The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
PETITIONS
Responses
Infrastructure
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter dated 11 November 2015 regarding the petition submitted by Ms Cara Horner of the Aurora Community Association, to the Standing Committee on Petitions, about the construction of a new interchange connecting O'Herns Road to the Hume Freeway. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The Australian Government has committed over $4.8 billion towards land transport infrastructure in Victoria from 2013-14 to 2018-19 and stands ready to meet its $3 billion commitment to the East West Link should a future government of Victoria agree to construct this important project.
The Australian Government is taking a long term, strategic approach to infrastructure planning. Part of this approach includes developing a pipeline of infrastructure project to inform future investment decisions. In May 2015, Infrastructure Australia (IA) released the Australian Infrastructure Audit which highlighted the need to improve transport infrastructure in Melbourne. The Audit will help inform IA's 15-year Infrastructure Plan which will set out our national infrastructure priorities over the longer term.
The Australian and Victorian governments are working closely to agree on future road and rail infrastructure priorities that are in the best interests of the Australian and Victorian economies.
While the construction of a new interchange connecting O'Herns Road to the Hume Freeway has been identified as a priority by the Victorian Government, a detailed business case has not been provided. A decision on funding the project will need to be made in the context of other infrastructure priorities and future budgets.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Warren Truss
Australia's Population Growth
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2014 to the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, enclosing petition number 991/1471, concerning population growth and its effect on Australia's infrastructure and environment. I apologise for the delay in responding.
Australia has well managed and targeted immigration programmes that are designed to meet its social and economic needs. Australia's permanent migration intake is decided by the Australian Government through the annual Migration Programme. The size and composition of the programme is informed by a wide range of factors, including stakeholder views, immediate and forecast long-term social and economic trends, impacts to population, as well as the family reunion needs of Australians. Based on these factors, there are up to 190,000 permanent migration places available in 2015-16.
Based on Australian Demographic Statistics, published on 17 December 2015 on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, Australia's population grew by 1.4 per cent for the year ended 30 June 2015, with net overseas migration (NOM) contributing 53 per cent to the total population growth. Further information is available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0/.
The Government sets annual planning levels for the permanent Migration Programme and has some control over the circumstances under which temporary entrants enter Australia, such as compliance with their visa conditions. However, it does not have a direct influence on all components of NOM. This is because NOM includes the movements of Australian citizens, long-term temporary entrants (such as international students and temporary skilled business entrants) and the entry of New Zealand citizens under the Trans-Tasman Agreement.
Australia's annual NOM level reached a peak in December 2008 of 315,700, mainly due to the large number of temporary entrants remaining in Australia. It has since declined to 168,200 (June 2015 preliminary estimate) due in part to economic conditions, and as a result of policy measures designed to ensure long-term temporary entrants depart Australia at the appropriate time.
Research conducted in 2013 by Professor Peter McDonald and Dr Jeromey Temple from the Australian National University looks at optimal levels of migration, and suggests that NOM in excess of 160,000 is desirable in the short term as well as the long term from an economic perspective. The full report can be accessed at: http://www.demographicinsight.corn.au/other/McDonaldTemple%20-%20Web.pdf.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection publishes information on forecast NOM levels. These forecasts enhance the capability of service providers, including state, territory, and local governments, in their planning and forward work programmes. Copies of the Department's NOM reports can be accessed at: http://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/livein-australiainet-overseas-migration.
The Government is committed to a whole-of-government approach to balancing the immigration intake against the needs of our labour force, infrastructure and the environment. The size of the permanent Migration Programme is also guided by Australia's long-term demographic trends. Australia's ageing workforce is predicted to have adverse consequences for Australia's prosperity and migration is one way in which to alleviate this issue.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Peter Dutton
PETITIONS
Statements
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:02): During the last year of a parliament there will be a period of time where there is a reduced timeframe for the completion of a full cycle of a petition. The cycle of a compliant petition encompasses petition development and signature collection; Petitions Committee assessment and presentation of the certified petition, either by me as the committee chair or by a member; and the receipt and presentation of the written ministerial response by the chair. This, the last year of the 44th Parliament, is no exception. Today I will outline the impact of this timing constraint on petitioners and on members who receive or hold petitions for presentation or who anticipate presenting a petition which is currently still gathering signatures.
Given the constitutional provisions for general elections, the next general election can be held any time after 6 August 2016. Based on this and the date of expiry of the parliament by the effluxion of time, this parliament would be expected to be dissolved during the second half of this year. This situation has occurred twice since the Petitions Committee was established.
Election years impact the petitions process for a number of reasons. Importantly, there will be a considerably reduced opportunity for the committee to meet and assess petitions during the period the parliament is dissolved and for certified petitions to be presented. Also, in the lead-up to dissolution there are finite opportunities for a petition to be presented and then referred for a written ministerial response. Consequently, there is less time available for a ministerial response to be returned, presented and available to the principal petitioner. Ministerial responses are only made public once presented. There is also the potential impact of petitioning activity intensifying prior to an election, so more petitions may arrive during this period.
Given the winter recess between July and late August, there could be as few as four or five further opportunities for petitions and ministerial responses to be presented by me during this timeslot. Moreover, the committee's last meeting in the autumn sittings, in the week beginning 15 March, has no sitting Monday. Therefore, any petitions certified by the committee this week for presentation by the chair and any similarly certified petitions during the 15 March week must, per the standing orders, wait for presentation until the next sitting Monday on 23 May.
As ministerial referrals occur on presentation of petitions, all petitions assessed in March for chair's presentation and which are certified for referral will be presented in late May and referred at that time. As a result, referrals on 23 and 30 May are the last referral dates which are likely to allow the full extent of the 90-day expected response period before dissolution. Therefore, not only is it important for petitioners to be conscious of the rules surrounding petitioning, as was discussed last week, but also they should be conscious of the time constraints of the parliamentary calendar and the timing of their signature collection and delivery of the petition to the House.
Petitions cannot be assessed, presented or referred to a minister during a parliamentary recess or caretaker period, but a petition does not lapse. It will be received and held for assessment when sittings recommence. Thus, compliant petitions received after the committee's last meeting in the 44th Parliament will be tabled in the House after assessment by the committee of the 45th Parliament some months later; and petitions certified by the committee's last meeting in the 44th Parliament, but before a sitting Monday eventuates, will be presented in the 45th Parliament. It is also worth noting that referrals of petitions for a ministerial response do not lapse.
These timing constraints obviously also apply to members who may present compliant petitions at certain times. I therefore urge all members who receive petitions to deliver them to the committee for processing as soon as possible and, if they choose to present a petition, to do so as quickly as practicable after it has been certified. The timing of presentation is important because the most significant follow-up action, a referral to a minister, can only occur after a petition is presented. Therefore, if a member finds they are no longer able to present a petition, they should return it to the committee promptly so it can be presented in this regular presentation timeslot on sitting Mondays.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Procedure
Report
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10:07): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill together with the minutes of proceedings.
I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report on its inquiry into the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is an important part of the annual budget debate. It gives members from both sides of the House the opportunity to examine the detail of the bill and to debate and question ministers on proposed expenditure for their portfolio area.
In recent years, however, members have expressed concern that the conduct of the debate limits opportunities for effective government scrutiny. In particular, members are concerned about the allocation of the call and the length of speeches during the debate. During last year's budget debate, members raised these issues in the House. The then Speaker, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, referred the matter to the Procedure Committee, requesting that the committee find a consistent approach that would be more satisfactory to members.
Current practice is that both government backbenchers and non-government members participate in consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill, usually directing questions to the relevant minister. With more government backbenchers participating, the call is now typically allocated as it is during question time—government member, minister, non-government member, minister and so on. This is inconsistent with the practice applying in all other debates. There are concerns that the allocation of the call in this way results in a disproportionate allocation of time to the government side, more than two-thirds instead of about half.
The committee notes the principle that in all debates, as far as practical, the call should alternate between government and non-government members and should allow both sides roughly equal speaking time. This report asserts that effective scrutiny of the main appropriation bill would be enhanced by a more balanced distribution of speaking opportunities between government and non-government members and suggests ways to achieve this.
The allocation of the call did not seem to be such an issue when members, including ministers, confined their contributions to a short question or answer or to a short debating point. The current practice of members making long speeches, often taking the full five minutes available to them, has significantly changed the nature of the debate.
This report recommends a trial of shorter time limits, allowing members an unlimited number of two-minute contributions. The committee hopes that shorter time limits will re-energise the debate, encourage greater interaction between participants, encourage more direct responses by ministers and allow for contributions by a greater number of members.
Through the course of its inquiry, the committee identified some uncertainty amongst members regarding the purpose and conduct of the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The report, therefore, recommends that the House adopt sessional orders which clarify the existing rules applying to the debate for the benefit of chairs and participants. The report also suggests that the Speaker make a statement to the House, to be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber, prior to the commencement of the consideration in detail stage, to offer some guidance to members regarding their roles in the proceedings and the practice and procedures applying to this debate.
The committee would like to see the House adopt the proposed sessional orders in time for this year's budget debate. If the trial of these measures is successful, they could be adopted as permanent procedures for the 45th Parliament. I commend the report to the House.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:11): I endorse this report and the remarks of the member for Boothby, who has taken over the chair of the Procedure Committee following the tragic passing of the member for Canning and who has conducted this report since that event.
Concerns have been raised for many years regarding the conduct of the main appropriation debate and, as the member for Boothby said, specifically the allocation of the call. Most recently, the member for Grayndler raised concerns to the committee about the allocation of the call resulting in an unequal allocation of time in the debate between government and non-government speakers. The call has been allocated as if it were question time; however, question time is not a debate; the consideration in detail of the main appropriation is a debate and members have a right to make a contribution within the rules of a debate that they see fit. For example, they may ask the minister a question or they may move an amendment to a bill to reduce the amount of expenditure. The report recognises how the allocation of the call has led to concerns about the debate but also recognises that members were more satisfied with the debate when there was free-flowing interchange of short questions and answers. I think both ministers and members have got into bad habits of using the full amount of time.
Therefore, the committee has made a number of recommendations aimed at clarifying the rules around the debate and recognising the benefit of short statements. It has also recommended that members be permitted to speak for an unlimited number of two-minute periods. This would be a reduction from the five minutes allowed for other consideration-in-detail debates. The report offers some guidance as to those members chairing the debate to assist them in this duty. It also offers guidance for participants so they may achieve a more interactive debate.
The committee has also suggested that the Speaker make a statement to the House, as the member for Boothby said, and that that be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber so that people who are participating in the debate will understand what they are doing; and it will facilitate the participation of members in the debate.
As the member for Boothby said, there are two specific recommendations of this report. There are a couple of interesting points that were made in the committee's report about the proposed sessional orders, which I would like to incorporate into Hansard.
3.20 Currently, consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill is governed by the same standing orders that apply to the consideration in detail of other bills. The Clerk of the House has suggested that this debate ‘differs so much from the normal consideration in detail process that it should have its own rules clearly set out.’ As a minimum, the Clerk suggested that:
it would be helpful to chairs, ministers and Members generally if the existing standing orders specifically applying to the budget and estimates debates could be co-located (that is moved, copied or at least cross-referenced) under the section of the standing Orders headed Financial Procedures.
3.21 In the Committee’s opinion, the annual consideration of the budget and the consideration in detail stage, in particular, are unique, and of such importance, that the procedures for the main appropriation bill should be explicitly provided for in the Standing Orders, to make clear:
the scope of relevance for the debates on the second reading and the detail stage; and
the question before the House being debated in the detail stage; and
the particular rules applying to debate in the detail stage, which currently allow for questions and debate.
The Clerk has drafted proposed sessional orders, and I think the committee's report has made some recommendations that will deal with bad habits that the main appropriation bill consideration in detail has got into. I commend the chair for this report. I think it will be a valuable step in getting the parliament back into using this important debate for the purpose for which it was meant.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Dr Southcott: I do. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Standing Committee on the Environment
Report
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:16): On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I present the committee's report on the visit to Singapore and Malaysia from 25 October to 30 October 2015, together with the minutes of proceedings.
The Standing Committee on the Environment went to Malaysia and Singapore in late October last year. In my brief remarks today I will outline some of the contents of the report. The committee was made up of four members: the member for Mallee, who I understand will be speaking in just a moment, and the members for Barton and Scullin and myself. We were accompanied by the committee secretary, Julia Morris.
The committee identified several issues of interest to focus on during our visit and, whilst it was not limited to those issues, they included greenhouse emissions, renewable energy, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation and governance frameworks for appropriate responsibility across jurisdictions for such matters.
During the visit, one of the most immediately apparent environmental issues facing both Singapore and Malaysia was the impact of transborder haze resulting from fires caused by slash-and-burn agricultural clearing in the region. This issue was not only demonstrated in poor air quality in all places visited; it arose in all discussions with international counterparts. It was suggested by many that the haze experienced this year in both Singapore and Malaysia had been worse than in any previous year and that it had had extremely serious negative consequences, including school closures, respiratory illnesses and other environmental impacts. The committee observed that responses ranged from frustration to a sense of futility that the situation may never improve.
Other issues common to both countries related to the use of renewable and sustainable energy and the importance of managing environmental impacts of development, including urban planning, traffic management, secure water supplies and waste management. Underlying these was the need to balance economic development with a commitment to ensuring good standards of environmental protection and biodiversity.
The committee heard on many occasions of the importance of government and non-government agencies working collaboratively to achieve outcomes. It was clear that the highly engaged and cooperative approach of many industry and government bodies had contributed to the rapid success of Singapore's reputation as a stable, progressive and respected place to do business. It was notable that there were differences between what was occurring in Singapore and in Malaysia. In particular, it was noticeable that in Singapore the commitment to greening the environment had taken place over recent years—in fact, they had been very successful at doing this. Given that Singapore is the third-most densely populated country in the world, again, space is not something they have an abundance of, so they were particularly effective in how they managed the limited space that they do have.
The committee was also fortunate to undertake the visit during the Singapore International Energy Week. The committee attended the opening session as well as a discussion panel session about the building of energy resilience. In particular, we were there when Mr Fatih Birol, the newly appointed Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, made observations regarding changing energy prices and political momentum for sustainable energy supplies, while maintaining a global commitment to a reduction in carbon emissions and the status of renewable energies as a mainstream fuel source which will be responsible for two-thirds of all new power plants. Again, the committee also learned about how Singapore is managing its own population challenges and particularly its water supply needs, which come from four different sources.
It was a different situation in Malaysia where, clearly, the palm oil plantations were perhaps the focus of our visit. I would point out that Malaysia is Australia's second-largest trading partner in Asia and the eighth-largest globally. The committee was keenly aware of the importance of the palm oil plantations to the Malaysian economy and was able to meet with representatives of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board and the Sime Darby plantation and refinery. Whilst we note that there is a lot of good work being done to manage the plantations and make them sustainable, there are still some concerns about the palm oil plantations in that country. We also note the importance of the palm oil industry to the country.
Finally, on behalf of the committee I express our appreciation to all of the organisations which were so generous with their time and resources throughout the entire program, the high commissions in both Singapore and Malaysia for all the good work they did, and the committee secretariat for organising and supporting us on our visit.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(3).
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:21): It is a pleasure to speak on the report of our visit to Singapore and Malaysia. It is important, as good stewards of taxpayers' money, that at times people in senior leadership go and see what is going on in different parts of the world to gain a full understanding so they can bring good policy, ultimately, to the Australian people.
The Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment has mentioned the smoke haze which was very evident while we were in both Singapore and Malaysia. I found myself wondering whether I was coming down with the flu because I had a sore throat, I was lethargic and my eyes hurt. The smoke haze was really significant. It was a strong reminder to members of the environment committee that humans are not just custodians of the environment; we live within the environment. When the environment impacts us to that level it does focus the mind on what are the issues at hand.
The discussions around how we deal with smoke haze in a regional context were very relevant. I represent farmers who talk about a drier situation because of climate change, but here were people who were being impacted in terms of air quality because of the different farming practices being adopted in Indonesia. There are lessons that we can learn from that as to how we can use agricultural exchange to help our regional countries lift their farming practices so they can, in turn, diminish and reduce any negative impacts on the environment for people who live in Singapore and Malaysia.
The discussion on the way we construct buildings was very relevant. There is a lot of work being done in Singapore on building things in an environmental framework. With urban planning and building natural airways through cities you lift people's standard of living as they go about their daily lives, simply by having good construction.
The discussion on local answers that empower people was also relevant. We looked at, rather than having a garden city, having a city in a garden, with people growing things in their own communities. Whilst the agriculturalist in me likes broadacre agriculture, and would rather this than buying their food, there is real value in empowering people to grow their food, even in very small, land-constrained areas, using hydroponics and so on. As well as giving people a sense of ownership as to where their food comes from, it allows them to feel, as part of being a human, something about the environment in which they live, even within an urban construct.
There was a lot of discussion around even the future of coal, as we looked at the global energy mix. It became quite evident that coal will certainly be part of the energy mix in the future. The question of course is, 'How can we not denigrate the resource but make sure we use the resource cleanly?' If you think about a 1960s car and the emissions that came out of the 1960s car as opposed to the emissions that come out of a 2015 or 2016 model car, both using petrol, the one is a whole lot cleaner than the other. So there were some discussions around that.
It was also evident that the palm oil industry is addressing some of its big challenges. The world demand for vegetable oil is substantial. On average—and this will make your heart palpitate when you think about this, Mr Speaker—the average Western diet consumes 52 litres of vegetable oil a year: one litre a week. No wonder that we have health problems! The average Eastern diet consumes 13 litres of vegetable oil per year. But that has been increasing as their diet becomes more Westernised. Probably, we should advise them not to become more Westernised! But palm oil is certainly a significant supplier of vegetable oil. There is some really good work being done as they look at how to manage palm oil environmentally and how to use integrated pest management—using owls to control rats and using weevils to control pollination. I found that just fascinating, as a farmer. We always thought that weevils were a pest.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their sense of good nature. There is value in travelling with people who we sometimes abuse across the corridor. We get to know them as friends and get to discuss some of the big challenges for Australia. I also thank the secretary, Julia Morris, for all her hard work and for putting up with us. I think this was worthwhile and I hope it has helped our understanding in order to formulate better policy for Australians when we think about how we live and work responsibly within the environment.
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Statements
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:26): In the hope that our chair, the member for Murray, will be here shortly it gives me great pleasure to speak about our inquiry, which is the inquiry into educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. I want to thank the secretariat staff who are here this morning for the wonderful work they are doing.
In her absence, I want to thank Dr Stone for the way in which she has chaired this committee. She has done it with equanimity and style—and she is just walking into the parliament in a stylish way! I am pleased she is here! But I want to thank her for the way she has led this committee. She continues to work in a very collaborative, consultative way, and I want to applaud her for that.
This committee's inquiry is actually very important. It is something which we need to comprehend in a broader context other than just talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. We need to talk about it in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, families and, indeed, our national interest. Unless we get it right, we are condemning further generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids to low education attainment levels, few job opportunities and, ultimately, a shorter life. That is something which we all need to work against.
What is clear from this inquiry is that one size does not fit all. There are people of goodwill from all sides of the discussion in relation to this matter. There are those who argue that boarding schools are the panacea for Aboriginal education. I do not accept that, and I do not believe that the evidence we have received tells us that. We actually need to develop concentrating our minds around place-based student-centred approaches to educational opportunity. We need to be aware that things are different right across this country. They are different in Darwin from what they are in Alice Springs and Yuendumu, Papunya, Balgo, Perth, Broome and the Cape—they are all different. Anyone who believes that you have a one-size-fits-all approach is deluding themselves.
So I am mindful that there are schools in this country in urban environments where a majority of the families of those children are from a strongly Aboriginal-centred population. At one school I know of, where 95 per cent of the population are Aboriginal kids, about 70 per cent of the parents of those children have themselves not finished year 9, about 65 per cent are not in paid work and 60 per cent of those children are at different times in and out of care of the state. That creates an enormous dilemma.
Then there are those students who are of high need within the population. Many come traumatised because of the environment they live in and what they have observed of their family interaction. We know that FAS and FASD, which have been the subject of this committee's inquiries in the past, is now an important issue which needs to be addressed, yet in the Northern Territory there are simply not enough clinical staff to do the work of looking at the children and doing the diagnosis. So kids are starting in these schools from traumatised backgrounds, impoverished and suffering greatly from the circumstances in which they live, yet we do not have the tools available to us in the health department or in the education system to do the diagnosis properly required for the mental health issues and needs.
This inquiry is really very important. Instead of blaming people for not being high achievers at school, we need to understand the context of the education system in the schools they are in. We need to appreciate that non-attendance might be a matter of a whole range of factors. I know of kids who do not go home at night but turn up at school the next day. They do not go home at night not because they do not want to be at home but because home is not a safe place. These kids will roll up. They will be in trouble with the coppers and go back to school the next day. They are not fed. It is really very difficult. Yet we have a penchant in this place to blame those victims for having poor outcomes. We have got to be a whole lot better than that. We have got to do our utmost to make sure every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child is treated as an individual within the school and community context and get the best possible outcome we can. We must not believe that one size fits all, because it does not.
Dr STONE (Murray) (10:32): I want to thank our deputy chair, the member for Lingiari, a very expert and concerned person who, of course, in a previous life was the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. He is right: we have a very bipartisan committee. We have been together a very long time, and our actual party affiliations do not matter when it comes to Indigenous affairs in this country. All of our governments have tried their very best, but the realities—and this is why we are undertaking this inquiry—are that, when it comes to educational outcomes for our Indigenous students, we still have a very long way to go.
We know that, currently, educational outcomes for Indigenous students fall way below those of non-Indigenous students. By 2020 the Australian education system will have an extra 100,000 Indigenous students enrolling for their first day at school, but that will not be sufficient to guarantee that that extra 100,000 young people arrive at school with their hearing intact, with their nutritional needs having already been well met from their birth or even prior to their birth, or with those students' languages attended to if they are coming to school with English as a second, third or fourth language. We are not sure that the teachers they will encounter in their schools will be respectful of traditional culture and understanding or of the parents' backgrounds. They are often in very remote parts of Australia. We are beginning to see more students enrolling. That is a very good thing. We need to see the outcomes of that enrolment, though, to be equal to any other student in Australia—in fact equal to world best.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs is inquiring into what educational options there are now, whether it is, as the member for Lingiari said, boarding school, out-of-community education, in-community, an all-Indigenous school environment or one of mixed student background. What works best? What data do we have? We are repeatedly reminded, as we were in Adelaide just on Friday, that there is little to no data in Australia about what works best. We have a lot of anecdotes and a lot of Indigenous and non-Indigenous opinions, but we need data so we can say: 'That's what works. That's what doesn't work. Let's get it straight and move on.'
We have a questionnaire, seeking the views and experiences of current students, former students, parents and teachers. It asks them, because we do not want this to be a desktop inquiry where we do not hear from the students themselves and their families. We want to hear from past students about their experiences at school. I am very pleased to say that nearly half of all the responses are from Indigenous people. We have had about 400 responses to this questionnaire and it is still open, so we hope people will get onto the website to give their views.
We also have already found some common threads of concern, for example, about access to ABSTUDY. ABSTUDY is a critical program—not for a minute do we ever hear that it is not of vital importance in helping fund students' education, particularly when they have to move from home. But what we do hear is that the forms that have to be filled in are too complex and too bureaucratic, especially for parents who are not literate themselves, perhaps, or where there is no computer access or the access online is very sporadic. And, of course, when it asks you for something like a birth certificate for your child or children and you do not have a birth certificate—a common situation in remote Australia—then it just goes from bad to farcical.
We also know that there is a potential for ABSTUDY to be used to fund people who take Indigenous kids in residence in some big towns or cities. Those—I will call them 'host families'—are not subjected to any scrutiny for their level of responsibility or accountability as foster parents, minders or carers of those students who are in their care, either in domestic homes or in homes that have been set up specially.
Communities have also expressed concern about the scholarships to elite schools in metropolitan areas and wonder if they are the best thing—when you hollow out the kids who have perhaps achieved the highest and the best in their community schools. They have been removed from their peers and the cohort of kids of the same age and have gone off to the city, perhaps never to return again. We have that same situation throughout Australia, of course, with non-Indigenous students—with the hollowing-out of the brightest and best from rural and regional communities, across the board. But for Indigenous households and communities this is a critical issue to deal with when it comes to trying to give students the best access to all that is available in mainstream society, without losing culture, their family identity and their connection with country. This is the overwhelming desire expressed by Indigenous parents—that their students achieve in mainstream Australian society but also remain proudly and distinctly aware of and capable and competent in their own culture.
So this is an important inquiry. When we have our report available, I commend that to the House. And I thank the deputy chair for making his preliminary remarks.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:37): In accordance with the wishes of the member for Hotham, I move:
That Private Members' Business Notice No. 1 be postponed until a later hour today.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Country-by-Country Reporting) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Leigh.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Picture a glorious summer's evening at the SCG: the stadium lights are blazing, the dusk is settling in, and family and friends are abuzz at the prospect of a close finish to a match that is hanging in the balance. Suddenly a naked man runs out on the pitch, screaming in front of thousands. The security detail finally tackles him after a minute of cavorting.
Incidents such as these are not uncommon. One happened late last year at a Big Bash Twenty20 match, prompting Ricky Ponting in the commentary box to say: 'Let's hope that is a $6,000 fine at least. It's disgraceful; we don't like seeing that. Some people probably do, but it's a bad look for the game.' He was certainly right that the look was bad—for the streaker as well as for the game—but unfortunately Mr. Ponting's quite reasonable minimum fine threshold was above what the real streaker would receive. The penalty for invading the pitch at the Sydney Cricket Ground is $5,500.
Perhaps in the larger scheme of things, a streaker is a public nuisance, but the harm is—let us face it—fairly brief.
The issue of multinational tax avoidance, on the other hand, is a significantly more serious one. I would venture to suggest that Australians are more outraged by multinational tax avoidance than they are by a streaker at the SCG. This is largely thanks to the work of former Treasurer Swan and David Bradbury and the work of Senators Dastyari and Ketter.
One way in which we crack down on multinational tax avoidance is through country-by-country reporting, which helps tax authorities understand what global firms are really up to, where their money is going and how much tax they pay.
But, as it turns out, the maximum fine for breaching country-by-country reporting laws is $5,400—less than the fine for streaking at the Sydney Cricket Ground.
The right thing to do for country-by-country reporting is to ensure that the penalties are raised. Country-by-country reporting applies to firms with revenue of $1 billion or more. They are classified as 'significant global entities' and are subject to more stringent anti-avoidance rules.
