy test, while 90 per cent passed the numeracy test. It would be nice to think that all of them did, but from 1 July 2016 all students undertaking initial teacher education training will need to pass the test before they graduate—and that is fair enough. We need to be able to make sure that our teachers are absolutely fully equipped and fully qualified and have literacy and numeracy skills sufficient to be able to teach our children. You can throw all the money you like at Gonski reforms and schools—certainly, in rural and remote and regional areas—but, under the former education minister, the member for Sturt, and under the new education minister, we are making sure that we have the very best teaching skills and the very best funding model for schools, and it is a little bit rich for Labor to come in and start criticising the coalition when its Gonski reform model did not cover all states and both territories.
This bill talks about Labor's 2013-14 budget savings measures. As I said at the outset, Labor has a $52 billion black hole. Regarding 2015 budget savings, Labor has already said that it would not support $1 billion. Regarding savings and revenue measures proposed by Labor, it is now blocking $6½ billion. Regarding savings and revenue measures put forward by the government, $17.2 billion is being blocked by Labor by an obstructionist Senate. Regarding spending Labor says we must restore from bank savings, Labor is blocking $31.1 billion—and it just goes on. Then we hear the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister, the member for Maribyrnong, talking about how Labor wants to ratchet up another carbon tax. It is the carbon tax that the former Prime Minister, the member for Lalor, said that we would not have on steroids. How are we going to pay for that? How are we going to put that in place and still have a manufacturing sector, a mining industry and agriculture?
The savings and revenue measures proposed by Labor that it is now blocking total $6½ billion from 2015-16 to 2018-19, as I mentioned a short while ago. If you drill down into it, you see that a change in Labor's Student Start-up Scholarship, to make it a loan repayable through HECS rather than provided as a grant is $2.1 billion. Applying an efficiency dividend to university funding is $1.2 billion. Ending the discount for paying HECS fees up-front is $336 million. They are big numbers. Cancellation of the 2015-16 tax cuts linked to the carbon tax is $2.8 billion. The figure for savings put forward by government which Labor is blocking is $17.2 billion. And you can go through the list. Maintaining the payment rates for family tax benefits is $3 billion. Limiting family tax benefit part B to families with children under six years old is $3½ billion. Changes to family tax benefit end-of-year supplements is $1.7 billion. Ceasing the seniors supplement to Commonwealth Seniors Health Card holders is $1.1 billion. Switching under-25-year-olds from Newstart to youth allowance is $504 million. Ceasing the pension education supplement is $315 million. The one-week waiting period for working-age payments is $255 million. Ceasing the education entry payment is $76 million. Commencement of veterans disability payments from date of claim is $40 million.
Under the last parliament, when Labor was in, there were not too many provisions made for veterans—and shame on Labor for that. I represent a huge Defence electorate where all three arms of Defence are represented: Air Force, Army and Navy. Many come back to Wagga Wagga to retire. Many of them come back to the Riverina because of the cost of living, the fact that it is halfway between Sydney and Melbourne and a short 2½ hours drive from Canberra and the fact that it is a great lifestyle. During the previous government I heard endless complaints about Labor and its lack of support for veterans.
I will continue with this list. We go to revised higher education reforms where we see $1.3 billion. Fuel excise indexation is $3.3 billion. Increased co-payments for subsidised pharmaceuticals is $1.5 billion. Maintaining eligibility thresholds for Australian government payments for three years childcare benefit component is $50 million. Abolishing ARENA is $567 million. The list just goes on and on.
Labor just does not want to get on board with fixing the mess it created. When Labor was in government under the former member for Griffith in 2007, it inherited money in the bank by way of surpluses. It received money in the bank by way of the Future Fund—money it squandered; money it wasted. There was no limit to the spending. I appreciate that there was a global fiscal downturn. I understand that and appreciate that.
The economy went into a state where countries which had a bit of fat, which had a bit of money they could call on, were in a far better position than those which were already facing tough fiscal headwinds. Fortunately, Australia was one of those countries which had a bit of excess, which had a bit of a surplus, which was in the black. But, I tell you what, that money went pretty quickly. It dissipated fairly soon under the member for Lilley. I have not seen him in parliament for a few weeks. He is probably off writing another book. The surplus garnered, gained and built up by Peter Costello as Treasurer in the Howard prime ministerial years—alongside good National Party leaders such as Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile, with the good economic responsibility that the Nationals always put forward in a coalition government—soon disappeared.
If you look at the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015, you will see that schedule 1 talks about student start-up loans. Schedule 1 replaces the current Student Start-Up Scholarship with an income-contingent student start-up loan. The amendments introduce a limit of two loans per year of equivalent value to the Student Start-Up Scholarship. They are currently $1,025 each and will be indexed from 1 January 2017.
Schedule 2 refers to the efficiency dividend for higher education grants. This will apply an efficiency dividend to Commonwealth contributions out of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme for higher education. The member for Melbourne talked of the importance of tertiary education. We on this side of the House understand that. That is why we as Nationals in government are certainly in there—and I know many regional Liberals are too—pushing for a fairer, more equitable deal for country university students. That includes those students who want to do a course which is not available in their home town. Not every course is available at Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga and so many of the students in my home town go to Wollongong, Sydney and, indeed, Adam Bandt's home town of Melbourne.
Mr Stephen Jones: It is a good university.
Mr McCORMACK: I can hear the member for Throsby saying 'Griffith'.
Mr Stephen Jones: Charles Sturt is a good university.
Mr McCORMACK: It is a good university—Charles Sturt University. If the member was, indeed, thinking about Griffith, I am pleased to say I have just been able to see a cloud arrangement coming into the fine city of Griffith—which I know the member for Throsby is well aware of—to help university students in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area get access to a tertiary education they would otherwise not be able to receive. The member for Throsby rightly points out that Charles Sturt University, Deakin University and universities in Sydney and Wollongong are fine institutions. The member for Throsby, who is from Wollongong, obviously understands how important the university in the Illawarra area is. Many, many Wagga Wagga students avail themselves of the fine law degree that they have in Wollongong. The member for Throsby would know that. But they need help and support.
I will just quickly talk about schedules 3 and 4 and the removal of the up-front payment discount and voluntary repayment loans. Schedule 5 talks about the interest charge for certain student income support debts. This bill is an important piece of legislation that needs to be passed. I certainly commend it to the House. These are savings measures announced by the former government. They have not passed the Senate. They need to. Labor need to understand that we have to pay back the debt. We cannot just put it off. There has to be some sort of sunset clause with the debt and deficit that we as coalition members of a coalition government did not inherit; indeed, it was inherited by the taxpayers of this nation, who are already suffering from overregulation forced upon them by Labor. I urge Labor to get on board with this legislation and help pay back the debt.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (17:41): After six years in power, Labor left Australia in absolute disrepair. They produced the sixth largest budget deficit in our history. The debt blew out to $320 billion. That is $13,500 for every Australian man, woman and child. Without a policy change, Labor's debt was projected to reach $667 billion in 10 years. Household costs for health increased 35 per cent. Hospital waiting times increased, and $4 billion was cut from private health insurance. All the while, health bureaucracies thrived and grew. Gas prices increased 71 per cent and electricity prices increased 101 per cent.
Under Labor, the number of unemployed increased by over 200,000. Productivity declined 0.07 per cent per year. The number of working days lost to strikes doubled and business red tape increased. Crucial road infrastructure was announced but then cancelled, delayed or left unfunded. The Defence budget fell to the lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1938. Labor also imposed the world's biggest carbon tax—a $9 billion per year hit to the economy, costing the average Australian household around $550 annually. More than 800 boats and over 50,000 illegal boat arrivals came in under Labor, causing a cost blow-out of more than $11 billion. Labor left government with a legacy of disorder and disarray.
Since the coalition have come to power we have worked hard to fix the problems we inherited from Labor. The coalition government believe in being agile and nimble. This is clearly evidenced in the work that we have done and the achievements we have made since entering government. We abolished the carbon tax, which was removing $9 billion annually. We are repairing the budget, returning it to a sustainable position. We are helping small businesses, fixing the NBN, tackling union corruption and investing in new infrastructure. We are stopping the boats—in fact, we have stopped the boats—creating a stronger Defence Force and tackling terrorism at home and overseas. We have secured three major free trade agreements, with China, Japan and Korea, creating stronger and more resilient relationships with our close neighbours.
With regard to the specifics of the bill under consideration, the coalition is relieving the Labor Party of another failed promise to the Australian public, by ensuring that the $2 billion worth of savings are afforded in the budget. We are committed to ensuring that the $2 billion worth of savings are secured.
The bill will specifically replace the current start-up scholarship by implementing the student start-up loan. The student start-up loan is income-contingent and runs similarly to the current Higher Education Loan Program. Schedule 1 of this bill will help students pay for the basic needs that study demands, including books, internet access and computers. What this exemplifies, and is shown throughout the bill, is that the bill makes significant savings without taking those costs from the up-front funds of students.
It is important to note that the repayments for these start-up scholarships occur similarly to repayments for students' higher education loans and are only required to be made following the repayment of a student's HELP debt. This bill will not affect those students currently on Youth Allowance, Austudy or ABSTUDY; it will only apply to new recipients after the bill takes effect, providing significant savings in the future.
The Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines 2013 amendments will ensure savings for the future and are part of several measures taken by this government to moderate the growth of higher education expenditure. These savings will also be afforded by the abolishment of the HECS-HELP bonuses and discounts for up-front payments. These bonuses and discounts that are paid by the government will no longer apply, providing important savings in the order of $970 million.
Importantly, schedule 5 permits an interest charge on debts from applicable recipients of Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY. The interest on loans will be applied in circumstances where the individual is not honouring their obligation to repay in an acceptable way. Not only does it penalise individuals who are shirking their repayment responsibilities; it also provides individuals with the incentive to honour their repayments where they have the financial capacity to do so.
Prior to this, Commonwealth loans under HELP and HECS did not provide individuals with any incentive to repay the loan. It is important that individuals have the incentive to repay their debts in a timely fashion where they have the ability to do so. This is smart policy and essential to this bill, providing savings in the order of $200 million for this schedule alone. The interest that will be applied to certain loans will be based on the industry accepted 90-day bank bill rate. This will be in addition to the ATO's accepted seven per cent interest for tax debts.
This budget savings measure bill is important in ensuring the efficiency of the Higher Education Loan Scheme. The establishment of the student start-up loan through this bill is essential in providing sufficient savings as well as ensuring moderate growth of higher education expenditure.
I know that actions are more important than words and deeds more than intentions. That is how we are going about fixing Labor's mess. Our country, had it been a business, was making a loss—and a substantial loss—every year since the Howard government left office. These accumulated losses have built up into a debt mountain. Unless we have a profit again, our country will never be able to reduce or pay down the debt mountain.
Labor has its head in the clouds and is hopeless when it comes to economic management. Our mandate is to fix that mess, and I am excited about that task. I know that, even though the challenges are great, the opportunities are greater. It has never been cheaper to borrow to invest. There has never been a better time to have a go, invest or take a risk.
The coalition is building the digital and physical infrastructure of the 21st century. In my electorate of Tangney the Perth Freight Link is a hugely important project that will not only make money for the federal and state governments; significantly, this community required road will reduce air and noise pollution, decrease average journey times and reduce fatalities on Leach Highway by taking large vehicles off Leach Highway altogether. This will be achieved through inventive and innovative new tracking and identification technologies.
We need our fellow countrymen and countrywomen to be excited about the potential of Australia—as excited as those early settlers and as excited as the men who dreamt up the Snowy hydro scheme. As a country, we need to get back to doing great and big things. Australia has always been about big things and big ideas. It is said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so let's not.
Now is the time to look afresh at government support for investment in residential housing stock through negative gearing and other tax incentives. Government moneys need to be directed at sustainable investments that create long-term, local, high-value high-skill jobs. It is reassuring to know that this coalition government is the only administration capable of and committed to securing Australia's high-paying, high-value-added manufacturing goods and services.
The quickest, easiest and cheapest way to get the economy growing is to cut red tape. The coalition has already had two very successful red tape repeal days, throwing 50,000 pages of outdated and obsolete legislation into the dustbin of history. Australia, with our rich immigration tapestry of the past and today, has a lot to learn from best practice elsewhere. We should not be afraid to look overseas for ideas. Why not incentivise investment in science, in small business and especially in small tech businesses? There is no shortage of money in Australia. The high cash savings rate of 10 per cent of weekly income is testament to this. There is no shortage of money in superannuation funds. Compulsory superannuation, a big idea in itself, now has over $1 trillion in it. There has also never been a better time to borrow internationally. The real cost of borrowing is negligible to negative.
Labor's lies and incompetence have saddled this nation with a huge debt burden. Filling in such a massive hole will not happen overnight. When we last held office, the budget was in surplus. We were $50 billion in the black. We were earning interest not paying interest. The interest on their debt alone is $1 billion a month—$45 a month for every man, woman and child. Two months of that interest would be enough to build the Fiona Stanley Hospital in my electorate of Tangney. That hospital is the most modern in the Southern Hemisphere. Just think of what not paying the mortgage on the credit card would mean for infrastructure around the country. Think of what that extra money would do for people stuck in traffic on the Bruce or Hume highways or in Sydney, Melbourne or even Perth. In short, responsible budgeting means living within our means.
Without ameliorative action, the country was on track for $667 billion of debt—$30,000-odd for every man, woman and child in Australia. One of the Labor's biggest policy failures has been one of our biggest successes—that is, border control. Stopping the boats was a key plank in our election platform at the last election. We said that we would stop the boats, and we did. Not only have we restored integrity to our immigration system but we have stopped the needless tragedy of mass drownings at sea. Critically, for this debate, it means that we have also stopped the haemorrhaging of public money. Under Labor, we bled money at every turn in this policy space. Search and rescue is expensive, administration is expensive, and lifetime welfare payments are more expensive still. Many genuine refugees were left waiting as queuejumpers risked paying people smugglers to make that journey to Australia. This injustice has now stopped.
The list of achievements is long and my time short. We have scrapped the carbon tax, saving households $550 per annum. We have scrapped the mining tax so that this vital sector can create more jobs. We have handed down a $50 billion infrastructure package—the single largest infrastructure package in this country's history. We have delivered free trade agreements with Japan, with China and with Korea, and this means more jobs for Australians. We are putting in place long-term structural reforms to fix the budget.
To quote Ronald Reagan:
… the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'
Labor has no plan for our country. Our government has a clear vision: free trade and a higher value-added strategy for sustainable growth. I believe that the pivot of this debate is where we are going as a nation. Labor, then as now, on border protection and fiscal prudence is all talk no delivery. It cost us then and costs us now in debt and interest repayments. In the final analysis, our place in the world and our quality of life needs to be earned every day.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (17:56): I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
The House divided. [18:00]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Russell Broadbent)
Consideration in Detail
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:07): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (23) together.
Leave granted.
Mr HAWKE: I move government amendments (1) to (23):
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 2, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:
The start of the first 1 January that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "2,".
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.
(4) Clause 3, page 2 (line 8), omit "(1)".
(5) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 12 to 15), omit subclause (2).
(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 25), omit "subsection 1223ABF(2)", substitute "subsection 1061ZVDA(5)".
(7) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (line 17), omit "subsection 1223ABF(2)", substitute "subsection 1061ZVDA(5)".
(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 14 (line 5), omit "subsection 1223ABF(2)", substitute "subsection (5)".
(9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 14 (after line 17), at the end of section 1061ZVDA, add:
(5) A person's enrolment test day, for a qualification period, is the earliest of the following days:
(a) if the relevant approved scholarship course ends in the qualification period—the last day of that approved scholarship course;
(b) the last day of the qualification period;
(c) the 35th day of the period starting on whichever of the following applies:
(i) if the person's qualification test day for the qualification period was before the first day of the relevant approved scholarship course—the first day of that approved scholarship course;
(ii) otherwise—the qualification test day.
Note: For approved scholarship course, see section 592M.
(10) Schedule 1, page 28 (before line 1), after item 26, insert:
26A After subsection 1192(8A)
Insert:
(8B) The student start‑up loan amount (see item 41A of the CPI Indexation Table in subsection 1191(1)) is not to be indexed on 1 January 2016.
(11) Schedule 1, item 28, page 28 (line 3) to page 29 (line 19), omit the item, substitute:
28 After section 1223ABE
Insert:
1223ABF Debts in respect of student start ‑up loans
(1) If:
(a) a person is paid a student start‑up loan for a qualification period; and
(b) the circumstances determined under subsection (2) apply to the person;
then:
(c) the amount of the loan is a debt due to the Commonwealth; and
(d) the debt is taken to have arisen when the person was paid the loan.
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine circumstances in which subsection (1) applies to a person who has not met, or who has ceased to meet, the condition in subparagraph 1061ZVBB(1)(a)(iii) or (2)(a)(iii).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person if, in the Secretary's opinion, the person did not meet, or ceased to meet, the condition in subparagraph 1061ZVBB(1)(a)(iii) or (2)(a)(iii) because of exceptional circumstances beyond the person's control.
(12) Schedule 1, item 29, page 29 (lines 20 to 24), omit the item.