Country-by-country reporting is part of the countering-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting (BEPS) plank of the OECD's work. Australia committed to that plank last year through the tax laws amendment (combating multinational profit shifting) bill 2015.
When billion-dollar firms put in their tax returns, they have to provide the Commissioner of Taxation their country-by-country reports.
Should they fail to do so, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 says the company is liable for one penalty unit per 28-day period, up to a maximum of five penalty units. For companies with revenues above $20 million, which would be all of these firms, the base amount of the penalty unit is multiplied by five. So, if it is a $180 penalty unit, we are talking about firms that are subject to a maximum fine of $5,400.
This is 1/185,000th of one of these firms' global revenue. It is 0.00054 per cent of their annual revenue. It is just not good enough.
This bill inserts a new clause in the act that applies specifically to significant global entities. It gives the Commissioner of Taxation more power, setting penalties at 125 penalty units for every 28-day period, up to a maximum of 1,500 penalty units. That raises the penalties to $22,500 per 28 days and a maximum of $270,000, reached after 308 days. That is a penalty 50 times higher than the government has presently in legislation.
We recognise that even for some firms a fine of $270,000 may not be enough to get them to do the right thing, so this bill includes another provision. That provision gives the Commissioner of Taxation power to launch an audit of the company's affairs if they continue to refuse to lodge country-by-country reports after the maximum fine has been reached. That provides another incentive for multinational firms to do the right thing, as some currently do.
Because the provisions apply only to companies defined as significant global entities, there is no risk in this bill of smaller businesses being caught up in this increased penalty regime.
It sends a clear message to big firms: do not think you can get away with paying the fine and doing the wrong thing. We will come after you. We will levy a significant penalty and an audit if you do the wrong thing.
Last week we saw in the Senate the government agree to Labor amendments which provided more tax transparency for multinationals. The government actually, for once, did the right thing and supported Labor's sensible multinational tax amendments. If it has its head screwed on right, the government will do the same with this private member's bill.
Let us remember: the current fine for a multinational who fails to lodge country-by-country accounts is less than the fine for pushing in line at a Gold Coast arts centre.
If the Treasurer thinks that billion-dollar firms who are uncooperative with our tax laws deserve a lighter slap on the wrist than someone who pushes into line on the Gold Coast then he ought to rethink his position.
As Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan recently told the Senate: 'Our Australian tax system is under fire from the actions of multinationals and large companies seeking to abuse it.'
We need a well-resourced tax office. But, since the Abbott-Turnbull government came to office, they have cut 4,700 jobs from the tax office—part of the excessive job cuts we have seen right across the Public Service. There have been over 17,000 job losses, well in excess of the 12,000 public sector job losses that were promised before the coalition came to office.
Labor in government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013, which plugged loopholes in our transfer pricing rules and anti-avoidance provisions. The coalition voted against that bill. Labor made amendments to the Tax Administration Act, requiring the tax office to publish information about firms with revenues of over $100 million listing their taxable income, total income and tax paid. It was no surprise that the coalition voted against that bill in 2013 and did a dodgy deal with the Greens on the last day of the 2015 parliamentary sittings in order to raise the reporting threshold for big private companies. Labor's measure would have seen 900 large private firms in the transparency spotlight. The Liberal-Greens deal knocked out two-thirds of those firms.
Labor in government passed the Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012. Spoiler alert: the Liberal-National coalition voted against that bill, which cracked down on companies that overvalue assets in international transactions.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: Yes really, member for Newcastle; it is shocking. Between 2012 and 2014, according to the Commissioner of Taxation, better information sharing with other countries yielded $730 million in additional tax. It was a Labor government that signed 28 bilateral information-sharing agreements and it is a Labor opposition that continues to lead on multinational tax avoidance.
The coalition only belatedly signed up Australia to the Common Reporting Standard. Joe Hockey had to be dragged kicking and screaming on that one. Where Australia could have been a leader as part of the Early Adopters Group of nations, we were instead a laggard in allowing tax authorities to automatically exchange information about company and individual bank accounts. When the Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) Bill 2015 eventually came up again in parliament, Labor applied pressure on the government to beef it up. Labor's amendments allow the tax office to begin sharing information with other authorities soon.
Labor has a fully costed multinational tax plan ready to go should the government decides it wants real action on multinational profit shifting. That would add $7.2 billion to the budget bottom line without hurting growth and without hurting equity. It demonstrates our commitment to good tax reform.
Labor is committed to increasing ATO compliance by properly resourcing the office; an early start to third-party data-matching; amending the current thin capitalisation rules; reducing debt deductions for multinational firms; better aligning Australia's rules on hybrid entities and instruments with tax laws in other countries; and stopping multinationals from double dipping.
The pattern is clear. The coalition squibs or dithers on multinational tax avoidance. Labor is always fighting for multinational tax rules that work. This bill today increases fiftyfold the maximum penalty for not complying with country-by-country reporting standards, it gives the Commissioner of Taxation new powers to audit firms who continue to withhold reportable information and it provides the Prime Minister and the Treasurer with an opportunity that gone wanting in the nearly six months since they toppled the previous Prime Minister promising economic leadership: a chance to do something serious on tax reform. Should they choose not to join us, their policies on multinational tax remain as naked and content-free as a streaker at the Sydney Cricket Ground.
Debate adjourned.
Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by MsO'Neil.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (10:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
One of the values that is most widely shared amongst Australians is that we care about animals. As parents, one of the first things we teach our children is unnecessary cruelty to animals is simply wrong.
Like most busy Australians, when I am grabbing a new bottle of shampoo in the supermarket or rushing to put on my makeup in the morning, animal welfare is not the first thing on my mind. But it probably should be.
Every year, thousands of animals suffer tremendous pain—and many die—to make the cosmetics that sit on supermarket and chemist shelves around this country. Today, the vast majority of cosmetics in Australian chemists and supermarkets contain ingredients that have been tested on animals at some point in time. It is a practice that—like nine in 10 Australians—I think should be illegal.
What Australians rightly expect is that instead of having to read the fine print of every item in the supermarket aisle, the law will simply reflect the fundamental belief—that unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong.
Animal testing for cosmetics is unnecessary, it is wrong, and today, the law does not reflect the ethics of the community. I think that needs to change.
Labor, along with the vast majority of Australians, shares the view that animals should not have to suffer for better lipstick or moisturiser.
Today, I am pleased to introduce into the House the Ethical Cosmetics Bill that would have the precise effect of bringing those shared values into law.
The Ethical Cosmetics Bill would ban animal testing for cosmetics in Australia, and ban the manufacture and importation into Australia of cosmetics that have been tested on animals elsewhere.
I want to outline the case for why Labor thinks the practice of animal testing for cosmetics should end.
Developing the b ill
In 2013 Labor's deputy leader and the member for Sydney, who is here with us in the chamber and has been very passionately concerned about this issue for a long period, announced that Labor would conduct a national consultation on the importation and sale of cosmetics tested on animals.
Throughout 2014 I worked very closely with the member for Throsby, who is the relevant shadow assistant minister, to lead that consultation.
The public response to our animal testing consultation was really quite extraordinary. We received more than 14,000 submissions and spoke to hundreds of ordinary Australians at public forums held in six locations around Australia.
What did we learn through this consultation? Banning animal-tested cosmetics in Australia has massive community support. More than 90 per cent of submissions to this consultation argued that animal-tested cosmetics should be banned in Australia. In fact, a lot of people we talked to were shocked that this process is still occurring. One of the other things that I thought was really interesting was that this ban is supported by a very wide range of Australians. It is not just people who have built their life with a passion for animal welfare and animal activism. We spoke to grandparents, school children and people from every walk of life who came to us saying that they believe this practice is wrong. In fact, many of the people who talked to us through the consultation process told us that this was the first time they had ever participated in a policy development process in their lives.
We consulted very widely with industry and due to that were able to come to grips with a number of very genuine complications in legislating in this area. I will explain how our bill manages those complications. One of the enduring refrains and one of the critical things that we want people at home to understand is that, while this is a complex area of policy, these challenges have been overcome. They have been overcome in the entire European Union, which was a real trailblazer in banning animal-tested cosmetics in the past. As we see around the world, countries are legislating for this or moving towards that new type of policy, which is very exciting to see. I would say as a final point on the consultation process that people were so energised to be a part of this. They want to see action now, and that is why Labor is taking this step of supporting me to introduce a private member's bill today. We think this has gone on for too long. Now is the time and now is the opportunity.
We heard quite a bit of detail about why animal testing is no longer necessary to prove that cosmetics are safe for human use. I want to quickly touch on some of those reasons. The first thing to note is that it is very clear that animal-tested cosmetics create incredibly high degrees of pain for the animals that are being used for the testing. There are really awful practices that those at home can look up on the internet: things like dripping very painful substances into the eyes of small animals, and things like repeatedly putting irritating lotions on the skin to determine how long it is before really serious consequences occur. We know that animals cannot be anaesthetised in any way, because that might interfere with the results, so we are really talking about a very cruel practice.
We also heard a lot of scientists who came to us and said, 'You know, there's actually no need for this anymore, because we can provide better testing, more accurate testing, of human response without using animals.' There are lots of alternative tests, and again I would point to the European Union as a jurisdiction where they have been able to put those into place.
The consultation pointed us to some difficulties of legislating in this area, and it is incredibly important that the public understand that, while you should have the rightful expectation that the law should reflect your ethics, it is not always as straightforward as it sounds, and that is certainly the case with the regulation of cosmetics. In Australia, cosmetics are regulated as industrial chemicals, so they are not really designed to have specific rules applied just to them. Probably one of the most significant complications is that animal testing is not occurring in Australia today for cosmetic purposes; it is occurring a lot overseas, and of course it is very hard for the Australian parliament to create laws that affect what goes on overseas.
The final complication that I will mention is this notion of dual purpose of testing. One of the things that we learned through the consultation is that most ingredients that are used in cosmetics are actually used in many other substances, and often in medicines. What we want to do with this legislation is actually carve out that bit of testing that is happening purely for cosmetic reasons, and that is a complex thing to do but something that I think we have managed to do in the Ethical Cosmetics Bill which is before the House today.
Our solution
The Ethical Cosmetics Bill bans, and creates offences, for testing cosmetics on animals within Australia.
The bill bans and creates offences for importing into Australia any new cosmetics (or existing cosmetics featuring new ingredients) that have been tested on animals overseas.
The bill before us is prospective only, so that means that anything that is on the shelves of Priceline or Coles at the moment will continue to be there, and in fact we have given the regulator and industry a three-year phase-in period in this bill so that new systems can be put in place and the industry can come to terms with the new standards.
Our bill amends the assessment process for new industrial chemicals which are intended to be used as cosmetics. What that means is that now, to apply for a new cosmetic ingredient to be registered in Australia, the regulator must be provided with the full list of the substance's animal test history and, for any live tests that are conducted, industry must bring forward the reasons why the test was conducted, and if the regulator believes that the dominant purpose for the testing being conducted is for that product's use as a cosmetic then that product cannot be listed to be sold in Australia at all.
In addition to these measures, the regulator, NICNAS, can no longer accept any evidence from animal tests to support the registration of a new cosmetic ingredient.
The Ethical Cosmetics Bill is a piece of legislation that—for the first time in this parliament—genuinely grapples with the difficulties of legislating in this area.
In 2014, a bill to ban animal testing was introduced in the other place. And I want to acknowledge Senator Rhiannon in moving that bill. But it was a piece of legislation that was manifestly inadequate.
If I can point to just a couple of issues, the current IC(NA) Act, which the Ethical Cosmetics Bill would seek to amend, actually requires animal testing in one of its schedules, yet the legislation put forward by the Greens made it an offence to test on animals. So, in essence, to comply with the law you would have to be breaking the law—clearly not a sustainable position for the industry.
We also heard very clearly that no industry consultation was undertaken by the Greens, and in fact the peak body for cosmetics manufacturers in Australia did not learn about the legislation until it was introduced into the Senate, and that is just not good policymaking. We have to work with all of the stakeholders who are in this space if we want to get a deal that is actually going to properly work, and that is what Labor have done: we have worked through a proper process. We did not rush in some poorly thought-through legislation. We methodically worked through the issues.
I want to make a quick final point on why this matters. Some people have said, in the course of this consultation, that this is not a very important issue.
But I want to say to those people that, if that is your view, I encourage you to get out there into your community and talk to people about what matters to them. So much of what we deal with in this parliament feels really esoteric to the people that we represent. This is not one of those issues.
Ninety per cent of Australians want this to happen.
We have the power to do something about it.
We have people on all sides of this parliament and chamber who believe it should be done.
So I am very glad to present the Ethical Cosmetics Bill to the House for consideration.
Debate adjourned.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Is there a seconder to the motion presented by the member for Hotham?
Mr Stephen Jones: With great enthusiasm I second the motion, congratulate the member for Hotham for bringing the matter before the House and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Flags Amendment (Protecting Australian Flags) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Christensen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Flags Amendment (Protecting Australian Flags) Bill 2016 will enshrine in law protections for the most recognised symbol of our nationhood and our identity as a people—protections a majority of Australian people mistakenly believe already exist.
This bill responds to flag-burning cases that any red-blooded Australian should (and probably does) find disgusting and offensive.
I note that similar instances in the recent past have led to similar bills being introduced to this place, notably in 2003, 2006 and 2008.
Indeed, colleagues have queried the value of bringing this private member's bill to parliament, given the failure of previous attempts made to protect the integrity of the Australian flag.
While this bill is not so very different, the times most certainly are.
These are turbulent times.
These are uncertain times.
In these times, we need the strong foundation of cultural values and beliefs upon which this nation was founded and through which this nation has flourished.
But ill winds blow and the sea of public discourse is polluted with a distracting and self-harming froth and bubble of our own making.
The chattering classes and the self-proclaimed elite, egged on by a compliant and self-serving media, are forcing the entire nation to apologise for everything the nation is and represents.
And the people of this nation, willing or not, have allowed this cancer to take root.
In such a climate, this bill may be viewed as one sailing against the winds of political opinion.
But this is an opportunity for Australians—real Australians—who still believe in the 'fair go', still believe we are the lucky country and still believe that opportunities abound—equally—to all who value their good fortune of being born in (or migrating to) Australia.
In such a climate, this bill can either ride the wave of political correctness, buoyed by the mechanisms contained within public discourse and already enshrined in law—or the nation risks a rising tide of revolt.
The key argument one could raise against this bill is one of free speech.
I, too, believe in freedom of speech.
I have spoken at length in this place on the virtues of free speech, particularly in relation to section 18C of the discrimination act.
It is within the context of section 18C that this bill must be supported.
Freedom of speech is important in a democracy.
But that ship sailed the day that 18C was entrenched in law.
Section 18C was an amendment the Labor government made to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
What section 18C makes unlawful is, and I quote: 'Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin'.
Two things are required for section 18C to apply to an act:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Of particular interest here is the inclusion of the words 'national or ethnic origin'.
I note that the Human Right Commission omit any reference to 'national origin' in an their article explaining the law, an article titled: 'At a glance: Racial vilification under sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).'
The article says, under the heading: 'What does the law say?':
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race or ethnicity.
It is not surprising that the Human Rights Commission have omitted, very conveniently, the words 'national origin'.
Last year, I lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission about flag-burning activities by protestors at a rally.
The response from the Human Rights Commission was this:
It is not clear how it could be argued that the burning of the flag in these particular circumstances was done because of your race, national original or ethnic origin or the race, national or ethnic origin of Australians of European descent.
The circumstances mentioned are these.
The flag-burning incident took place on 4 April last year. Protestors burned the Australian flag to chants of 'No pride in genocide' and 'Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land'.
In these circumstances, I cannot see how burning the Australian national flag can be anything but an attack based on nationality and, specifically, Australians of European descent.
The protesters' action was not about burning the physical entity but about attacking the values and ideals of the nation that it represents.
The existence of this connection is the very reason why this particular symbol was chosen to be desecrated.
They did not burn an ISIS flag.
They did not burn a swastika.
They specifically chose to burn our nation's symbol because they knew that would cause maximum offence to their targets—patriotic Australians of European extraction, who have as much right to be in this country as Aboriginal Australians—or anyone else.
The act was designed to offend.
The act was intended to offend.
If section 18C is not equally applied to all, then it is a joke.
If section 18C protects peoples of all nations except Australia, and people of all ethnicity except Australians of European descent, then the act is legislated racism itself.
I know the protestors who burned the Australian flag on that day would be great supporters of section 18C because it affords them protection against the free speech of others while denying those same protections to others.
If those people support section 18C’s suppression of free speech then they absolutely must support this bill.
The Australian flag is declared to be the national flag by the Flags Act 1953 and this bill will afford protection to the Australian national flag, the Australian red ensign, and any other flag or ensign appointed under section 5 of the act.
The bill seeks to provide protection by making it a criminal offence to wilfully destroy or otherwise mutilate the flag in circumstances where a reasonable person would infer that the dishonouring and defiling of the flag by burning or other actions is intended publicly to express contempt or disrespect for the flag or the Australian nation.
The protections afforded by this bill would also extend to the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag, which are our nation's flags as well.
There is a widespread belief, as I said before, in the general community that such protections already exist.
There is also widespread opposition to the provisions made in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Such an imbalance—impinging on freedom of speech to protect some while refusing to protect others—is contrary to our cultural values as Australians.
Discrimination is not a one-way street, regardless of whether acts and speech are directed at a minority or a majority.
Racism is racism.
You do not have to have brown skin to be able to be offended.
You do not have to follow a radical ideology based on death, fear, torture and degradation of women to be offended.
Attacks on one’s nationality and ethnicity cut both ways and we cannot outlaw one without outlawing the other.
If this bill was in response to desecration of the Aboriginal flag, this would be a very short debate indeed.
But the politically correct crowd only tolerates intolerance and discrimination if it is against the perceived majority.
But the perceived majority are rapidly becoming a political minority in their own country, and that is why there is a growing backlash against political correctness.
If we sell off free speech in exchange for appeasement then it must cut both ways.
If discrimination against ordinary Australians continues to flourish through this culture of political correctness, then natural consequences will follow.
Someone will take up the mantle and speak for the masses.
It was the suppression of open discussion in Australia that led to the rise of Pauline Hanson.
It has been the same 'thought police' in America that has seen the rise of Donald Trump.
If the sanctimonious elite decry any thoughts and suppress any discussions that do not comply with their own ideological view of the world, they will give birth to something they find even more intolerable.
The general community has valid concerns.
Their concerns and thoughts deserve a voice.
In giving protection to our foremost national symbol, through this bill, we give them that voice. Can I end by saying to those concerned about freedom of speech that burning a flag is not speaking.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
International Women's Day
Ms BUTLER ( Griffith ) ( 11:11 ): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that International Women's Day will be observed on 8 March 2016;
(2) recognises that the day has its origins in the labour movement, and that March 8 was the date of the New York garment workers' strike of 1908, in which women called for an end to sweatshops and child labour;
(3) acknowledges that International Women's Day is a day to seek further progress in advancing the political and economic welfare of women at home and across the world;
(4) recognises:
(a) the publication of the shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children, by Our WATCh, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), and Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS), in November 2015; and
(b) that that framework, Change the Story, states that violence against women and their children is preventable, and makes clear that gender inequality is the core of the problem, and the heart of the solution; and
(5) in marking International Women's Day, recommits to achieving gender equality, and to advancing the political and economic welfare of women, domestically and internationally.
International Women's Day is a day for women around the world to seek equality for women around the world. I am really proud to be part of a labour movement and a political party that has achieved significant reforms that have improved the lives of women in Australia. We should acknowledge progress in marking International Women's Day; we should make sure we think about the progress we have made. We should also remember that addressing inequality is important for a lot of reasons and that, to end violence against women, our nation must address gender inequality.
International Women's Day has its origins in the labour movement—8 March was the date of the 1908 New York garment workers' strike. It is a day of international solidarity recognising that, for women to be equal anywhere, women must be equal everywhere. Here at home, I am proud to be part of a labour movement that has been at the vanguard of fighting for gender equality. The ACTU's equal pay test cases of 1969 and 1972 were watershed moments for gender equality. In government, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam reopened the national wage and equal pay cases, resulting in half a million female workers becoming eligible for full pay. He did a lot of other things to advance gender equality too. You would remember, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that, by the time he left office, specialist grassroots health and welfare organisations had been funded, no-fault divorce had been allowed and restrictions on the pill had been lifted, giving women control over their sex lives.
Labor governments since then have advanced gender equality. Most recently it was Labor, under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard, that initiated Australia's first ever National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. The members for Jagajaga and Sydney should be very proud of their leadership in relation to that national plan.
Even in opposition, our commitment to gender equality has been very clear. The first policy that our leader, Bill Shorten, announced was for immediate measures to assist people facing family violence. That package comprises more than $70 million, including approximately $50 million for frontline legal services, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. A Shorten Labor government will also make domestic violence leave a universal workplace right. These measures stand in stark contrast to the Turnbull government's funding cuts in the order of tens of millions of dollars to front-line legal centres and the $44 million a year in capital expenditure cuts to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness—noting that domestic violence is the largest cause of homelessness in this country.
We should not just focus on treating violence; we should seek to reduce and ultimately eliminate it. That makes International Women's Day the ideal time to talk about violence against women, because the evidence shows gender inequality lies at the root of that violence. Addressing inequality is a form of primary prevention for gendered violence, therefore. There is much effort going into reducing violence and into programs for women more generally. I acknowledge ANROWS, Our Watch and Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, which is the provider of the national telephone counselling and referral service 1800RESPECT. Those organisations are giving effect to the national plan, alongside countless state and local services.
I also acknowledge the many national alliances and organisations working for gender equality, like economic Security4Women, the Equality Rights Alliance, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, the National Rural Women's Coalition and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Alliance. The alliances to which I have referred bring together women's organisations and individuals from across Australia to share information, identify issues that affect them and identify solutions. Their advocacy means that governments are better able to hear women's diverse voices.
As International Women's Day is, of its nature, as I have said, concerned with the condition of women everywhere, I want to acknowledge all organisations with an international role, like UN Women. Of course, many members of this House will be going to events hosted by UN Women around the country to mark International Women's Day on 8 March, or around that date.
I mentioned violence, and I did so advisedly, because of the connection between violence against women and gender inequality. It is not just my view that that is the case. There is a great resource that people will want to read which was distributed last year by the Australian National Research Organisation for Women's Safety—ANROWS, which I have mentioned—VicHealth and Our Watch. It is called Change the story and it is a primary prevention framework for a consistent and integrated national approach to prevent violence against women and their children. That work showed that gender inequality is the major driver of violence against women. Thanks to the important research and work that was done, we now have a road map to change, but that change will only happen if we make confronting gender inequality a national priority. For everyone's sake, I wish all of the organisations that are working towards gender equality very well for the future.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:17): I thank my colleague the member for Griffith for introducing this motion today and I am very proud to second it. International Women's Day is recognised on 8 March every year. Importantly, it is a day to celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women worldwide, but it is also an opportunity for us all to reflect on and assess just how far women have come in our collective struggle for equality both here in Australia and abroad.
Born at a time of great social turbulence and crisis, International Women's Day inherited a tradition of protest and political activism. I want to pay tribute to the garment workers who on 8 March 1857 marched and picketed the streets of New York City, demanding improved working conditions, a 10-hour day and equal rights for women. Here we are, nearly 160 years on, and there are still millions of garment workers, mostly women, around the world who are struggling to survive on poverty wages and provide for their children. They are forced to work 14 hours a day in appalling conditions. Last month I was in Cambodia witnessing firsthand some of the great work that Cambodian women are doing to improve the working lives and conditions of women garment factory workers. I was honoured to stand alongside garment workers fighting for their dignity at work.
While progress towards gender equality has been slow and uneven across the globe, achieving equality for women and girls is essential, not merely because it is a matter of fairness and fundamental human rights but because progress in so many other areas depends on it. According to the latest data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, equality in the Australian workforce is still a very long way off. Two key measures expose the inequality. Firstly, there is still a 24 per cent gender pay gap for full-time workers. Secondly, just 15.4 per cent of CEO positions are held by women, and women are only 27.4 per cent of key management personnel, despite women making up nearly half of the total workforce.
Discrimination in the workplace based on gender is also a major obstacle, in particular for pregnant women and women returning to work after having a child. According to the Human Rights Commission's pregnancy and return to work report, one in two mothers experienced discrimination in the workplace during pregnancy or parental leave or on return to work. In the most recent financial year, the Human Rights Commission received 136 complaints from women about pregnancy discrimination, with another 63 complaints lodged by parents who felt discriminated against because of their family responsibilities or breastfeeding needs. We also have a situation where in a number of industries, including the Australian Public Service, new mothers are being forced to trade off important workplace conditions, such as lactation breaks and flexible work arrangements, to secure modest wage increases.
When it comes to violence against women and their children, the data is especially shocking. In Australia, at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. Intimate partner violence contributes to more death, disability and illness in women aged 15 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor. One in three Australian women has experienced physical violence and one is five has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. The social, health and economic costs of violence against women are enormous. Preventing such violence is a matter of national urgency.
There is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates a strong and consistent association between gender inequality and levels of violence against women. I especially want to acknowledge the work of Our Watch, ANROWS and VicHealth and their report Change the story, which details a national evidence based approach to preventing violence against women and their children. To change the story we need to recognise that violence against women and their children is preventable. It is not an inevitable or intractable social problem, but the evidence makes clear that gender inequality is both the core of the problem and the heart of the solution too.
There are five essential actions needed to address the gendered drivers of violence against women. Collectively, we need to challenge the condoning of violence against women; promote women's independence and decision-making; challenge gender stereotypes and roles; strengthen positive, equal and respectful relationships; and promote and normalise gender equality in public and private life. It is time to redouble our efforts to address gender inequality both domestically and internationally. We owe it to the women garment workers of 1857 and we owe it to current and future generations of women across the globe.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:22): I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak about International Women's Day, and I thank the member for Griffith for her motion. International Women's Day offers an opportunity to acknowledge the enormous achievements made by women throughout the world, both past and present. It is a day to celebrate those giants of history who fought for suffrage, who fought for reproductive rights, who fought for a place at the boardroom table and whose fight carries on today. Many of these fighters do not have their names recorded in history books. To them, I must express my gratitude, for without their tireless efforts I would not stand in this great chamber today, probably the member for Griffith would not stand in this chamber today, the member for Newcastle would not stand in this chamber today nor the member for Bendigo.
I also owe my place here to the working-class matriarchy of my great-grandmother, my grandmother and my mother. These women exemplified the hard-headed determination of those to whom this day is dedicated. Thanks to them, and those just like them, I have been able to run a successful business, sit on boards and be elected to parliament to proudly represent the people of Canberra.
Yet today, in spite of all that has already been achieved, the task remains unfinished. We must continue to fight for equal pay. Australian women are earning less today than they ever have when compared with their male colleagues. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the gender pay gap has soared to above 18 per cent—just outrageous. The data show that male salaries have increased by 2.9 per cent over the past year while, alarmingly, women's salaries have only gone up by 1.9 per cent.
We must also fight to improve the representation of women on boards. Research shows, again and again, that improving diversity on boards, including increasing the number of women has a positive impact on the performance of an organisation. And it is not just about women here; it also about people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Through the boards I have been a member of, both the commercial and the not-for-profit sector, I have seen the positive impacts firsthand. I have also seen some cynics who have doubted the need for diversity who have had their opinions completely turned around. They have seen the impact on the decision making, the benefit it delivers to decision making and, ultimately, to the bottom line.
We must also continue to fight to end violence against women. Violence against women in Australia is a deep-rooted cultural problem, and it is shocking. I know, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you have spoken on this issue many, many times. One in three women in Australia has experienced physical violence. Almost one in five has been subjected to sexual assault. And one woman is killed by her partner or former partner every week. These figures are breathtakingly appalling. This is unacceptable; it is never acceptable. Family violence is violence and we must call it for what it is, whenever we see it. And, as with all forms of violence, we must do whatever we can to support those who feel its pain most sharply.
I also want to ensure that women have the financial literacy to plan for their retirement. I often speak with women, many of them retired, who are doing it tough living on the pension and living in social housing, quite often in the private rental market. I am worried that too many women have not planned for their future beyond work. I am worried that too many women do not have a plan for retirement.
Since I was elected, I have organised seminars to help women understand how much superannuation they have so they can work out how much they need for their retirement and how much they need to put away each week—bearing in mind that sometimes they are going to be in and out of part-time work and off having children, it factors in the fluctuations of their career. Understanding the detail of what they need for their retirement will allow them to better plan for their futures. A man is not a financial plan. Sisters, a man is not a financial plan nor should he be.
We have come a long way in the last 100 years, but our achievements have barely touched many women in developing countries. We still need to fight to ensure equal rights and equal opportunities are shared by our sisters throughout the world. The member for Newcastle recently spoke about the trip we did to Cambodia with Save the Children, where we heard extraordinary stories from Save the Children and a range of NGOs about how they are making a huge difference in empowering women through microloans, through reproductive rights, through education on sexual harassment and what it actually looks like, and through postnatal and maternal health.
Those who have done so much throughout history entrust a responsibility in us to carry on their great work. Just as women of Australia's past have made possible the achievements of women of Australia's present, we bear the responsibility to improve the opportunities and outcomes of the next generation.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Disability Services) (11:28): I join with my colleagues on this side of the House and thank the member for Griffith for bringing this motion forward, as we approach the 105th annual observance of International Women's Day on 8 March. In particular, I note paragraph 3 of the motion, which acknowledges that there is still so much more work to be done:
… in advancing the political and economic welfare of women at home and across the world.
It is the last part of the statement which I wish to address—women across the world—and, more specifically, the women in neighbouring countries in the Pacific, including Papua New Guinea, Bougainville, the Solomons, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Timor-Leste. I was pleased to join the member for Newcastle and the member for Forrest with the then Minister Ciobo at the end of last year, particularly on this issue in the Pacific region.
Despite achievements in Australia, spare a thought for the women in Papua New Guinea, where five die every day in childbirth—the worst mortality rate in the world on our doorstep. If we look across the Pacific, those rates are not much better in other countries and nations. So I am delighted that the person who is doing more than anyone else in this space is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop. She has made it a particular passion and determination of hers to address gender inequality, particularly in our neighbouring region, and she has made sure that that is part of the government's priority in delivering aid to our neighbours.
The members of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade welcomed the opportunity to advance this agenda with their recent inquiry, 'Empowering women and girls: The human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific Region'. During that inquiry we found some very stark examples of the problems our sisters in our neighbouring countries are experiencing. However, significant improvements under the leadership of the Minister for Foreign Affairs were achieved through our aid program in 2014-15, a the new Gender Equality Fund and a revised strategic direction are increasing progress towards meeting our gender equality target and empowering women and girls. This fund supports commitments to advance international efforts on critical gender equality issues, including ending violence against women and girls and promoting women's leadership.
I was delighted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a statement only this morning setting out further strategy goals to empower women under the Gender Equality Fund, where she has once again committed more funds to deliver programs in our region. I particularly note the Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development, now up to $320 million, which is specifically looking at increasing the effective representation of women and women's interests through leadership at all levels of decision making—which is of course very difficult given the lack of women in those leadership roles; expanding women’s economic opportunities to earn an income and accumulate economic assets—and we have been able to see first hand some of those projects, particularly in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomons; reducing violence against women; and increasing access to support services and to justice for survivors of violence. Those are very big challenges in our region.
Australia is working with church leaders from four of the five main churches across 30 communities in the Solomon Islands targeting 10,000 men and women, trying to change attitudes and behaviours on violence against women. I pay tribute to the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre, who have developed some excellent programs and who, I believe, have established a template that can be delivered across the Pacific to other nations. In fact, one of the recommendations of our committee was that we look at empowering that group to deliver more programs to neighbouring countries.
We need to build the capacity of our Pacific women, and I note the Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Program. Many colleagues on both sides of this House work with our sisters in Papua New Guinea, Bougainville and the Solomons to try to progress their right to be able to speak up for women in their countries. It was disappointing that recently in Vanuatu there were no women elected, but I do take this opportunity to congratulate the President of Samoa for what he is doing for women in his country. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:33): I congratulate the member for Griffith for bringing this very important motion to the parliament—a motion that is very important for women and one that this parliament has traditionally debated every year. Women of this parliament get behind the motion—and men, too, I hope—and really debate issues around International Women's Day, which will be next Tuesday, 8 March. Unfortunately, parliament will not be sitting that day.
International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. I must say that it is pleasing to see a couple of more women on the frontbench on the other side of this House, but I would like to see a lot more. It is great to see how women have been embraced in the opposition, in the Labor Party. The fact that we have a target of 50 per cent of representatives being women by 2020 is, I think, a phenomenal Labor Party policy.
International Women's Day has been observed since 1911. It was relevant then and it is relevant now, because there is still a lot of work to be done in this space. It is about women's struggle for equality and human rights. Over the years, it has seen women campaign for rights to work, to vote, to be trained, to hold public office and to end discrimination. Even though there have been big moves in those areas, there is still a lot of work to be done. I remember when I first started working, I did not receive the same pay that a male colleague working in the same position received. I had done my HSC and I got a similar result to his in my HSC, but I was a woman and, because I was a woman, it was deemed that I should be paid less. That has changed, but there is still pay discrimination and pay discrepancy between women and men. That is a challenge for both sides of this parliament to address, and it is a challenge that we on this side of the parliament are up to.
International Women's Day focuses on celebrating the past and planning for the future and a world free of violence against women. It is important to note that violence against women is still very prevalent throughout the world and, unfortunately, in our own society. Last year two women lost their lives each week as a result of domestic violence. That is something that we as a nation cannot allow to continue. International Women's Day also focuses on empowering women, particularly women in rural areas, ending poverty and hunger and many, many other issues. It covers a broad spectrum of our society.
By empowering women and making sure that women are considered equal in all aspects of our life, we actually empower men too. A society that values every member is a society that will move forward. Nowadays we have made inroads into gender equality in Australia, but there is more that needs to be done and there is more that can be done on the international stage. The member for Ryan mentioned the Pacific Women’s Parliamentary Partnerships. This is something that I have been involved in, and I think this parliament can play an important role. Some other issues that we need to keep in mind are the need for equality of pay for men and women, more women in politics and, as I mentioned, more women on corporate boards. It is something that we need to concentrate on in this parliament. So let's not be complacent, let's not sit back and think there are no issues to address; there are many issues. Addressing and empowering women will be good for our society as a whole. (Time expired)
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (11:38): I am proud to rise in support of this motion, and I congratulate the member for Griffith for bringing this motion to the House. Advocating and protecting the rights of women and children in our society is something I feel strongly about, and I am proud to discuss this motion today.
One of my proudest moments as a member of parliament was being asked to speak on behalf of the government at the Our Watch launch last November. And the launch of Change the Story, a comprehensive framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia, is a vital step in the campaign to end domestic violence as part of the broader National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.
During my speech, and in subsequent speeches, I noted how the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women survey indicated a prevalence of low understanding of violence against women and a tendency to excuse it or ignore it, particularly in younger people. Young people indicated they were supportive of gender equality in areas such as education and employment, yet are still far more likely to endorse relationships where men have power over women. This is a disturbing indication that points to a lack of understanding and education and an urgent need for negative attitudes around gender equality and violence to change. Violence against women is about power; perhaps, this is why the statistics endorsing a man's power over a woman in a relationship are so troubling.
It is so important to acknowledge and celebrate International Women's Day. As the motion states, it recommits to achieving gender equality and advancing the political and economic welfare of women domestically and internationally. Negative attitudes about gender equality that support a lack of recognition of violence in all its forms exist across all segments of the Australian community. There is little wonder then that 79 per cent of girls and women believe gender stereotypes affect their day-to-day lives. But we can make the choice to change the story. We can create a future where women and children can live lives free of violence. This shared national approach to ending violence against women and children will take time. Attitudes and culture do not change overnight; but, with persistence and a united message, together we can save lives and create a future for women full of hope—starting now.
This year the Central Coast International Women's Day Expo is being held this Saturday at the Ourimbah Campus of the University of Newcastle. With the hashtag #MakeltHappen2016 and the tag line Step It Up for Gender Equality the event is sure to attract an even larger crowd than last year. The 2016 Central Coast International Women's Day event is sponsored by Wyong Shire Council, Gosford City Council, District 9685 Rotary, Central Coast Lions Club, the University of Newcastle, Zonta, Sea FM, 2GO, the Soroptimist Society, Central Coast Women's Health Centre, National Home Doctor Service, Hunter TAFE, BPW Australia, Women of Wisdom and the Avoca Beach Picture Theatre. It is great to see all of the community coming together for this great event.
The day will include stalls and activities as well as presentations from various organisations—a day of celebration, information and entertainment. Saturday's event will see attendees from all over New South Wales converge on Dobell and celebrate the great achievements by women in our community. There will be seminars conducted on the day by local speakers who are committed to making a difference. Topics include the Days for Girls project and ways to create sound financial futures. The official opening will include special guest speaker, Central Coast icon and Paralympian Liesl Tesch. She will talk about her life in the spotlight and how she has overcome her challenges to become a Paralympian and a gold medallist. She is truly an amazing women. But, as usual, this event would not possible without the fantastic volunteer efforts of the International Women's Day Committee. I would like to thank the Central Coast committee for their great work again this year. Their effort and dedication is truly to be commended.
Being able to advance the economic welfare of women, domestically and internationally, can only provide a sound baseline for the growth of any country. International Women's Day is about being able to celebrate all that women have contributed to society and to our community. After all, without women, what would there be? However, we as a society need to make the necessary changes to make our world safe for women and children.
I commend this motion to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:43): I am excited that the parliament will not be meeting on 8 March this year, and I look forward to joining with women in my electorate to mark, celebrate and share stories on International Women's Day. I look forward to attending the Zonta Club of Bendigo annual dinner. On the same night, there is dinner held by the Zonta Club of Kyneton. Every year we have a great guest speaker. It is a chance for women to come together, network, support one another and share stories.
International Women's Day is an important day for all of us to mark, whether we are men or women. Its roots began in the labour movement on 8 March when New York garment workers went on strike calling for decent pay, an end to sweat shops and an end to child labour. As previous members have reflected in this discussion today, there are still many parts of the world where women are still taking this action. We saw in Cambodia, last year and the year before, garment workers striking for very similar reasons to those of New York garment workers in 1908. Cambodia garment workers took industrial action and are now the first workers in their country to have a legal minimum wage—women in women's industries standing up to say not only that they will not have child labour and sweatshops but that they need a minimum wage. In Cambodia there are still lots of challenges when it comes to gender equality, whether it is the issue of wages and treatment in the workplace or education levels, which are incredibly low, particularly for young women and girls, because they are quite often asked to stay at home to care for younger children or to help with household chores.
In our own country we have our own challenges, and this year, on International Women's Day, I would like to acknowledge the campaign by our early childhood educators calling for equal pay. Early childhood educators are people with qualifications, predominantly women who have minimum cert qualifications; some of them have diplomas. Yet their wages are shockingly low compared with those in male based industries with the same qualifications. The importance of their work cannot be underestimated. They are educating our next generation of Australians—education and care from nought to five—yet their wages remain incredibly low. So, this year on International Women's Day I call on all people in this place to sign onto their campaign for equal pay. They are calling for the gender pay gap in their sector to be closed. And it does need government support. We cannot continue to expect parents to pay for early childhood education. Government has a role to play to partner, to help fund this sector to ensure that these educators, these women, earn decent pay—that their work is recognised and that they are paid professional wages.
On International Women's Day I would also like to call on this government to do more to support older women—women who have retired and are trying to survive on very small retirement incomes. For a lot of women who have retired or are about to retire and who are on their own, when they first started working there was no such thing as super. Quite often they were required to leave work the moment they married or fell pregnant. So, they do not have the superannuation that many of their male counterparts do at a similar age. Homelessness for women over the age of 55 is one of the fastest-growing homeless categories in this country. That is pretty alarming and pretty shocking. So, on this International Women's Day I call upon all of us to do more to advocate for older women who have retired and who are trying to survive on the single pension. As Maggie put it to me: 'It was okay whilst I was still working; I could afford my rent, could afford to go out to the movies occasionally. But the single pension today does not really cover the basics.' She said 60 per cent of her pension goes on rent. That is just how expensive it has become in the regions to survive.
On International Women's Day we should acknowledge the struggles and the challenges ahead, but we should also acknowledge the achievements of the past. It will take all of us speaking up for these issues to really bring about gender equality. On International Women's Day it is important that we remember these causes.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:48): It has been a pleasure to be here for the contribution that each member has made in regard to International Women's Day. In 1935 my mother wrote out a cheque to the State Electricity Commission for an electricity bill for a store down the road from the corner store which my grandfather owned. You do not pay the electricity bill for a store unless you own it. You do not pay the electricity bill for the drapery store down the street unless you have invested into it. And my mum did. I make the point on International Women's Day that my mum, as a single individual at that time, went down the road after the 1934 flood—I suppose the owner was a bit knocked about—and purchased the business, which grew into a business that she created all over Gippsland.
When I came into this place I suggested in my maiden speech that women had played a major role in the fact that I was here in this place, and there was great hilarity amongst the members as I gave that address. The fact is that it is the truth. A major part of the inspiration for a lot of my political activity has come from the women around me in my life who encouraged me, who said, 'You've got to have a go—come into this place and be a parliamentarian.' I mentioned those women in my maiden speech. Outside of that I have been a business person all my life, along with my father and my mother, and there was never any discrimination with regard to how much a person who worked for you was paid. There was an award rate for an adult or for whoever it was. We paid over and above the award rate, but it did not matter whether you were male or female.
So, for me, the gender issue that is outlined in the motion today has not been a part of my concern outside the policy matters for the nation, because in my family we did not have an issue with gender equality. My sisters were treated in exactly the same manner as their brothers were. My cousins, whether male or female, were treated in exactly the same way, because our role models in leadership were both male and female—drivers and entrepreneurs and people who build up businesses. My mum took businesses from Korumburra right across Gippsland to Pakenham, to Berwick, to Nar Nar Goon and to Tooradin and did all sorts of things, but she was an entrepreneur. She was an absolute natural. She employed a whole lot of people, male and female, in all of those businesses. And I grew up in a society, in a family that did not have any gender bias whatsoever, because we accepted the leadership of the females within our community.
I see it now in my own electorate in the farming community. Gender equality in farming families is a known exercise—the contribution women make to our local government, to our state government areas. Melina Bath is a new member for the upper house in Victoria, working in my area, and it is great to have her onboard—she is a Nationals member—as a contributor to the governance of our area of Gippsland.
I understand that there are places where women have been held back and where barriers and walls have been put up, but I do not see it in the House of Representatives, in the organisation that is here. I am seeing less of it in parliamentary terms and I am seeing a positive outlook for the way women are excelling in academia and law—in all aspects, especially in this parliament. Some of the most talented people in our nation's history—I am reading a book on women who came to this foreign shore immediately after the tall ships came here and the struggles that they went through. I am reading the individual biographies of these people and how these women survived the trauma of coming to this nation, how they excelled and how they played a really big part in our wool industry and in the creation of the industrial future for Australia.
Not only have women played a part in the nation's life, in building this nation we have today, but also they have played a role in the individual lives of people like me. That has been an expression of a gender-free action. That is why I never get asked, 'Do you get it with women?' I do not have to be asked. They already know that I get it.
Dr STONE (Murray) (11:53): It seems ironic, doesn't it, that, in the 21st century, we need to have an International Women's Day to emphasise the fact that, despite it being the 21st century, we still have more women and girls being the victims of violence, particularly of the global violence of terrorism, which is now at its worst in international history. In Australia, we still have a 17 per cent difference in wages for the same work undertaken by men and women, and that pay gap is increasing, which seems incredible in a country such as ours. Of course, we as a nation are distressed and disgusted by the gender based violence, the intimate-partner violence, which is at such a level in Australia where there are so many women who fear for their lives and their children's lives every day.
I am very proud and pleased to say that, just today, we had the launch of Promoting opportunities for all: gender equality and women’s empowerment by our fantastic Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop. This is a strategy which goes with our commitment that 80 per cent of our foreign aid annually will be directed towards the empowerment of women and girls in our region. When we say 'empowerment' we mean the reduction of poverty, particularly as it impacts on women and girls. We want to ensure that it is not women and girls who are least likely to have nutritional benefits in the household.
We have a region where we have the irony, again, of both obesity and stunting having an impact on a lot of our women and girls, and the children in our communities. I am proud to say that we are currently, in the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee, doing an inquiry into how Australia can better support the nutritional advances of the 21st century. In the Asia-Pacific, women and girls have always been particularly engaged in horticulture and agriculture and in providing food for their households, but, at this time, it is more likely that women and girls are either stunted or suffering from non-communicable diseases associated with obesity.
Let me also say that I am proud of the fact that Australia is pursuing a place on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I believe we would make a major contribution to the commission, given our human rights record in this country. We were one of the first nations to ensure that there were absolutely no laws written into our governance, both state and federally, that allowed discrimination in any shape or form. It is against the law in Australia for women or girls to be discriminated against based on their gender. It is so important that we acknowledge that.
Of course, in our region we also acknowledge that Indigenous peoples often suffer, and that it is women of Indigenous groups who too often bear the brunt of discrimination, of poverty, of being captured into the sex trade or of their children being forced into labour without proper payment. In our region, we would like to say that the reproductive health rights of women and girls, particularly our women, are improving. We have certainly brought down instances of maternal deaths—that is a very good thing—through some of our superbly functioning NGOs in Australia. I mention Marie Stopes International Australia as one of those.
We are trying to make sure that we do not have a situation where women are not in control of the size of their families or the spacing of their families so that, instead, they can have healthy births and healthy children, who can be properly sustained and cared for according to their family's means. As a nation, Australia champions reproductive rights. I am also proud that our nation is one of the first to address issues like female genital mutilation. It is concerning that, in Indonesia, there appears to be an increase in some of these practices.
I am a very proud Australian woman who knows that gender equality and women's empowerment is central to the focus of this government and to the focus of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop. I commend this motion to the House.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (11:58): In the very short time I have available to me, I would like to thank the member for Griffith for raising this motion in parliament. International Women's Day is an important day to reflect on the issues around gender and on the role and the contribution that women play in Australia and around the world. I also want to acknowledge the work that is being done by the Minister for Women. I really look forward to the day that we do not need a Minister for Women, when we will have the same political, social and business status for all. I look forward to that.
I have come, today, from a launch by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on gender empowerment in the foreign aid program. I commend her and the department for the great work they are doing there. A great deal has been done to ensure that our foreign aid programs are embedded in health and education, and the economic areas, and to make sure that women are front and centre of those programs. We have come a long way but, sadly, there is a lot more to do, as the previous member has said. We have a lot more to do in our region, particularly in terms of the development of women and making sure that they have economic empowerment.
Last year, I attended a conference in Fiji where the domestic violence rates in our region, particularly in the Pacific, are at 60 to 70 per cent. There is more to do domestically in eliminating the scourge of domestic violence against women and children, and that has been a key priority of this government in implementing the $100 million Women's Safety Package. I hope that we will work together—both sides of politics—to make sure that those gender pay gaps close, that more women are on corporate boards and there is more representation in the political sphere, that these will be some things that we as a parliament can work on together in a bipartisan way.
Again, I thank the member for Griffith for this wonderful motion.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2015
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 6) Bill 2015
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ) (12:00): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that senators Leyonhjelm, Muir and Xenophon have been appointed as participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee's inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
25th Anniversary of the First Gulf War
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Minister for Defence Materiel) (12:01): by leave—I rise to deliver this statement to remind the House of the debt of gratitude our nation owes to the brave men and women who served in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991.
The anniversary of the First Gulf War conflict comes as Australians commemorate the Anzac centenary, and as they recognise a 'Century of Service'.
A 'Century of Service' that honours and commemorates the commitment and sacrifice of generations of Australian servicemen and women. These are Australians who have defended our values and freedoms in war, overseas conflicts and peacekeeping operations from the Boer War to today.
First Gulf War
Today, however, we reflect today on the 25th Anniversary of Australia's involvement in the First Gulf War.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the international community responded quickly.
That same day, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanding that Iraq unconditionally withdraw all forces in Kuwait.
As it became clear that the Iraqi forces had no intention of withdrawing from Kuwait, the international community unified and acted. Australia was quick to do its duty and join the global effort.
Over 1,800 Australian Defence personnel were deployed to the Gulf from August 1990 to September 1991. The force comprised units from the Army, Navy and RAAF. In addition, the Army and RAAF provided personnel to Operation Habitat.
The Australian contribution included two Adelaide Class frigates, the replenishment ship HMAS Success, relieved by HMAS Westralia in January 1991, HMAS Sydney (IV), HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Darwin, a detachment from the Army's 16th Air Defence Regiment, a RAN Clearance Diving Team, RAAF photo-interpreters, Defence Intelligence Organisation personnel, and four medical teams.
Within two weeks of the invasion of Kuwait, Adelaide, Darwin and Success sailed from Garden Island. The Gulf commitment showed Australia could make an effective international contribution to a distant conflict at very short notice.
As the RAN ships sailed from Australia and then on to Diego Garcia, the RAAF provided aircraft to carry out operational exercises in preparation for the worst-case scenario of all-out war in the Middle East.
Reflecting on this experience the Captain of HMAS Darwin, Russ Shalders, said, 'In my experience it was one of the most demanding and professionally stimulating periods of naval activity I'm ever likely to be involved in.'
This conflict provided a number of 'firsts' for the Australian Defence Forces.
It was the first time that Australia's Defence Forces went to war under arrangements where it was commanded by a Chief of Defence Force.
The Chief of Defence Force, General Peter Gration, AC OBE, was engaged throughout the campaign in providing direction and guidance, and visited the theatre of operations.
The tanker HMAS Westralia also made naval history by carrying into the war seven women—two of them officers—for the first time.
By November 1990, the international community had lost patience with Iraq and UN Resolution 678 authorised the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by 15 February.
On 4 December 1990, the Prime Minister informed the Australian parliament that the Naval Task Group would be made available to support the UN resolution. Committed to a combat role if necessary, the RAN Task Group was authorised to pass through the Straits of Hormuz.
That action saw Australian ships join the largest fleet of warships assembled anywhere since 1945.
The multinational coalition force included some 90 warships, more than 100 logistic, amphibious and smaller craft, and 800 aircraft from 15 nations.
Now firmly on a war footing, coalition ships faced the threat of Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missiles and lethal drift mines.
On 18 February two US Navy ships, USS Princeton and USS Tripoli detonated contact mines.
Correspondent Terry O'Conner described eloquently the anxiety and tension which surrounded the threat of mines, heightened by the damage to the two US ships: 'Listening to the water washing the hull a few feet from my head as I lay in my bunk the other night I was acutely aware of the fact I was below the waterline toward the bow of a ship patrolling an area where mines were common.
I found myself mentally reviewing the escape route, down a corridor, past a column, turn right then left, up a narrow hatch, a few metres to another ladder, turn right and onto the deck. I worked it out—at least a couple of minutes to reach the open air if I didn't get lost, if the hatches didn't jam, if the compartment wasn't flooded, if there wasn't a fire.'
The Royal Australian Navy's Clearance Diving Team played a major role in re-opening Iraqi ports.
By the time the job was done in late April 1991, Royal Australian Navy divers had been involved, together with their American and British counterparts, in clearing four ports, searching two million square metres of sea bed, 32 wrecks, and dealing with 60 mines. The US Navy central commander, Vice Admiral Stanley Arthur, described the Royal Australian Navy's service in the Gulf as magnificent, saying:
The US Navy will be proud to sail in harm's way with the Royal Australian Navy anytime, anywhere.
Men and women of the Australian Task Group Medical Support Element deployed on the US Navy Hospital Ship Comfort. The ship contained 12 operating theatres and 1,000 beds. A small group of Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) photo-interpreters was based in Saudi Arabia, together with a detachment from the Defence Intelligence Organisation.
There were also individual members of the Royal Australian Navy who served at sea in coalition ships. Pilot Lieutenant Commander Peter Nelson, flying a Sea King helicopter with a Royal Marines commando squadron, was awarded a UK Air Force Cross for rescuing wounded British troops while both their and his helicopters were under fire. Army personnel took part in attachments to various British and American ground formations and Australia also provided military intelligence specialists who served in Saudi Arabia.
Following the war, an estimated two million Kurds fled towards Iraq's northern borders. In response, in May 1991, Australia sent a 75-person Army team, including medical, dental, preventative medicine and field engineer teams. The teams worked in arduous conditions and operated on and treated hundreds of patients including many children. Australia later provided weapons inspectors in Iraq to monitor the discovery and disposal of prohibited nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
In November 1991 HMAS Sydney and Brisbane received a Meritorious Unit Citation for 'meritorious operational service in the Persian Gulf during enforcement of sanctions in support of UN Security Council Resolutions and the subsequent period of hostilities against Iraq to liberate Kuwait in 1990-91'.