(13) Schedule 1, item 54, page 38 (line 13), omit "subsection 38A(2)", substitute "subsection 8B(5)".
(14) Schedule 1, item 67, page 44 (line 16), omit "subsection 38A(2)", substitute "subsection (5)".
(15) Schedule 1, item 67, page 44 (after line 28), at the end of section 8B, add:
(5) A person's enrolment test day, for a qualification period, is the earliest of the following days:
(a) if the relevant approved scholarship course ends in the qualification period—the last day of that approved scholarship course;
(b) the last day of the qualification period;
(c) the 35th day of the period starting on whichever of the following applies:
(i) if the person's qualification test day for the qualification period was before the first day of the relevant approved scholarship course—the first day of that approved scholarship course;
(ii) otherwise—the qualification test day.
(16) Schedule 1, item 68, page 58 (lines 16 to 25), omit the item.
(17) Schedule 1, item 71, page 58 (line 31) to page 59 (line 30), omit the item, substitute:
71 After section 38
Insert:
38A ABSTUDY student start ‑up loan overpayments
(1) If:
(a) a person is paid an ABSTUDY student start‑up loan for a qualification period; and
(b) the circumstances determined under subsection (2) apply to the person;
then the amount of the loan is an ABSTUDY student start‑up loan overpayment.
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine circumstances in which subsection (1) applies to a person who has not met, or who has ceased to meet, the condition in subparagraph 7C(1)(a)(iii).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person if, in the Secretary's opinion, the person did not meet, or ceased to meet, the condition in subparagraph 7C(1)(a)(iii) because of exceptional circumstances beyond the person's control.
(18) Schedule 1, heading to Part 2, page 71 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:
Part 2—Saving provision
(19) Schedule 1, item 112, page 71 (lines 8 to 23), omit the item.
(20) Schedule 2, page 72 (line 1) to page 77 (line 26), omit the Schedule.
(21) Schedule 3, item 10, page 79 (lines 11 and 12), omit "the first 1 January that occurs at least 3 months after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent", substitute "1 January 2017".
(22) Schedule 4, item 8, page 80 (lines 21 and 22), omit "the first 1 January that occurs at least 3 months after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent", substitute "1 January 2017".
(23) Schedule 5, page 81 (line 1) to page 96 (line 10), omit the Schedule.
I commend the amendments to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:10): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Title, page 1 (lines 2 and 3), omit ", military rehabilitation and compensation".
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.
(3) Schedule 2, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 9), omit the Schedule.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:12): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (18:12): I rise to express Labor's support for schedules 1 and 3 of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015, to provide a bit of background and to describe in brief what has transpired in the Senate. Labor also supports the government's proposed amendments that are now before the House. These amendments would ensure that schedule 2 of this bill does not proceed at this point in time. The government's decision with respect to schedule 2—that is, to not proceed at this time—meant that the opposition did not move its amendments in the Senate. In fact, last night there was agreement on all sides of the Senate that this was the proper approach to take at this time.
Schedule 1 of this bill effects changes that will enhance the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, the VVRS, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and that schedule was not a matter of controversy in the Senate or indeed in the House. Schedule 3 of the bill expands the war graves regulation-making power under the Defence Act 1903, and I am sure every member of this House will recall that this was in order to facilitate the repatriation of remains from Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia. Of course, again, that was not a controversial matter. As a consequence, schedule 2, which I will come to in a moment, which was a matter of some controversy, has been excised so that the parliament is able to pass the legislation around those two issues—the VVRS and the Terendak repatriation—so that that work can continue while legislators here and in the Senate continue to consider the best approach with respect to schedule 2.
Schedule 2 of the bill is that part of the bill intended to streamline the appeals process into a single pathway for veterans seeking reconsideration or review of an original determination made under Chapter 8 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This is a matter, I might say, that is a little technical and involves issues of great importance to the veterans community and beyond; it is a matter that has been subject to some debate. Originally when this bill came before the parliament, these matters were opposed by Labor and the crossbenchers in the Senate. The new Minister for Veterans' Affairs, to his great credit, engaged in discussions with the opposition and proposed certain amendments, which I would characterise as having brought the debate significantly forward, though we have not yet concluded that debate. The conversation between the government and the opposition will continue into 2016 with a view to reaching agreement between all parties about how we can achieve a fair and equitable, single appeals pathway for veterans.
A little bit of background is necessary here: the notion that there should be a single appeals pathway was originally ventilated in the review of military compensation arrangements report of 2011. That report was accepted by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the hon. Warren Snowdon, in May 2012. That report and its resolve to create a single appeals pathway is thus one that is shared by both sides of the House. The devil is always is in the detail, and that is detail which the opposition and the government will continue to discuss in 2016. I am optimistic that we may achieve a result to bring before this House. But in the interim the government's amendments—so that we can proceed with schedules 1 and 3—are welcomed and we look forward to fruitful negotiations in 2016 about the remainder of the bill.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (18:16): I thank the member for Batman, the shadow minister for Veterans' Affairs. This bill comes back to the House for concurrence following amendment in the Senate and the agreement of the two major parties.
On 7 September this year the Senate referred schedule 2 of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. That report was finalised on 25 September. The government has noted the report of the committee, and its recommendations, and thanks the Senate for its work on the inquiry.
Schedule 2 of this particular bill proposes a single appeal pathway, consisting of a claimant's initial right of review to the Veterans' Review Board, with a second tier review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The shadow minister is quite right to say that this came out of the former government's 2011 MRCA review. It is widely agreed by all areas of the ex-service community that a single appeal pathway is needed.
The amendments proposed by the government and endorsed by the Senate remove this schedule from the bill to allow for further negotiations to occur to enable final agreement on schedule 2 to be reached. I am confident we will do that in the Autumn session next year. However, to ensure that the other schedules of the bill can move forward, we have removed schedule 2 from the bill.
Schedule 3 authorises the exhumation of the remains of those dependants of service personnel that are buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia. I should note that allowing this schedule to pass enables the exhumation to take place. Ultimately, of course, it will be up to the families to decide whether they wish to repatriate their deceased family member. This is an important measure as part of the government's commitment to offer repatriation to all those Australian service personnel and their dependants that are buried at Terendak. I thank the opposition and the shadow minister for his regard in this matter, and I commend the amendments to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Schedule 5, item 3, page 78 (line 15), after "the course.", insert "The provider must keep those fees in a separate account.".
(2) Schedule 5, item 9, page 79 (lines 13 and 14), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 5, item 13, page 80 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.
(4) Schedule 5, item 15, page 80 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item.
(5) Schedule 5, item 18, page 80 (lines 21 and 22), omit the item.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:19): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:20): I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015, and in doing so wish to commend the work being done by the member for Eden Monaro, which follows on from the excellent work of his predecessors in that role, the members for Pearce and Kooyong.
The government's regulatory reform agenda has been a resounding success. We have exceeded our red tape target by finding around $4½ billion over two years, compared with our target of $3 billion over three years. That is good news—good news for the parliament and good news for the nation. We have improved systems for regulatory decision making. All cabinet submissions are now accompanied, of course, by an analysis of the regulatory cost and benefit, and we have changed the way that we approach regulation. This reform is not just fluff or time to fill in parliament—we are actually getting on with the job of making it easier for business to do what it does best, the farmers to do what they need to do on behalf of the nation and, indeed, for the nation's economy to tick on nicely.
It is the right time to update and expand the regulatory reform agenda, and that is what we are doing with this Treasury legislation bill. It needs to support flexibility in our economy. The new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, has said there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. I would add that there has never been a more exciting time to be a regional Australian. We have the preferential trade agreements negotiated by the trade minister with South Korea, with Japan and with China, and he is in talks at the moment with India and we now have the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and I can inform the House that people in the Riverina are excited about the prospect of those arrangements bringing to them the ability to increase their export reach. Certainly that is the case with the wine producers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. One out of every four glasses of Australian produced wine come out of Griffith alone, let alone the entire Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. I note, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that you act as though that is tremendous information, and it is true—it says so on the billboard as you drive into Griffith. There is a big billboard that gives that exact fact, and there is a little asterisk on the billboard, I am sure, that indicates that it is indeed a fact.
The wine producers of Griffith are hard workers. It is land that no-one else wanted. The explorer Oxley said no-one would ever try to turn that land into an agricultural environment, but they have. They have done it because they have been able to utilise water to its maximum advantage. That is facilitated by government getting out of the way of farmers and letting them do what they do best, and that is what we have been able to do. I see the member for Canberra—I know that she will enjoy a wine over the festive season, and hopefully it will be one from Griffith. On 5 August, not too long ago, we heard there was to be a $263.5 million boost for on-farm irrigation in southern New South Wales to improve on-farm irrigation efficiency and return water savings to the local environment. That is a tremendous boost for the farmers in my region, for those wonderful wine growers.
This reform agenda is good government. What was not good government was what occurred under Labor with their foreign investment regime. I was pleased that the new Treasurer, the member for Cook, stepped in over the sale of S. Kidman & Co. landholdings. I have a joint media release from the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, and the redoubtable shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, shadow minister for rural affairs, spokesperson for Country Caucus, whatever that means, and member for Hunter. Their joint media release says:
Labor is concerned that the national party has run a self interested intervention in this matter.
Never mind that in the media release 'national party' has a lower case 'n' and a lower case 'p'. Anyone will know that that is a proper noun and there should be an upper case 'N' and an upper case 'P' for National Party—it is the name of the party. I am not so pedantic that I am too worried about that, but I think what should be in capital letters is national interest—and Labor failed the national interest test every time when it came to foreign investment. The member for McMahon had the opportunity to show that he cared about the national interest when Archer Daniels Midland's bid for GrainCorp came across his desk back in 2013. What did he do? Nothing. He sat on his hands and left it as a booby-trap for when Labor lost power, hoping it would cause a wedge issue between the Nationals and the Liberals. But it did not, because the Liberals understood that it was against the national interest that ADM take over GrainCorp, take over the entire grain industry on the east coast. They understood, as the National Party of course did, that the grain industry does not need to be controlled by a boardroom in Illinois in the United States of America. We passed the test. Labor has never passed the test when it comes to the Foreign Investment Review Board save for the potential sale of the Australian Stock Exchange to Singapore. The member for Lilley did not care, the member for McMahon did not care, and then when we get on board with the national interest and block the sale of S. Kidman & Co., what do we get? We get this pathetically written media release from the members for McMahon and Hunter talking about who said what to whom, whether the member for New England, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, might have talked to the member for Cook, the Treasurer—Labor seems fixated with who says what about whatever subject. In question time over the last fortnight they have been fixated with who said what to whom and when. Ask some real questions about agriculture, ask some real questions about innovation, find out about the rollout of broadband, but do not keep coming in here and talking about an issue from four prime ministers ago. It is boring, quite frankly.
This regulatory reform agenda is focusing on productivity—indeed it is, because the member for Eden-Monaro, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, says so. He is getting on board with what the members for Kooyong and Pearce did with the red-tape repeal day. He is doing a fine job. He says in his media release—and this is a media release worth reading, member for Canberra:
A significant measure will make it easier for terminally ill people to get access to superannuation money.
That is good, and I know the member for Canberra would agree with that. He goes on:
We have improved our systems for regulatory decision-making and begun to change the culture of decision-makers and regulators to one that recognises the burden that is imposed both by the regulations and by the way it is administered.
We have introduced legislation that will repeal 3,600 spent and redundant Acts and over 10,000 legislative instruments from the Commonwealth books.
That will trickle down, filter down, into small business and into making sure that the red tape burden is lifted and that, dare I say it, the green tape regulatory burden is lifted.
But what do we hear from the other side when it comes to talking about business? I have never seen a business that they did not want to form a picket line out the front of. All they want to do is to impose an even larger carbon tax upon those businesses that did it very tough under Labor. Thankfully confidence is back into the economy. Thankfully investment is back into the economy. And thankfully people, just prior to Christmas, in that very busy retail period, have the optimism to go out and to spend up, which is good. But I tell you what: if Labor gets back into government we are going to see the carbon tax return—but not just any old carbon tax; this is the Tyrannosaurus rex of carbon taxes. It is going to be a monster, crunching and munching—as the Treasurer has indicated—the economy and business alike.
We kept our promise to the people of Australia—and that is why we were elected at the last election—by repealing, abolishing, getting rid of and eradicating that unnecessary carbon tax. It did nothing for the environment, but it certainly hurt businesses. It certainly hurt families every time they hit the switch on the power point for air conditioning, and for heating during winter. They knew that the coalition were the responsible people who would lift this unnecessary burden from their household budgets. They knew that we were the responsible people who would lift that unnecessary burden from their groceries bills. And we did just that. They also knew that the mining tax was nothing but a crippling burden on the mining industry.
Mr Coleman: It didn't raise any money.
Mr McCORMACK: It raised a little bit. It was only a smidgen of what Labor said it would raise—I think it was about $126 million—but there were billions overspent and promised. There were billions of dollars promised to be put into programs, grants and projects, but they had no hope of being funded by a scheme which raised just a smidgen of the money that Labor had promised. They promised rivers of cash from the mining tax which never materialised into much at all. The member for Canberra knows that. I know that she understands deep down the fact that we need a strong economy. I know that she understands that we need Australian agriculture to fire.
Getting back on to my foreign investment bandwagon, because it is close to my heart, I am so pleased that the new foreign investment regime, which is a robust one, comes into force today. Today is a red-letter day: not only are we getting rid of red tape but the new foreign investment regime also comes into force with stronger penalties for investors who breach the residential real estate rules and with existing criminal penalties being increased to $135,000 or three years imprisonment, or both, for individuals and up to $675,000 for companies. It is important for people who live in those metropolitan areas to know that there is going to be housing for young people—the big Australian dream is to own your own home—and it is important also for Australian agriculture that it gives farmers the certainty and surety that agricultural land, prime farmland, is not going to be gobbled up by companies who will come and take the land. The alternative proposal is to lift the foreign investment threshold at which the Foreign Investment Review Board looks at these matters, which is $15 million cumulative for farmland and $55 million for agribusiness. What do Labor want to do? What does the member for Hunter want to do? The threshold will be $1,000 million. That is the against the national interest.
I do not mind if Labor wants to put 'National Party' in lower case; I could not care less. They should be putting in capital letters the national interest. They should be applying the national interest test to everything they do, but they do not. They do not support their own savings measures. They talked about them when they were in power for six sorry years. They talked about them in government and they just blocked them when they got into opposition. Hopefully they will be in opposition for a long time to come, because Australia needs a coalition government with the Liberals and the Nationals working collaboratively together to boost the economy, to boost innovation—as the Prime Minister often talks about—and to boost productivity. We are repealing that redundant red tape—and, dare I say, green tape—legislation and over-burdensome regulatory laws that are in power. That is what this legislation is doing. I urge the Labor Party to get on board with us and help this country.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:35): The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 is particularly important legislation because it really goes to the heart of what government is about. What government is about is legislating where required but only where required, and never for the sake of legislation for its own sake or for government to seek to impose itself unnecessarily upon the people. We have a very clear view on this: only pass that legislation which is genuinely required, and if there is legislation on the books which is unproductive and which serves no purpose—which indeed in many cases is counterproductive—then get rid of it. Why would we want bad laws hanging around on the statute books?
It is interesting to contrast our approach on this with that of those opposite. There are some quite interesting statements on this issue of the volume of legislation and so on made by those opposite when they were in the previous government. It is almost as if those opposite think that legislating is a task of quantity, not quality—that, if you weigh the pages on the scales and there are plenty of laws, lots of schedules and regulations and so on, that means government is functioning effectively. That is absolutely not the case.
It was in fact the member for Grayndler who excitedly declared in the last parliament, 'We've now passed 307 pieces of legislation through the House of Representatives.' There was no reference to the specific quality of that legislation or, indeed, what the legislation was. It was: 'There's a whole lot of legislation, and surely that must be a good thing.' His colleague and my neighbour, the member for Blaxland, in a similar vein, was very excited by the volume of legislation that had been passed by the parliament then, and he said, 'Despite all the negativity, this parliament has passed 482 pieces of legislation,' again as if in and of itself this was a good thing, and we know that is not the case.
In that six-year Labor government era, there were a litany of failures, some through managerial incompetence and some the direct consequence of legislation. But there was a lot of legislation. There were 975 acts and 39,000 pages of legislation during that period. That is a huge amount of legislation. But, again, you cannot just weigh it and say, 'There's a lot of legislation, so things are good.' You have to focus very much on the need for that legislation to be passed before doing so.
It is good to have the opportunity to reflect on this topic of red-tape reduction, which has some very small instances of application and some very big ones too. Much of the economic development of Australia and the rest of the Western world in recent decades could be put down, broadly, to the concept of red-tape reduction, because there was a massive amount of red tape imposed on economies, particularly around the middle of the 20th century, and the task of good governments in recent decades has often been simply to get rid of that bad legislation and those bad structures. We should give credit to the Hawke-Keating government, which did make some quite significant changes to the Australian economy and did get rid of quite a bit of red tape that was holding us back. We should celebrate that success and we should ask those opposite to rise to the challenge that their predecessors set for them. Hopefully, they will.