Most significant of all is that all of our service men and women arrived home safely—no Australian lives were lost in the First Gulf War. Our coalition partners did lose members of their armed forces and we remember them today. The Australian War Memorial notes that there were 166 coalition losses. Members of the Kuwaiti armed forces died resisting the invasion and there was very large loss of life suffered by Iraq's armed forces and civilian population which is estimated to be in excess of 100,000.
After a long period when the Australia's defence forces had not been engaged in warlike operations, our sailors, soldiers and airmen performed to the high standard that has earned them the ongoing respect and admiration of our allies. In doing so they did both themselves and all Australians proud.
Anzac Centenary
I am also keen to update the House on the significant domestic and international commemorations planned for 2016, and beyond. While we are all aware of the significance of the 100th anniversary last year of the Anzacs landing at Gallipoli in 1915, this year represents the 100th anniversary of Australia's entry into battle and the horror of the Western Front.
We mark one hundred years since the Australian 5th Division, took part in a disastrous and abortive diversionary attack north of the Somme at Fromelles, suffering more than 5,000 casualties in little more than 24 hours. It is difficult to imagine that it is one hundred years since the 1st, 2nd and 4th Divisions joined the Somme battle at Pozieres and Mouquet Farm where in six weeks they suffered 23,000 casualties, over 7,000 of whom were killed in action or died of wounds.
In 2016 there are other significant anniversaries that helped shape Australia as a nation. It is 75 years since the start of the Siege of Tobruk which saw 3,800 Australian casualties. Ordered to hold Tobruk for eight weeks, the Australians held on for over five months, cementing the 'Rats' forever into Australian military folklore. The anniversary falls on 10 April and I urge all Australians to attend a commemorative ceremony in their local area.
It is also the 75th anniversary of the Greece and Crete campaign. It may not be well known that in 1941 the defence of Greece was largely in the hands of the Australian and New Zealand forces. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Indonesian Confrontation; where 23 Australians died in a conflict largely hidden from public view. And 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of one of our most costly days in the Vietnam War - the Battle of Long Tan, where just over 100 Australian soldiers held off a force of nearly 2,000 enemies, with the loss of 18 men.
The Anzac Centenary is our time to honour the service and sacrifice of our original Anzacs, and the generations of Australian service men and women who have defended our values and freedoms, in wars, conflicts and peace operations throughout a centenary of service. One of the most important legacies that can come from the Anzac Centenary is improved community understanding and awareness of our wartime history, particularly for younger Australians. The Anzac Centenary gives families, schools and communities an opportunity to start important conversations that continue long after the national program has concluded, and in doing so ensuring an enduring and unifying legacy for current and future generations.
One significant way we are doing this is through the Spirit of Anzac Centenary Experience. The travelling exhibition that has begun in Melbourne, showcases over 200 artefacts usually housed at the Australian War Memorial and will provide a unique opportunity for Australians to view their Anzac tradition. The Spirit of Anzac Centenary Experience is the flagship community event of the Anzac Centenary national program. It provides an opportunity for people in cities and regional Australia to mark the most significant commemorative period in our nation's history and I encourage all Australians to visit the exhibition. The exhibition will visit Adelaide next month, followed by Tamworth, Toowoomba and Brisbane. By the end of April 2017, the Spirit of Anzac Centenary Experience will have been staged in 23 locations around Australia.
2016 overseas commemorations
Planning for the 2016 Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli in Turkey and Villers-Bretonneux in France is well on track. The Australian Government is working closely with Turkish, French and New Zealand authorities to plan the events to ensure the health and well-being of those attending. The iconic dawn service at Gallipoli will be conducted as usual this year, and we expect to see large numbers of Australians and New Zealanders traveling to attend the commemoration.
I am very keen to remind Australians that no ticket is required to attend the dawn services in Gallipoli and France in 2016. I encourage Australians to support Anzac Day in France, as I have outlined a hugely significant year for Australia's involvement in the First World War on the Western Front.
It is 100 years since Australia entered the war in Europe at the Battles of Fromelles and Pozieres, where thousands of Australians made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I encourage all Australians to attend a commemoration either in Australia or overseas this year to remember and reflect on their sacrifice. Applications are open for attendance passes to attend commemorative services at Fromelles on 19 July 2016, and at Pozieres on 23 July 2016.
To ensure safe attendance at the small memorial sites, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is managing a registration process for Australian citizens and permanent residents seeking attendance passes for these services, available on a first come, first served basis until all passes are allocated. To apply, or find out more, Australians should go to www.anzaccentenary.gov.au website.
Conclusion
As in every war, Defence Force personnel leave behind husbands and wives, partners, children and friends for long periods of time, in challenging and dangerous environments. That is sacrifice enough. The efforts of our service personnel in the First Gulf War are emblematic of the service of those before them: our veterans of the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, the Indonesian confrontation, the Malayan emergency and the Vietnam War. Veterans who have given a century of service to protect the freedoms we enjoy today. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (12:16): I rise to also acknowledge the debt of gratitude our nation owes to the brave men and women who served in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991. In response to the ministerial statement today by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP, can I also congratulate him on his appointment to this important portfolio, together of course with the portfolio of Defence Materiel.
The opposition, the government and all other members of parliament recognise the significance of commemorating the service and sacrifice of the men and women who serve in our Australian Defence Force. This anniversary comes at a time when we are commemorating a century, and more, of service and sacrifice by Australian service men and women in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations in which Australia has participated.
Nineteen years after Australian military forces withdrew from Vietnam, the Australian government committed forces to serve across the globe in the First Gulf War. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990 led to the formation of a multinational force, from some 30 countries, in order to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions of the time. Over 1,800 Australian Defence Force personnel were deployed in the First Gulf War from August 1990 to September 1991. The force comprised elements from the Army, Navy and Air Force. In addition, some 75 Australian Defence Force personnel were subsequently deployed to Kurdistan, Northern Iraq, on Operation Habitat from 16 May to 30 June 1991 in the bloody aftermath of the war. The First Gulf War was an important event in Australia's military history which should be acknowledged for its significance, both diplomatically and strategically.
On 2 August 1990 Iraq invaded its rival oil-exporting neighbour Kuwait. The invasion was widely condemned, and four days later the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a trade embargo against Iraq. A blockade of Iraq's access to the sea followed within weeks, as the United States led and assembled a large multinational task force in the Persian Gulf, and brought follow-up forces into Saudi Arabia. At its peak the coalition forces in the First Gulf War numbered some 950,000 troops from some 30 countries; although, the United States remained the dominant partner in the coalition.
In November 1990 the UN Security Council set 15 January 1991 as the deadline for an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. Iraq failed to comply with that deadline, and as a consequence coalition forces began an air bombardment of Iraqi targets across both Iraq and occupied Kuwait. Within four days, coalition forces destroyed the Iraqi invading forces and drove the remnants out of Kuwait; although, the Iraqis retained significant military strength intact in Iraq, as subsequent events were to demonstrate. The air bombardment continued without respite until the war ended 43 days later.
On 24 February 1991, after more than a month of air attacks, the coalition's ground forces moved against Iraqi positions in Kuwait and in Iraq itself. The magnitude and decisiveness of these strikes destroyed what was left of Iraq's capacity to resist. Remarkably, there were some 116,000 air sorties flown during this conflict. After two days of air strikes, Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's armed forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait to the positions they had occupied before August 1990. Two days after this order was given, the coalition ceased hostilities and declared victory. Coalition losses amounted to 166 killed, many by friendly fire. At least 100,000 Iraqis had been killed in this conflict and another 71,000 were captured—a decisive defeat of Iraq's military.
Australia was one of the first nations to join the coalition force. Australian forces were deployed under the auspices of the United Nations. Three Australian warships conducted blockade operations in the Persian Gulf. Australia also provided a supply vessel, four medical teams and a mine clearance diving team that joined a protective screen, under US operational control, around aircraft-carrier battle groups in the gulf.
The Royal Australian Navy provided vessels for the multinational naval force, which formed an interception force in the Persian Gulf to enforce the UN sanctions. The RAN presence included two frigates and the replenishment ship HMAS Success, which, having no air defences of its own, relied on the army's 16th Air Defence Regiment. In January 1991 the replenishment tanker HMAS Westralia left Fremantle, Western Australia, to relieve Success. Four warships, HMAS Sydney (IV), HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Brisbane, and HMAS Darwin, also served tours of duty in the Persian Gulf. During the operational phase of their deployment, they formed part of an anti-aircraft screen for the carrier battle groups of the US Navy. A RAN diving team was also despatched for explosive ordnance and demolition tasks.
In addition to naval units, Australian personnel took part on attachment to various British and American ground formations. A small group of Royal Australian Air Force photo interpreters was based in Saudi Arabia, together with a detachment from the Defence Intelligence Organisation. Four medical teams were also despatched at the request of the United States. Although the ships and their crews were in danger from mines and possible air attack, Australia's war was relatively uneventful and there were no casualties.
At the conclusion of hostilities, 75 Australian personnel were sent to northern Iraq to assist in the provision of humanitarian aid to Kurds living in the UN-declared exclusion zone, while ships of the Royal Australian Navy remained on station, at the request of the United States, to enforce UN sanctions.
Several Australian naval officers commanded the multinational interception force. Australia later provided weapons inspectors in Iraq to monitor the discovery and disposal of prohibited nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
The Gulf War provided a number of firsts for the Australian Defence Force. It was the first time that Australia had gone to war under arrangements where it was commanded by a Chief of the Defence Force. The position of Chief of the Defence Force was created after amending Defence legislation and came into effect on 25 October 1984. General Peter Gration AC, OBE served as Chief of the Defence Force from 13 April 1987 to 16 April 1993 and was engaged throughout the campaign in providing direction and guidance as well as visiting the theatre of operations. Further, HMAS Westralia made naval history during this conflict carrying into the war seven women—two of them officers—for the first time.
In November 1991, HMAS Sydney and HMAS Brisbane received a Meritorious Unit Citation for:
… meritorious operational service in the Persian Gulf during enforcement of sanctions in support of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the subsequent period of hostilities against Iraq to liberate Kuwait in 1990–91.
It is important that we acknowledge the commitment and professionalism Australian Defence Force personnel displayed in providing support to our allies who fought for the freedoms we all experience today, in maintaining an international rules based order and in enforcing the resolve of the United Nations. Importantly, while all of our service men and women arrived home safely and no Australian lives were lost in the First Gulf War, our coalition partners did lose members of their armed forces, and we remember them today.
Although the dawn service in Gallipoli, in April last year, was central to the significant commemorative events, there are, of course, many other important dates to commemorate over the four-year centenary period, including Armistice Day in 2018. And in 2016, we mark 100 years since Australia's entry into the battle of the Western Front.
On 19 July 1916, the Australians attacked at Fromelles, with disastrous results. The Australians suffered a shocking 5,500 casualties—our greatest losses in a single day. It was a harsh lesson about the scale and intensity of warfare on the Western Front. Four days later, Australians went into action on the Somme, attacking and capturing Pozieres. Under heavy bombardment, casualties grew in those first days and in subsequent weeks, eventually totalling some 23,000. Pozieres ridge 'is more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth'. Fighting continued on the Somme through the autumn mud and a bitterly cold winter. Australian casualties continued to mount and the men's health deteriorated in those conditions.
Every town in Australia has its own story and its own personal connection to the terrible events of the First World War. Community participation is the way to ensure that the Anzac legacy is passed to the next generation. The Anzac Centenary Program continues to offer every Australian electorate the opportunity to commemorate the extraordinary sacrifice our Anzacs and the community as a whole made at the local level. We welcome the minister's update on the commemorations planned for the Anzac Centenary.
This year also marks the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. On 18 August 1966 the Battle of Long Tan was fought, primarily by Delta Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, some 108 men, supported by other Australian Task Force elements and a force of up to 2,500 from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army.
Starting in the afternoon, the Battle of Long Tan was fought in a rubber plantation and lasted until the early morning of 19 August. Remarkably, the Australian forces were able to repel continuing enemy assaults and, in so doing, they inflicted very heavy losses on the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The use of armour and supporting artillery enabled that handful of men to defeat that much greater force and, in so doing, they protected the Australian base at Nui Dat from what was intended by the enemy to be an overwhelming attack aimed at overrunning that base. It was, arguably, the most significant battle of the Vietnam War for Australian forces. In that battle, 18 Australian soldiers died and a further 24 were wounded. I have had the privilege to tour that battlefield and be shown it by a veteran. It is a remarkable military accomplishment for this nation.
Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as you appreciate and as everyone in this place comprehends, the Vietnam War took a very heavy toll on our nation. As ever, the Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam upheld the very high standards of the Anzac tradition, and they remained faithful to one another and to their duty to their nation, a nation that had sent them into harm's way.
Today we stop to mark the 25th anniversary of Australia's involvement in the First Gulf War. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen upheld the very high standards of the Anzac tradition, and did themselves and our nation proud. As we commemorate a century of service of Australian men and women, we reflect upon the Anzac values of mateship, courage, sacrifice, loyalty and resilience, and on how those values are upheld by members of the Australian Defence Force today.
I thank the minister for his update and I thank all those who have ensured, and who will continue to ensure, that our community appropriately reflects on its history and our future as a nation and the values that will take this country forward. I thank all those who have served and sacrificed for their country. I thank the House.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (12:29): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute:
2. Schedule 1 |
The first 1 January or 1 July to occur on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
3. Schedule 2 |
The first 1 July to occur on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (12:30): I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
It is my understanding that this is non-controversial and it is delaying the commencement date.
Question agreed to.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (12:31): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. This bill's moniker or informal title is 'Vertigan 1'. It is the first of two bills that we understand the government has said it will introduce to implement the recommendations of the Vertigan panel, which conducted a series of reviews of the NBN in 2014.
Before I get into the detail of this bill, I will give bit of background on this Vertigan panel. Before the last election Malcolm Turnbull, the now Prime Minister, made a lot of promises—and he has broken most of them. He promised that he would build his second-rate NBN for $29.5 billion. We now know that it will cost almost double that, up to $56 billion. He also promised that all Australians would get access to this second-rate NBN by 2016. That has blown out now to the end of this decade, more than double the original time frame.
He also promised that, if elected, he would get Infrastructure Australia to do a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN. In August 2013 Mr Turnbull said:
We are going to do a rigorous analysis, we will get Infrastructure Australia to do an independent cost benefit analysis.
He broke that promise as well.
Instead of getting Infrastructure Australia to conduct this cost-benefit analysis—an organisation that the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago described as 'an independent statutory body with a board of recognised industry experts'—Malcolm Turnbull instead appointed some old mates, some former advisers and some of the biggest and most outspoken critics of the NBN. It was not what he promised. It was not an independent review. It was a review by people who he knew have the same view about this project as him.
This legislation that we are now debating is based on their work, work that has since been found to be hopelessly wrong and has been largely discredited. The Competitive Carriers' Coalition—which represents much of the telecommunications industry, including Macquarie Telecom, Nextgen and Vocus—said this when the Vertigan report was released, in a press release headed 'Vertigan Recommendations should be Binned':
After deliberating all year, the Vertigan panel has recommended that Australia look to emulate 1970s US telephone industry policy to promote investment in 21st century broadband networks.
… … …
Most of the Vertigan recommendations represent nothing more than rehashed, discredited theoretical arguments promoted by opponents of regulatory reform and the NBN.
The inquiry has been an expensive distraction that has done little more than create uncertainty and disquiet across the industry during a crucial period of the transition to a new broadband network.
The Senate Select Committee on the NBN subjected the Vertigan panel's 'independent' cost-benefit analysis to rigorous scrutiny in early 2015. They identified a number of fatal shortcomings in the cost-benefit analysis. One of the best was the absurdly pessimistic forecast that, by 2023, the median bandwidth required by Australian households would be 15 megabits per second. It was an absurd conclusion. According to nbn co's latest results, 67 per cent of homes connected to the NBN are already ordering higher speeds than that. This forecast was so absurd that even nbn co Chief Executive Officer Bill Morrow criticised it when it came out. The Senate select committee concluded:
The Cost-Benefit Analysis is a deeply flawed and overtly political document. It is not credible and is not a reliable basis upon which to make decisions about the NBN.
Since that report came out, in March last year, there has been even more evidence to prove that the Vertigan panel got it wrong.
The Vertigan panel based its cost-benefit analysis on cost assumptions from another dodgy report written by the Prime Minister's mates, the 2013 Strategic review. In August last year the cost assumptions in the Strategic review were also proven to be hopelessly wrong. That is when we found out that the cost of building this second-rate version of the NBN was not going to be $41 billion as assumed in the Strategic review but had blown out to up to $56 billion. That is not the only cost assumption that the Strategic review got wrong. Virtually all of its forecasts were wrong. It forecast that fibre to the node could be built for $600 a home. This cost has now nearly tripled, to $1,600 a home. It also forecast that it would cost $55 million to patch up Telstra's old copper network to make the fibre-to-the-node network operate. That cost has blown out by more than 1,000 per cent. It also forecast that 2.61 million homes would be connected to the NBN via HFC, via pay TV cables, by December of this year. Nbn co now forecasts that only 10,000 homes will be connected by June of this year and only 875,000 homes by June of next year. So we have got a bunch of different reports here, written by the Prime Minister's mates and former advisers, that are full of mistakes and wrong assumptions. And the bill that we are debating implements their recommendations.
Many of those recommendations attempt to roll back the competition and consumer benefits delivered by the former Labor government in this sector. We do not support this, and nor does most of the telco industry. Let's start with part 3 of the bill, which proposes to relax the non-discrimination obligations on nbn co in relation to pilots or trials. The non-discrimination provisions prohibit NBN corporations from discriminating between access seekers in the supply of services. They are an important part of the level playing field introduced by Labor's NBN reforms. And industry agrees.
Optus, in its submission to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee review of this bill, called the principle of non-discrimination 'an important foundation principle'. Macquarie Telecom, in its submission, called these obligations 'absolutely fundamental' and 'non-negotiable'. The Competitive Carriers' Coalition called them a 'core element' in restraining market power which 'should not be changed'. It is unclear why the government wants to relax these provisions. Worse, the risks posed by relaxing non-discrimination provisions far outweigh any imagined benefits. As the Competitive Carriers' Coalition puts it in their submission:
The proposal to dilute the non-discrimination requirements in order to allow NBN to do exclusive deals for “pilots and trials” is highly risky, unnecessary and supported by no persuasive evidence that there is a problem in existing rules.
If you want to understand just how unfriendly the government's proposed changes are to consumers, look no further than the submission by ACCAN. It says that these proposed amendments 'do not appear to add any benefit to consumers' and 'may result in anti-competitive behaviour in the industry'. So this is a solution in search of a problem.
The government has not done its homework here. They have not spoken to the telco industry—or, if they have, they have not listened to them. They have not spoken to ACCAN and consumer groups here—because it is obvious from the submissions that the Senate committee has received that there is enormous opposition to them. That is just one example in the bill—that is part 3.
Parts 4 and 5 of the bill add to the matters the ACCC is required to consider when making access determinations and restrict the ACCC's decision-making powers in relation to special access undertakings. The effect of these measures will be to add complexity and delay to the ACCC's decision-making processes, to the detriment of consumers. Once again, we are faced with proposed changes which are intended to roll back Labor's consumer friendly reforms and replace them with unnecessary red tape that will benefit incumbents at the expense of competition.
Not surprisingly, a lot of telecommunications providers are opposed to these provisions. In relation to the part 4 changes, Optus notes that 'it is possible to envisage circumstances in which these provisions interfere with or constrain the decision making of the ACCC to the detriment of consumers'. ACCAN is also concerned about this. In its submission it says that parts 4 and 5 'appear to restrict the ACCC's ability to make markets work for consumers'. ACCAN also noted that it was:
… not convinced that the problems triggering these proposed amendments currently, or will in the future, exist. The amendments are likely to add further complexity to the telecommunications regime and increase the amount of time it takes for the regulator to arrive at, and implement, decisions.
Once again, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. Once again, the government has not done its homework and has not satisfactorily consulted with industry or consumer groups to address their concerns.
Part 7 of the bill is one of those rare creatures that is completely friendless. Everyone is opposed to this, and it is not difficult to see why. Telstra nailed the government's motive for these provisions when it said in its submission:
Nbn co's latest corporate plan suggests that there will be a larger than anticipated funding gap between the build costs and the capped funding commitment by the Government.
I could not agree more.
Remember that when Malcolm Turnbull, our Prime Minister, first announced his second rate NBN he said that it would cost $29.5 billion in required funding and would be funded entirely out of public equity. In December 2013, when he revealed his first $11 billion blow-out—from $29.5 billion to $41 billion—he said that that extra $11 billion would be funded out of private debt. In August 2015, when he admitted to the latest blow-out—a $26.5 billion blow-out—he said that $26.5 billion would potentially be sourced from private debt markets. Telstra is right to point out this massive cost blow-out and to be concerned about whether the government is trying to use this bill to stem this haemorrhaging by giving nbn co the power to enter into other markets.
Part 7 of the bill proposes an open-ended power which allows the government to bypass the line of business restrictions set out in the National Broadband Network Companies Act. The opposition will not support this open-ended power. The NBN is signature Labor policy that was designed to upgrade Australia's communications network for the 21st century and fix decades of failure in the wholesale monopoly that is Australia's fixed-line access network. The government has not made a case to extend nbn co's remit beyond the access network. It is unclear what the government is proposing to achieve with these proposed reforms,. But one thing is clear: the entire telco industry does not support this, and neither do we.
Part 7 also attempts to reflect in legislation the government's policy of axing universal national wholesale pricing and replacing it with wholesale price caps. Universal national wholesale pricing is a reform we introduced that we are particularly proud of. It means that Australians living in regional and rural Australia pay the same wholesale price for equivalent services as people in our big cities. The Vertigan panel recommended getting rid of universal national wholesale pricing, and it is now clear that the Liberal Party is moving to axe these important reforms. Once again, the perennially impotent National Party is doing nothing to stand up for Australians living in the bush. But Labor will not stand for it and we will not support those changes either.
All of what I have just said is set out in the opposition's dissenting report of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee investigation of this bill. We said in that report that we do not support Parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of this bill, because these measures are:
… unnecessary, retrograde and/or add complexity to regulatory decision-making processes. Worse, many of the proposed measures compromise fundamental elements of the level playing field underpinning the NBN, and may have a detrimental impact on competition and consumer outcomes.
We also said in that dissenting report that Parts 1, 2 and 6 of the bill are non-contentious and the government has the option of splitting these measures out of the bill and introducing them separately, if it wants them passed.
Interestingly, at 5.30 pm on Friday night, my office got an email from the Minister for Communications office advising that they had drafted a number of amendments to the bill and were removing Parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. What a humiliating backdown. After 2½ years of report after report that have cost millions and millions of dollars, the government is now saying they not going to go ahead with these recommendations. What a mess, but at least they are doing this now: better late than never. I look forward to the government moving these amendments in consideration detail. I look forward to watching the government gut this bill like a fish when we get there. I also flag that we will move our own amendments to this bill in the Senate.
This project under Malcolm Turnbull's watch has become an absolute mess. The story in today's SMH is just the latest example of that. Today it has been revealed in leaked documents from nbn co that Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate copper NBN is hopelessly delayed and over budget. These documents reveal that nbn co has met less than a third of its internal rollout target for Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate copper NBN. The delays are due mostly to problems with connecting mains power to the Prime Minister's street-side copper cabinets, and these problems are all of this Prime Minister's making.
Fibre to the premises is a passive network that does not require mains power. These leaked documents also reveal that Malcolm Turnbull's copper NBN is coming in over budget, despite nbn co's recent assurances that the cost was tracking as expected in nbn co's Corporate Plan 2016.
Malcolm Turnbull's chickens are final coming home to roost. He promised in 2013 that his second-rate copper NBN would be rolling out 'at scale' by mid-2014, that fibre to the node would be rolling out at scale by the middle of 2014. It is now 2016, and they are still not being rolled out at scale. As these leaked documents today reveal, nbn co has only completed 29,000 homes under its own steam—that is, 65,000 homes short of their internal target.
The cost of Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate NBN has doubled. The time it is going to take to build this second-rate NBN has more than doubled. The cost of this second-rate fibre-to-the-node technology has tripled. The cost of fixing up Telstra's old copper network to make this work has blown out by 1,000 per cent. In places across the country where they are switching it on, it is not working properly. Some people are getting slower speeds with the copper NBN than they were getting under ADSL and now this. What a mess. It is a complete failure, and the front page of the Sydney Morning Heraldcould not have said it better: 'Turnbull's NBN plan in crisis.'
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:49): It was interesting to hear from the member for Blaxland who gets a bit touchy on these sorts of subjects when there is nobody in the chamber. I just do not know why he does not ask questions—he certainly did not ask too many questions of Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, when he was the communications minister—that is, Malcolm, not Jason; let's hope that does not happen too soon.
He certainly did not ask too many questions about NBN, telecommunications or indeed mobile black spots when he had the opportunity. He still does not ask too many questions when the chamber is full, so I put it to him to ask a few questions about NBN in the chamber during question time. Be big, be brave, be bold and ask a few questions in question time of the Prime Minister, of the communications minister—or the respresentative of the communications minister, appreciating the fact that Senator Mitch Fifield is in the other chamber, the other place.
It is all too easy to come in here when the chamber is mostly empty and make big and loud statements about the NBN and our policy. I have to say that much of what he said is inaccurate at any rate. He talked about a solution in search of a problem.
We know, on this side of the House, that technology and connectivity are at the heart of what we want to encourage as a government. That is important, because it is all about what we are doing as a government. The Turnbull government has an agenda of innovation, agility and productivity and we, on this side, understand the importance of communications infrastructure when it comes to providing just that. In making this plan a reality, we want to encourage more people to live, work and invest in rural and regional communities. We understand that a reliable and affordable communications system is crucial to ensuring our rural and remote regional communities are part of our ideas boom.
As local members move throughout the many towns and communities of our electorates, people often raise with us the issues they face and that they want the federal government to help them with. My large rural electorate of Riverina is roughly the same size as the state of Tasmania. Many of my colleagues are in similar communities, as, indeed, are some of those opposite—the member for Lingiari and the member for Throsby, for instance—and I appreciate that they represent regional communities.