To me, one of the great examples of red-tape reduction and deregulation is free trade because, when you think about it, free trade basically involves the undoing of bad laws passed by governments over generations. The entire process of free trade is about undoing previous laws that imposed artificial barriers that increased costs for consumers and made economies poorer than they would otherwise have been. But for governments of all persuasions and, indeed, in many countries who passed laws for tariff and other forms of protection, particularly in the 20th century, we would not have to go through rounds of free trade negotiations—and our remarkable trade minister would be somewhat less busily employed than he is! But that is required, because we have to get rid of the barriers to trade which have hurt our world so much.
This government has had tremendous success in that area, having closed free trade deals with Japan and South Korea; being a party recently to the Trans-Pacific Partnership; and, perhaps most remarkably, having closed a free trade agreement with China, which will have a very positive impact on Australia for generations to come. That is an act of deregulation right there, because it is taking away artificial barriers and artificial regulations which governments have imposed in the past. That is an extremely important example.
Another example in recent times of red tape, of excessive regulation, that had to be removed for the benefit of the economy is in fact the action that the previous, Labor government took in floating the Australian dollar and having a flexible exchange rate. Fixed exchange rates are basically governments saying, 'We know better; we know how much our dollar's worth and we're going to do a whole lot of artificial things to get that outcome. Even if common sense says it's wrong and even if markets say that valuation is wrong, we're going to do it anyway.' When as a government you involve yourself in such activities, there are lots of negative consequences as a result, because a floating exchange rate is basically a teller of the truth. It is not what you might want it to be worth. It is not what you might decide in a committee meeting it is worth. It is what it is actually worth. And ensuring that an exchange rate adjusts to reflect the reality of what is happening in a particular economy is an important shock absorber. So that was a really important act of deregulation.
Another important area of deregulation, where red tape gets in the way, is where governments are involved in commercial type activities in the government sector, because government entities have different motivations from commercial entities; they also, frankly, have unfair advantages over commercial entities with whom they compete. History shows us very clearly that it does not make sense for governments to participate in the commercial world and that they should seek to get out of those activities wherever they can sensibly do so
This government has done that through the privatisation of Medibank Private, amongst other activities, and that is absolutely appropriate because there is an inherent conflict in government entities competing with commercial ones. There is a practical example that we see from time to time in the media industry, where the ABC, which does a great job in many respects, is effectively competing with commercial entities providing similar services to the same markets—same time, same place. That creates complexities and significant problems in the commercial media sector. We need to be conscious of making sure that government entities act where they should and not where they should not. One of the places where they should be very hesitant to act is anything which is, in any way, commercial. The good news is, under successive governments over a number of decades, that is the direction in which this nation has been moving, and that has been good for productivity, economic growth and jobs.
They are some of the broader areas of deregulation and red-tape reduction, but we should turn to some of the specific provisions of today's legislation, which has been introduced by the Assistant Minister for Productivity, standing in the shoes, as he now does, of those who went before him: the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, and the Minister for Social Services.
One of the first important changes relates to the superannuation guarantee charge. This is a longstanding provision that basically charges a penalty fee on employers who are, perhaps, somewhat slow in making superannuation payments. This was an important piece of legislation back when the superannuation system was first introduced, but, as we have become more cognisant of the importance of superannuation, as this area has become just part of daily life in Australia, these provisions are largely redundant. They tend to overly penalise honest mistakes. The key point is that the employee must be paid, and, as long as that occurs, it is sensible to not take an overly punitive approach in administering this area of the law. That is what this bill will do. It will make the superannuation guarantee charge more proportionate to the noncompliance by aligning the interest component that is paid with the relevant period for which contributions were not paid. Currently, it is a more punitive definition. So that is an important change that is part of today's red-tape repeal bill.
Another area which the assistant minister and others have commented on in recent weeks is the important change about lost and unclaimed superannuation, especially as it pertains to people with a terminal medical condition. In the very sad situation where someone has a terminal medical condition, it is really important that their assets can be transferred for their direct use as soon as possible so as to assist with their care and all of the other expenses that they or their family may incur. Prior to this legislation coming before the House, it was necessary for there to be a step where the ATO-administered amounts were paid directly to a super fund and then the super fund itself had to make arrangements to pay the individual the amount of money. As you can imagine, that could take some time and could cause delays and, frankly, a lot of unhelpful frustration in what is a very difficult time for the person involved. So these changes will mean there will be no need for those funds to go to the superannuation fund in the first instance. They can go directly to the person who is terminally ill, and that is a really important and common-sense change.
Schedule 3 of the bill will also make some changes to the description of a company as being in receivership. For various technical reasons that I will not go into great detail about, there are currently situations where a corporation is required to use the notification in receivership in a broad sense, even when the assets or activities in receivership may, in fact, be a minute proportion of their activities. This bill will fix that particular problem.
We are about removing unnecessary regulation, focusing on common sense and, above all, not valuing legislation by its volume but by its quality. That is what government is about.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:50): I am most pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015. Back in 2013, when the coalition was going to the election, we said that there was far too much red tape and government regulation holding back business. We made a commitment that we would bring in steps and measures that would reduce the red-tape costs to business by $1 billion and would help our nation's competitiveness. We have achieved that and more. We have now been able to announce total savings from the reduction of unnecessary government regulation of $2.45 billion in just two years. This is an important contribution to our economy. Nowhere in those measures do we see businesses, the entrepreneurs of this country, being held back by government red tape and regulation.
The specific provisions for repeal in this bill relate to superannuation. I thought this was a good opportunity to raise a few issues about our superannuation industry and the superannuation structure going forward. The point that needs to be made is that superannuation is money which is earned by an individual and which belongs to an individual. Too many times do we see those on the other side of the House thinking that superannuation is some slush fund to be created for a union delegate or a union member so that they can get onto a board to regulate the fund. Too many times do we see those on that side of the House thinking that it should be regulated where an individual can choose to put their superannuation money.
My first concern is that by forcing an individual to put a proportion of their savings into a superannuation fund has two detrimental effects. The first detrimental effect is where an individual wants to start up their own small business. This is an individual who wants to work to earn a bit of capital, to get a bit of equity and then to use that to invest in order to build themselves up, to have a go, to think that they could be an entrepreneur and try their luck rather than just being a unionised employee. If we force an average Australian to take 10 per cent or up to 15 per cent—if they are in the Public Service—of their money and, instead of them being able to put that money in a little pot to start up their own small business, we force them to put it into some fund that they cannot touch and that is loaned out to other groups, it will have a detrimental effect on the entrepreneurial spirit, the entrepreneurial drive, and the availability of capital for small businesses in the entrepreneurial sector.
My second concern is that superannuation savings affect the ability of younger people to enter the housing market. When I was younger we did not have this superannuation set-up. When I first started work I was able to put what was the equivalent of 10 per cent of my income into a special account to save up for a deposit on a house. It is something that most of the people of my generation were able to do successfully. The savings that we had were simply for a deposit for our house, which then enabled us to get our foot in the door of the real estate market. It helped us to pay off our house and it gave us enormous equity as we went ahead. By forcing the young people of today to put 10 per cent or 9.5 per cent—if they are in the private sector—of their salary into a superannuation fund, which they cannot touch, and then expecting them to try and save money on top of that to create a deposit for a house, we are making it harder and harder for young people to enter the housing market. If we do that, we risk changing the nature of our society. The greatest Liberal of all time, Sir Robert Menzies, noted this in his famous speech when he talked about the importance of home ownership—where you are able to say that a part of this world is your own, that this is your own piece of Australia. The effect that has on our society can never be underestimated. But we are saying to today's young generation: 'Sorry. You've got to put the money that the previous generation was able to use to save for a deposit into some superannuation fund that you cannot touch until you are in your sixties or of retirement age.' This simply denies many young Australians the ability to get into the market.
One of the things that we know about unnecessary regulation—and we see many examples of this—is where the government rushes in, thinking it is going to fix a problem by putting out a regulation that only causes more problems. A classic example that occurred recently was the shortage of baby milk formula. I know there is nothing more distressing than hungry babies, and their mothers who are unable to buy formula. It is not a situation that we like to see. Of course, it causes great distress if a mother goes to buy baby milk formula, powdered milk formula, in a supermarket and cannot find it, and they go to another supermarket and still cannot find it. Yes, that causes great distress. It would have been easy for the government to jump in and say, 'We can fix this problem with regulation', but doing so would have only caused more problems. The only way to fix this problem is to get entrepreneurs to produce more. We can produce more baby milk formula. We heard the story today about a new baby milk formula plant that is under construction in the member for Macarthur's electorate. It will be opening very soon.
Anything we do to discourage the increase in new production facilities coming online is detrimental. This is so even when putting up a sign in a shop that enforces some regulation—for example, when you say that the purchase of a product is 'limited to two' or 'limited to four'. It does not stop the person who wants to buy 10 or 20, because they just make multiple trips to the supermarket or send a couple of people in to do multiple trips. So you are not actually stopping the person who is buying 20 or more cans. What you are doing when you say that a product is 'limited to two' or 'limited to four' is sending the message to the average punter that there must be some shortage, and so where they would normally buy one, they might buy two or more. You are doubling the demand artificially. You are bringing forward the demand. You are creating a bubble in the demand for the product, which makes the problem worse. We had some restrictions on the export of baby milk formula through some government regulation, which again risked making the problem worse. We want entrepreneurs to be confident that, if they can set up production, they can sell as much to whoever wants to buy it.
The other area where we are see bad laws in this country is where there is poor or faulty information and we make a regulation. We rush to make laws simply because we mistook the problem. A classic example of that was revealed today in question time, when the foreign minister said:
I really do question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking to make something of what is a public announcement …
… … …
I think it is important not to engage in hyperbole when one is talking about climate change. I remember in 2011 when the deputy leader tried to scare the senior citizens on the Central Coast by saying that they were going to be subject to the ravages of climate change. Well, this is rather interesting. On 4 November, in relation to climate change, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on ABC radio that she had visited the Pacific islands:
… to see, well, where an island used to be, the island of Eneko—an island that had a home on it, a garden, spread fruit trees, palm trees, it's just literally disappeared into the sea.
She said, 'literally disappeared into the sea'. That was news to me. That was certainly news to the post. That was certainly news to the residents of Eneko. Colleagues might be interested to see the island of Eneko.
I went back and thought I would see what is actually on this island of Eneko. Today, there is a place on the island called Eneko Island Getaway, and I will quote from their brochure—and this is an island that is supposed to have disappeared into the sea.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: It said:
Our paradise island is perfect for beach goers, picnickers, divers, honeymooners, or holidaymakers that want to get off the main island.
… … …
The addition of the bungalows make it a popular short stay location for those wanting to get away from the downtown area.
… … …
There is however a choice of outdoor and indoor areas to both cook and eat whatever you take with you or catch from the sea.
Eneko Island … is around 10 km or 40 minutes by boat from downtown Majuro.
It goes on to say that the island is well equipped:
… and the picnic area can become quite busy! We have traditional style, well-equipped bungalows that are spacious and full of all the necessary amenities.
That does not sound like something that has collapsed under the sea. I will take the interjection from the member for Chifley. The shadow foreign minister did correct it. She said that, no, she was talking about another island. There was some other island that has disappeared under the sea recently.
What is the sea level rise that has happened in the Marshall Islands? I thought I would look at the science. I went to no less an authority than the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. I went to the website where they have the tide gauges for the maximum, the mean and the minimum for the Marshall Islands going back to 1992. I looked at the chart and I scratched my head because it did not show any sea level rise whatsoever. In fact, it showed that the sea level in the Marshall Islands today is lower than it was 20 years ago. This is the data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. So if the sea level has actually fallen since 1994, I am very keen to see this island that has disappeared under the sea.
The foreign minister got up in one of the most farcical scenes I have ever seen in parliament and, if I am correct, held up a picture of the ocean and said, 'Look! It's disappeared! It's disappeared!' as proof that it had actually disappeared. You could prove the lost city of Atlantis had never existed by holding up a picture of somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean and saying, 'Look, it used to be here.' But it is mistakes such as these by people who do not do their homework, who do not do their research, that lead to bad policy making and wasted government resources.
With the debt and the deficit that we have inherited as a result of the fickle and reckless expenditure and reckless policy of the Labor government, we are in a position in this country where we cannot afford these policy bungles and policy errors that Labor would make because they do not do their homework and they do not do their research. It is important that we repeal and continue to wind back unnecessary red tape and unnecessary regulation that is tying the hands of our entrepreneurs and is stopping them from getting out there and creating jobs. We also have to look at the evidence, look at the facts and look at the science when we are making policy so that we do not go off on a wild-goose chase, like the one we have seen from the shadow foreign minister, making outlandish statements and hyperbole and mistaking facts. That is how we would waste the taxpayers' money—and, as I said, we cannot afford to do that. With that, I commend the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Terrorist Attacks around the World
Debate resumed.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (19:05): The Prime Minister eloquently began his national security statement last week in the following way:
When innocent people are dying at the hands of violent extremists, no matter where in the world this is happening, hard questions are asked of societies like our own—hard questions for which there are no easy answers. For all freedom-loving nations, the message could not be clearer: if we want to preserve the values that underpin our open, democratic societies, we will have to work resolutely with each other to defend and protect the freedoms we hold dear.
I believe that this issue, the rise of Islamic extremism and the challenge to our most fundamental Western values, will be the issue of our generation. We discuss this in the context of the atrocities in Paris where 130 people were murdered by sympathisers of ISIS. But, tragically, this is just the most recent attack by Islamists. Earlier in the year, journalists and Jews were targeted in Paris in the Charlie Hebdo attacks. In Australia, in the middle of Sydney, Man Haron Monis took hostage a cafe full of ordinary Australians for almost 17 hours. Tragically, two people were killed. We then watched as a 15-year-old boy brandishing a pistol shot dead Curtis Cheng outside the Parramatta police station.
These are the attacks where the terrorists have inflicted casualties. Australian authorities have stopped many other attacks by ISIS sympathises, including planned attacks on the MCG, our modern-day Colosseum. Since September 2014, 26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations around Australia. That is more than one-third of the terrorism related charges since 2001. Future attacks on Australian soil are now probable, according to our security agencies.
As the Paris attacks show, terrorists could strike anywhere—at the theatre, a normal cafe, a sport event or an office building. The terrorists seek to instil fear in our society. I have been in parliament just five years but, in that time, the official threat levels have risen, a number of attacks have occurred, including in Endeavour Hills, just across the hills from my electorate, and the amount of security is noticeably higher. Armed officers now guard this building.
The Prime Minister is right: in such a situation, hard questions are asked of our society. That includes questions such as: how did it come to this? What is the fundamental cause? Does Islam play any role? How can we prevent further atrocities occurring? These are difficult questions in part because of our strong desire to not wrongly offend or characterise the vast majority of Muslims in Australia and abroad who are just going about their daily lives like anyone else. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the violence is conducted in the name of Islam. It is also important not to deny the link, as it neuters the important voices that seek to challenge the religious interpretation of the extremists. So, as tough as these questions are, and as difficult as they are to answer, we must have a mature, open conversation about the issues. If we do not discuss them maturely then a Pauline Hanson may rise to discuss them in a very divisive way. This was the lesson of her rise in the 1990s.
In my view, there are three interconnected issues that must be addressed. The first is destroying ISIS in Syria and Iraq, as it has become the poisonous source of information, propaganda and organisational capability that is coordinating or at least inspiring much of the violent extremism today. Defeating ISIS is the ultimate aim of the coalition effort led by the United States. Australia has the second largest contribution of the 60 nations involved in the effort in Iraq. We have six FA18s involved in missions in that theatre, with 240 personnel in the Air Task Group, 90 special forces advisers and around 300 soldiers training the Iraqi army at Taji. The special forces are authorised by our government to advise and assist Iraq's Counter Terrorism Service in the field at headquarters level.
There is debate about whether we need to do more, including having troops on the ground. Clearly this could not be done without the leadership of the United States. Further, as the Prime Minister has noted, the government of Iraq believes that large-scale Western troop operations in its country could be counterproductive. If there were any request to a change in Australia's contribution to the effort by our allies, that would be considered by the government.
The second issue is to ensure that we are doing everything we can to stop terrorism occurring on Australian soil. The government has boosted the resources of our security agencies and we have introduced five new packages of counter-terror legislation. This has included reviewing ASIO, ensuring the AFP has the necessary powers in relation to control orders and preventative detention orders, legislating mandatory retention of metadata and, overall, ensuring our criminal law is effective in all areas. Last year, the government committed an additional $630 million to better resource our security agencies. Taken all together, our agencies are now much better equipped to tackle the threat of terrorism head on. But more can always be done.
Finally, we have to address the ideological foundations that provide the platform for extremists to commit violence. This is an ideological battle for the hearts of minds of people as much as it is a policing matter. As British Prime Minister David Cameron said:
No one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.
He said that:
It starts with a process of radicalisation. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.
It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death. Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination.
This is what we must be clear about: the cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.