A few issues are raised with me more frequently than others when it comes to communications. Mobile black spots are the bane of many country communities—and, Second Deputy Speaker, member for McEwen, I have heard you raise this in this chamber. They are a significant impediment to safety, to productivity and to connectivity for people who choose to live and do business in the communities we serve. The Nationals get it. We do. We live in these communities too. We understand, as do our constituents, the frustration and the concern when the telephone simply will not connect or when a phone call is scratchy, and the potential that this reality has for instances of natural or medical emergency, and indeed other times when you simply need a phone just for convenience. I am proud to be part of a government which not only acknowledge what a problem this is but are actually doing something to fix it.
Under Labor, not a dollar was spent on mobile black spots. But we are getting on with the job of fixing that problem. Our promise to establish the Mobile Black Spot Program was, for me, a real highlight of the last election. Thanks to the hard work of the member for Cowper, as shadow minister, we were able to say to the people who live with challenging mobile service that we were going to do something about it. It is all about connectivity.
Mr Stephen Jones: Are you going to talk about the NBN?
Mr McCORMACK: NBN is one thing—and the member for Throsby asks whether I am going to talk about the legislation. I understand the importance of the NBN, but I also understand the importance of total connectivity. In the six years that those opposite were in government, we heard a lot about communications. We saw much of ministers in high-vis, talking about how the Labor Party backed better communications, how Kevin Rudd's rushed NBN plan was going to bring rivers of gold to communities without any regard for its cost or the time the network would actually take to build.
In my home city of Wagga Wagga, we saw lots of holes being dug and tape around some iron posts at little spots where the NBN was apparently coming to. But it was just a photo op in a hard hat. That was Labor's plan. There was never actually any fibre rolled out. There was never actually any fibre pulled through those holes that were being dug.
More importantly, in the whole time those opposite were in government there was not a word breathed about mobile black spots and, moreover, not a cent spent on them. There was nothing about the safety concerns, nothing about how a farmer or a primary producer should be able to do business from their farm, nothing about how school students in remote locations should be able to do their homework and connect with their friends online; just photo ops. Not just in communications but in so many other aspects of government, it was government by press release, government by media opportunity.
I am proud that the Riverina has received significant investment from this coalition government as part of the first round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Thanks to the hard work of the member for Bradfield, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and, now, Senator Fiona Nash, the National Party senator for New South Wales, as the dedicated Minister for Regional Communications, we are actually investing in communities. We are actually building towers.
I drove down the Sturt Highway yesterday on my way to Darlington Point to open new exhibits at the Altina Wildlife Park—I just thought I would throw in that plug because it is a great tourist drawcard—and I drove past Collingullie and there it was, that wonderful communications tower, brought to you by this government. We are actually connecting communities to the mobile services that they deserve, yet not a peep from those opposite when they were in government.
Last year I was able to announce that, thanks to the first round of the Mobile Black Spot Program and co-investment from both Telstra and Vodafone, seven base stations would be built in the Riverina electorate. Telstra is investing in building base stations at Ladysmith, Mannus and Merriwagga, whilst Vodafone's construction will take place along the Mid-Western Highway as well as at Tabbita, where there is an important feedlot; Ungarie, who have a great football club, celebrating its centenary this year; and Weethalle, where they have had problems for years.
In all, this is a $4.75 million investment. I wish it was more, Second Deputy Speaker, I will admit. But $1.59 million of this investment is coming from this coalition government and that will provide a service to more than 40 unique communities and locations, including critical road and highway intersections. I have always said that the $100 million could be spent in the Riverina electorate alone—and I am sure my rural colleagues would agree with me on that point, the fact that $100 million probably still would not get full mobile coverage of Riverina.
My electorate stretches from Mt Kosciuszko—as former minister Simon Crean used to talk about, the high point of Australian politics, and I will agree with him, even though it is going to be in Eden-Monaro after the latest Australian Electoral Commission redistribution of boundaries—right out to the red soil plains of Hillston and beyond. There is very different geography, from Snowy Mountains to plains. The $100 million could be spent in the Riverina and you probably still would not get total coverage, but it is a good start. And it is $100 million more than what those opposite were going to provide. The Nationals were very much heart and soul behind getting this money. The Nationals get it. We understand. We care. We want to play a role in getting communities the connection they deserve to reliable mobile services as well as to a better and more affordable NBN.
I am also pleased that there is an additional round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. It is important. And we will help those communities who were not funded in the first round to put their case as part of a competitive tender selection process once more. I am proud of what this government have achieved thus far. I know that those in communities which need better mobile services appreciate what we are doing, because they tell me so. But there is still more work to do. I went to a number of functions on the weekend and people were talking about the good job that our government are doing as far as creating jobs and prosperity, and they want us to continue. They do not want to go down the Labor experiment again. There are still communities which need better services and I will continue to work with the new minister, Senator Nash, who knows the Riverina electorate well and with the telecommunications companies to keep this issue front and centre of the government's agenda.
We are a government that understands the importance of using taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible. We understand that Australian taxpayers work hard and expect governments of all persuasions—whether they are Labor or whether they are coalition—to use the money that they pay in tax in a measured and responsible way—to be fiscally responsible. That is what taxpayers want. For this reason, upon coming to government in September 2013, the then communications minister, now Prime Minister, wanted to ensure that the rollout of the National Broadband Network was one which was fast, efficient and as cost-effective as humanly possible. The review found that a multi-technology mix was the best way to future proof the NBN for delivering universal access to fast broadband.
I know that the Australian Labor Party member from the Griffith branch, Peter Knox, always writes letters to the editor and always says, 'Oh, McCormack was out there and he said that, for Griffith, the NBN wasn't that important.' But I did not say that. What I actually said—and I want to correct the record—was that I do receive far more complaints about mobile service than I do about broadband. That said, the NBN is important. That said, the coalition government needs to ensure that we get the NBN rolled out as soon as we can—and we are doing that. The nbn co is on track to meet its targets for the year within the budget set out in the company's corporate plan. Any suggestion to the contrary is just plain wrong. The company has met its targets for the past six quarters—and that is good. This is in stark contrast to the management under the ALP, when the company met only 15 per cent of its forecast rollout.
The government has taken a businesslike approach. Do you know why we have taken a businesslike approach? It is because we on this side actually understand business. Unfortunately, those opposite are led by the nose by the unions and not too many of them actually understand business. After two terms of government, Labor had upgraded the broadband of one in 50 premises. By this financial year, nbn co will have upgraded one in four premises. So we are talking about one in 50 compared to one in four. You do the maths. It is pretty obvious. By June 2018, nbn co will have upgraded three in four premises. Our changes to the rollout will see the project finished six to eight years sooner and at around $30 billion less cost—nothing to sneeze at there.
A multi-technology mix is a central tenet of our promise to deliver faster broadband to Australians sooner and at less cost to the taxpayer. This legislation seeks, in part, to implement the government's response to the independent cost-benefit analysis delivered to government in December 2014. For those opposite, a cost-benefit analysis is something where you have to weigh up how much something is going to deliver as far as productivity is concerned, how much it is going to benefit and what it is going to do for the taxpayers as far as value for money. I just say that because there were not too many things under Labor's watch that were ever cost-benefit analysis efficient. This coalition government wants to ensure the NBN is delivered in a way which has a competitive regulatory framework, provides greater certainty for industry and provides innovative, efficient and effective service delivery for consumers.
This bill is a measured approach to the government's rollout agenda. Upon coming to government we wanted to take stock of where Labor's network was up to—I can that it was a mess—and ensure the consumer is getting the best benefit for their dollar. We know that those opposite used the NBN rollout as a political pawn, as a plaything for glossy brochures and promises which were, quite frankly, undeliverable in the time frame the ALP set out. We are taking a different approach. We are taking a measured, businesslike approach to the NBN rollout and, as I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure it is faster and available sooner and at less cost to the Australian taxpayer. This bill is a critical component of this agenda. It will better coordinate interactions between the facilities access regime in the first schedule of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the access regime in part XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, making it clear that the latter regime ought to take precedence in the regulation of access to facilities. This is part of the coalition's endeavour to provide greater certainty and clarity in the communications industry.
In the Riverina, the NBN rollout is well underway. In Wagga Wagga, my electorate's biggest city, around 17,600 homes and businesses are expected to receive an NBN service either through a fibre-to-the-node or a fibre-to-the-premises model under the NBN's three-year construction cycle. That is good for productivity for one of Australia's best electorates as far as productivity is concerned. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:05): I am pleased to be speaking on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. This is a bill about the NBN and, unlike the member for the Riverina, I will speak about the National Broadband Network—because it matters to us who live in regional Australia. If you do not live in one of the major metropolitan centres, you rely on fast, reliable and affordable broadband. It has to be ubiquitous and it has to touch regional Australia. In regional Australia you are more likely to have people operating home-based business who are relying on broadband. You are more likely to have businesses which are relying on the internet to market their goods and to purchase their raw materials or their inputs. You are also more likely to have kids who are relying on broadband services to deliver education and, of course, entertainment. Also, the importance of having broadband to stay connected with kids who may have moved to town to go to university or to go to school or may have moved to another city around the world cannot be discounted. So it matters a lot to people in regional Australia.
That is why it is so disappointing for Labor MPs to see this bill make its sorry pass from the Senate down to the House of Representatives—because it really is another sorry step in the saga of the government's mishandling of the National Broadband Network. When the member for Wentworth mishandled the whole Godwin Grech affair, all he did was trash his own reputation. But, in mishandling the rollout of the National Broadband Network, what he is doing is trashing the communications future of the entire country—and, for that, he must be held to account.
The original plan for this bill, as the member for Blaxland has just pointed out, was based on the Vertigan committee's report. It was amended in the other place after it was introduced only at the last minute. Its original plan was to remove wholesale price requirements which were put there by a Labor government at the lobbying of the former member for New England, Tony Windsor. He was very hot on this point because, being a member from a regional electorate, he could understand the importance of ensuring that we have uniform wholesale pricing so that people who are living in regional Australia are not paying exponentially more for their broadband services than people living in big cities. Axing this reform will mean that Australians living in the bush will pay more for essential communication services than their brothers and sisters in the big cities.
I can understand how a proposition such as this would get through the Liberal Party caucus—because they have little interest and not much knowledge about the needs of people in regional Australia. I can understand how the member for Wentworth, with some of the finest broadband in the country, would think that this was a good idea—because he does not know what it is like to live in regional or rural Australia. I can even understand how it got through some of the members of the Senate. But what I cannot understand is this: how did it get through a cabinet which now has a National Party deputy leader who has specific portfolio responsibility for regional broadband? I cannot understand that, unless she was asleep at the wheel—and not for the first time.
This is the same minister who is responsible for regional health and let proposals through the cabinet, through the ministry and through their caucus—and potentially through the parliament—that would have introduced co-payments, a GP tax, which would have had a devastating impact on members living in rural and regional Australia. So I can understand how it got through the Liberal Party party room, but what I cannot understand is how it got through the joint party room made up of National Party members and why the National Party members in the other place all stuck their hands up for it. That I cannot understand!
I cannot understand why the member for Riverina, who stood talking for 15 minutes about how committed he was to broadband in rural and regional Australia. stuck his hand up in the ministry meeting and voted for the abolition of universal wholesale pricing. And his colleagues in the other place stuck their hands up and voted for the abolition of a provision protecting constituents in rural and regional Australia. For the life of me, I cannot understand it except to say that, once again, they are obviously asleep at the wheel.
The member for Blaxland has drawn the House's attention to an article that appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you are from Victoria, and I am from New South Wales, so I probably read The Sydney Morning Herald more than you do. It is no secret to anyone in this place that The Sydney Morning Herald has been a champion of the member for Wentworth, who, in his rise to the top job, knocked off the member for Warringah to become Prime Minister of this country. But that article is particularly critical of Mr Turnbull's mishandling of the communications portfolio. It talks about Turnbull's NBN plan being in 'absolute crisis'. And it is in absolute crisis. Those on the other side will oppose the amendments that are going to be moved by the member for Blaxland to provide more transparency to the operations of the NBN. They are opposed to the provision of information such as that leaked to Sydney Morning Herald journalists yesterday.
When the Prime Minister was directly responsible for the NBN we saw nothing but bungling and political statements masquerading as policy—and it is all starting to unravel now. We were told that, under Mr Turnbull's direction, their second-rate National Broadband Network could be delivered for just under $30 billion. This is swiftly changing. We were told in December 2013 that there would be an $11 billion blow-out—and it gets worse from there. In August last year, just before he bailed out as communications minister, we were told it was going to blow-out by over $26 million. Labor has seen these massive cost blow-outs being announced again and again and again, but what we have not seen is the government sticking to the rollout deadlines that they promised. What we are seeing from the Prime Minister, the minister who was formerly responsible for communications, is cost blow-outs and further delays.
We have seen, through the internal progress report, that they have fallen even further behind in the rollout of the National Broadband Network. They were promising it was going to be done quicker, better and cheaper—but slower, worse and more expensive is what we are getting. By the company's own assessment, the giant infrastructure project has fallen two-thirds short of its benchmark construction timetable. Connection costs to each house or business are also blowing out. The final design process for connections, needed before construction can start, is running further and further and further behind. At the date of the report, 1.4 million households were to have been approved. But the figure is sitting at less than half of that, with less than 660,000 households connected. The report, which was never intended for public consumption, has disclosed that the project is drifting, the cost blow-outs are increasing and the rollout schedule is in further delay. We know that this is entirely the fault of the Prime Minister and the coalition parties. Their supposed fibre to the node was going to be the quick fix—not as good as Labor's program, but quick and dirty: 'We'll get it to you; it won't be as good, but it will be just what you need.' But we are finding that the technology mix that is required for this second-rate NBN is one of the factors that are causing delay. As the member for Blaxland has said, when you run a broadband program based on a fibre-to-the-node program, as opposed to the passive wiring system that takes the fibre optic cable, delivering superfast broadband all the way to the household—when you stop it at the node and try to connect the copper to the node—you need a power source, a battery source, at each and every one of those nodes.
This is indeed a part of the delay that is being visited on households right around the country, including in my own electorate. What frustrates people in my electorate is that parts of the electorate are getting fibre to the household and parts of the electorate are getting fibre to the node. In some of the suburbs—quite densely populated suburbs—they can literally throw a tennis ball across the backyard onto the roof of a person who is getting fibre to the household and is very happy with it whilst they are still struggling, unable to get a port for an ADSL connection. These are the circumstances faced by people in rural and regional Australia today. The member for Wentworth, an electorate with some of the finest broadband connectivity in the country, is blind to this, because he just does not get regional Australia. I would expect the Nationals to be jumping up and down about it, but they are not. They seem to be choking under the bridle of their Liberal Party masters, but we know that in electorates like mine it really does matter.
I conducted an extensive survey of over 1,025 households and businesses in my electorate, and the response I got from them was absolutely shocking. People who are running small businesses or home based businesses were saying that they had to move house, from where they were currently living to another region, because they could not get fast, reliable broadband. And when your business is relying on broadband, this is not an optional extra; it is absolutely critical. There were people like Sara, from Oak Flats, who wrote to me and said:
We run two home businesses and it interferes greatly with our income. We also experience frequent drop outs.
There is no National Broadband Network here.
Paul, from Albion Park Rail told me:
I run a small business from home … I'm considering a move to where the NBN is connected just so I can work at a decent speed.
There may be parts of Australia where people would look at this and say, 'No worries.' But when you live in a region where unemployment is stubbornly two per cent above the national average, every small business that moves from your region, every job that is lost from your region, matters critically, and that is what the member for Wentworth, the Nationals and this Liberal Party government just do not understand.
Shannon, from Mittagong, has told me that the internet is affecting his productivity, meaning that he spends more time commuting to and from work instead of working from home when he can. He says:
We cannot obtain a fast internet connection. I work from home and commute to Sydney, and require fast speeds to work.
Over 12,000 people are in the same position as Shannon from Mittagong, and 12,000 people weekly make the trip from my electorate to Sydney to find employment or to work because the jobs just are not there in regional Australia. The broadband network is going to make an enormous difference to their lives, but it is being delayed, it is costing more and it is going to be half as good, under this Liberal government, because they just do not get the needs of regional Australia.
So, as I said earlier, this is not an academic issue. This is not an issue of politics posturing as policy. This is an issue that is making a difference to people in my electorate on a daily basis. As I said at the outset, when the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, mishandled the Godwin Grech affair, all he did was trash his own reputation. But in mishandling the rollout of the National Broadband Network he is trashing the future of the communications systems in this country, and that is simply not good enough.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:20): I am moved by the comments from the member for Throsby regarding the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. One would think he is living in a parallel universe where he has somehow reached the conclusion that if Labor had survived the last election then all the problems with the NBN in Australia would be solved—that everybody in Australia would be wired up with fibre to the premises. In fact, we know that it would have been another 10 years at least before the NBN reached that far. The member nitpicks around the edges when in fact I can report that in South Australia at the time of the last election the company that was engaged to conduct the rollout had collapsed, as had the same provider in Western Australia. There was no action happening on the ground, because it had collapsed. That was the story of the whole NBN under Labor, and I cannot just stand here and not respond to those misleading comments from the member for Throsby.
Of course, telecommunications is one of the fastest-moving technologies in the world, and that is why any platform that is designed needs to be flexible, to be fast moving and to allow businesses in Australia to be the same. That is why the government asked for a report from the Vertigan panel to suggest changes to legislation that will enable sensible and flexible use of the NBN platform as it is unrolled around Australia. This legislation addresses some of the issues that the Vertigan panel reported on. For instance, it allows users of the broadband network to use in-building cabling that already exists. That makes sense—we do not want to rebuild the universe; we want to use the infrastructure that is there—and that will be provided for. It also allows for flexibility in conducting pilots and trials. It allows companies to have some protection for their IP as they try to investigate new ways of using the NBN platform. In essence, this is good legislation that allows for the proper use of the new NBN platform.
It is also an opportunity to talk about exactly what is happening in the electorate of Grey and how this rollout is being received. I am very pleased to report that it really is picking up a lot of speed. We are getting a lot of interest and people are getting very excited when they sign on to the new network. Grey is one of the electorates in Australia that is least-well served by the old system. Quite a number of my electors—in fact, we are down to about 900 now, but there were many more at one stage—were on the satellite systems, which became overloaded. I will not go into the detail of why that was but, once again, that was mishandling by the previous minister, Senator Conroy. Too many places were allocated under the available space for the satellites.
In fact, I was one of those users. It got to the point of being pretty much unusable. I managed, for my own usage, to put a 40-foot antenna on top of my house to receive a mobile phone signal, which has been used as a platform, through a smart aerial within my premises, for running my internet access. It is not perfect, but it should get me through to the opening up of the NBN satellite. I often say of the satellite that, perhaps, this was one area—or maybe even the only area—that the previous minister, Senator Conroy, got right in the rollout of the NBN platform. He commissioned two new, state-of-the-art satellites. They are the best in the world; they are the newest and one is in orbit now and being tested for use in Melbourne, I understand. We expect that to start taking on customers around the end of April.
There has been a lot of scuttlebutt out there from pseudo-experts talking about how inadequate the satellite service will be. This is exactly the same satellite service that the Labor government, and the Labor NBN, was going to introduce—and on, basically, the same time frame. There is not a cigarette paper width of difference between those two policies. There has been a lot of badmouthing around the satellite service, because of the ineptitude of the overloading of the old satellite service, the Interim Satellite Service. People believe that satellites are no good. In fact, it will be a very good service, with a 25-megabits-per-second download speed. That will be a very substantial service for rural Australia.
Even now, in my electorate, I am dealing with, once again, these pseudo-experts who say that not everyone will be able to get the NBN. But that is what the satellite is there for: to reach into the parts of Australia that are unable to be serviced by other technologies. If you live in a black spot, if you live in a place that, for some reason, cannot pick up the fixed wireless, or if you live in a place that does not have the fibre-to-the-premises or fibre-to-the-node networks, you will be able to log onto the satellite. There will be plenty of capacity and it will be a very good service.
Importantly, it will allow some sectors of my community that have been struggling for some time to be serviced in a very good way. The families of School of the Air students across outback South Australia are so over the current service. Their main platform of delivery is a computer that drops out on a regular basis, so they have to go through the whole process of logging on again and loading up the computer. Sometimes they spend more time trying to get connectivity than they do receiving the lessons over this network. It is pretty hard to get kids in the classroom anyhow, but it is very hard for parents and those who have responsibility for keeping the kids in the classroom through that process. They are beside themselves waiting for those times, in April, when the satellite will begin to switch on. I have urged nbn co and the minister to make sure that hooking up these people is a priority.
Another community that I feel I must speak about is the township of Elliston, which is on what we call the west coast of South Australia or the western coast of Eyre Peninsula. Currently, the town is served by a radio link, which delivers all of the technology into the community—apart from those still on the Interim Satellite Service. The radio link provides the fixed line service, the mobile phone service and, for many, the internet service. We have the local council to a point where their technology is totally superseded by the world that surrounds them, and yet they cannot install new technology because the platform is, simply, not strong enough. Once again, I have urged the minister and nbn co to look favourably upon accelerating a township like Ellison, once the satellite technology is available, so they can join the rest of the 21st century and get on with the job.
In the last eight months or so, we have commissioned 28 fixed wireless services across Grey. I will read them out because it is a bit interesting, as it is a very good spread: Arno Bay; Balgowan, down on York Penninsula; Blyth; Booleroo; Brinkworth; Bungama; Bute; Cleve; Coobowie; Corny Point; Crystal Brook; Curramulka; Gladstone; Hardwicke Bay; Kadina; Laura; Louth Bay; Melrose; Moonta; Napperby; Port Neill; Port Rickaby; Point Turton; Port Victoria; Redhill; Warooka; Winter Hill and Yorketown. That is a good list. It is impressive.
We have fixed wireless tower sites under construction at Ceduna, Coffin Bay, Cummins, Edithburgh, Haslam, Marion Bay, North Shields, Orroroo, Peralah, Peterborough North, Port Clinton, Port Germein, Port Lincoln South, Pine Point, Price, Smoky Bay, Streaky Bay, Wangary, Wanilla, Wirrabara and Wool Bay. I am probably the only person in this House to pronounce all those names correctly. There you go—it is always one of those amusing things, when you hear the radio commentator try and list local names. I can tell you that all of those people who have fixed wireless now are giving me fabulous reports. They are very impressed with the technology. They are very happy. We just have to get it to the rest of them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Nuclear Energy
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:30): The South Australian nuclear fuel cycle royal commission's tentative findings included:
… it would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.
Indeed, the only aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle the royal commission suggested could be profitable is the importation of high-level nuclear waste.
However, the Friends of the Earth observe:
… the revenue estimates have no basis in reality. There is no comparable overseas model of commercial trade of nuclear waste for disposal. No real idea how many countries might avail themselves of the opportunity to send nuclear waste to Australia for disposal, or how much they might send, or how much they might pay.
The Jacob's report, commissioned by the royal commission, estimated that the cost over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning a nuclear waste repository would be $145 billion, yet the royal commission report itself notes that spent nuclear fuel:
… requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years.
What the cost would be of monitoring the repository for millennia is not addressed in the report.
The only deep underground repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. It was supposed to be accident-free for 200,000 years, but was closed within the first 15 years in 2014 because of a chemical explosion which ruptured a nuclear waste barrel and resulted in 23 workers being exposed to radiation.
As ACF points out, any plan for international nuclear waste storage would require bipartisan federal support and broad national community consent, which are currently lacking. Certainly, the ALP's national platform provides that Labor remains strongly opposed.
New South Wales: Water
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (13:31): I rise in the House today to speak about the importance of water security and, in particular, keeping up the momentum of the establishment of the dam in inland New South Wales.
I spoke out 2½ years ago, as it had become clear it was necessary to plan for a water solution and more storage for the Central West of New South Wales. Former deputy premier, Andrew Stoner, contacted me full of support and made the idea grow closer to a reality.
Cranky Rock has been deemed an appropriate site for New South Wales to do serious feasibility studies, and today I remind the House of the importance of the project. A dam of this magnitude will alleviate further droughts, improve agriculture and mining security and sustain their productivity, as well as that of the Central West LGAs and water users.
This will be the first serious inland dam built in New South Wales for more than 30 years, which is exciting and necessary for the future of the Central West. The success of this project will lift the spirits and determination of the Central West, and will inspire all of regional Australia. We have progressed to the second stage of investigations. The state government is currently leading the way on this vital project and will need the federal government to do the same when the feasibility studies are completed.
Indi Electorate: Rutherglen Economic Revitalisation Project
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:33): Colleagues, I ask you to join me in welcoming into Parliament House today the Mayor of Indigo Shire, James Trenery, and the CEO, Gerry Smith.
As members would know, the jewel in the crown of the Indigo Shire is the fantastic town of Rutherglen. I am delighted to say that under the National Stronger Regions round 2, Rutherglen is going to benefit by a $1.834 million project to significantly enhance the main street, to remodel and enhance our Lake King and to seal Hopetoun Road, which leads up towards the 'Bottle' precinct.
Altogether, this will create 25 jobs under construction and 29 new projects post-construction. Today I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank all the people who have done the work behind this. To councillors on the Indigo Shire Council, Roberta Horne and the late Don Chambers—thank you for your work. To the Rutherglen Recreation Reserve Committee of Management—Laurie Thatcher and his committee—for their $49,000. To the Rutherglen Wine Bottle Committee of Management and Herb Ellerbach, thanks for all their work. To the wineries—Rutherglen Estate and Tony Lamb, and Tuileries Rutherglen and Mark Scalzo—for their $40,000.
Thanks to the Winemakers of Rutherglen—particularly to Wendy Killen; and to Destination Rutherglen—to Marion Hansford for her work; and to the Victorian Department of ELW&P for their $445,000 to make all this possible.
It is fantastic to see the Commonwealth investing in Indi. We are really pleased about the work and we really appreciate what is going to happen, and I am so looking forward to turning the first sod in the main street.
Banks Electorate: St George Men's Shed
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:34): I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about the St George Men's Shed, a really important group in my local community.
I visited the Men's Shed in Penshurst just last week. As always, it was good to chat with the gentlemen there about all of the activities that are taking place. Of course, they do woodwork, leatherwork and a range of other projects. And they do a lot of good things for our community. Recently, they built special sheltered seating for Carinya School in Mortdale, which has helped to make the playground safer for students. They have built iPad backing cases in the past and they have also created possum boxes to help out Hurstville Bushcare.
The shed has been located at Penshurst for some years but it will soon move to Carss Park. I want to thank Kogarah council and its mayor, Stephen Agius, for its very sensible approach in facilitating the move of the St George Men's Shed to these larger premises at Carss Park. It is a very sensible approach by the council.
I would like to congratulate and thank all the committee members: Bernie Dolan, Brian Turner, John Benson, Bryan Smith and Pat Murray, and all the other gentlemen, who make St George Men's Shed such a great part of our community. I look forward to my next visit.
Shipping
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (13:36): Australian shipping is at a crossroads. I struggle to find a time when Australian jobs are more at risk than what they are under this government.
Reminiscent of Reith and his balaclava-wearing thugs, the cowardly Turnbull government granted its blessing for security guards to mount a secret midnight raid to forcibly remove Australian workers on the MV Portland. This is the most disgusting act of industrial thuggery since Howard backed Patricks. As the Leader of the Opposition said:
… this is Work Choices on water.
What is very concerning is the fact that, without batting an eyelid, this government is happy to see Australian workers ripped out of their workplaces and replaced by cheaper foreign workers. Their ideological goal is to bring down wages and conditions, stand back and blame the market. It is not fair, it is not on and it is not Australian.
I wear the red ensign as a symbol of support for Australian maritime workers. I want to remind the PM every time he comes into this chamber, sits there and looks across the chamber that he has sold out Australian workers and their families. We will not stand by and watch Australian jobs sail offshore. We will stand with the Australian public and work together to ensure our maritime industry is kept safe and that Australian workers wanting to enter the maritime industry have a strong future ahead of them.
The question is: has the PM got the backbone to support Australian workers and Australian jobs? Sadly, the evidence is very clear that he has not. It is time for this bloke, who knifed the former Prime Minister, to get in here, stand up and look after Australians instead of looking after himself.
Telecommunications
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:37): I would like to speak today on telecommunications. It has been interesting to watch the debate on the NBN this morning as members of the opposition tried to rewrite history about their ill-fated back-of-the-coaster NBN plan. We are now starting to see real progress with the NBN in the electorate of Parkes. The city of Dubbo will by the middle of this year be the first western city in New South Wales to be fully connected. The satellite that was launched last October has had very promising trials, and we hopefully will see commercial connections to that satellite from remote parts of Australia from May onwards. Indeed, my own home will be connected to the NBN satellite.
But the real issue is phone coverage, something that the Labor Party completely ignored for six years. We have seen with the Mobile Black Spot Program round 1 499 spots around Australia, but there are great expectations for the announcement of round 2, because from the recommendations of other members and me there is a greater focus on more remote locations. I can talk about the Yellow Mountain spot at Condobolin, where there are millions of dollars of agricultural produce from farmers on cutting-edge technology that is languishing because of the lack of phone coverage. We need to fix that problem up.
Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:39): I rise to bring to the attention of the House today the news that has broken this morning that absolutely confirms this government's mismanagement of VET FEE-HELP that has allowed the VET rorts to escalate in the last 2½ years under their watch. We have seen a 70 per cent growth in the top 20 colleges. It was not difficult to monitor. It was not difficult to see. It appears that it was easy to spot that this was happening, and this government has done nothing except what it usually does: shift the blame to someone else and claim that ASQA was not fit for purpose. In fact the data had not been given to ASQA to highlight this issue.
Under the Liberals' watch the vocational education and training sector has been in crisis, with VET FEE-HELP loans escalating from $699 million in 2013 to $1.7 billion in 2014. That is more than double. They have ignored the shonks who have been out there ripping off Australian taxpayers to provide courses that we now know may not even have happened, to provide laptops as incentives for people who had not the capacity to do the courses they were signed up for. This government needs to clean its act up. It needs to deal with these shonks right now. It needs to stop its plans to take over TAFE in this country, because they clearly cannot be trusted with education at any level.
Far North Queensland Regiment: 51st Battalion
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:40): In this Centenary of Anzac one battalion that deserves recognition is the 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment, which celebrated 100 years of service at the weekend with a parade down the Cairns Esplanade. The battalion was formed in Egypt in 1914, but their role has changed profoundly since then. It was in the early 1930s that they first became based in Cairns. Since 1985 they have been the ears and the eyes of the north, conducting reconnaissance and surveillance activities across Cape York and the Torres Strait. One-third of their personnel are Indigenous, and they are presently commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ben Toyne.
In recognising the great work of the 51st Battalion we must also recognise two of the architects of its current form: the first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Kel Ryan, and Brigadier George 'Warrie' Mansford AO. George is a decorated Vietnam vet who was awarded the Member of the Order of Australia for his leadership through various natural catastrophes, from Cyclone Tracy and Cyclone Althea to the Brisbane floods. He also put his battle skills from Vietnam to the test when fighting locust plagues in western Queensland.
George is the author of such classics as The Mad Galahs and The Spirit of Australia. He became an honorary colonel of the 51st Battalion and continues to share his military experience by lecturing each graduating cohort at Royal Military College, Duntroon. Brigadier George 'Warrie' Mansford is a man we have to respect and we have to admire. I say to Warrie Mansford: we salute you and we thank you for your service.
Ovarian Cancer
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:42): Today a wonderful voice in my electorate of Newcastle, 1233 ABC Radio's morning presenter, Jill Emberson, told our community that she is battling ovarian cancer. I, like many in our community, was shocked and deeply saddened to hear this news. Jill shares her story during Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. She says:
I've watched this month come and go over the years. I've shared amazing stories about research, fund raising, awareness. I've interviewed campaigners, survivors. And now — as if in a nightmare — this disease is mine. I'll never forget the wave of heat that rushed through my body as I was shown the dangerous blood test result. I was devastated, and to be honest, I still am.
Jill is one of more than 1,400 Australian women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year. These women are mothers, sisters, partners, colleagues and friends. To Jill and all the women across Australia who are battling this disease: I wish you a full and speedy recovery.
Ovarian cancer is a difficult disease to diagnose, with symptoms that often mirror less serious and more common health problems. This year Ovarian Cancer Australia's focus is on knowing the signs and the symptoms, your family history, how to get help and the personal stories of the brave women fighting this disease. To learn more, please visit ovariancancer.net.au or see your doctor, because early detection is crucial to surviving this disease.
Ovarian Cancer
Defence White Paper
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:44): I also want to add my words of support from this side of the House to Jill. I wish her well in her recovery.
Today I rise to speak about the great social and economic benefits that the defence white paper will have on my electorate of Brisbane. The government will increase defence spending by $29.9 billion over the next decade to deliver strategies and plans set out in the 2016 Defence white paper.
The white paper's Integrated Investment Program will bring an additional $50 million of investment over the next decade to 2025-26, to update and refurbish facilities at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, largely to support an enhanced unmanned aircraft capability based on the Shadow unmanned aircraft. In the decade from 2025-2036, additional investments of $450 million are planned for further upgrades of facilities at Gallipoli Barracks. There will also be a much-welcomed additional $66 million investment in refurbishing facilities at Victoria Barracks over the next decade.
This part of the white paper will also outline greater collaboration with the innovative private sector. This means many local businesses—including Absolute Data Group based in Spring Hill; Advanced Composite Structures Australia, based in Eagle Farm; Explosive Protection Equipment and Eripio, both based in Fortitude Valley; and reconnaissance company Insitu Pacific, as well as 100 other companies based in my electorate—will directly benefit from this closer collaboration.
Trove Website
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:45): The Evening News of 20 December 1899 reports of a 'mishap' at Fort Gellibrand battery in my electorate. The battery was undertaking target practice and, while warning signals were deployed at sea, the locals of Williamstown were not informed of the imminent shelling. In the event, a cricket match between the Williamstown and Malvern second XIs was called to an abrupt halt as a shell from an 80 pounder gun hit the field. The cricketers promptly decamped to the battery to object. As the Evening Standard reports the encounter:
At first the military officials indignantly resented intrusion during practice, and asked by what authority the cricket officials had entered. The reply was that the strangers had as much right to enter the battery enclosure as artillerymen had to shoot on to a cricket ground.
I can recount this story here today thanks to the National Library of Australia's Trove website that aggregates and digitises Australian historical material—newspapers, documents, pictures, videos and sounds, from libraries, museums, archives and other research organisations—and gives every Australian the tools to explore and contribute to its expansion. Trove is an important national asset of the digital age; it is invaluable to the historians, journalists and genealogists who are continually retelling the story of what it means to be Australian.
It is a worldwide model for innovation in digital preservation and sharing of historical and cultural material. It is a public good of the digital age and a crucial part of our national information infrastructure. Yet today Trove is at risk by virtue of short-sighted funding cuts by the Turnbull government. Unless funding is preserved, Trove will cease aggregating content and we will all lose access to a crucial part of our national memory and our national soul.
Bishop, Mr Leigh
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (13:47): There are few people in the towns across my electorate of Braddon who are as well known, or have such legend status, as Leigh Bishop. Leigh is known for his contribution to the sport of bowls in Tasmania, in Australia and all over the world. Sadly, we have lost Leigh. He passed away last week. Leigh's bowls career lasted longer than I have been alive.
He started playing bowls at the age of 29 in 1951 and continued to play for over 60 years. During Leigh's lengthy career he also achieved some truly outstanding results. He played for Tasmania for 23 years; he won four state singles titles, six state pairs, one state triples, one state masters singles, six state masters triples and four state masters fours. In 1976 Leigh went a step further and represented our nation in the bowls world series in South Africa, where Australia came second, just missing out on first place on percentage.
A passionate man, a great man and eager to share his knowledge, Leigh wrote a bowls column for the local paper, for 42 years, something which many in the community would have looked forward to reading. The north-west coast has lost a true character and pillar of our community. At 93, Leigh passed away surrounded by his family at Rubicon Grove. Leigh was a gentleman. He was a man of integrity and credibility; a man with a great sense of humour and a great sense of community—and more than that, a man with a great sense of family. My thoughts and prayers are with his family: his wife, Meg, and his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. May he rest in peace.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:48): All around the world, some of the smartest, most innovative minds are working out how communities can come together to solve their problems at grass-roots level with the emergence of new structures like social impact investing, formalised sharing economy, resurgence of cooperatives and profit-for-purpose businesses, known as social enterprises.
In Parramatta, we are resilient, we are creative and we are enormously powerful when we come together as a community to solve our problems. The explosion of social enterprises in our communities is testament to this. There is Darcy St Project, who train at-risk young people in how to roast and make fabulous coffee. There is Fitted for Work, who help women to re-enter the workforce through mentorship and makeovers. Addventageous teaches cycling and unicycling to young people and migrant women—and me in coming weeks. The Blue House Project sells coffee, washes cars and sells books to assist homeless youth that are housed there. Jafra Catering's team of Palestinean mums and Diaspora Connect's asylum seeker staff provide delicious catering. Angkor Flowers & Crafts sell beautiful bouquets and helps people—mainly refugees—to blossom. Parramatta Clay and Arts provides employment and opportunity for local artists. The Fair Go Driving School provides affordable driving lessons to those who need it. Taste Food Tours uses local guides to forge social connections through food. And Collaboratory on the Parramatta River provides space and support for other emerging social enterprises. Congratulations to all our social enterprises of Parramatta. You are a great addition to our community.
High-speed Rail
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:51): In the age of infrastructure delivery I want to highlight to members of the House that high-speed rail is the answer and the solution to so many problems in our congested cities, but it is also a key to developing regional Australia. Cities like Sydney are suffocating under congestion and the problem of motorways. The best friend of a congested city that a freeway system ever had is a mass transit rail system. The best friend of regional towns and cities of the future will be not only a secure water supply and internet highways but also connections by high-speed rail.
High-speed rail is viable now, just on the basis of commuter numbers. Car volumes alone coming from Newcastle, Maitland and the Central Coast to Sydney every day number 38,200. To the south, down to Wollongong it is 30,000. To the west, it is almost 27,000 out to Penrith; and 13,500 up into Katoomba. In the south-west, down to Menangle, it is over 20,000, and it is even 11,000 car movements per day to Goulburn.
So I commend to all sides of the House—and all members of state governments and local governments—to secure a corridor now for the part of the infrastructure puzzle that Australia, both metropolitan and regional, needs: high-speed rail.
Defence White Paper
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:51): Last week, after a terrible start to the week, the Prime Minister attempted to shift focus away from his failed leadership by releasing the defence white paper. I understand the white paper was ready for release when former Prime Minister Abbott was deposed nearly six months ago. The white paper refers to $195 billion of defence spending over the years ahead. It includes 12 new submarines, 12 new offshore patrol vessels, three new air warfare destroyers and nine frigates. The paper, however, does not provide any certainty about when those vessels will be built, where they will be built or who will build them. For the people of South Australia, who were promised 12 new submarines prior to the 2013 election and then, only last year, offshore patrol vessels to be built by 2018, the uncertainty continues. With an election to be held some time this year, the white paper appears to be a political document that will be used by the Turnbull government to announce more election promises. We have already seen a taste of that in an answer to a question only last Thursday. South Australians, who have had enough of this government's backflips, want certainty not election promises, which this government, simply, cannot be trusted to deliver on.
Foreign Investment
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:53): In the current economic climate, there is an imperative to attract additional investment in medium-scale projects across our nation, particularly in the $5 million to $20 million range, which will assist with the economic recovery Australia wide. New commercial and residential projects will keep the construction industry in employment while the mining industry has slowed and will have flow-on effects to boost consumer spending in other sectors of the economy. In my electorate of Moore there is a demonstrated need for investment to develop the Joondalup regional CBD as well as a number of district centres and coastal precincts. Vacant sites do not generate productivity.
An urgent ministerial review of the complying investment framework in the significant investor visa program is needed to restore investments of $5 million or more in multi-unit, mixed-use property development projects. I am informed by the Australia China Business Council that investment in this sector has experienced a steep decline since the rules were altered on 1 July 2015 to exclude property development projects. These individuals are business migrants to Australia not foreign investors. They will, most probably, become Australian citizens bringing with them substantial wealth and entrepreneurial talent into our nation.
Education Funding
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:54): In a show of breathtaking hypocrisy, we have seen 41 coalition members and senators line up to open Labor's trade training centres. Indeed, they have put out media releases and featured in their local papers—but they came to Canberra and cut our trade training centres. We have a rollcall. We have the members for Barker, Brisbane, Clare, Capricornia, Cowen, Cowper, Dawson, Dunkley, Durack, Farrer, Flinders, Forrest, Gippsland, Grey, Hinkler, Hume, La Trobe, Lyons, Macarthur, Mallee, Mayo, McMillan, Moore, Murray, Parkes, Petrie, Riverina, Wright and Wannon. We also have Senators Ryan, Ronaldson, Seselja, Sinodinos, Williams, O'Sullivan, Mason, McKenzie, Fierravanti-Wells, Macdonald and Payne. These are the members many of whom have attended more than one—the member for Grey attended five openings of trade training centres. The member for Durack attended three and the member for Cowper attended four.
These trade training centres have been an important part of our local community and the members, while they have been willing to turn up and cut the ribbon, have failed their local communities by not supporting further trades training centres. It is time that those members stopped just cutting ribbons and stuck up for their local communities and funded trade training centres in the future. (Time expired)
Canning Electorate: Peel Youth Services
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (13:56): Two weeks ago, I visited Peel Youth Services in Canning. It was a pleasure to meet with the executive officer, Be Westbrook, and her team. Be is passionate about caring for young people in their time of need and helping them become ready for the challenges of life ahead. I thoroughly enjoyed talking with the young mums participating in the Eyes Wide Open program. The program is about providing teenage and young mums the opportunity to continue with their high school education whilst caring for their infants and children. Coodanup College in Mandurah partners with the Peel Youth Services to give flexible study options to young mums who are juggling the demands of motherhood.
It is a year tomorrow since they successfully received a five-year tender from the Department of Social Services. This is the longest tender ever received for Peel Youth Services and the stability and confidence that the funding brings enables this important work to continue and expand. From October 2014 to October 2015, 103 mums and 115 babies have been cared for by the program. It was heartening to see mums who love their kids and who are juggling the demands of further education. This government is about supporting people at vulnerable points in their lives and this program does exactly that.
I commend Be Westbrook and her team at the Peel Youth Services on their important service to the community in Canning.
Shipping
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:57): This morning I listened with interest when the member for Dawson introduced his amendment to Protection of Australian Flags (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2003. He was moved, as he described in his speech addressing the bill, to protect the Australian flag from acts of desecration and protest. I have rarely found common cause with the member for Dawson in the often cultural crusades that he introduces into this place. But I have to say that this is an issue where I could find agreement with him. Our flag is not just a piece of coloured textile but also a symbol of who we are and what we believe in.
This is why I would like to point out to the member for Dawson that the most dangerous place for Australia's red ensign, today, is on the back of an Australian ship because his government, led by this Prime Minister, is busily going around the country encouraging Australian shipowners to take down the Australian flag and replace it with the flag of another country.
It is affecting real people, like Zac Kinsett from Shellharbour, who was dragged off the MV Portland in my electorate. It affects Joanne Kerin, a young mother from my electorate, from Kanahooka, who was dragged off the Alexander Spirit and replaced by a worker from a foreign-flag vessel. If the member for Dawson really wanted to show some courage, he could take inspiration from the former National Party leader Doug Anthony who crossed the floor to support a true Labor principle—(Time expired)
Taxation
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:59): Like Labor's failed mining tax and carbon tax, Labor's abolition of negative gearing on all existing residential property, a massive hike in capital gains tax, is more tax policy on the run. These are reckless and ill-considered changes, which will have a very detrimental impact on the price of what is ordinarily our most precious asset. By taking out one-third of buyers from the market, the investors, this will drive down prices for established homes. In Corangamite I have spoken with many local—(Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the latest instalment of the government's ongoing tax saga. The Prime Minister has now contracted the Treasurer's job out to the secretary of the Prime Minister's department. So when the Prime Minister of Australia does not trust the Treasurer of Australia to do his day job, does this not prove that this government has no economic plan and that his economic team has no clue?
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER (14:01): The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting. I know the Minister for the Environment is only recently back. He might want to acquaint himself with some rulings I made in his absence.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I have said in this House many times, the Australian economy is transitioning from one driven by the mining-construction boom to one that is able to take advantage of these the most exciting times in Australia's history. The opportunities that are available to Australians are greater than ever but they are not without challenges. The road to the new economy is an exciting one but we have to make sure we take the right decisions to stay on track. That is why every lever of government policy is working to support this transition.
We know the key to a successful economy and to the jobs of the future is innovation so we launched in December a $1.1 billion national innovation and science agenda encouraging investment, promoting technology and ensuring that our best researchers in our universities collaborate with business. The defence white paper last week is built around innovation. Every element of it recognises that for Australia to have the best defence force of the 21st century, we need to be innovative. We need to rely upon, encourage, enhance Australian ingenuity and technology—and we were witnessing some of that with the defence minister earlier today.
There is a lawlessness in the construction sector where one million Australians work. We have just had a royal commission which underlined what we all knew—that the rule of law must be restored—and so we seek to reinstate—
Mr Burke: The Prime Minister is refusing to even name the Treasurer. The question is about the Treasurer and he will not even name him.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will state his point of order when he rises on a point of order, as he well knows. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: The keys to this successful transition—technology, innovation, investment, infrastructure, open markets—all of those elements are being pulled into play by the government to support the successful transition to the new economy. While we are doing that, what is Labor doing? Is Labor supporting investment? No, it is increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent. It is increasing tax on investment. It is setting out to discourage investment. Is it building confidence? No, it is undermining the value of the single largest asset class in Australia, the Australian home—the most important asset for every Australian family. And of course when it comes to the construction sector, does Labor recognise the faults exposed yet again in the royal commission? No, it says, 'All is well. The CFMEU are fine fellows. There is no need to have the building and construction commission.' There is a road to the new economy; Labor stands in the way. (Time expired)
Defence White Paper
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (14:05): I remind the Prime Minister that my electorate of Paterson contains many defence industry businesses, Defence personnel and their families. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government has encouraged innovation, investment and jobs growth in Australia's defence industries?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. As honourable members know, last Thursday the government launched the most comprehensive defence white paper in Australia's history. We are committed to delivering a more potent, agile Australian Defence Force ready to respond whenever our interests are threatened or our help is needed. We will increase defence funding by $29.9 billion over the next 10 years, which delivers on our 2013 commitment to return defence spending to two per cent of GDP within the decade.
As part of that commitment, we are investing an additional $1.6 billion over 10 years in programs to build industry skills and drive competitiveness while harnessing Australian innovation and expertise. These commitments are fully costed and fully funded. They provide the certainty that the ADF and our defence industries have needed for a very long time. This is about sound economic management. This is an integral part of our innovation strategy. It is an integral element in ensuring that we remain a prosperous First World high-wage generous social-welfare-net economy, that we seize the opportunities of the 21st century. And they will deliver a growth dividend across the country including in regional Australia, where so many of our defence forces and defence contractors live and work, such as the RAAF base in Williamstown in the member for Paterson's electorate.
Today the Defence minister and I, along with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Materiel, visited the local Canberra company CEA Technologies. CEA Technologies is an innovative Australian technology company that produces the world's best radar systems. They are selling to the Australian Defence Force and they are exporting now to the United States. The government continues to invest in the technology of CEA for research and development of radars. They are at the cutting edge.
We want to ensure that not only CEA and other companies like it continue to do well but also the next generation of technology companies and the next generation of innovative defence contractors come up. That is why we have set up, as part of the defence white paper, a method and a system for encouraging the smallest businesses in this sector to come forward so that they will get even greater opportunities than CEA did. Innovation, science and technology: that is how we make our Defence Force the best. That is how we secure Australia's future.
Taxation
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. On Thursday, the Australian Financial Review reported that the cabinet had decided it would not be spooked into releasing its tax plan before budget day. But today, the same paper reports the Prime Minister has decided to do the exact opposite by releasing his tax plans before budget day. Prime Minister, which is it? Is it the cabinet decision from last week or the Prime Minister's captain's call from the weekend?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:09): I thank the member for Sydney for her question. I note that she is a diligent reader of the Australian Financial Review. What a pity that she has not been a diligent reader of her own alternative government's tax policy.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Sydney speaks a lot about equality. She speaks a lot about fairness, and fairness is an absolutely critical element in any tax policy. We are considering carefully every aspect of tax because we do not want to make the same type of ill-considered mistakes the Labor Party has made in opposition and, of course, previously made in government.
We all remember the mining tax which, forecast to raise billions, raised millions. We all remember the catastrophic projects that they undertook—
A government member: Pink batts!
Mr TURNBULL: whether it was the pink batts—I am reminded—the school halls or the ban on live cattle exports, which trashed that industry. Indeed, we could think about the NBN, where the Labor Party developed a program in 11 weeks.
Opposition members interjecting—
Eleven weeks is all it took to come up with a catastrophic project, which it has been the job of our government to remedy, to fix and to move forward. The job of the coalition all too often is to clean up Labor's mess.
The honourable member for Sydney knows full well that the tax policy that she supports is one that will undermine home values in her electorate and right around the country. It will undermine investment. It will discourage investment. It will discourage jobs. It stands in the way of economic growth. It stands in the way of our progress to the prosperity that awaits us if we are able to seize the opportunities of the 21st century—opportunities that Labor's policies would deny us.
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley and the member for Parramatta were interjecting incessantly through that answer. I am not going to detain the House every time there is an interjection, but if this continues it will be followed by a warning and ejection, at the least.
G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:11): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update that House on the recent G20 finance ministers meeting and the support of the world's economic leaders for structural reform and sustainable fiscal policy to support economic growth? How important is it that we support economic growth and jobs through lower spending and lower taxes?
Mr Feeney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Batman will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and her keen interest in jobs and growth, particularly for Western Sydney. At the G20 on the weekend there was a real consciousness of the strong headwinds that are facing the global economy, and that is no stranger to Australia. We understand that as well, as do Australians. We understand the volatility of the times and the uncertainty that comes with that. There was also great recognition, though, of the enviable performance that Australia has economically, the position that we currently hold and the positive transition that is occurring with our economy as we move from the investment phase of the mining boom and we diversify our economy.
Compared to the G20, we are in a position of having higher growth, lower debt and stronger budgets. Our position is the envy of others in the G20. Our contribution focused on the things that we think will continue to drive that performance—that is, unlocking private investment and the challenges that are associated with that, driving productivity growth through innovation and sensible investment in infrastructure and these programs.
There were alternative views expressed about the need to go back into a cycle of tax and spend. I know those views are shared by those opposite, because they were the ones who engaged in it last time when they thought that was the answer to the world's policy problems. Thankfully, that was not a universal view, because German finance minister Schaeuble said—I think, very soundly—'using debt to fund growth just leads to "zombifying" economies.' That is what he said. His goal in his economy is to get to a debt to GDP ratio of 60 per cent. That is more than twice what Australia's current level is, and they aspire to these levels. He also said, 'Talking about further stimulus just distracts from the real tasks at hand'. At the moment, all that those who crow on the other side—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga.
Mr MORRISON: have announced is higher taxes. That is all they have done. They say they are policies, but all they are is reaching into the pockets of Australians to the tune of $8 billion over the budget and forward estimates.
But it is not bad enough that the only thing they want to announce is higher taxes. It is why they want them. They want the higher taxes because they want to spend more and more and more—$8 billion to count for some $25 billion in higher expenditure of the measures that they refuse to support from this government and the new expenditure they have announced just since the budget—and then to reverse $30 billion in savings measures on top of that. Those opposite, whether it is their increases in capital gains tax by 50 per cent on all assets that are affected by capital gains tax—a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax on all assets that are affected—or their other myriad increases in tax proposals, are all about a tax-and-spend policy which has nothing to do with growth.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just on that note, I would ask the member for Jagajaga not to interject. She continued interjecting right through the answer. I was not going to interrupt the minister answering. The member for Jagajaga is now warned.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Treasurer has expressed a willingness to address excesses in negative gearing. Prime Minister, what are the excesses in negative gearing?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to talk about these issues. They have asked us about negative gearing and these policies, and it gives me the opportunity to talk about the policies of those opposite. On capital gains tax, an increase in the capital gains tax rate of 50 per cent—
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. It is also an opportunity for the Treasurer to talk about his own policies—if he had one!
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members will cease interjecting, including the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the House will not interject. Whilst the question was a short question—I appreciate that and acknowledge it—as with answers, some questions contain long preambles. I acknowledge that that did not, but the Treasurer is entitled to have a preamble to his answer. When the member for McMahon rose, the Treasurer had been on his feet for 12 seconds. We have to be a bit practical about these things.
Mr MORRISON: As I continue that preamble, let us just understand. An increase in capital gains tax of 50 per cent will apply to the following under those opposite: land and buildings, shares in a company and units in a unit trust—
Ms King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will not interject.