There are, in my view, too many journalists, leftists, social commentators and community leaders who subscribe to so-called causative factors to explain the violence and mass murder. They suggest it is poverty, our foreign policy or our security laws that are to blame. But this is wrong and must be rejected. No-one commits mass murder because they are out of a job and struggling with their finances. Moreover, many terrorists come from middle-class families and have a good education. Our foreign policy, including our support for the state of Israel, is equally not to blame. The biggest terrorist attack—9/11—occurred before the Iraq war, the intervention most commonly named. Our security laws have been tightened for good reason, but they are blind in their application. No, it is the extremist ideology that is to blame.
We must tackle the violence with our tougher security laws and enhanced intelligence and police capabilities, but equally we must tackle the non-violent creed that is the platform for violence. This means rooting out the hate preachers. It means ensuring that our schools teach liberal democratic values. It means community leaders denouncing not just the violence but also the wild conspiracy theories about the West's intentions to destroy Islam or the supposed terrible deeds of the Jews. It means giving a stronger platform for moderate Muslim leaders so that their voices do not get drowned out by extremists.
The government have started the effort. Our investment in programs for countering violent extremism have tripled over the past four years to more than $40 million. In June this year, the government hosted the first regional summit on countering extremism. In October the Prime Minister convened in Canberra the national meeting on countering violent extremism, bringing together all the key policy and law enforcement officials from around the country. In these meetings, together with the many other meetings across government, our police forces and our community leaders assist in developing best practice to stamp out extremism. But no one single model for countering violent extremists will work in every area or every community. All community leaders must come together and work together to stamp out this extremism, which has no place in modern Australia. This is how we can win the challenge of our generation: defeating ISIS abroad, preventing terror attacks on our shores through tougher security laws and enhanced security capabilities, and countering the extremist ideology that gives the platform for violence. Our nation is built on values of democracy, freedom and tolerance. We have the greatest multicultural society on earth. But the extremists challenge these core values and our way of life. We cannot let them succeed and we will not let them succeed.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (19:15): The shocking attacks in Paris on Friday, 13 November 2015, as the member for Aston said, asked hard questions of the world. They were the latest example of perverse brutality, extreme violence and pure evil applied against innocent citizens going about their everyday business. Yet more lives were lost to the actions of terrorists who act in ways that show they hate freedom and want to impose a different world view by force. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull quite rightly expressed the nation's anger at these callous attacks, joined in that sentiment by the opposition leader and members on both sides of this House. He expressed our resolve—the resolve that this parliament must have if we are to respond to resurgent terrorism effectively—to contain it and, over time, squeeze the life out of it, to ease the threat confronting our citizens now and in the future. Entirely eliminating the sophisticated terrorist threat amongst us and around the world may never be possible, but containing it and minimising potential attacks remains an urgent aim. It requires unflinching resolve in this parliament and within the agencies involved in national security matters, whose duty it is to keep us safe.
To adapt our own responses to the global war on terror will require sustained vigilance, agility, and freedom of action for the police and our security and intelligence agencies. I know that Australian police and security agencies will continue to assess the events in Paris and the other terrorist attacks around the world and elsewhere for any Australian security implications. The Commonwealth and state governments are already considering lessons learned from the horrific Martin Place siege, the murder of Curtis Cheng and the emerging conclusions from over 400 high priority counter-terrorism investigations to inform the need for further changes at the state and federal levels. We must ensure our police and security agencies have the powers they need to respond effectively to those who hate us and our way of life. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am proud that our committee has assisted the passage of four tranches of national security legislation that have already passed through the parliament. Another is on its way. Over 136 recommendations made by our committee have been accepted by the government, and I congratulate the members for Wannon and Holt for their chairmanship and deputy chairmanship of our committee.
That work must go on, that bipartisanship must continue, because, as recent events have shown, Australia can no longer rely on its unique geopolitical circumstances to protect it from the contagion of resurgent terrorism. Terrorism's touch is bad enough, but it is never more shocking than when our own people, our own citizens, are involved. Our sense of collective betrayal is felt most keenly when both dual citizens and those born here put barbarous transnational ideologies ahead of their duty to Australia and its people. Their hatred of who we are and how we live is nurtured by a potent elixir of extremist vitriol, ignorance and religious distortion. Terrorist groups have learned—and continue to learn—how to undertake their tradecraft with guile and cunning. There is no doubt they are now more agile, adaptive and deceptive than they were just 12 months ago. They often remain dormant before striking ruthlessly—seemingly out of nowhere. The attacks in Paris suggest they have also learnt to control their blind rage, carefully selecting targets that maximise loss of life and leave as little detection footprint as possible, either through sophisticated encryption or a return to the closed-cell tradecraft of a bygone era, when face-to-face contact and veiled communication were de rigueur.
We must continue to devastate the terrorist leadership overseas at every opportunity. I am talking about not letting their leaders have the freedom of action they need to plan, to communicate, to resupply, to be able to fund the activities they undertake, and, perhaps most importantly, to keep the flow of recruits flowing through the terrorist training camps and into western cities. At home, we must listen most to those at the coalface of our counter-terrorism responses. Australian authorities are immersed in massive-scale information and data filtering, trying to uncover figurative terrorist needles in voluminous investigative haystacks. We must support their efforts by giving them the powers they need to hold suspects and control their activities until information can be thoroughly assessed. That includes the power to deal with very young suspects whose involvement in terrorist activity is, shockingly, becoming even more prevalent. Terror victim Curtis Cheng was shot by a 15-year-old. Of the many hundreds of high-profile counter-terrorism investigations currently underway, it is clear that other teenagers and pre-teenagers are being drawn into terror networks.
Our police and security agencies have discovered concerning links across Australia and international borders, putting a premium on our counter-terrorism cooperation with allies, partners and friends. We must ensure that information shared with these partners is adequately protected during court processes, including enabling only appropriately cleared judges to consider this evidence, instead of a wider legal fraternity. Additionally, we need to consider if the time that control orders can be put in place is appropriate. Inevitably, complex investigations are long and painstaking, as terrorists strive to continually adapt to agency tactics and powers. They often use our own laws, which put a premium on civil liberties, against us. The threat of resurgent terrorism means that we have to err on the side of the victims and potential victims in our society. When there are multiple suspects arrested, and terabytes of information to assess, let's give our agencies the time they need to unpick, decipher and build briefs of evidence. We must give our agencies the reasonable time they need to accomplish this.
As I said in my first speech in this parliament, nurturing a stronger sense of community and citizenship is at the forefront of my priorities as a politician. So I believe more must be done to address terrorism from within. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, currently being debated in the federal parliament, addresses the conduct of dual citizens. It allows us to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who by their demonstrated unlawful conduct breach their allegiance to Australia, its laws, its democratic beliefs and its collective values. They have failed to abide by their most important obligation as a citizen—to live a life that is at the very least lawful and ideally one of constructive contribution to our society. Doing so demonstrates a tangible allegiance to our nation and, as I have previously said, is a moral and ethical compact. It is collective opportunity built on the recognition of individual responsibility.
But it is well beyond time that we also had a discussion about suspending the citizenship of Australian-born people—not just dual citizens—who are convicted of serious terrorist offences. I am not talking about making them stateless—I would never suggest that we breach the statelessness convention—but suspending their citizenship. That puts the onus on them, after they have served their time for a serious terrorist offence, to appear before , for example, an immigration court to justify the restoration of the rights that they receive as citizens of this great country. By pledging allegiance to transnational terrorism and acting out their perverse tactics on our streets, these people forfeit their right to be considered Australian. Until citizenship is restored, they can forget about holding a passport, accessing family reunion provisions or the many other benefits bestowed by the gift of citizenship.
I accept that this is a difficult conversation. But in light of the events in Paris, Sydney, Canada, London, Bangkok and other areas of terrorist carnage it is a conversation we must have. I know that some of the changes being proposed to respond to resurgent terrorism are still offensive to some. But that is because the circumstances that led to the need for these measures are themselves unique and offend our collective values. The nature of the new security order today is so critical as to make redundant the all too familiar and orthodox war of words between dissenting factions of our, thankfully, open society. This usually comes down to those who say they are merely defending human rights in objecting to counter-terrorism measures. But in doing so they are making life even more difficult for those charged with the responsibility of actually protecting these same rights for all Australians while at the same time keeping us safe.
Many of the objections I have heard are impractical nonsense. Security agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't! This verbal and literal stand-off can sometimes assume the dimensions of undergraduate debate—relevant to a point but with a tendency to stray quickly to the emotive, fatuous and impractical. This, of course, reflects the luxury and pleasant good fortune of undergraduates—defending, for example, the right of hate preachers to hate, to incite and to recruit. To them—or to those who never grew up—is extended the gift of the privileged exploration of ideas without concomitant responsibility for the associated outcomes and certainly not for national security or the preservation of human life.
But the security stakes in Australia are now infinitely too high for such luxury. Australian lives are at risk and our way of life is under threat. Rather, above all else, it is a time for constructive practical action and informed dialogue of the very kind most likely to help, not hinder, our dedicated security agencies. That we have now entered the 15th year of global terrorism since 9/11 only adds to the need to do more and differently than has already been done. Terrorism is a vile organism which mutates continually. Our security forces are changing too and will further adapt, as required, to counter the former's increasingly amorphous threat profile.
But, unless we make further important legislative changes to internal security powers now, we will in effect compel our security agencies to fight terrorism on our behalf with one arm tied behind their backs. To date, Australia has been at pains to err in favour of the individual. It is now time to err consciously in favour of the vast majority of peace-loving Australians. The four pieces of counter-terrorism legislation passed to date are not the end of the government's resolve and anti-terror measures. But the Australian government intends, one way or another, to win this fight.
Now is the time to lend our full support to policing and security agencies and not burden them further with nonsensical public commentary or 'half-facts'. Suggestions by misguided commentators such as the Australian Lawyers Alliance that the extended questioning of terror suspects is torture or evidence of a totalitarian state are irresponsible nonsense. Australian police investigators are not members of a military junta or a totalitarian state. References to torture in regard to the extended questioning of terrorist suspects and claims that this is evidence of a totalitarian state are offensive nonsense. These police actions have nothing whatsoever to do with torture. Rather, they are consistent with a desire to methodically unravel the often labyrinthine nature of the radicalisation jigsaw.
Above all, our police and security agencies are trying to gather facts—legally and humanely. In the Curtis Cheng case for example, Australian police investigators are trying to achieve two clear objectives. The first is to get to the bottom of a murder and the second is to seek to avert similar violence in the future. The only torture involved is that which will now be visited upon the families directly affected by this appalling crime—that of both the victim and of the perpetrator, who are each now consigned to a never-ending purgatory of whys and what-ifs.
Despite the eloquent grandstanding by the left-wing commentariat and serial individual rights spruikers Australian government agencies, not least the police, will continue to strive to keep our society safe. To date, their collective dedication and vigilance has unearthed and foiled multiple domestic terror threats and continues to closely track the activities of hundreds of wayward Australians who have succumbed to the siren song of transnational terrorism.
This immense interagency effort has been carried out with forensic patience and balanced public comment. The sustained professionalism of those involved reflects very great credit upon them. It also serves as a constructive model for would-be public commentators to consider emulating. I have strong faith that my fellow Australians will not be taken in by the ideological claptrap of those whose misguided and ideological offerings are part of the problem and will lend their support to the efforts of our police and security agencies. I thank the House.
BILLS
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015
Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015
Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (19:31): I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015. These bills were introduced as part of the fourth so-called red tape repeal day in the life of this government.
How far it has come from the former Prime Minister giving the ministerial statement, in early 2014, to a packed chamber, trumpeting and boasting about the government's repeal efforts, with debate to follow, a week later, with multiple members from the government benches all standing up to copy the Prime Minister's boasting and trumpeting about the imagined commitment of this government to so-called red-tape removal. There was even a gag motion put forward in association with this first repeal day in 2014 but it, actually, prevented government members from talking about red tape. Now, we have the ministerial statement being given by the third parliamentary secretary—now they are called assistant ministers—looking after deregulation policy.
The three bills being debated today, combined, contain a claimed $6.9 million in deregulatory savings. It is the second-lowest amount of deregulatory savings contained in a set of these bills that have been brought forward by this government. When the government talks about its $4.5 billion figure in deregulatory savings it is clear that the legislation introduced on these repeal days have not contributed much to them at all. In fact, the four sets of repeal day bills have a combined $63.6 million in deregulatory savings. Out of the $4.5 billion claimed figure, that is 1.4 per cent of the total amount.
Before going to the bills being debated today, I want to touch, briefly, on this total figure being claimed as deregulatory savings. As far as we can tell, it still includes nearly $200 million through the original plan to water down consumer protections as part of the Future of Financial Advice Reforms. The government, of course, has now abandoned its original plan and, with our support, minor technical amendments to the Future of Financial Advice reforms have been made that are in line with the original intent of our reforms. The figure seems to include, still, some $5 million that is claimed through the abolition of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, resulting in the pay of cleaners being cut—despite the former Prime Minister saying the opposite in the parliament. Cutting cleaners' pay, under the guise of removing red tape, says a lot about this government, which is why Labor, if elected, will reinstate the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines.
According to the government's document, there are $2.1 billion in new deregulatory savings since the last of these repeal days earlier this year. The overwhelming majority are not being debated today. This includes nearly $520 million claimed through changes to the renewable energy target, $300 million claimed through enhancing communication through digital disclosure—business will be able to provide disclosures through digital means to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission—$187 million claimed through the two-speed letter-delivery service of Australia Post, $109 million claimed through the upgrade of the Australian Taxation Office's online services—providing individuals and sole traders with more options—and $21.4 million claimed through the government's proposal to reform Australia's shipping industry, which the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport has described as being Work Choices on water.
There is a new measure that was introduced in another piece of legislation: $2.8 million in deregulatory savings in the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Spring Repeal Day) Bill 2015. In there is a measure that winds back penalties for employers who fail to correctly pay super on time to their employees. To call this red tape, again, shows this government's priorities on superannuation after it abolished the low-income superannuation contribution and delayed the increase to the superannuation guarantee. Australians are losing $2.6 billion a year in unpaid super—that is, employers who are not correctly paying the superannuation they should be paying to their employees—yet this government wants to wind back the penalties on employers who do not pay up.
I turn to the bills being debated today and will, first, deal with the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. In this bill, out of a total of 37 measures, only four have deregulatory savings attached, totalling $6.2 million. A majority of the measures have no deregulatory savings attached to them. For example, in the Agriculture portfolio, there is the repeal of an advisory body, the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which has never actually met since the legislation that established it was enacted in 1991. So it is hard to imagine how there will be any deregulatory savings associated with that repeal. In the Finance portfolio, there is the repeal of seven old appropriations acts from the 2012-13 financial year and eight old appropriations acts from the 2013-14 financial year. Given these financial years have come and gone, these acts can be repealed. Again, it is difficult to imagine that there are any actual deregulatory savings associated with those repeals. In the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio, the repeal of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979 is to be found. This act amended the Patents Act 1952. As an amending act, it became spent as soon as it amended the principal act. Further, the principal act was repealed in 1990 and replaced by the Patents Act 1990, so the bill is getting rid of a piece of legislation that had ceased to have any practical effect for decades. Again, it is difficult to imagine that there are any deregulatory savings associated with that repeal.
There are even some recycled provisions from an old omnibus repeal bill that has not passed the parliament yet. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 has not passed because the government will not accept our amendments in relation to the Future Submarine project tender process around whether the successful tenderer would give an undertaking that the building, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines would take place in Australia, with the majority of the work on the build undertaken by Australian labour and the majority of the materials used sourced from Australian suppliers. As further examples, there is the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979 repeal, amending the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012, the repeal of the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970 and the repeal of the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999. These were all in the spring 2014 omnibus repeal bill. In total, there are actually 19 measures—over half—that have been recycled from the spring 2014 bill. So far from creating any real new reform or new repeal measures, we have a government that is resorting to recycling old alleged reforms or old alleged repeal measures.
There are four measures that, as I said, do have deregulatory savings attached, and two of these are recycled measures. First, I would mention the repeal of section 19AD of the Health Insurance Act 1973 that removes the requirement for a five-yearly review of the operation of the Medicare provider number legislation. There have been no issues and no unintended consequences found in the previous reviews, and so the legislative requirement is deemed to be no longer required. This has a mighty sum of some $3,000 in deregulatory savings attached. Second, there is the repeal of the requirement to use administrator/adviser panels to assist approved aged-care providers under sanction. Other guidelines exist that put restrictions on who can be appointed an administrator/adviser, and so this requirement is deemed also to be no longer required. This has the slightly more impressive sum of some $5 million in deregulatory savings attached. Third, there is the amendment of approved provider obligations for an approved provider of aged care to notify the secretary of changes to any of its key personnel. The requirement would be where the change would materially affect the provider's suitability to be a provider of aged care. This has some $1.2 million claimed in deregulatory savings attached, but, importantly, this too is a recycled measure from the spring 2014 bill. Fourth, and last, there are amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 that would allow a person to disclose or further use or record protected information that has been disclosed to them for the purpose of research, statistical analysis or policy development where it is consistent with the purpose of the initial disclosure. Given that the information has been already disclosed to them, there is no need for a public interest certificate process or to seek a further decision from the secretary in order to further disclose the information. This measure has the, again, mighty sum of some $5,000 in deregulatory savings, but, just like the third measure with deregulatory savings, this too is a recycled measure from the spring 2014 bill. So, out of the $6.2 million of claimed deregulatory savings, $1.2 million are from recycled measures.