Mr MORRISON: rights and options, trust distributions, convertible notes, licences, major capital improvements made to certain land or pre-CGT assets, contractible rights, collectables, jewellery, artwork, the right to enforce a contractual obligation, foreign currency, interest in a partnership action and interest in a partnership that is not an interest in a partnership asset, and bitcoin. They want to build a 50 per cent increase on capital gains tax on all of those assets. At a time when we are trying to encourage investment in the transition of our economy, their policy is one big fat tax on investment.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House does not need to interject. The Manager of Opposition Business would be aware that a point of order has been made on relevance already, and only one is allowed. I am certainly listening to the minister, and I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, given his position, as I would hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: Thanks, Mr Speaker. In terms of defying your ruling: you made a ruling about the preamble to the answer—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I am going to hear the Treasurer for the remainder of his answer. I made clear in my first days as Speaker that, provided that the answer was on the policy topic—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, the member for Sydney will not debate the issue with me. She is warned. I am simply not going to be interrupted all through question time. What I am now going to do is just call the Treasurer. I will respond after he has concluded his answer.
Mr MORRISON: So it is not the government's policy to follow those opposite, who believe in higher taxes for higher spending down that path, as they have outlined, to apply a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax to all of those things, which would be a punishing tax on investment at a time when it is the last thing that this country could afford to go down that path.
But I am asked about negative gearing. I am asked about that, and it gives me the opportunity to remind those opposite about what we do not believe on this side. We do not think it is excessive that policemen, that nurses, that paramedics, that schoolteachers and that some two-thirds of those who have a taxable income of $80,000 and less invest in negative gearing. We do not think that is excessive, but those opposite do.
Those opposite think that, for someone who negatively gears one property and claims net interest deductions or net rental losses of around $10,000, that is excessive, and it must be stopped. They think nurses who are trying to save for their future and small businesses and mums and dads who have gone out there and bought an investment property are the problem. They think they are the reason why their kids have to pay higher prices for their houses—not because successive Labor governments at a state level contracted places like Sydney, put the 'shut' sign up and stopped the building boom that could have continued in those states when the member for McMahon was serving that great minister in New South Wales, Minister Carl Scully. That is what they think. They think the mum and dad investors of this country are the problem.
On this side of the House, we know they are the answer because they are investing in their own future, and they are investing in the future of this country. Those opposite just want to tax them silly.
Hospitals
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Health. I am seeking clarification about Indi hospital funding. As reported in the Wangaratta Chronicle and The Border Mail, there is a dispute between the Commonwealth and the Victorian government about calculations around the national partnership agreement. If it is not accurate for this year, can the minister guarantee us for the next two years? And, if the Commonwealth is not able to support funding for operations, would it consider extra funding for capital works, particularly at the Wangaratta hospital?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (14:22): I have actually come prepared with a copy of the National Health Reform Agreement, signed by the Labor Party under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with the premiers and chief ministers of every state and territory.
Ms King: You ripped it up.
Ms LEY: I caution the member for Indi not to believe everything that the Victorian Labor Party tells her about Commonwealth funding to the Victorian health system. Clause 3c of the agreement makes it very plain that the National Health Funding Pool has to take a nationally consistent approach. What we are actually seeing from the Victorian health minister, uncorrected by the Labor Party in this place—
Ms King: Because you corrected it when David Davis did it. I remember that well.
Ms LEY: is a sneaky attempt to game the system and step up and say, 'We actually want different calculations for our state than for every other state.' So the way the National Health Funding Pool is distributed is based, as members know, on activity based funding and the national efficient price. What Victoria has done is artificially deflate the base of that funding formula so that the difference between that and the rate of funding that the Commonwealth notionally provides from this hospital funding pool is higher than it should be.
There are checks and balances here. I reassure the member for Indi that, if the argument that the Victorian Labor Party was putting is correct, every other state, particularly the Labor states around the table, would be stepping up and saying: 'What about us? We demand the same treatment.' In fact, they are not. The Victorian minister is friendless around the COAG table. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Isaacs as senior cabinet ministers in the opposition should correct the Victorian health minister—
Ms King: Just like you did when David Davis did it.
Ms LEY: and should make it very clear that the sneaky accounting trick she is trying to pull, frightening individual hospitals, frightening patients, offending consumers and leaving us another Labor mess to clean up. I will be writing to every single state public hospital system to explain to them that it is the Labor Party who created the system—
Ms King interjecting—
Ms LEY: and that the inconsistency and the gaming of that system by the Victorian health minister should absolutely be held up and held accountable. This is a mistake by Labor and a correction by the coalition. I look forward to correcting the record at every single Victorian hospital.
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat interjected continually through the answer. Almost non-stop at one point. The member for Ballarat is warned.
Defence White Paper
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the defence white paper and the defence industry policy statement have been received both in Australia and overseas? How important is the defence industry as a pillar of our national security?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:25): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I acknowledge her strong support for Australia's defence forces and indeed the defence industry jobs of the future. Australia's security and prosperity now and in the future rely upon the maintenance of peace, particularly in our region. The defence white paper that was released last Thursday details how our defence forces will engage in an increasingly complex strategic environment over the next 20 years.
Importantly, we consulted with around 13 of the key regional nations, including South Korea, Japan, China, Malaysia and Vietnam as well as partners in Europe. I particularly welcome the comments of Indonesian Brigadier General Bimantoro, who described our white paper as a 'positive contribution to regional efforts of supporting peace and security'. I note that US Ambassador Berry said the white paper is a 'well-considered, comprehensive approach to addressing evolving security challenges'. As far as our domestic defence industry is concerned, we welcome the comments of KPMG Australia's defence industry lead partner, Mike Kalms, who said:
Having listened to the Prime Minister and Defence Minister today, you could feel their genuine ambition to better leverage innovative Australian business.
Of course this builds on the $1.1 billion national science and innovation strategy that the Prime Minister launched last December. Australian Industry Group CEO Innes Willox noted:
Importantly, the Turnbull Government's plan provides a much-needed and necessary opportunity to grow a stable, long-term skilled naval build and sustainment workforce across the nation.
South Australia's Premier, Jay Weatherill, said:
It’s a win for workers, families, businesses and an entire industry sector and it’s also a win for Australia.
He added it is also an 'unambiguous win for South Australia'.
It is clear that the white paper has been successful in establishing a long-term plan for the strengthening of our defence forces. This will bring benefits to our region as we work with partners to maintain peace and security. It will bring great benefit to communities across Australia, where defence industries will be able to plan ahead with greater certainty. This will drive the innovation in defence industries that will support more jobs in defence and associated industries into the future. The region knows and our nation knows that Labor when in government cut funding to our defence to the lowest percentage of GDP since 1938. It is up to the coalition to repair that damage and build up our capability to protect our nation and to protect our people.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the Treasurer has refused to outline to the House what the excesses are in negative gearing, will the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's views of the excesses in negative gearing?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:29): There is one thing that the opposition do not have an excess of and that is due diligence and care. The recklessness with which they prepared their tax policy underlines that. Let me lay out coolly and clearly the challenge that faces Australia. We have seen the biggest mining boom in our history. Our economy has been driven by a massive level of mining construction investment. That is tailing off. How do we transition to a new economy? How do we succeed in the 21st century? How do we do that and ensure that our children and grandchildren have good, high-paying jobs? We do that by ensuring that we have open markets. We do that by ensuring that we have access to the fastest growing markets in the world, and we have done that with free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China and the TPP, thanks to the outstanding leadership of the former trade minister Mr Robb. We have done that, but clearly we have to be more competitive, more productive, more innovative.
So how do we ensure that Australian businesses and investors support innovative companies? You provide incentives, and that is what we have done in the Innovation and Science Agenda. We provided real incentives for universities to work with business.
Mr Bowen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. The member for McMahon on a point of order?
Mr Bowen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Cognisant of your ruling—
The SPEAKER: On a point of order?
Mr Bowen: Yes, Mr Speaker, Cognisant of your previous reminder—
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Bowen: that ministers should be able to answer the question—
The SPEAKER: No, I need you to state the point of order.
Mr Bowen: he is now halfway through the question, Mr Speaker, and he has not dealt with the excess that the government says exists.
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will resume his seat. At no point did the member state the point of order.
Mr TURNBULL: And so we also need the best infrastructure. We have a $50 billion infrastructure program. We are working with state government and with cities with a new cities agenda that will see us invest even more and collaborate to ensure that our cities are livable and have the amenity that their citizens deserve in the 21st century.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I hear those interrupting.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, I hear the Leader of the House interjecting, but no point of order was stated, as I said, and that is why I sat the member for McMahon back down. I am going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to state his point of order.
Mr Burke: Thanks. It is on direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The answer that is being given by the Prime Minister is going nowhere near the excesses in negative gearing that the Treasurer has referred to.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton does not need to interject additions to the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And I do not need interjections on my right either. As I said—the Prime Minister will just resume his seat for a second—I am not going to keep restating what I have said in answer to questions remaining on the policy topic and the ability for ministers to have a preamble. I am listening to the Prime Minister. I know that he has had a preamble. The question was on tax. But I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business, as calmly as I can: you will have noticed, in accordance with the practice—and it is a longstanding practice—there is a certain latitude for leaders. That is both leaders, and I allow that latitude with the Leader of the Opposition in some of the questions he has asked and, indeed, the length of his point of order where he has essentially restated a question. So the Prime Minister, I am sure, will be coming to the question of tax.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So all of our policies are supporting innovation, investment, infrastructure, open markets and technology. What is Labor's tax policy going to do? Undermine confidence; undermine the value of the largest asset class, the family home. That is what their negative gearing policy will do: deprive ordinary Australians of making an investment in residential housing; deprive the members of the Leader of the Opposition's former union of doing that.
And then they want to increase, by 50 per cent, the tax on capital gains. At a time when we need more investment, when we want people to have the confidence to start the CEA Technologies of the future—to start the new firms, the new businesses—what Labor say is, 'We are going to increase the tax on you by 50 per cent.' They are upping a tax on investment just at the time when the nation needs investment. They are standing in the way of our success.
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Hindmarsh, there were two points of order, obviously—or two members rose on points of order; the member for McMahon did not ever state a point of order.
Mr Danby: You can negatively gear the family home now. It's amazing.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will just cease interjecting, just for a second. And that is why I recognised the—
Mr Danby: You can negatively gear the family home.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.
Mr Danby: I was answering the Prime Minister's speech.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will leave under 94(a). Now, I have made clear on many occasions that I regard interjections when I am addressing the House to be highly disorderly. The member for Melbourne Ports will leave immediately.
The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: And that is why I recognised the Manager of Opposition Business on his point of order. I just want to caution all members: that does not open up the way for frivolous non-points of order with members coming to the dispatch box. I just want to make that very, very clear so there are no regrets.
Defence White Paper
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister advise the House of the role that defence plays in promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics in our workforce and our economy? How will the Defence white paper and Defence Industry Policy Statement support that vital national priority?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:35): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I know that he—like me and, in fact, Jay Weatherill, as the foreign minister has already pointed out—is particularly delighted about the Defence white paper, the Defence Industry Policy Statement and how well they have been received.
Defence and defence industries are among the most significant employers of engineers, scientists, technicians and mathematicians in the country and in the economy. There are 17,500 ADF personnel who are employed in science, technology and engineering alone. Of course, the Defence Science and Technology Group, the research wing of the Defence Force, employs 2,300 Australians. Almost all of those are scientists, mathematicians and engineers. Defence has a Defence schools pathways program, amongst many other particular programs, that encourages young people to take up careers in Defence, in engineering, science, mathematics and technology. Five thousand South Australian students alone are engaged in the Defence schools pathways program.
The Defence white paper and the Defence Industry Policy Statement continue to build on that investment through the Centre for Defence Industry Capability. The Centre for Defence Industry Capability will be an industry growth centre which will encourage Australians getting high value from their defence industry dollar.
Another part of the defence white paper is the Australian Maritime College, which will train more Australians in defence industry in those highly valuable parts of our economy. This has important spillover effects. For example, Lockheed Martin's submarine combat systems laboratory in Adelaide is a major employer of scientists, researchers and engineers, continuing to make sure that part of our economy is thriving. Because this part of the government's agenda plays in so much to innovation and science, the Cyber Security Growth Centre in the National Innovation and Science Agenda is also part of growing jobs and growth in our economy through taking advantage of the $70 billion a year cybersecurity industry worldwide. The government's policies in defence industry, in defence and in innovation are all doing exactly what the Australian people want us to do: create jobs, create growth and get our economy moving again. Under Labor, we had six years of inaction on the naval shipbuilding industry, six years of no decisions about submarines or frigates—in fact, spending on defence reduced to the lowest levels as a share of GDP since 1938.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Batman was interjecting incessantly through that answer. He is now warned. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor has ruled out retrospective changes to negative gearing. But on Thursday in question time the Prime Minister twice refused to rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing. Investors want to know what is on his radar, so I ask again: will the Prime Minister now rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for asking me about negative gearing. The Labor Party's policy on negative gearing and its proposal to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent is an ill-considered, reckless effort to undermine Australia's transition to the new economy. At a time when we need investment, surely all honourable members believe that Australia needs more investment. Surely we all believe that we want Australians to take risks, to invest, to have a go, to start new businesses. Surely we want young people to be able to borrow some money, realise their dream, start a business and do so, naturally, in the hope of gain. We would all hope that that is what they would do, and yet the Labor Party is saying that if they get into government they will increase the tax on any gain that young person makes by 50 per cent.
If you increase the tax on something, you discourage it. If you increase the tax on investment, you discourage people making those investments. What Labor is proposing is absolutely calculated to undermine our transition to the new economy. We have had a massive mining construction boom. China grew. China had a massive stimulus. Demand for iron ore and coal soared upwards, and we responded. Tens of billions of dollars were invested here, and we benefited from that. But that investment has been made. We are now in the production phase. Prices have come down. How do we maintain our prosperity? We do so through innovation, open markets and investing in infrastructure, and, above all, we need Australians to back their passions and dreams and to invest. And right at that point, while the government is encouraging investment and incentivising investment, what the Labor Party is doing is increasing the tax on investment by 50 per cent. Labor is whacking up higher taxes to discourage the very thing Australia needs more of to be successful.
There is a way to the future opportunities that we deserve in this, the most exciting times in human history. Labor is standing in the way, imposing taxes which will discourage the investment, entrepreneurship, technology and innovation that Australians need to succeed in these times.
Taxation
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:42): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the importance of steady economic policies to business confidence in rural and regional Australia. Why is a consistent approach to tax policy critical to the investment decisions that business and individuals make in our economy?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously I am very aware of the effects of tax policy, having made my way in life as an accountant. I think one of the clear things to see in any tax policy is a comparative analysis of what happens if there is an alternative policy that an alternative government may have. I am very aware of the industries in the areas of the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn and what is important to them. In the past that we have seen policies brought forward such as the resource super profits tax, which was designed by, it is imagined, Labor and the Greens and the Independents together. It came up with a 40 per cent tax on super profits. That meant that, on top of the 40 per cent tax on super profits, there was a corporate tax on what was left over, which meant that their effective tax rate went to around about 57 per cent. This was devastating on the future potential of places such as Moranbah, Dysart, Emerald and Clermont because, quite obviously, it showed an excessive tax rate. It was disastrous. It was so disastrous that, in the end, they changed their own ill thought out tax plan, because they knew that it was just not a flyer.
You could excuse them for having one bad idea, but they had a number of them. The carbon tax was yet another one of their crazy ideas. For those who worked at the QAL refinery at Gladstone and Rio's refinery at Yarwun or for the Boyne smelter, this was a massive hike on the price of electricity—and, as we know, aluminium is predominantly bauxite and needs a lot of electricity. What this did was put great uncertainties into the city of Gladstone and into Central Queensland, because it showed that, at that point of time, the Labor, Green and Independent government had no real understanding about the economics, the consequences of their economics. You might just think it stopped there, but of course it did not. They also had the overnight cessation of the live cattle trade, and of course with that we saw an effect on the price of cattle, one of the biggest industries in Central Queensland.
These were all the random policy objectives and the random policy approach of the government at the time, the Labor, Green and Independent government that did not know what it was doing. And now they are back at it again. Now we see their entree into negative gearing. Might I just remind people, especially in Queensland—the member for Dawson will be interested in this—that Mackay has the most negatively geared homes in the area. There are 5,755 people negatively gearing homes. Labor's most recent tax foray is devastating to them, to the 4,000 in Cairns and the 4,000 in Gladstone. It will affect them. You really do have to have a government that has got its head screwed on, and that is why the Australian people will stick with the one they have got.
Broadband
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the last election, the cost of the Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN has nearly doubled, from $29½ billion to $56 billion; the time to build the Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN has more than doubled, from 2016 to 2020; and the cost of repairing the copper that makes the Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN has blown out by more than 1,000 per cent. Given he could not deliver on the NBN and cannot deliver an economic plan, isn't it clear that all this Prime Minister is capable of delivering is chaos? (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:46): I will ask the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government to address this in a moment, but I just remind the honourable member, my former sparring partner, that, since the election, the number of premises that are serviced by the NBN has increased tenfold. By the end of this financial year the NBN will have upgraded and have services available to one in four premises in Australia. By June 2018 it will be three in four premises in Australia. The changes to the rollout will see the project finished six to eight years sooner and at around $30 billion less cost. The honourable member's project was a failure. The coalition, this government, has rescued it. I ask the honourable minister.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Major Projects,Territories and Local Government) (14:47): Thank you, Prime Minister. I am pleased to expand on these themes, because the shadow minister seems determined to keep banging his head against a brick wall, when the NBN is delivering. The NBN is delivering after what we saw under Labor was six years in which they managed to deliver a network which could serve barely 300,000 premises after six years. After 2½ years the Turnbull government has delivered an NBN where 1.775 million premises can be served, fibre to the node is being rolled out at the rate of 10,000 premises a week and, by the end of the year, it will rise to 25,000 premises a week.
You judge a company and its performance on the basis of the capability of the people who run it. A board chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski and a CEO, Bill Morrow, with global experience—none of that experience was present in nbn co when we came to government. You judge a company on its performance against its publicly stated targets. Is it doing what it tells the world it is going to do? The answer is, yes, it is. This company has met its targets for the last six quarters in a row—quarter after quarter of consistent performance, as compared to the chaotic mass we saw under Labor, when target after target repeatedly failed to be met. This is a company delivering. The NBN is getting rolled out. The Turnbull government is delivering for the people of Australia, because on this side we are about delivery. The other side are hopeless dreamers.
Small Business
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister outline recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data about small businesses and what the government has done to make life easier for those small businesses? What risks exist for the prosperity of Australian small businesses?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer) (14:50): I would like to very much thank the member for Deakin for this question, because he is a very, very strong advocate for small business in his community of Deakin. He understands the importance of those men and women who are entrepreneurial and enterprising, how significantly they contribute to the Australian economy—more than $340 billion each and every year, employing more than 4.7 million Australians. I have got good news for the member for Deakin, because on Friday of last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that there had been an increase in the number of small businesses, by more than 21,500 small businesses nationally. It is even better news in Victoria—more than 8,600 small businesses.
These are very important figures because this is the second consecutive year that we have seen an increase in the number of small businesses. It compares pretty dramatically to Labor, because we saw a drop in the number of small businesses during the final year of the previous Labor government. What it demonstrates is that our plan is working—our plan to deliver instant asset write-offs to small businesses, of up to $20,000, which is helping small businesses to invest in themselves; a company tax cut of 1.5 per cent for small businesses; a five per cent discount for unincorporated entities; free trade agreements for small businesses who are looking to expand their markets overseas—three of them, to Japan, to South Korea and to China; and the ability of small businesses to immediately deduct their professional expenses in setting up a small business. These are just some of the measures that we know are working today. And that is before you take into account some changes that passed the Senate only today that will allow small businesses to restructure themselves where there is the same owner and not trigger capital gains tax liabilities.
These things are helping small businesses but we know that confidence can be pretty fragile with small business. While conditions overall have been firmly above the five-year average, according to the ACCI survey results in December, we know that Labor's policies would directly impact negative gearing by ensuring it will undermine the value of more than $5.6 trillion in residences in Victoria. That would directly impact small businesses because small business men and women rely on their properties for their wealth and 14 per cent of them actually have mortgages. So Labor's policy would have a reckless and damaging impact on small business owners and damage the Australian economy.
Broadband
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the last election the Prime Minister promised to deliver the NBN to all Australians by the end of this year. However, internal documents leaked to The Sydney Morning Herald—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Interjections from my left are preventing me from hearing the member for Blaxland's question, including from the member for Grayndler and, I think, the member for Lalor, only because she has been interjecting incessantly. I am going to ask the member for Blaxland to start his question again, and I ask those behind him not to interrupt him.
Mr CLARE: My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the last election the Prime Minister promised to deliver the NBN to all Australians by the end of this year. However, internal documents leaked to The Sydney Morning Heraldtoday reveal the Prime Minister's second rate copper NBN is in crisis—
The SPEAKER: The member for Blaxland will not use props.
Mr CLARE: and has failed to meet even a third of its internal rollout target. Will the Prime Minister finally accept responsibility for the mess and the chaos he has done to the NBN? (Time expired)
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I am just going to point out that the practice of a Prime Minister referring questions to other ministers is as old as question time itself. There is a good section in the Practice on it, but I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I respect that that refers to when the policy area can be better answered by the line minister. But when the question is 'Does the Prime Minister take responsibility?' how on earth can the minister have a better idea than the Prime Minister?
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bass will cease interjecting. I do not think all the other members of the House would appreciate us having a long discussion of the Practice. I was reading it earlier. I do not have it with me. This folder is getting rather thick, but I can assure you it is in there. There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Major Projects,Territories and Local Government) (14:56): I will tell the shadow minister what we take responsibility for. What we take responsibility for is delivering the NBN. What we take responsibility for is 1.775 million premises which are now able to connect to the NBN after the pathetic, hopeless and desperately incompetent legacy that we inherited from Labor, where barely 300,000 premises could connect.
The shadow minister seems to think that it is some kind of smoking gun that NBN works through contingencies and monitors progress against its target. Based upon my experience working in a large telecommunication company—an experience shared by the Prime Minister, with his experience as one of the leading investors in telecommunications in this country, and by many of the people on this side of the House who have serious business experience and know about what it takes to deliver a project, as opposed to making grand and empty promises—I will tell you what you do when you are serious about delivering a project. You constantly monitor your performance. You constantly look at contingencies. You constantly say, 'How are we doing?' And I will tell you how the NBN is doing: we are getting on with rolling out this network. We are already in a position where 1.775 million premises around the country are able to connect, and the rollout is continuing under a capable, competent, experienced board and management team—none of which existed when this government came to power. We are on the job. The NBN is getting the network rolled out. We stand by it, and we are proud of it.
Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Dr STONE (Murray) (14:58): My constituency question is to the Minister for Health. Research has found that Australia has some of the highest rates in the world of babies born with permanent brain damage and other disabilities where their mothers drank alcohol while pregnant. In my electorate of Murray there are some 50 cases of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder identified. Can the minister update the House on the status of the government's $9.2 million National FASD Action Plan? It is a great plan, and it is good to hear about it.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (14:58): I take pleasure in answering the question from my good friend across the Murray River the member for Murray about an important topic she is absolutely passionate about and for which she has flown the flag in this parliament for as long as I can remember—not an easy cause, but she does need recognition for the work that she has done. We on this side of the House have dedicated just over $9 million to the original Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder Action Plan and we are going to continue the work that we have already started. It builds around educating clinicians so that the right diagnostic tool can be brought to bear to understand the needs of the person. It brings the resources that are around the country together in a single hub. It does further work on education and understanding, and that is a really powerful commitment that we make.
This is an important cause—and the member for Murray understands that—because, in the absence of biomarkers, the presentation often of a child with FASD is that they have problem behaviours. It is not that they cannot do; it is that they will not. Their difficulties are misunderstood. They are often medicated, often described as having ADHD and, before we know it, they have turned into an adult with problems, difficulties and enormous challenges. However, we also know that with the right neurobehavioral early intervention, when that plasticity is still in the brain, we can actually make a difference to these children. It is so important that we do so.
As I said, it is not a popular cause—not one you hear much about—but I am very delighted, as is my colleague who has portfolio responsibility for this important area, the Minister for Rural Health in the other place, to continue with the important work around this. I remind everyone that alcohol causes harm during pregnancy, and that is a very strong message that we also need to deliver.
Broadband
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians that his second-rate copper NBN would be 'Fast. Affordable. Sooner.' Given that we now know that his second-rate copper NBN is slower than Labor's, has doubled in cost and will not be delivered when he promised, does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that his NBN is actually slow, expensive and late?
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will cease interjecting as will the member for Moreton. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:01): I am afraid to say that the Leader of the Opposition is in a parallel universe—perhaps 'Conrovia', I think, is the best way to describe it. The nbn publishes its rollout figures every week. Under the Labor government, they were published as and when the minister saw fit; under this government, they are published every single week. In the last week, for example, it was reported to 18 February that 26,524 additional premises were covered by the network. Of those, about 14,000 additional connections were made.
The NBN is rolling out, as I said earlier. We have activated serviceable premises 10 times greater than the number we inherited at the election. The fact is that the NBN under its new management is meeting its targets. It will have services available in one in four Australian premises by 30 June and it estimates that two years after that, in 2018, we will have services available in three out of four premises.
The changes to the rollout design that the government undertook will see the project finish six to eight years sooner and at around $30 billion less cost. So the approach we are taking will see it completed sooner and at much less cost.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to copper, by which I assume he was referring to the fibre–to-the-node hybrid technology which is being used. The chief executive of the nbn, Mr Morrow, announced on 5 February that they had surveyed NBN users' satisfaction for the various technologies and found that the satisfaction for customers using fibre to the premises and fibre to the nodes was at exactly the same level.
The facts speak for themselves. The Leader of the Opposition can fool himself. We are living in the real world, and the nbn is getting on with the job.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr Nikolic: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition over the last three questions has persistently ignored standing order 91(e). He has just done it again—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bass will resume his seat. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition a number of times. The member for Bass heard my very specific—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting or they will be ejected. I made some very specific remarks earlier in question time with respect to the Prime Minister's answer and the Leader of the Opposition's questions. The principle that there is a leniency is long established, but I have asked the Leader of the Opposition a number of times, and my patience is wearing. But, if the member for Bass's point is: are the leaders of both political parties given extra latitude compared to other members? The answer is yes, and that is a well-established principle—not established by me, I might point out.
Illicit Drugs
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (15:05): My question is to the Minister for Finance. Can the minister update the House on how ice is impacting metropolitan and regional communities across Australia? What steps is the government taking to tackle this scourge?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman might like to rephrase his question.