Notably, there is a section in this bill that makes a series of amendments to Commonwealth legislation to recognise the fact that there is self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that is something that the member for Fraser, who is sitting with me in the chamber, will be pleased to hear being recognised.
Dr Leigh: Delighted.
Mr DREYFUS: While some modifications were incorporated into relevant Commonwealth acts at the time, some were not. The amendments in this bill are intended to make the remaining modifications to fully ensure that Commonwealth laws are applied in an appropriate manner to the Australian Capital Territory following the Australian Capital Territory's move to self-government, which occurred, of course, in 1988.
While, for the most part, the measures in this bill are not contentious—and I have been describing what is, in truth, the very minor nature of most of the measures that are dealt with in this bill—I do have to indicate to the House that Labor also has some concerns about some of the measures that are contained in this bill. In particular, we have some concerns with the measure in the Communications portfolio that would remove consultation requirements for the Australian Communications and Media Authority. In the Agriculture portfolio there are some concerns with the move to abolish the National Rural Advisory Council. I understand that the shadow minister for agriculture will have something to say about this later in the debate. And in the Environment portfolio, Labor has some concerns with some of the proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, particularly the amendments relating to assessment documentation and requirements to publish particular decisions.
Since being passed by the Howard government 15 years ago, the EPBC Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law, and since being elected this coalition government has made numerous attempts to weaken the EPBC Act. Right now there is before the parliament another bill which is seeking to repeal the general standing requirements that have been part of this act—the EPBC Act—since it was enacted by the Howard government. It is an absolutely retrograde measure. It demonstrates that the coalition government is not to be trusted on any matter to do with the environment—and particularly, it is not to be trusted on any matter to do with environmental protection. This is why Labor express concern, and we would express concerns about anything this coalition government was attempting to do to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While we will always support common-sense improvements to our environmental regulatory system, such as the streamlining of assessment processes and the removal of errors and elements that might lead to unintended impacts, what we will not do is support the weakening of environmental protections. Nor will we support reducing transparency and, in particular, as I have just mentioned, we will not be supporting any limitations on the right of the Australian community to challenge government environmental decisions.
As a consequence of the concerns that I have just outlined in relation to the measure in the Communications portfolio, the move in the Agriculture portfolio to abolish the National Rural Advisory Council and the proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Labor will be referring the omnibus repeal bill to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for hearings, an inquiry and a report to enable a working through of the issues and concerns that we have.
I turn to the second of the three bills that are before the House, the second of those bills being the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill. In this bill there is the repeal of 877 acts of parliament. Consistent with the trumpeting and the braggadocio of the former Prime Minister's repeal day extravaganza, which is now being continued with this amending acts repeal bill, this is the fourth and latest instalment of this kind of act that repeals old pieces of legislation. This latest instalment builds on the first bill, which repealed legislation from 1901 to 1969; the second bill, which repealed amending acts passed between 1970 and 1979; and the third bill, which repealed amending acts passed between 1980 and 1989. In this bill we come to the repeal of Howard government legislation in the latter part, being amending acts passed between 1996 and 1999. In total, including this fourth bill, this series of amending acts repeal bills would repeal a total of 3,523 acts of the Australian parliament. It might seem a marvellously impressive measure in itself, but you have to look at what these acts actually are, and I cannot believe that the government is persisting with this pretence that it is engaging in real legislative activity.
These acts are amendment acts. I have said this about every one of these bills that have come before the parliament: once the amendment to the principle act occurs, the amendment act has done its job and it ceases to have effect. In many of cases of the amending acts that are here being repealed, the principle acts themselves have already been repealed. To give a couple of examples: in the latest amending act bill, there is the repeal of the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Act 1989, which amended the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979. The principle act has already been repealed. It was repealed in 1999. Another example is the repeal of the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Act 1992, which amended the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. Again, the principle act has already been repealed. It was repealed in 1996.
The explanatory memorandum to this bill, like the previous three amending acts repeal bills that we have been forced to deal with, states:
In all cases, the repeal of the Acts will not substantially alter existing arrangements or make any change to the substance of the law.
It actually makes no change to the substance of the law. The Acts Interpretation Act makes it absolutely crystal clear that as soon as the amending act does its work—that is, on proclamation—and it changes the wording of the act that it is amending, that is it. It ceases to have effect. It is a dead letter. So what we are again engaged with—and we are now up to this mighty number of 3,523 amending acts that are to be repealed—is the repeal of dead letters.
If it were suggested that somehow they are being made to completely disappear, that is not right either. Even after these acts have been repealed, they will remain available anyway on digital databases like ComLaw as public records. So we are being asked to engage in a legislative act which has no legal effect whatsoever. Well you might ask: why has the government wasted the time of the parliament with this nonsense of an activity? It was so that the former Prime Minister could say on the first repeal day, ridiculously, that they were going to repeal 1,000 acts of parliament. In order to get to that, they could not actually find 1,000 acts of parliament that could usefully be repealed, so they found amending acts that had ceased to have effect but were actually still listed in the government's statute book and said, 'We'll repeal them.' What an absurd activity. What a waste of this parliament's time, just for show for the former Prime Minister. But, regrettably, the government—because it is the same government—is continuing with this charade of an exercise.
The government has claimed that some $600,000 in deregulatory savings are to be attributed to these repeals. I would suggest that that is a laughably inflated figure. It is not actually possible to discern how there could be any saving from repealing something from the Australian statute book that has not had effect for many years. And, I say again, it was solely to pamper the ego of the former Prime Minister, but apparently there is still someone left in this government who thinks this is an exercise worth engaging in.
The third bill is the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015. This bill is the government's latest round in its war on punctuation—again, bundling up statute law revision bills that have been part of the ordinary work of this parliament since the 1930s. In most years since the 1930s this parliament has passed a statute law revision bill that tidies up the statute book—corrects punctuation and removes spelling mistakes, removes unnecessary headings and does a range of other things. In most years we have seen a bill such as this, just like the House of Commons in the United Kingdom has passed a statute law revision bill since around the 1860s. It is part of the ordinary work of a parliament. Of course it is something we should do. I congratulate, as I have every time a state law revision bill has come before this parliament, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the excellent work it does in making sure our statute books read as well as they might by tidying up these kinds of errors. But this kind of bill should not be dressed up as part of some mighty war on red tape that this government pretends it is engaged in.
We have seen in some of these previous statute law revision bills that the government insists on bundling up with its repeal day exercises what the government has gotten up to previously—changing 'e-mail' to 'email' and changing 'facsimile' to 'fax'—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr DREYFUS: You can just imagine, as the member for Fraser interjects, the immense boost to productivity that is going to be occurring because of this correction of spelling. We have seen the removal of 40 hyphens, two commas and one inverted comma and changing two full stops to semicolons and one semicolon to a full stop, and inserting one full stop, one colon, one hyphen and one comma. In this bill, disappointingly, there is only one comma inserted.
This bill makes a series of technical amendments and corrections which, like all the previous statute law revision bills that have been introduced as part of these repeal days, do not make any change to the substance of the law, according to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. There are cross-referencing fixes, removals of redundant definitions, and spelling changes—all important and necessary to do, but very, very routine, which is why I congratulate the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the excellent work it does. It is a bit thankless. It is tedious work. But it does need to be done. But let's not inflate it to having a significance that it does not bear.
Across 140 pieces of legislation, there is the bulk change from 'is guilty of' to 'commits', which, according to the explanatory memorandum, is being done to modernise language in line with current drafting practice. And across 52 pieces of legislation there are other changes to similar phrases that essentially replace 'guilty' with commit'. Also, in 12 locations across eight pieces of legislation there is a change from 'reference base' to 'index reference period'. I am sure the member for Fraser would understand what that means, but I would have to go and look it up. This appears to be a continuation from a very similar set of amendments that was contained in a previous statute law revision bill—and, again, being done to modernise language in accordance with current drafting practice. There is also the repeal of five sections and one clause across five pieces of legislation due to these provisions being spent and redundant—important housekeeping, yes, but far from real regulatory reform.
The government has attributed $50,000 in deregulatory savings to this bill. It is the lowest amount of deregulatory savings that the government has attributed to any of the statute law revision bills to date. And I would be intrigued to see how even that sum has been calculated. These repeal day bills have been very far from the mark when it comes to the government's deregulatory agenda. When Labor was in government, as a matter of the ordinary work of every Commonwealth government we repealed over 16,000 acts and legislative instruments—16,794, to be precise—and achieved cuts in costs to business of $4 billion a year through the Seamless National Economy reforms. It was done without too much noise or fanfare, because it is not something that should be accompanied by too much noise or fanfare. Every modern government in every developed economy understands that unnecessary regulation is to be avoided. Everybody, all governments, understand the importance of removing unnecessary regulatory burdens. But of course to simply condemn all regulation—or what appears to be the starting point of this government all too often, which is one of condemning all regulation—entirely misses the point. Governments exist in order to serve their communities in part by making laws, in part by passing regulations, because one of the ways in which governments exercise power on behalf of the communities they govern is by passing laws and making regulations.
So, in every case, it is not simply a matter of saying, 'We're sweeping away that regulation', and that must by definition be a good thing. In every case it is necessary to examine what the purpose of the regulation or legislation was when it was introduced, whether that purpose is still needed and what the effect will be of repealing this legislation and these regulations that are being held up for examination or suggested for being repealed.
Earlier in this speech I gave some egregious examples of some of the things this government has tried to do under the guise of red tape removal. Chief among them was the cutting of cleaners' pay—a startling thing for the government to do—which was achieved through the abolition of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. Its effect was to cut cleaners' pay, despite the former Prime Minister asserting the opposite in parliament. It was a shameful thing to have done, but it is a very good example of why we should always closely examine the things that this government puts forward as a supposedly beneficial elimination of red tape to make sure that they are not trying, with their sweeping repeals, to sneak through something that is useful to the community and serves the community well.
These repeal days—and we are now enduring the fourth group of bills—are really nothing more than what should be treated as the ordinary routine business of government. Let's hope that we have seen an end to the trumpeting and boasting associated with an ordinary activity of government.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (20:01): It was interesting to listen to the member for Isaacs' contribution to this debate. Yes, a large part of these bills does have to do with housekeeping. But he made a couple of interesting comments about the environment, taxes, governments reducing regulation and pay being cut that I might touch on prior to making some further comments on the bills.
The Minister for the Environment, in a speech last week, gave a very good outline of the history of the involvement of the conservative side of politics in the environment and protecting the environment. It would be worthwhile, for the edification of the House—and the member for Isaacs, if he cares to hang around for a little bit—to reflect on some of those things.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr VAN MANEN: I see the member for Fraser is here. He is contributing to the debate as usual, so I will take that as meaning that at least the member for Fraser is interested in the environment.
Under the Menzies government Australia was one of the 12 original parties to the Antarctic Treaty. The McMahon government appointed Australia's first federal environment minister: Peter Howson. Howson led a delegation to the inaugural United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Under the Fraser government we saw Uluru, Kakadu and Christmas Island all declared national parks, and the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu received World Heritage listing. Under the Howard government we saw federal legislation to enshrine the protection of the environment in law. We also saw the introduction of the mandatory renewable energy target in 2000, as well as other activities in that space. So I think it is well worth acknowledging in this House that coalition governments have a great track record in protecting and looking after our environment, with a view to leaving it in better shape for future generations.
The member for Isaacs touched on deregulation and the supposed efforts of the previous government. I am always amazed at their ability to rewrite history. In his contribution to the House, the member for Isaacs seems to have conveniently forgotten the impact on the Australian economy of the carbon tax, the mining tax and other increases in the regulatory burden. From memory, I believe the previous government introduced in the order of 21,000 new regulations. So they cannot come in here and say that they are pristine, snow-white evangelists for deregulation, because the track record of those opposite in six years of government is the complete and utter opposite.
I am pleased to rise in support of the omnibus repeal day bills—and the fourth red tape repeal day—as a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation that is not the subject of individual stand-alone bills. This omnibus bill will amend or repeal legislation across 14 Commonwealth departments, many of which are spent, redundant or have remained on the Commonwealth's statute book beyond fulfilling their purpose. Excessive and unnecessary regulation reduces productivity and investment. It supresses job creation, creates economic uncertainty and has a negative impact on consumer and investor confidence. Reducing regulation represents enormous opportunities to improve Australia's productivity and competitiveness.
In 2013 the government made a commitment to reduce red tape by $1 billion annually. I am pleased to say that we have exceeded this red tape reduction target. Over the two and a bit years of government, we have reduced red tape by around $4.5 billion compared to our target of $3 billion over three years. We have repealed over 3,600 spent and redundant acts and more than 10,000 legislative instruments from the Commonwealth books—and, yes, many of those are no longer relevant and spent, but we have got them out of the system. What this equates to is less time required by individuals and businesses to fill out forms and seek external advice and less hard-earned revenue spent on systems and equipment to meet the regulatory requirements of government. This will improve our nation's economy, create more jobs and lower costs for businesses and households.
The government has not only reduced the cost of red tape and regulation; but, importantly, going forward, we have improved systems for regulatory decision-making and begun to change the culture of decision-makers and regulators to one that recognises the burden that is imposed by regulations and the way that they are administered. All cabinet submissions are now accompanied by an analysis of the regulatory cost and benefits, and we have changed the way that we approach regulation so that it is not seen as a costless way to address policy issues. We also now have a regulator performance framework for Commonwealth regulators.
We have achieved a great deal in the past two years, but it is important to recognise that there is still much to be done. Part of that focus is to expand the regulatory reform agenda. Regulatory reform should do more than just reduce compliant costs; it needs to support flexibility in our economy so that we encourage innovation to the greatest possible extent. Now is the time to continue and update that agenda. The government is making sure that regulatory reforms put the needs of business and the broader community first, by: removing regulatory obstacles that can stifle competition and new technologies; continually reviewing ongoing regulations to ensure that they remain fit for purpose; working with states, territories and local governments to maximise the reform potential across the country; and ensuring, where regulation is necessary, that it is designed the best way possible, so that it is fit for purpose and easy to comply with.
Bad regulation costs more than time and money; it impacts on our economy. We have seen the difficulty with the pace of change in our economy and, consequently, the capacity of our regulatory regimes to adapt to those changing conditions. A good example of this is digital disruptors like Uber and the rise of online retailing. Regulatory barriers can also hinder competition and the market forces that push firms to innovate and perform at their best. In an age of rapid technology change, we simply cannot set and forget when it comes to our regulatory framework.
The agenda of the omnibus repeal day places a renewed focus on reform. The key change is that we will expand the regulation reform agenda to have a new stream that will focus on reforms that enhance productivity and innovation. At the same time, we will keep removing unnecessary and ineffective red tape. Over the coming months, the government will consult with stakeholders and industry representatives to determine: the major productivity-enhancing regulatory reform priorities, how to strengthen the focus on productivity-enhancing reforms while still reducing red tape, and how to engage better with states and territories to revitalise productive reforms. Following these consultations, the government will outline what regulatory reforms we will pursue under the new agenda—key areas to further reduce red tape reduction and areas of regulatory review so that our regulations remain fit-for-purpose—as well as the course to deliver these reforms.
Since the last repeal day, the government have announced a number of significant measures. We have made the tax system more efficient by developing new ways to make our tax system easier to comply with. The introduction of myDeductions, which allows individuals to record their deductions using their phone, is a case in point. We are also enhancing ATO online services for individuals and sole traders. We have also introduced a single permit for costal shipping. We are committed to implementing a single permit system for coastal shipping to build a more competitive and efficient shipping industry. It is interesting to note that the number of Australian registered ships had fallen from 30 in 2006 to 15 in 2014. With a 63 per cent decline in the capacity of the fleet since 2011, the cost of freight for some operators has increased by over 60 per cent. That is why, on 25 June 2015, the government introduced the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 to make shipping more competitive and efficient.
I will use a local example: one of the businesses in the electorate of Forde gets their powdered milk product from Victoria. Their biggest international competitor, based in Singapore, also gets their powdered milk product from Victoria, yet it is cheaper for that competitor based in Singapore to ship their powdered milk product from Melbourne to Singapore than it is for the business in my electorate to ship the product from Melbourne to Brisbane. Surely, those inefficiencies cannot be supported and maintained in an open, global economic environment. The bill I have just mentioned will implement major reforms to the regulation of coastal shipping by replacing the current three-tiered licensing system with a single permit. It is hoped that this bill will enhance access for Australian manufacturers and primary producers to cheaper, more reliable shipping services and make our products more competitive and internationally and domestically.
Another significant measure is the change to give businesses freedom to communicate digitally by making it easier for financial service businesses to communicate important information to consumers. Consumer preferences are changing, with ever-increasing numbers of people transacting digitally. This is why we will allow product disclosure statements to be delivered to consumers digitally unless the consumer opts out. This will, again, reduce the costs of printing and mailing for businesses, while preserving choice for consumers.
The new regulatory reform agenda is about building on the culture we have embedded across the public service of looking at the benefits and costs of regulation and continual regulatory review to ensure that our regulatory frameworks remain fit for purpose. Overall, the new regulatory reform agenda is an ambitious policy agenda that includes: looking at every aspect of our tax system; reforming our Federation to improve service delivery, particularly in health and education; competition reform; and strengthening the security of our financial system.
The Harper review recommended that all Australian governments review regulations, including local government regulations, in their jurisdictions to ensure that unnecessary restrictions on competition are removed. This new regulatory reform agenda supports the recommendations in the Harper review. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (20:15): I speak in relation to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. This bill is another of the government's self-styled repeal day bills. This one was introduced together with the amending legislation and statute law revision, and all I can say is, 'Here we go again: another repeal day—another day when the government expects a pat on the back for performing the everyday work of government.' It is quite shameless, really. This is the fourth repeal day since the election of the Abbott-Turnbull government. The member for Warringah had three, and this is the member for Wentworth's first. Same horse, different jockey.
Once again, most of the measures in the bill are relatively non-controversial. Out of the 37 measures in the bill, four have already been identified and they have the whopping saving of $6.2 million. I heard some of those speakers opposite talk about the fact that there are billions of dollars in savings, and we hear that every single time they talk about this. But when you examine the legislation, look at the explanatory memorandum and see what is actually happening, it is a very different situation.
I last spoke on one of these puffed-up repeal day bills on 14 September this year, just 11 weeks ago. That was the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. That bill had a grand total of $41.4 million in savings and, as I said, this bill has a total of $6.2 million—not billion; million—in savings. This is the second lowest amount of deregulatory savings contained in any of the four sets of repeal bills presented by this government. When you add them all together and you look at what it actually says, it is $63.6 million in deregulatory savings. That is not insignificant, but it is not the $4.5 billion the government pronounces.
A quick calculation shows that the $63.6 million in savings from the four sets of repeal day bills accounts for just 1.4 per cent of the $4.5 billion total. Perhaps we should get rid of this omnibus repeal day bill nonsense this government keeps talking about. Where is the flash and fury? We see savings of $6.2 million. Glancing way into the future, I wonder what the autumn 2016 repeal day bill will do. Will it crack a million dollars, or give enough for a couple of pizzas? We just do not know. It is becoming less and less as they go.
The first repeal day bill was announced by the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, with a ministerial statement to a packed chamber. It was debated that same week, and the member for Wentworth—now the Prime Minster—even spoke during the second reading of that first repeal day bill. Flash forward to today and these bills are now introduced by an assistant minister responsible for deregulation policy, entirely without fanfare. These announcements, it would appear, seem as humdrum as the measures in the bill.
Each time I have spoken on a repeal day bill, I have always taken a few moments to remind the government and the chamber, and the public who might be listening, that, over nearly six years in office, Labor repealed 16,794 spent and redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments. We cut costs to business by $4 billion per year. We worked to minimise and simplify existing acts. We worked to create cost-effective legislation. We corrected spelling and punctuation. We removed duplicate paragraphs and we amended tables of content. We did this, mostly, up in the Federation Chamber, and I do not recall too many members of the Liberal and National parties actually speaking too often. We also worked through the COAG process to bring about the seamless national economy reforms.
Those opposite exult in these self-aggrandising repeal day bills. Let us have a look at what they have done. When I spoke in September on the last repeal day, I said that there were a number of blockbuster measures. Let us pick a few of those measures to have a look at a rural theme. They repealed the Honey Export Charge Amendment Act 1980, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Amendment Act 1981, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Act 1984, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Act 1985 and the Laying Chicken Levy Amendment Act 1989. None of these bills will affect a single Australian farmer—not one. None of them have deregulatory savings attached—zero. There are no deregulatory savings whatsoever. The last bill repealed the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991, even though the last council was established under that act in 1993 and none exist now.
Back to this bill: in the Finance portfolio, we have 15 old appropriations acts repealed from previous financial years with no deregulatory savings attached whatsoever. We have an amendment to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997, subsequent to the repeal of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. These amendments include groundbreaking work to change punctuation and headings. It is a shame the Prime Minister has abolished knights and dames, because surely the heroic punctuation changes to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 warrant a knighthood for the person who drafted the legislation!
It is groundhog day. For example, we have seen the repeal of the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005, which was originally in that spring bill that I referred to. We have seen amendments to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012. I want to talk about that particular amendment, because it is important. Amendments to the stronger futures act removed the minister's power to request the Northern Territory minister to appoint an assessor to conduct an assessment in relation to licensed premises in certain circumstances. The federal minister cannot actually enforce such a request. The Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory authorities have responsibility for monitoring and regulating activities in such premises and, given the Commonwealth minister for Indigenous affairs cannot enforce such a request, the powers have limited impact. We agree; the government should get rid of it.
But the amendments also make some other changes. The amendments also remove the requirement for the minister to cause an independent review of the last three years of the operation of the act. I thought, 'Where have I seen that before?' It was mentioned last time.
In 2014-15, the government, in collaboration with the Northern Territory government, undertook a formal review of the Stronger Futures agreement. In light of that, they think this particular provision is unnecessary and duplicative—and we agree. It is interesting, because the government decided that there was a requirement that they had to fulfil. They could not get the legislation through last time, so they had to make an administrative change. We found out in Senate estimates what actually happened. They undertook an administrative review, and that is all they did. We did not seek to repeal the review. It did not happen within the legislative time frame required, but they had to do it because it was in the legislation. Guess what they did? They engaged the law firm MinterEllison to do this. They requested a quote and MinterEllison was selected through a procurement process for that review. The government engaged MinterEllison to do a desktop review of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012.
Being a dutiful shadow minister, I decided to have a look at this review, entitled Independent review of the effectiveness of Northern Territory and Commonwealth laws in reducing alcohol-related harm. I thought, 'Where have I seen all this stuff before?' It turns out that a couple of the lawyers at a desk in MinterEllison decided to have a look at this, at a cost to taxpayers of $11,000, and guess what? There was a House of Representatives inquiry, chaired by the member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone. The deputy chair was the member for Lingiari, and I was also a member of that inquiry. We travelled all over the countryside and we handed down a bipartisan report, tabled in this place on 25 June this year, called Alcohol, hurting people and harming communities. At the request of the government, with $11,000 of taxpayers' money, MinterEllison decided to have a look at that parliamentary report and at a few bits of legislation. They produced a bit of a summary of the legislation and had a look at the report and made a couple of comments. In the end, they said nothing much about what happened. Their review states:
… we have concluded from the materials considered that alcohol misuse has and continues to cause considerable harm to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, we have been unable to determine with any precision whether there has been a reduction, or otherwise, in alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Good grief—what a revelation! We had a parliamentary inquiry which looked at it. They say they are unable to do it. Well, they are sitting at their desks reviewing it at a cost to the taxpayer of $11,000. Further, they state:
This has restricted our ability to assess the effectiveness of the laws, but we conclude that the scheme established by the Liquor Act and provisions of the Stronger Futures Act provide an effective framework for the regulation of supply of alcohol in the Northern Territory, and that regulation of supply is a necessary but not sufficient means (in and of itself) of addressing alcohol misuse that causes harm to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
… … …
(a) We have not identified any particular aspects of the laws that may be amended to increase their effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related harm. Nor have we been able to conclude that any of the laws, but, more particularly, the provisions of the Stronger Futures Act, should be repealed.
The government were so incompetent that they could not get the legislation through last time. Under the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act, there was a requirement to do a review. A parliamentary inquiry produced a bipartisan report. The government then commissioned these lawyers, at a cost of $11,000, to sit there at their desks and do this review, because the government were so incompetent that they could not get the amendments through last time. They come in here and say, 'We are going to get rid of the legislation this time' in relation to the review that has already taken place, and they admit in Senate estimates that the whole purpose of the review was to fulfil the legislative requirements of administrative review, which they are not intending to act on. The minister has not even responded to the parliamentary inquiry report that was handed down on 25 June this year.
In Senate estimates the officials said they anticipated tabling the government's response by 3 December, which is the last sitting day, before Christmas. So I say to the government: do not come in here and give lectures when you are so incompetent that you cannot get your legislation through. You wasted $11,000 of taxpayers' money. Any first year law student could have done this. I am not having a go at the lawyers personally. They are a competent law firm—there is no doubt about that whatsoever—with competent lawyers, but they should not have had to do it at the cost of $11,000 to the taxpayer. I made this point in a press release I sent on 23 October 2015, in which I state:
Senate Estimates further revealed that more than $11,000 was spent on an independent review of the effectiveness of Commonwealth and Northern Territory alcohol laws—but not to achieve any particular outcome other than to satisfy a legislative requirement.
In fact, the review, required under the NT Stronger Futures legislation, was conducted in such a short time frame that it relied almost solely on a report from—
the House of Representatives inquiry I talked about—
into alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities.
Under questioning—
in Senate estimates—
Department officials revealed that the $11,000 review was not conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the alcohol laws were effective.
They have the gall to come in here and tell us they are saving billions of dollars, when, under the legislation which they are now amending because they were so incompetent they could not get it through last time, they are wasting taxpayers' dollars, and they were not even responding to the bipartisan parliamentary report of the inquiry chaired by Dr Sharman Stone, the member for Murray. How incompetent is this government? What a mockery they are making of this particular legislation when you have a look at what they have done in this area.
In relation to aged-care, the other part of my portfolio, they have made some reasonable suggestions, and we agree with them, so we support them. We will support them on this stuff because they have already had a review, and they did not need it. If they had been competent, they would have got it through in first place. It is important for people to note that, to receive care, an aged-care recipient must be appraised through an ACAT assessment and classified based on their care needs. A number of providers can provide information to the department. The secretary of the department can suspend approved providers who do those assessments and appraisals if false and misleading information is provided. The amendment here removes the need for the secretary to approve an adviser but provides for restrictions on who an adviser can be, and that is set out in the Classification Principles 2014. They have made some other changes, which remove panels of appraisers and the need for the secretary to approve the advisers. In future, that will be set out in the Sanctions Principles 2014, which we agreed to. That saves $5 million of the $6.2 million. (Time expired)
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:30): Inefficient regulation costs more than time and money. It makes our economy less agile and hinders competition and innovation. Allowing spent and redundant acts or provisions to remain in force on the Commonwealth's statute bo oks does not serve any purpose. It only makes it more difficult for businesses, community organisations, families and individuals to find out about the regulations that really matter to them. Even worse, outdated and irrelevant laws and regulations make lawbreakers out of decent hard-working people.
I congratulate the assistant minister, the member for Eden-Monaro, because the regulatory cost savings achieved by this Omnibus Repeal Bill are likely to be around $6.17 million, while cost savings for the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill will result in deregulatory savings of about $600,000 per year and the Statute Law Revision Bill will result in regulatory cost savings of about $50,000 per year. Sometimes the best thing we can do to make more services more affordable and more accessible for more of those who need it is for government to actually do less.
The coalition government's regulatory reform agenda has been a success. While the regulatory savings in these bills are relatively modest, in a cumulative sense, this bill goes some way to chipping away at the mountain of red tape Labor left in its wake, and it is consistent with the coalition's commitment to red tape reduction by $l billion a year. Clearly, the business community has good reason to celebrate the coalition's record in cutting red tape. In our first two years, for example, we have already achieved more than double our election commitment target—with almost $4.5 billion in red tape savings.
To date and subject to the passage of legislation through parliament, this government has taken decisions to repeal more than 10,000 legislative instruments and around 2,700 Acts of Parliament. For every $1 added to the cost of regulation, the government has made decisions that cut more than $11. These bills are part of the government's efforts to clean up the Commonwealth's statute books. Collectively, these three Repeal Day Bills will repeal more than 900 Commonwealth Acts—making it easier for users of Commonwealth legislation to find and access regulations.
Law-abiding citizens should not have to sift through outdated and unnecessary Commonwealth legislation to determine whether certain regulations still apply. As examples, the Wool International Act 1993 and the Wool International Privatisation Act 1999 are no longer needed, because Woolstock Australia Limited was wound up and delisted from the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001—14 years ago. It also makes sense to wind up the Medical Training Review Panel and simplify approved provider obligations in the area of aged care because the National Medical Training Advisory Network now provides advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employers and educators. We do not need two bodies to do the same job. The Aged Care Act 1997 will still require approved providers to notify the department of changes in circumstances that materially affects the provider's suitability to provide care. Doing the same thing twice—only to satisfy two different processes—just adds unnecessary cost to the government and provider, which, of course, is then passed onto the taxpayer and the consumer.
Part 3 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991, which established the Fishing Industry Policy Council, is no longer needed. The council has not convened since it was enacted in 1991—more than 24 years ago—and its functions are now fulfilled by other working groups and committees. The Statistical Bureau (Tasmania) Act 1924 has served its purpose as well. Similarly, the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970 can be repealed because the loan has been repaid in full.
Labor's six years on this side of the House—hard labour for those who must clean up after it—were like a policy of scorched earth for the Australian economy. If no action was taken on Labor's reckless spending commitments, within a decade our interest repayments would have been $3 billion a month. I know that those opposite find it difficult to understand, but excessive red tape does detract from productivity and ultimately lowers the standard of living for all Australians. Bad regulation costs more than just time and money—it is a drag on our economy. Regulatory barriers can also hinder competition and the market forces that push firms to innovate and perform at their best.
When looking at the big challenges facing the Australian government, it is generally a very good idea to first have a look at the legacy of previous governments. In this context, it is worth recalling that, when the Rudd-Gillard government came to office, Labor inherited a surplus of $20 billion with no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. When the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office six years' later, it left in its wake 200,000 more unemployed, gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion, $123 billion in cumulative deficits, the world's biggest carbon tax and a mountain of job-destroying red and green tape. Clearly, there was a need to rein in Labor's debt and do whatever we could to grow the economy and create jobs. This government has improved systems for regulatory decision making, with all cabinet submissions now accompanied by an analysis of the regulatory cost and benefit.
In an age of rapid technologically-driven change, we simply cannot 'set and forget' when it comes to rules and regulations. We have changed the way we approach regulation so that it is not seen as a costless way to address policy issues. Here today, with the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, we are again sweeping away more dead and fossilised red tape and uncluttering the Commonwealth's statute books while making other laws more efficient and more productive. In our first two years we have already achieved more than double our election commitment target, with almost $4.5 billion in red tape savings. I congratulate the government on beating our red tape cost saving target by $2.5 billion in just over two years.
I acknowledge that at the table in the House this evening we have the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, who in his first role in this parliament was chairman of the red tape reduction committee. In that role he spearheaded the attack on red tape, the attack on unnecessary legislation. The minister, the member for Kooyong, of course played a vital role in initiating what we see before us—$4.5 billion in red tape savings in under three years. It is all very well for those on the other side to detract from what we are achieving, but what did they do? They had time to reduce this regulation, they had time to wipe off our books the unnecessary regulations and bills that have accumulated over the years. They stand here and detract from what we have achieved, and yet they did nothing. They just added to the problem.
I congratulate the member for Kooyong and the member for Eden-Monaro on the work they have done, and I acknowledge the role of the member for Pearce. Red tape reduction goes to the heart of supporting businesses in our community; it goes to the heart particularly of supporting small businesses. I know from having had my own business that the worst thing I had to do was wade through the myriad of regulation and red tape that confronted me all the time. As I said earlier, it has turned honest, law-abiding, hardworking small business people into lawbreakers, because it is so difficult to put up with the regulation, with the red and green tape, that small businesses are confronted with on a day-to-day basis. Ministers like the member for Kooyong and the member for Eden-Monaro have taken away that myriad of tape that has strangled small business, and I congratulate them for saving almost $4.5 billion in just a few years.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (20:41): As the member for Ryan said, this saving of $4.5 billion is an important part of what this government is about. Those of us who have worked in regional areas, particularly in small business, know just how important the issue of red tape is. It is one of the most common issues we are faced with as members of parliament. When we see the omnibus repeal day legislation, we understand how important every small measure of red tape reduction is. Repeatedly when I am out in my community talking to small business it is the one thing that I hear most about.
As members are aware, the issue for so many businesses, be they small businesses, medium-sized businesses or even major industries, is the layering of local government red tape that they have to face. I hear about issues of compliance more than anything else, and these issues often relate to the combination of state government and federal government requirements. There is layer upon layer. I know it is an issue even in the earthmoving sector. I had a recent conversation with a businessman in my electorate, and he said his product was worth $18 a tonne but before he even puts one of his earthmoving shovels in the ground it is costing him $4 in compliance. When you consider that, you can understand how the constant repeal of red tape has a massive impact. I have been part of several inquiries on both red and green tape, and the issue has been the layer upon layer of regulation—the amount of time it takes and the cost to business and industry is exorbitant. Every time we as a government repeal legislation it is a good day for business and industry in Australia. That is why I am pleased to support the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health) (20:44): I relish the opportunity to speak in support of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. This is one of a number of such bills to be presented before this parliament, fulfilling a commitment made by the coalition government to reduce red tape. It is worth noting that over the past two years we on this side of the House have repealed over 10,000 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 3,600 redundant acts from the Commonwealth books. Certainly this bill is representative of our ongoing commitment to reducing red tape and driving regulatory reform by ensuring that outdated, redundant and duplicative regulation is abolished. The fact of the matter is that allowing obsolete acts to remain in force makes it harder for small businesses, community organisations and ordinary citizens in my electorate of Hasluck to understand the rules and regulations that affect them. Instead of being able to quickly and easily identify these statutes, they often have to sift through outdated, unnecessary and duplicative regulations so as to find out if they still apply.
This omnibus bill alone will amend or repeal legislation across multiple Commonwealth departments, with much of this legislation having remained on the Commonwealth statute books well after fulfilling its purpose. Maintenance is part of every government's responsibility to ensure that the rules of parliament, as agreed to in the past, continue to serve a purpose. As such, this bill seeks to implement a number of non-controversial measures that I call on those opposite to show some bipartisan support for. These measures include abolishing the Medical Training Review Panel, thus getting rid of the overlap between the functions of the Medical Training Review Panel and the National Medical Training Advisory Network. In this instance, members of the Medical Training Review Panel recognised an overlap between their functions and those of the National Medical Training Advisory Network. An aspect of the advisory network's functions is to provide advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employees and educators. As the member for Eden-Monaro has already pointed out, given this specific focus it was agreed that the advisory network could pick up the panel's annual reporting obligation and the panel's role would cease. Certainly we do not need two bodies doing the same job.
The bill will also repeal the Wool International Act 1993 and the Wool International Privatisation Act 1999 from the agriculture and water resources portfolio. These two specific acts are both redundant because WoolStock Australia Limited was delisted from the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001.
In addition to this, the bill also simplifies approved provider obligations in the area of aged care. As it stands, provisions within the act require approved providers to notify the Department of Health of changes in fundamental personnel within 28 days. In cases where an employee leaves and is replaced by another, this would mean multiple notifications to the department even if the changes did not affect the quality of service or care. Unnecessary regulations can be a hindrance—the department receives in the order of 10,000 notifications from aged-care providers each year. I would like to make it clear that, despite these amendments, the Aged Care Act 1997 will still require approved providers to notify the department of changes in circumstances that affect their suitability to provide care. In fact, they provide the scope to reduce the unnecessary notification regime without undermining the quality of care. These measures will reduce compliance costs for businesses and community organisations who are approved aged-care providers. The Department of Health has estimated that this will lead to an annual saving that equates to $1.16 million in compliance costs.
The omnibus bill will also repeal part 3 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991, which establishes the Fishing Industry Policy Council. The reason for this? The council has not convened since the legislation was passed in 1991. In the case of this particular act, exactly the same consultation and advice functions that the council was supposed to provide have been fulfilled by other working groups and committees. This bill will also amend various acts in the communications and arts portfolio where duplication has occurred. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, the Radiocommunications Act 1992 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 will all be amended to repeal duplication. Clearly, these are simple but sensible and necessary changes.
Interestingly enough, some weeks ago the member for Rankin stood in this very chamber rubbishing this bill and the ones preceding, unhappy with the significant savings they have provided the Australian taxpayer. That kind of attitude is clearly indicative of the tax-and-spend mentality of those sitting opposite. I would like to remind the member for Rankin that any saving is money that does not need to come out of the pay packets of hard-working Australian families, including those in my electorate of Hasluck. Yes, it may be true that the financial impact of this particular bill is relatively low, but let us be clear that a dollar not spent by this government is a dollar saved for the people of Australia and the people of my electorate. A dollar not spent by this government is a dollar which can be used to pay down the record debt and deficit gifted to the Australian people courtesy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years of financial chaos.
I need to remind the House that, when we came into power a little over two years ago, the projected 10-year deficit Labor left us was $667 billion. Let's ask ourselves what $667 billion could buy the people of Australia? It could pay for new hospitals, such as the new St John of God Hospital in my electorate of Hasluck for a start. It could also pay for countless infrastructure projects, such as the recently opened Gateway WA, a $1 billion road project in my electorate that has dramatically improved transport links to the eastern suburbs. Of course, under members opposite, these projects would have cost more. We only have to look at Labor's track record to prove this. If the opposition has a plan for how to tackle this debt, other than shaking their magic money tree, then I am sure the people of Australia would love to hear it.
The details so thoroughly provided by the member for Rankin do not tell the full story. The fact of the matter is that we on this side have reduced the cost of complying with unnecessary red tape and regulation by $4.5 billion, and we are just getting started. It is worth noting that that figure is well beyond the cumulative $3 billion target the government committed to at the last election.
Savings aside, repealing unnecessary regulatory red tape also means less time spent by individuals and businesses filling out forms and seeking advice, and less hard-earned revenue spent on building systems and on purchasing equipment to meet the regulatory requirements of the government.
On this point, our efforts are being globally recognised. In the last two years, we have climbed from 128th to 80th in the World Economic Forum ranking of countries based on the burden of government regulation, and we want to do even better. As I have previously mentioned, proper housekeeping is part of every government's responsibility—to ensure that the rules the parliament agreed to in the past continue to remain fit for purpose.
Australians are a clever and industrious people living in a land of opportunity. We live at the epicentre of world growth. Indeed, the rise of India and China have helped power our economy to 24 years of uninterrupted growth. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We can all see growing stresses in Australia's economy, not least in my home state of Western Australia. Most obviously, terms of trade have fallen by over 30 per cent since their peak in 2011, driven by lower prices for oil, iron and coal. Certainly, this is forcing some difficult adjustments in our economy and in my own electorate of Hasluck.
Over the longer term, and like many other countries, our demographics are also slowly changing. Today, with a population of just over 23 million, there are four to five working-age people for every person in retirement. By mid-century, this is expected to fall to fewer than three to one. That means there will be more pressure on our aged-care services, more pressure on pensions and a need for a large social welfare net, but fewer people to deliver and pay for them.
At the end of the day, it is productivity growth that drives sustainable improvement in our living standards. Taking an innovative approach means that our citizens can work smarter, not harder, and still increase our national income. Indeed, the Turnbull government possesses an ambitious policy agenda to drive productivity growth now and into the future. We are having open and frank conversations to see what we can do better. We are reforming how some services are delivered and ending unnecessary state-federal duplication. We are strengthening the security of our financial system.
A key part of our economic policy is regulatory reform. Inefficient and ineffective regulation puts up costs for businesses and brings down our economy. Not only do we want to reduce the cost of complying with regulation but, where regulation is actually necessary, we want to make sure it is designed in the most effective way possible. This will produce regulation that is fit for purpose and easy to comply with. It will also change the way we think about regulation so that it is not seen as a costless way to address policy issues.
That is why it absolutely galls me to witness members opposite dismissing a saving of over $56 million to the Australian people. I certainly have not been inundated by demands from my constituents asking for more regulation, and I doubt those opposite have either! The fact is that every dollar we save by cutting unnecessary red tape is a dollar saved by the Australian people, including the people of Hasluck. I will not stand here today and be lectured by Labor about fiscal management and savings, especially in light of the debt-and-deficit disaster we inherited from them in 2010.
As I have already said, when we took government, Labor's only legacy to the Australian people was $667 billion of financial chaos. With that in mind, it is thoughtless of the member for Rankin to criticise any sort of saving, let alone one to the tune of $56 million. Unlike Labor, we on this side of the House are absolutely committed to ensuring a safe and secure future for every Australian. This means taking a responsible, rational hand to fiscal management.
With that said, I call on members opposite to show their support for the omnibus bill and its non-controversial measures. It will help remove redundant and unnecessary legislation that has outlived its purpose. Importantly, it is part of the coalition's ongoing commitment to reduce red tape, something we have certainly achieved a great deal of in a little over two years. I commend the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill to the House.
WYATT ROY (Longman—Assistant Minister for Innovation) (20:57): We on this side of the House in the Liberal Party come to this place with a very strong conviction—a very simple idea but a very strong conviction: we believe that our society and our economy prosper when we remove government from our lives. We do not believe that the great creators of wealth and prosperity in this country are the Public Service or the government sitting here in Canberra; we believe that the great creators of prosperity and economic activity in our country are Australians who are prepared to have a go, take on some risk and drive the entrepreneurial spirit in our country.
The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 and cognate bills—and this is becoming quite routine in this House—seek to remove laws, something very novel for our country. We often say that we are the wealth of all wisdom in this country and we are going to impose new laws and new regulations on the Australian people. Instead, with these repeal bills, we are removing regulation. We are freeing up our society and freeing up our businesses so they can go out and do what they do so well.
And we have really exceeded our target. Our target was about a billion dollars a year, and already we have achieved red-tape reductions of $4.5 billion over two years, which is a very significant achievement
We have removed 3,600 spent and redundant acts and more than 10,000 legislative mechanisms. This is a very significant achievement. The former assistant minister, Josh Frydenberg, has left the chamber, but I want to commend him and Peter Hendy, the new minister, on their incredible work. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (21:00): It being 9pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Iraq and Syria
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:00): A few weeks ago, we had the foreign minister of the Kurdish democratic provisional government in the regional Kurdish authority in northern Iraq visit this parliament. There are 20 million Kurds in the Middle East. Of all the nations in that benighted part of the world, I can think of few people who deserve their own independent state more than they do. Unfortunately, at the moment they are divided between the KDP, the Kurdish Democratic Party, which controls northern Iraq, and the PKK YPG, which are the Kurds who are in revolt against Turkey.
That whole part of the Middle East was divided by the colonial authorities after World War I in the famous Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sykes being the Englishman and Picot the Frenchman. They organised all of these artificial borders from which the Kurds were excluded. We see states that barely seem to exist such as Syria and Iraq, which are now in a terrible situation emerging from the weakness of these states. We see the rise of the jihadist group Daesh, which seems to control most of eastern Syria and western Iraq. They are IS, according to the current Prime Minister—some people call him Lord Turnbull, but he is the member for Wentworth. They are weaker in the area around Raqaa. In my view, this repeats the early mistake of President Obama, who compared the IS to a B-grade basketball team. They are weak, but in the week before last they had, by their criteria, one of their most successful weeks ever: killing 400 people in suicide bombings in Lebanon, dreadful attacks on civilian airliners in the Sinai and killing 139 beautiful young people simply enjoying themselves and living life to the full in Paris. That whole area in eastern Syria remains under the control of the so-called weak IS or Daesh. It is simply illogical for it to be left like that. In my view, it is not a question of boots on the ground; it is a question of whose boots on the ground. Surely, from all of our experiences, unless we want a repeat of the events of Paris, we understand that IS cannot be allowed to operate independently from that part of the world. We have the dreadful figure of al-Kambodi, as he calls himself, who manipulated the two deluded young people here in Endeavour Hills in Parramatta from his safe haven in Raqqa to do the kinds of attacks that they perpetrated here in Australia. It is very much something that affects our country as well.
Last week, the Kurds cut the highway between Raqqa and Mosul at Sinjar. A few days ago, Matt Brown—the good ABC reporter; the comprehensive ABC reporter; the man, as an ABC reporter, without ideological biases—heroically reported that they took Hasakah in eastern Syria. They have taken one part of the Mosul road in western Iraq and one part in eastern Syria, cutting off the easy supply lines from the nest of vipers of Daesh in Raqqa to the biggest city in Iraq, Mosul, which they control. The Kurds, with their allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces, are just 38 kilometres from Raqqa, where all this activity against innocent civilians around the world is based. I do not suggest that we send big Western armies—that was the mistake of the Bush-Rumsfeld doctrine—but surely we can train people who are willing to fight. The Kurds hate these people. Their families have been violated, raped and crucified et cetera by these barbarians in Daesh. Let's support them. The key question is not boots on the ground but whose boots on the ground. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (21:05): I rise tonight to speak on a topic that is very dear to my heart and it is the culmination of a campaign I began when I was first elected to this House in 1998. Next Monday we will see the sod-turning for the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, a road that has been long awaited by the residents of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs and a road which would only ever have been built by a coalition government. I am sure the member for Grayndler will rise at some point in the future, if not tomorrow, to try to claim some credit for this road. The reality is that, when the Howard government lost government in 2007, having promised to build the second range crossing, it was the Labor Party under Kevin Rudd and then under Julia Gillard that took that money away and spent it in other areas. Monday is a hugely significant day for the residents of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs. It will see the commencement of work on the construction of a 42-kilometre road that will literally snake its way up the Murphys Creek valley across the top of the range and then out onto the inner part of not only the arterial roads that lead to Mount Isa and all points west of that, including Darwin, but also the arterial road that runs through New South Wales to Melbourne.
This road will be a massive engineering feat—a road that will cost around $1.7 billion; a road stretching from below the range to join the Gore Highway, after a distance of 42 kilometres, with huge viaducts spanning valleys and cutting through mountains; a road that will allow transport into the inland. This road will not only open up the economic development of the rich areas of the Darling Downs but also provide a vital and safe pathway that does not traverse through Toowoomba and that carries freight all the way from Brisbane to Melbourne.
I said that the residents of Toowoomba have waited a long time for this road—and they have; some would argue, 30 years. Certainly in the 17 years that I have been the member for Groom, it has been an issue very close to the front of their minds. Toowoomba is literally cut in half by a highway that, as I said, economically joins one capital city to two others and services regional and provincial cities to the west. The construction of the Toowoomba range crossing will see the end of the endless trail of trucks that literally cut through the centre of Toowoomba and traverse the main street of Toowoomba, as they go about the necessary duty of carrying freight goods and produce. Of course, Toowoomba is one of the few towns where you can see cattle in the main street every day of the week, because every day of the week a cattle truck will roll through Ruthven Street on its way down James Street, taking cattle to the abattoirs in the Brisbane area.
I said that this road would not have been constructed were it not for a coalition government. That is an unassailable fact. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to a few people who were instrumental in its happening. Firstly, the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, who made a commitment to me in 2007, who carried that commitment through opposition and into government and who ensured that, when the opportunity came, the road was built. I want to recognise the support of a series of local government officials, including Paul Antonio, the current mayor of the Toowoomba Regional Council, who supported me in my quest to have to this road built. I also want to recognise the commitment that Tony Abbott, the previous Prime Minister and current member for Warringah, made to build this road. I also acknowledge the commitment of Campbell Newman, the former Premier of Queensland. It took two coalition governments—one in Queensland and one federally here in Canberra—to ensure this road was built. So Monday will be the beginning of the end of a campaign which, as I said, has lasted 17 years. For me, it is going to see something that I, at times, wondered would ever happen but was always committed to achieving. The construction of the Toowoomba range crossing will bring an end to trucks in the centre of Toowoomba and signal a new phase in the economic growth of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I congratulate the member for Groom and call on the honourable member for Indi.
Indi Electorate: Agriculture
Ms McGOWAN ( Indi ) ( 21:10 ): Can I add my congratulations to the member for Groom. I am a frequent user of that road and know it well. I have family in Toowoomba and know how important that road is going to be. But tonight my topic is agriculture. I am here tonight to tell the parliament that agriculture in Indi is ready for the next big agricultural transition. We are ready for change. In my electorate, agriculture is worth over $600 million per year. It is the fifth largest employer, with around 5,000 businesses across eight local governments. Food based manufacturing employers over 2,210 people. And when we add both agriculture and manufacturing together, it is the second largest employer in the Hume region. The main industries are beef, dairy milk, prime lamb, wool, fruit nuts, wheat, vegies, oilseed, nurseries, flowers, turf, fish, and wine. There are other industries such as honey and hops, green tea, grass seeds, blue berries, mustards, alpacas, hydroponic tomatoes—and did I say wine?
How do I know that agriculture is so important? I know because people tell me. At the recent Indi community summit—and there are full details of that on my web page—agriculture was the main topic of discussion. Tonight I would like to share with you a small snapshot from the summit. We talked about 'if we could do what we wanted to do'. The agricultural group said: 'We would like to develop strong networks to build knowledge, to share ideas and to provide support. We would like to innovate. We would like to focus on agricultural educational opportunities. We would like a centre of excellence and graduate training through industry and business. And we would really like to build links to state and national strategies.' The summit group committed to developing a strategy for supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in agriculture in Indi to provide advisory support, market linkages, branding, new products, and helping business 'step up'.
There are many examples of agriculture in my electorate. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways is committed to increasing the productivity of our farms by 2020 to have a gross value of $160 million. The wine industry in the regions of Rutherglen, King and Ovens valleys and Beechworth produces internationally recognised, top quality wines and, with the support from Tourism North East Victoria, it has built an amazing experiential tourist industry. Mansfield Secondary College is winning awards for its creative, supportive and hugely successful agricultural educational program. The Lawson family, a multigenerational family lead by patriarch, Don—'Hi, Don'—is exporting prime angus cattle all across Australia and into China. There is Sam Murphy's hydroponic tomatoes in Mansfield; the La Spina family in Whorouly, producing capsicum; and Rachael Armstrong and her family's innovative work with nutrisoils. Sandy Creek Nursery, located just outside of the beautiful Yackandandah, is one of Victoria's largest native plant suppliers. At Catkin, towards Yea, Valley Seeds produce over half of Australia's lawn seed supply, plus turf seeds for playing fields and forage seed for horticultural crops. Research abounds. Close to Eildon is the Victorian Fisheries. The well-named Snob's Creek Hatchery and Research Centre breeds salmonid species for fishers. This is but a taste of the riches of agriculture in Indi. Agriculture is important, but we need to grow our production. We need to grow our education, our research, our innovation, our trade, our skills, and our ability to work together. And now is exactly the right time to do it. The Prime Minister tells us that there has never been a better time to do business in Australia, and I agree with him.
I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. Our current inquiry is looking at innovation in agriculture, and we have had a very positive response to our call for submissions—many from Indi. The committee is holding a public hearing in Wodonga on Thursday, 28 January, and I invite all those interested in innovation in agriculture in Indi to attend. But governments cannot do it alone. We have got to work together, and this is what the Indi community summit committed to. It committed to working together. Tonight I acknowledge their work. I thank them for their dedication and make a commitment to them—to the agriculturalists, to the farmers and to the consultants—to be an active partner in helping agriculture in Indi reach its full potential.
Forrest Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (21:15): The South West of Western Australia is an iconic tourism destination. It includes the internationally renowned Margaret River wine and tourism region and the major regional centres of Busselton and Bunbury. However, the development of the region is held back because of the lack of direct interstate or international air services, which makes travel to our region significantly more complicated than it should be.
The Busselton Regional Airport is strategically located, having the right physical characteristics, a central location and proximity to the Margaret River region, and lacks impediments to expansion, which makes it an ideal location for regular passenger transport. This project is vital for the economic development of the City of Busselton, the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River and the broader, greater South West. It is supported by the entire region, and it is a transformative project. The upgrade of the Busselton Regional Airport has been identified by the Western Australian state government as a project of regional economic and social significance. The state government has committed $59.7 million of state moneys, including $45.9 million from the state government's Royalties for Regions program, $10 million from the Department of Transport, $3.5 million from the City of Busselton itself and $300,000 from the South West Development Commission.
The proposal to expand the Busselton Regional Airport to be able to receive international visitors—which, I am aware, is a really key and important process for the City of Busselton—is justified by wide economic benefits. As I said, it is a transformative project. It is a compelling case for regional investment and will include new and ongoing jobs within the region. It will be a little like dropping a stone into a bucket of water—the ripples will go on and on and the economic development will continue. I know that the business case has undergone rigorous assessment by the state of Western Australia, which proves that the proposed project will be a significant contributor to the South West region's prospects for tourism growth and export development, and it will deliver exceptional employment opportunities. In addition, the facility, once upgraded, is sustainable, and further calls for government assistance and investment will be foreseen.
This project has been many years in development and has withstood scrutiny from private reviewers and the WA government's Treasury department. It is a project of major significance to the South West of Western Australia, and it is essential that it be supported at a Commonwealth level. I understand the National Party's state Minister for Regional Development has conveyed this to the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and I urge the minister to support his party colleague in this matter. This project is too important to the South West region not to be supported by all levels of government, whether that be local, state or federal. It is a project that will enhance and underpin the development, both economic and social, of what is a truly regional area of Australia. The South West is the largest population outside of the Perth metropolitan area and, being in the same time zone as billions of people in Asia, it has enormous potential to actually develop further and to provide the jobs of the future into the next generation. It is an opportunity that should not be missed.
I look forward to a time when some of the best produce in the world comes from the South West region as freight. For every passenger aircraft there is a wealth of freight that goes out along with the passengers. I am looking forward to the opportunities that will be created for all forms of business. In agriculture we have some of the finest and best quality products not just in Australia but in the world, so I am looking forward to all of that as part of the ongoing development of the airport.
Victoria: Economy
Mr GILES (Scullin) (21:20): As you would be well aware, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Broadbent, this week marks the first anniversary of the election of the Andrews government in Victoria. It is an important occasion to mark, not least because it is in the company of the minister at the table, who I enjoyed listening to in respect of his commentary on that election night. I am pleased to see things have improved for him in some regard, and he should consider himself very fortunate to live in the state of Victoria under the Andrews government. It is an important anniversary to mark in this place—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr GILES: and the minister should listen—because it shows the difference that a change in government and a change in leadership can make when it is a real change, a change of substance and not simply of style. It also shows how people in Victoria have responded to a clearly articulated vision for our state and its capital, Melbourne, after four wasted years under Baillieu and Napthine, especially in the northern suburbs.
One year ago, I was proud of the hard-won elections of Vicki Ward in Eltham and of Danielle Green in Yan Yean against an overwhelming weight of resources and, of course, of the returns of Lily D'Ambrosio in Mill Park, Colin Brooks in Bundoora and Bronwyn Halfpenny in Thomastown. But since then I am much prouder. What a difference we have seen in Victoria! Much needed infrastructure projects that are so important to the electors of Scullin are underway. I think in particular of the Mernda rail project, which is under consultation now. It is an incredibly significant linkage for people in the northern corridor. I think of the duplication of Yan Yean Road. It is much needed and long overdue. Even in very recent days, I think of the very strong support we have been getting from the Premier for the O'Herns Road interchange with the Hume Freeway, a project that the current federal government would do well to get behind sooner rather than later.
All of these local transport initiatives are of course complemented by the wider congestion-busting initiative that is so critical to keeping Melbourne as the world's most liveable city. I think of the Melbourne Metro project that was, again, cruelly delayed by the former Prime Minister's ideological aversion to public transport. I think about the level crossing removal project which will do so much for our productivity. I think of the commitment to our growth areas demonstrated to me only Friday night at the Barry Road Community Activity Centre, one of many projects supported by the Interface Growth Fund, giving local communities vital local infrastructure.
I also think of the plan for jobs and, with it, very sound economic management. I note and advise the House that unemployment in Victoria has fallen dramatically—from 6.8 per cent in October 2014 to 5.6 per cent today. This is so important to the communities I represent, which have been devastated by job losses in manufacturing, exacerbated by decisions of this government. Sectoral plans, such as that for food and beverage, will make a difference and will harness the great skills in the north for the jobs of the future. Hope and promise are being offered for our manufacturers.
I think of the critical investments in northern health and in health care generally. I think of a government which ended the cruel and unnecessary war on paramedics that was prosecuted under the coalition government which preceded it. Investments in education will be transformative in the north as well as right around Melbourne. We are seeing some local schools being transformed. I think in particular of the $6 million investment in Mill Park Secondary College. It is impossible to ignore the impact of the attack on TAFEs, a matter that members of this government should also be concerned about as we debate changes to VET FEE-HELP in this place. The reopening of the Greensborough campus of the Melbourne Polytechnic will make a difference and open up a variety of pathways for students.
It was Daniel Andrews, of course, who showed real leadership in the area of family violence, putting forward from opposition the concept of a royal commission and making a bold commitment to implement every one of its recommendations. I think of the equality agenda the government has initiated—again, something members of the government in this place should pay heed to. The appointment of a minister for equality, the introduction of adoption equality, the proposition the government forged to be equally comprised of women and men, the steadfast leadership Daniel Andrews has shown in standing up for respect and inclusion to be equally applied to all Victorians was demonstrated in recent days by the important passage of law to secure safe access zones and fundamentally the difference that Daniel Andrews has made in standing up for politics based on trust is something that this government should heed. Every promise made before the election has been implemented. This is so important to rebuild faith in politics.
So I congratulate the Andrews government, the Premier and all of his team on their achievements to date. They have been getting on with the job of putting people first. If only other governments would follow this example.
Macquarie Electorate
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (21:25): I rise today for my final parliamentary speech of the year, 2015, to speak on some of the achievements this year in the Macquarie electorate. Whilst it has been a very full year in parliament, with many reforms and pieces of legislation passing the Senate, it has been a big year in Macquarie as well. This year will mark the end of the disaster recovery process. The disaster recovery committee will have their last meeting next week on Monday, 7 November 2015, a bit over two years since the 2013 bushfires. The recovery committee sadly came together as a result of the devastating Blue Mountains bushfires in 2013. As a community, we have come a long way since then. There has been much rebuilding not only of homes but of communities, neighbourhoods and lives. There have been lessons learned, resilience established and built on and communities strengthened. It has been a very difficult time for the close-knit Blue Mountains community.
The committee has seen many members over the duration of the past two years but, for all those involved, the community was always the first priority. The recovery committee, together with the other subcommittees formed, worked collaboratively to streamline procedures and coordinate services and programs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committees for their passion for and dedication to their roles. In particular, I would like to thank the current recovery manager, Sue Johnson who has played an instrumental role in the long-term recovery process, particularly around the position of underinsurance which many found themselves in.
The coalition government has supported the Macquarie electorate with many announcements. Some of those were made this year. In the Blue Mountains there have been major road upgrades, particularly safety upgrades along the Great Western Highway. Together with the New South Wales government we have made improvements from Merrylands to Lapstone, with the managed motorway planning works costing $3 million, and from Woodford to Hazelbrook costing $70 million. And, commencing this month, there will be the Mount Victoria safety upgrades, with a joint costing of $32.1 million.
I was also pleased to announce with the state member for Penrith, Minister Stuart Ayres, $5 million for the Ross Street intersection upgrade, which is currently available for public exhibition. This was in addition to funding for dangerous black spots on our roads, with $200,000 allocated to the Great Western Highway at Valley Heights at the Peninsula Road T-junction. In the Hawkesbury we announced $80,000 to fix a dangerous black spot on the Hawkesbury Valley Way at the intersection with Hobart Street. It has been most rewarding to see the completion of the $20 million Richmond Bridge and approaches congestion alleviation works. There has been much positive feedback to these changes.
Under the Mobile Black Spot Program in the area of communications, four new or upgraded base stations will be funded in Macquarie at Colo Heights, Kurrajong, Webbs Creek and Mount Tomah for residents in mobile phone coverage black spot areas. That is particularly significant given the nature of natural disasters that we experience. The total funding package to Macquarie will be $3.45 million, including $1.58 million funding from the Australian government.
The Green Army is another very successful program offering young people between the ages of 17 and 24 years the tools they need to help them enter the workforce, improve their career opportunities or further their education and training while participating in projects that will generate real and lasting benefits for the environment. Additionally, it supports practical, grassroots environment and heritage conservation projects across urban, regional and remote Australia. In Macquarie, we are on to our third Green Army round, with the successful completion of projects such as the Accessible World Heritage Experience Grand Cliff Top Walk Project in the Blue Mountains and the restoration of Little Wheeny Creek and Yellomundee Regional Park bushland in the Hawkesbury. Also on the environment, $253,000 has been allocated to the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage for Precinct 2 in Shepherds Gully, which will open Shepherds Gully Road to management vehicle use.
Other achievements include $150,000 for the Centenary of Anzac local grants program. In the area of health we recognise there are many challenges, particularly alcohol addiction. Funding includes: $384,948 for Teen Challenge; $591,920 for family drug support in Katoomba; and $317,100 for the Blue Mountains drug and alcohol service.
I want to wish everyone across the electorate a very safe Christmas and a very safe New Year. I thank all members of the community for their service to the people of Macquarie.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Porter: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans’ entitlements, and for related purposes.
Mr Porter: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, and for related purposes.
Mr Porter: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance and social security, and for related purposes.
Mr Porter: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance and social security, and for related purposes.
Mr Hartsuyker: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, and for related purposes.
Mr Keenan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for other purposes.
Mr Fletcher: to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to communications, and for related purposes.
Mr Fletcher: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to broadcasting, and for related purposes.
Mr Fletcher: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to telecommunications, and for related purposes.
Ms McGowan: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Government:
(a) did not provide a ministerial regional impact statement in the 2014-15 budget;
(b) has not issued a regional statement for Australia;
(c) has not established a Standing Committee on Regional Australia or a Department of Regional Australia; and
(d) issued a ministerial statement, Partnership for Regional Growth 2015-16, in the 2015-16 budget, which outlined key government initiatives in regional Australia by portfolio but did not include a regional impact statement in general or by portfolio;
(2) calls on the Government to publicly release and table a regional Australia statement together with each budget economic and fiscal outlook report and each mid-year economic and fiscal outlook report; and
(3) notes that the regional Australia statement should provide information to allow the assessment of the impact of Government policy decisions on regional Australia, and have regard to the:
(a) economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts of government initiatives;
(b) economic drivers of regional communities;
(c) disproportionate effect that government initiatives may have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure, including:
(i) mobile phone coverage;
(ii) reliable internet connections; and
(iii) access to public transport
(d) lack of access that people living in regional communities have to government services due to cost and long travel distances and times; and
(e) effect that lack of competition in regional communities has on the:
(i) cost of living and doing business in regional communities; and
(ii) cost and difficulty involved in complying with regulatory requirements for people and businesses in regional communities.
Ms McGowan: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) a recent Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Industry Futures report, with the CSIRO, explores five megatrends set to affect Australian agriculture over the next two decades;
(b) the most relevant is the transformative technologies trend, whereby a boom in scientific advances will change the way we do agriculture; and
(c) the provision of stable, high speed internet to rural and regional Australia is needed to enable farmers to take advantage of these emerging technological trends; and
(2) calls on the Government to support:
(a) innovation and entrepreneurship in agriculture by continuing to invest in the development of emerging technological products; and
(b) farm businesses to get the maximum benefit from technology to increase agricultural productivity in Australia.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
NetRatings Australia Tender
(Question No. 1524)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 9 September 2015
In respect of the $12,144.00 tender to NetRatings Australia (CN3289199) for 'Digital Audience Measurement', (a) what did this research entail, (b) what is the aim of this research, (c) to which Government policy area(s) does this research relate, and (d) what were the outcomes from this research.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(a) The $12,144 tender to NetRatings Australia (CN3289199) was for the procurement of the 'Digital Audience Measurement' report. This report provides daily audience measurement and usage information across a range of digital platforms, including desktops, smartphones, tablets and applications.
(b) This research was procured to support the Bureau of Communications Research (the 'BCR') in consideration and development of the lead indicators project and to build knowledge of market trends. This aligns with the BCR's objective to provide fact based policy development and supports the Departments goal to analyse international and domestic developments in digital technologies.
(c) This research relates to various policy areas in the department, including: (1) the BCR, and (2) Media branch in the Consumer and Content policy division.
(d) Analysis of this report helped build knowledge of market trends, which in turn has assisted the BCR to support the Department in its policy goals. This report will be included in the BCR's digital library and be made available to the wider department.
NetRatings Australia Tender
(Question No. 1525)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on
9 September 2015
In respect of the $11,000.00 tender to NetRatings Australia (CN3287530) for 'Nielsen E-Generation Report 2015', (a) what is the purpose of this report, and (b) to which Government policy area(s) does this research relate.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(a) The 'Nielsen E-Generation Report 2015' provides insights into the media consumption of 2-15 year olds. It analyses the types of content that is consumed, such as social media, entertainment content and applications, and also explores the platforms used to connect to this content, such as tablets, mobile phones, medium players, game consoles and PCs/laptops.
This research was procured to support the Bureau of Communications Research (the 'BCR') to build knowledge of market trends. This aligns with the BCR's objective to provide fact based policy development and supports the Departments goal to analyse international and domestic developments in digital technologies.
(b) This research relates to various policy areas in the department, including: (1) the BCR, and (2) Media branch in the Consumer and Content policy division.
NetRatings Australia Tender
(Question No. 1526)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 9 September 2015
In respect of the $10,120.00 tender to NetRatings Australia (CN2380731) for 'Subscription to Nielsen Online Ratings database', (a) for what purpose was this data purchased, and (b) to which Government policy area(s) does this research relate.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(a) The 'Subscription to Nielsen Online Ratings database' provides insights into how consumers engage with online media. The database analyses consumer behaviour and trends, advertising effectiveness, brand advocacy and social media reactions.
This research was procured to support the Bureau of Communications Research (the 'BCR') to build knowledge of market trends. This aligns with the BCR's objective to provide fact based policy development and supports the Departments goal to analyse international and domestic developments in digital technologies.
(b) This research relates to various policy areas in the department, including: (1) the BCR, and (2) Media branch in the Consumer and Content policy division.
NetRatings Australia Tender
(Question No. 1527)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 9 September 2015
In respect of the $15,015.00 tender to NetRatings Australia (CN1956502) for the purchase of the 'Connected Consumer Report', (a) for what purpose was this report purchased, and (b) to which Government policy area(s) does this research relate.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(a) The Neilsen 'Connected Consumer Report' was purchased to provide insights into consumer behaviour and trends. The report analyses cross-platform content consumption, consumer purchasing behaviour and influences, and consumer branch interactions.
This research was procured to support the Bureau of Communications Research (the 'BCR') to build knowledge of market trends. This aligns with the BCR's objective to provide fact based policy development and supports the Departments goal to analyse international and domestic developments in digital technologies.
(b) This research relates to various policy areas in the department, including: (1) the BCR, and (2) Media branch in the Consumer and Content policy division.
Department of Communications: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1773)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 10 November 2015
Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by the department from (a) internal sources, or (b) external sources, that resulted in a cost to the department in 2014-15; if so, (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to the department of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what is being done to prevent the fraud or theft occurring again.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(a)Yes.
(i) Unauthorised access to the staff car park by a staff member.
(ii) Late 2014 to early 2015.
(iii) $200.00 which was recouped from the individual.
(iv) Access to car parking facilities is managed by programmed security pass card access. Car parks are monitored by surveillance cameras and all identified unauthorised access is investigated.
(b) No.