Mr LAMING: My apologies: it was for the Minister for Justice.
The SPEAKER: There is no need to restate the question, unless the Minister for Justice needs to hear it again.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (15:05): I thank the member for Bowman for that question and the interest that he takes in these issues. As every member of this House would be aware, Australia has a significant problem with crystal methamphetamine—otherwise known as ice. Over the past few years in particular, we have seen the creep of this insidious drug move across the whole country.
I think all members, going about the course of their duties, would have been made aware from service providers on the front line—people who work in our hospitals, policemen—about the sorts of issues that the use of this drug presents for them such as the irrational and incredibly violent behaviour. The government has been very concerned to show national leadership and to do all that we can to address the creep of this terrible drug. That is why we asked the former Chief Commissioner of police in Victoria, Ken Lay, to join with two health professionals to provide the government with the best possible advice about what we can do to show that national leadership.
They have provided the government with advice after moving about the country and talking to regional communities in particular because, sadly, we know that regional communities can be particularly impacted by this drug. In December last year, the government responded by investing over $300 million extra in drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
We know that we need to address both the supply side and the demand side of this drug. On the demand side, we have been doing everything we can to make sure that people are educated about its effects and if you do need treatment then that treatment is available to you. On the supply side, our law enforcement agencies have been doing a magnificent job finding the people who peddle in this misery and doing all that they can to lock them up and destroy their distribution networks.
This is a job that is beyond just our law enforcement community. I would urge all in the community to be a part of it and that is why we invested a million dollars of proceeds of crime in the Dob in a Dealer campaign that is being rolled out by Crime Stoppers that will be starting in Queensland this very week. This program encourages everybody who has information that might help the police do their job to contact Crime Stoppers and provide those snippets of information that can then be used to create a larger intelligence picture. That information is very important for our policing agencies and will make sure that they can continue to do the job of keeping this drug off our streets.
Already we have seen that the weight of ice seized at our borders has grown 60 times in the past four years. That is a direct result of the additional $88 million we made available for Customs to seize contraband that crosses our borders when we came to office. Arrests nationally have increased by 88 per cent since 2010. We have continued to enhance our international cooperation, including sending Australian Crime Commission officers and Australian Federal Police officers up to China to work directly with their counterparts.
Crystal methamphetamine, or ice, is a dreadful drug and this government are doing all that we can to show national leadership to get it off our streets.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:09): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Department of Parliamentary Services
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): I ask a question under standing order 103. I refer to confirmation from the ABC that the Australian Federal Police 'has been conducting inquiries with the Department of Parliamentary Services in relation to an ongoing investigation'. Has the Department of Parliamentary Services provided any recent assistance to the Australian Federal Police in relation to accessing parliamentary records, including but not limited to records held on parliamentary computer systems and, if so, could the Speaker please advise what assistance was provided and when?
The SPEAKER (15:10): I thank the member for Isaacs for his question to me. I will say a number of things. Firstly, I do not comment on police matters and any queries concerning such matters should be directed to the Australian Federal Police. Let me also clarify, in relation to the execution of search warrants more generally, members would be aware that the Australian Federal Police has a national guideline for execution of search warrants where parliamentary privilege may be involved, which has been agreed between the minister responsible for the AFP and the Presiding Officers. Any process for the execution of search warrants in circumstances where parliamentary privilege may be involved would only be done in accordance with the principles of that guideline to ensure that parliamentary privilege is protected.
Questions in Writing
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (15:11): I would like to seek your assistance in following up some unanswered questions from the Notice Paper. Response is required in 60 calendar days, so I would request that you write to the Prime Minister to seek an explanation for the delay in answering questions No. 483, which has been on the Notice Paper for 517 days, and No. 488, which has been on the Notice Paper for 518 days. I also ask that you write to the Treasurer to seek an explanation for the delay in answering questions Nos 818 and 819, which have been on the Notice Paper for 252 days.
The SPEAKER (15:12): On behalf of the member for Fraser, I will write to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and any other relevant ministers on his behalf.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) 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 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 20), insert:
This Subdivision also requires the Commissioner to report on certain Reportable Accounts that are maintained by Australian Reporting Financial Institutions.
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 14 (after line 14), after section 396‑135, insert:
396 ‑136 Report on Reportable Accounts maintained by Australian Reporting Financial Institutions
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the Commissioner receives one or more statements under subsection 396‑105(2) in relation to:
(i) the 2018 calendar year; or
(ii) a calendar year commencing after 2018; and
(b) the statement contains information about a Reportable Account (within the meaning of the CRS); and
(c) the total number of accounts of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b) for a jurisdiction (other than Australia) that is a Reportable Jurisdiction (within the meaning of the CRS) (the relevant jurisdiction) for the calendar year is 6 or more.
(2) The Commissioner must, no later than 31 December of the year following the calendar year, prepare and give to the Minister a report that sets out for each relevant jurisdiction in relation to the calendar year the following information:
(a) the total number of accounts of the kind mentioned in paragraph (1)(b);
(b) the sum of the amounts in those accounts.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report given under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.
(4) The report given under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.
(3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (cell at table item 6, column 2), omit "2019", substitute "2018".
(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (after line 21), after subitem (2), insert:
High Value Accounts
(2A) For the purposes of subsections 396‑105(1) and (2) in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, as amended by this Schedule, an account maintained by a Reporting Financial Institution on 1 July 2017 is treated as being a Reportable Account (within the meaning of the CRS) on that day if the account:
(a) would be a Reportable Account (within the meaning of the CRS) on that day if the Reporting Financial Institution applied the due diligence procedures described in the CRS in relation to the account on or before that day; and
(b) is a High Value Account (within the meaning of the CRS) on 30 June 2017.
(5) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (after line 21), after subitem (2), insert:
Preexisting Entity Accounts
(2B) For the purposes of subsections 396‑105(1) and (2) in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, as amended by this Schedule, an account maintained by a Reporting Financial Institution on 1 July 2017 is treated as being a Reportable Account (within the meaning of the CRS) on that day if the account:
(a) would be a Reportable Account (within the meaning of the CRS) on that day if the Reporting Financial Institution applied the due diligence procedures described in the CRS in relation to the account on or before that day; and
(b) is a Preexisting Entity Account (within the meaning of the CRS).
(6) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (lines 22 to 33), omit subitem (3), substitute:
Statements
(3) Despite subsection 396‑105(6) in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, to the extent that a statement under subsection 396‑105(2) in that Schedule for 2017 relates to an account that is a Lower Value Account (within the meaning of the CRS), the statement must be given to the Commissioner no later than 31 July 2019.
Note: Section 388‑55 in that Schedule allows the Commissioner to defer the time for giving an approved form.
(7) Schedule 1, item 15, page 17 (line 1), after "subitem", insert "(2A), (2B) or".
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:12): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The government supports the Senate amendments to the Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) Bill 2015. The bill is part of the government's commitment to ensure that Australia is at the forefront of the fight against tax avoidance, and avoidance both by individuals and by multinationals, as we stressed again at the meeting of the G20 on the weekend where Australia was, in fact, the leading voice when it came to what was being done to crack down on multinational tax avoidance. We received particular commendation from the OECD for the good work that we are doing in that area. This bill is part of the government's commitment to do this and the Common Reporting Standard is an international framework developed by the OECD, working with non-OECD G20 countries to tackle and deter cross-border tax evasion.
The government's bill will help ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share of tax by requiring financial institutions to provide tax authorities with information on individuals with offshore accounts, regardless of where their financial accounts are located. The Common Reporting Standard primarily addresses tax evasion by individuals who are illegally concealing offshore investment income. The timetable in the bill for exchanging information aligns with the OECD's recommendations for jurisdictions seeking to implement the CRS as fast as can be expected and in line with other countries that are adopting the CRS.
Collaborating with other countries is essential because it is the information that they exchange with Australia which contributes to catching offshore tax evaders. The CRS complements the OECD's country-by-country report, which relates to companies and hence combats multinational tax avoidance. Australia is one of the first countries to commit to implementing country-by-country reporting with the legislation that was passed in this place last December that, regretfully, was not supported by the opposition.
The government supports the amendments passed by the Senate to ensure that provisions operate as intended. These changes correct a technical anomaly in the original bill so that statements relating to the pre-existing individual accounts that are high-value accounts as of 30 June 2017 must be reported to the tax commissioner by 31 July 2018. The changes ensure that this timing is required regardless of whether the reporting financial institution conducts its due diligence procedures for these accounts between 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017 or 1 January 2018 to 31 July 2018. The timing provisions in the bill have been carefully crafted to ensure that we align with the OECD guidance on collection, review and exchange of information. The government also supports the proposed amendments to require the Commissioner of Taxation to publish an annual report providing aggregated de-identified data on financial holdings of foreign nationals in Australia.
Indeed, the government measure is a key initiative that sees Australia join a coalition of over 96 jurisdictions that have committed to implement the Common Reporting Standard. The standard will build on the ATO's current information exchanges. In 2014-15 total tax liabilities raised as a direct result of exchange of information with Australia's treaty partners was approximately $255 million. People who do not comply with their Australian tax obligations undermine the integrity of the tax system. The standard will improve the integrity of the tax system by engendering confidence in the community that taxes are not being evaded. The standard will also encourage greater voluntary compliance as taxpayers will be now safe in the knowledge that it has just got a whole lot harder to hide funds offshore without the tax office tracking you down.
This legislation, along with the combating multinational tax avoidance legislation and implementing a GST on digital goods measure, shows the resolve of the government to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax on profit earned in Australia. These are measures that Labor did not pursue whilst in government and instead decided to do nothing. In addition, the government has also made a condition of foreign investment in this country full compliance with our provisions in relation to multinational tax. This includes not engaging in base erosion, profit shifting and transfer pricing that would seek to undermine the revenue base in Australia.
We commend these amendments and we look forward to their support. But we also note that those opposite have not been fellow travellers with the government on multinational tax avoidance. They have frustrated our legislation at every turn and opposed this government's efforts, which are consistent with international practice, to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (15:17): The details of multinational tax can sometimes be complicated but the principles are straightforward: all firms should comply with the law and pay their fair share of tax. Labor's history on multinational tax is a proud one. In 2013, former Treasurer Swan and Assistant Treasurer Bradbury brought to this place a $4 billion multinational tax package and improvements in tax transparency. Both measures were opposed at the time by the coalition. Upon winning office, the coalition failed to legislate part of that plan. It opposed transparency and, in a dirty deal with the Greens, on the last sitting day of last year, wound back tax transparency.
At every turn, it has been Labor that has led the debate on tax transparency. In the first half of this parliamentary term we put forward a plan that deals with debt deductions and hybrid mismatches and provides the tax office with the resources it needs to deal with multinational tax avoidance. I want to commend Senators Ketter and Dastyari for their hard work in the other place on highlighting the importance of this issue.
The bill that is before the House on the Common Reporting Standard is a bill on which the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing Australia up. This bill contains important Labor amendments agreed to by the government last week. Labor amended the bill to bring forward the reporting date so that the Australian Taxation Office can begin exchanging company information sooner—not leaving it until the end of 2019, as the government would have wished. Labor also successfully amended the bill in the Senate to ensure that the tax office publishes an aggregated report of financial Australian holdings by foreign residents from each individual tax jurisdiction. That better ensures public transparency about Australia's place in global money flows. Tax transparency groups have called for these amendments, and Labor was pleased to be able to champion them in the other place.
This morning I moved in this place a private member's bill that will increase the penalties on multinationals for doing the wrong thing—not $5,400, a lower penalty than you would pay for pushing the line in a Gold Coast arts venue or streaking across the SCG, but a more significant penalty of $270,000, which recognises that failing to lodge country-by-country accounts could seriously undermine the integrity of our tax system. I hope those opposite will support my private member's bill as, in the other place, they supported Labor's changes to the Common Reporting Standard.
The issue of multinational profit shifting is not an issue on which Australia is at the vanguard. There are over 40 countries that will begin reporting before Australia does—from the UK to South Africa and from Iceland to India. Australia is not lagging behind those countries because of factors outside our control; we are a laggard because of the choices of the Abbott-Turnbull government. When the group of early-adopter countries laid out their timetable for exchanging information, they called it 'ambitious but realistic'. Labor believes that is the right timetable. But the former Treasurer and the current Treasurer are happy to see Australia drag its heals on the Common Reporting Standard. They would have had us reporting on a timetable with the Bahamas, Russia and the United Emirates. Labor's amendments to this bill have made it a better bill and have ensure that we can report on the Common Reporting Standard appropriate information on an appropriate schedule. Labor will continue to fight for better multinational tax laws.
We do not believe the dirty deal done between the Liberals and the Greens to take two-thirds of large private firms out of the tax transparency net was a good deal for Australians. When we saw the release of the information on public companies last December, Australians learned that one in four big public companies paid no tax. But they will not learn those same details for big private companies, because two-thirds of them have been exempted from transparency laws by the deal done between the Liberals and the Greens. With inequality at a 75-year high, and with a community outcry on multinational tax avoidance, we believe the right thing to do is move quickly on the Common Reporting Standard to improve transparency. We urge the government, as they backed Labor's amendments to this bill, to also support Labor's multinational tax plan. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016
Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment (Injury Compensation Scheme) Bill 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill(s) without amendment or request.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Ms McGOWAN ( Indi ) ( 15:23 ): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. I take this opportunity to report to the people of Indi some of the amazing achievements that have taken place over the last two years, to talk about the importance of a national approach to policy around telecommunications in rural and regional Australia and to talk about the future that is awaiting our young people in rural and regional Australia when we have the standard of telecommunications that we need.
As has been said in this parliament recently, telecommunications infrastructure is going to do away with the tyranny of distance that so many of us have experienced for so long. It is a story that began for me in my little dairy farm in the Indigo Valley where my mother managed the local telephone exchange, 33D, and the whole the community was linked by putting a little plug in the phone. Moving on to the 1990s, we first got access to the internet and became connected to the world wide web. And in 2013 I ran as an Independent with an absolute commitment to lobby, to work and to do everything in my power to make sure that the communities of Indi got the benefit of the NBN and mobile phone coverage.
I am delighted to report to the House today that that hard work, that whole-of-community approach, is really delivering dividends. We have a fixed line service from the NBN for over 52,000 premises and a fixed wireless service for over 14,000 premises—and, once the satellite is up and running, close to 4,000 premises will have access to it. I am absolutely delighted to say that today in Yackandandah the NBN is being turned on, in Barnawartha North it is up and running and in North Wangaratta and all the communities the NBN is working. To the people in Taggerty, it is fantastic. In Rennies Hill, Thornton South and to all those around 'The Paps', it is fantastic to be able to stand in this parliament and say that the NBN has arrived to our community. In Benalla, it is absolutely working and in Wangaratta and Wodonga—my major centre—the rollout is well and truly underway.
The great success of the NBN coming to our communities is linked to the issues we still have with mobile phone coverage, but I am pleased to say that we have made enormous headway there. Over 300 black spots were identified in 2014. Close to 200 of those have been addressed through the mobile phone black spot rollout program, one with 30 base stations. This was a huge achievement for the people of Indi. We received over one-third of allocated base stations right across Australia—only Durack and O'Connor, in Western Australia, did better. For all the competitive tendering, Indi came in third, which is a fantastic achievement for our community. Well done to everybody involved. We had a lot of success in getting the whole community to work together—businesses, local government, the community, the Victorian government and the authorities. We formed the Indi Telecommunications Action Group. We mapped where the black spots were. We worked with local government to get in-kind contributions. We worked with the telcos to talk about what needs to be done. We worked with individuals who had had accidents and no mobile coverage. We really raised our voice, and the result is there for all to see. We have done extraordinarily well, so thank you everybody for your hard work. I am now looking forward to round 2. We can make a difference for the remaining black spots, particularly in the high priority areas of the Mitta Valley, to the King Valley, to down around Kevington, Carboor and the Indigo Valley, where we have really poor service and we know the need.
When we have this conversation about telecommunications there is confusion between NBN broadband and mobile phone. What happens in my communities is that many, many people rely on mobile phones to get their broadband—through access to mobile phone towers. We put our little dongles in the system and we can then use the mobile phone tower to come to our computers to give us broadband. But it is a totally unsatisfactory system. It is expensive, it is unreliable, the data allowance gets used up really quickly and the capacity in the morning and in the night when it is busy makes it very, very hard to get the signal. When you have a lot of people come into the area, like we do with our festivals, the whole service gets clogged up and just does not work. So we are looking forward to the full rollout of the NBN and our ability to access broadband and, at the same time, the absolute need to get the mobile phones working much better.
If I could talk a little bit about mobile phones, I want to claim some great wins here for the people of Allans Flat. For the NBN, you got your petition going and we really did good work. We got the mobile phone tower at Mount Dorothy down near Yea. It was fantastic work by the community and by Telstra. Up at Dartmouth, with our landlines, what an achievement it was to have that public meeting, to get The Border Mail to cover the story, to get the telcos there and to actually get a commitment to fix those landlines that disappeared every time it rained. The people of upper Howqua Dale got their fixed lines fixed. For the people of Chiltern and the Indigo Valley, I know we are not totally there yet, but there was a huge impact after the fires. We got Telstra in and showed them how important those services were and what we needed to do. The communities around Lurg, Molyullah and Tatong have brought petitions to me. I have brought them to this place. We have been able to lobby and we have been able to get the commitment for better service.
While I have been in this job, we have also taken up the issue of VAST—the TV that comes out of Central Australia—and how inadequate it is for communities that are so close to highways and mainstream Melbourne not to get local TV. That is still on the agenda. We have made a lot of progress but we still have a way to go. While we are not there yet, I am absolutely optimistic that over the next three years, wherever you are in the electorate, you will be able to get the mobile phone coverage and the internet coverage you need.
I want to talk briefly about what this means, and I would like to bring to the attention of the House two letters I have received, from Anika and from her sister, Mia. Anika is 10 years old and she writes: 'I live 10 minutes away from Wodonga and recently my family and I have got access to NBN. Before we had NBN we were living on 15 GBs a month, and by day 2 of that month we had no GBs left. There were times when I was unable to complete my homework due to the fact that we had no GBs left. But since we've got NBN I have never had to stay in at lunchtime to finish homework, and I now have access to YouTube and heaps of other stuff that I was not able to access before we had NBN. Having NBN has helped me in my schoolwork. I can now do research. I can study things on the internet. I can do Mathletics and other programs that help me study and learn new things. So, thank you to Malcolm Turnbull and all the people that have supported NBN coming to the country.'
And I say thank you, Anika, and thank you, Mia, for your lovely letters. And I think that just absolutely encapsulates, from a 10-year-old—these digital natives—what an enormous difference it is going to make to their ability to live, work, run businesses, do the things that they need to do in rural Australia. However, we are not done yet. There is still a long way to go. And perhaps I can just talk a little bit about some of the things that we need to do. We need to make sure that everybody in Australia has access to broadband, that no consumers are worse off, that we have robust consumer protection and that we have a competitive and fair market. That is one of the areas that I particularly want to talk about today: the need in the future to ensure that in rural and regional Australia we have competition. Without competition we are never going to get the diversity of the products that we actually need to deliver what we want to do in our communities.
In my community we have Telstra—it is great to have you, Telstra—but we do not have access to Optus or Vodafone; we do not have the competition we need. And it is really, really important that we get the competition and access to the diversity of products right across Australia that give us the choice around our telecommunications provider and the types of products we need. One of the really important things we need to have in the future is to just be able to assume that wherever you are in rural and regional Australia you can actually get access to mobile phone coverage. In this regard I would like to talk about the regional telecommunications independent review that was tabled in the parliament before Christmas and the government response that was recently tabled. I have to say how really disappointed I have been by the government's response to this independent review. There is enormous opportunity for the government to actually look at universal service obligations that currently apply to landlines and say, 'Yep, landline was a great technology in the last century; the technology of the future is broadband and mobile phones, and we actually need to have universal service obligations apply to that.' This review had some really excellent recommendations about a consumer communications fund, which would enable this to be funded. The government has said it is going to go off to the Productivity Commission to get a report on it, but I am really saying to the government, 'Let's just grasp this; let's do what we need to do and make sure that wherever you are in Australia you can use your mobile phone.'
The other thing I would briefly like to talk about in the time I have left is what the opportunities will be in the future. I am on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, and we are currently doing an inquiry into agricultural innovation. We have had over 100 submissions come in, and this afternoon we are having hearings. Almost without exception, every single submission has said that the major barrier to the uptake of innovation in agriculture is telecommunications—poor mobile phone coverage, poor access to broadband—and that what we actually need, assuming we are going to get that, are the products. It is about getting the telcos to come up with the products that enable us to do real-time research, connecting with our farms, with our research organisations, connecting with our international markets so that we have really close collaboration there.
The opportunities are enormous for us with telecommunications, and I am really looking forward to being part of my community, working with agriculture and working with industry as we develop the products that are going to take our agricultural business into the future. One of my constituents told me last week that telecommunications—mobile phones and particularly NBN—is a bit like how electricity was when it first came to our country areas. In my valley it came in 1958. When the lights were turned on, everyone thought that was an amazing thing: we had electricity online, and we got light. We had no idea that electricity would power computers, Thermomixes, sewing machines, washing machines and all the other amazing implements we now have because of electricity. This farmer said to me, 'It's going to be like that with broadband; the things we're going to be able to use broadband for have not even been imagined into existence yet.'
So, one of the things that I am really calling on the government to do in its agricultural and research and development agenda is to put creative and innovative use of digital technology way up the top of our research so that in our marketing and in our research in particular, as we develop the use of sensors, we can get in real time that step-up of research that we will need in the future. In bringing my comments to a close I would just like to acknowledge the work of both the government and the opposition for the terrific job they have done, really and truly, despite the politics, to get NBN, to get mobile phone coverage out into the country. I look forward to a whole-of-government approach under the next parliament as we fast-track and get the step-up we need so that particularly the agricultural businesses can do what they need to do.
I want to acknowledge the work of local councils particularly, for your co-contribution. I know sometimes it is hard fought, but it has made a huge difference to the ability to get those mobile phone towers where we need them in the rural areas. So, thank you very much. I absolutely acknowledge the work of the CEOs, the mayors and the councillors, and the ratepayers, in putting that money onto the table so that we can get the mobile phone coverage we need. I also want to say thankyou to the many, many communities and individuals in Indi. You have really come to the task. You have your community petitions organised, and the letters. You have come to parliament and you have really helped me identify where the black spots were both for mobile phones and for broadband and really been such a partner with me in bringing these issues to parliament. And I absolutely make my commitment that when I am re-elected and am back here as the federal member for Indi for my second term, mobile phone coverage and NBN coverage is way up there at the fore, so that by the time my nieces and my friends and Anika—who wrote to me, who is now 10—is 15 and ready to go into her higher years of school, every single student in Indi will have access to very fast broadband to do all the study they need from home as well as school.
So, I say to the people of Indi, thank you for the trust you have placed in me. This was a major election commitment of mine, to actually improve mobile phone coverage and NBN. I am very happy to report very successfully on the work we have done so far and am looking forward to coming back and finishing the job after the election.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (15:37): I thank the member for Indi—and I hope the Prime Minister responded to 10-year-old Anneke in her electorate—particularly for the fact that she thanked the Prime Minister for having the NBN implemented and rolled out into parts of the electorate of Indi.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. It is probably topical at the moment because we saw the opposition, today, ask the Prime Minister and the minister for major infrastructure questions during question time, obviously in response to an article in TheSydney Morning Herald. I will go into those areas as well, but I would like to speak about the bill and the success of the NBN in my electorate of Swan now that the coalition Liberal-National government is running it.
As the minister has outlined, there are four measures in the bill. First, there are changes to the Telecommunications Act and the Competition and Consumer Act to clarify the regulation of facilities access. Second, there are changes to the standard access obligations to ensure that a service provider who controls or owns in-building cabling must provide access to that cabling as part of providing access to a declared service. This removes scope for restricting access to competitors and ensures end-users can get faster access to broadband and telephone services. Third, there are changes to the treatment of fixed principles in access determinations and special access undertakings to improve regulatory consistency and provide for more effective regulation. Fourth, there are changes to nbn co's line-of-business restrictions to ensure that nbn co can dispose of surplus assets to any person. Currently, it can only sell those assets to another carrier or service provider.
This is all an important part of the coalition government's ongoing task of fixing the NBN mess it inherited from Labor and delivering some broadband to the people of Australia. I note that the government is acting pragmatically, here, by only including in this amended bill the measures that the opposition and the Greens have committed to supporting. This is consistent with the government's pragmatic approach to the NBN rollout clean-up job left to us by the Labor Party after the last election.
We have heard a few speeches from Labor members and they are lining up to speak on this bill and complain about fibre to the node, which is different from their fibre to the home. They need to remember that under Labor's purist model virtually nothing was delivered in my state of Western Australia by the last election. Yet they come in here pushing for their failed model that would take decades to implement and cost vastly more. The people of Australia need upgrades rolled out now; they simply cannot be waiting for that model until 2025 or 2030.
I will give you some examples from my own electorate of Swan since the last election. Since Labor signed the NBN contracts we have seen, anecdotally, Telstra unwilling to upgrade any of the existing infrastructure servicing my electorate. We have had numerous complaints. People have rung us and said that Telstra will not attend to fix particular problems in their streets or in pits outside their houses or to upgrade lines that have broken down the street. The reason is that Labor left them absolutely no incentive to do so.
We have a situation where telecommunications infrastructure that might need improving or replacing is not being touched, because of the business contracts Labor signed. Imagine if we had to wait another 10 or 20 years for Labor's purist NBN. Suburbs across the country would be stuck with stagnating infrastructure, for the medium term—all to satisfy the contracts that were signed by the Labor Party. The Labor Party needs to get real and get on board, in regard to the mixed technology approach of the coalition, which is being delivered across the country and, in particular, in my electorate of Swan.
We had quite a few problems, pre-election, with the rollout of Labor's NBN. If we look at one example, the lead contractor in Western Australia, Syntheo, not only pulled out of the contracts they had with the Labor government but also pulled out of the state. Unfortunately, because of the way the contracts were written, they also left a lot of subcontractors unpaid, which has left a very bad taste in their mouths from dealing with Syntheo. I must admit, it all happened before the last election under the careful watch of Labor eyes. There were three separate investigations in WA at that time into claims that asbestos was mishandled in the rollout during the six years of Labor management, including in East Perth, Canning Vale and Victoria Park—which is in my electorate of Swan, not far from my office. There was also an incident in Mandurah, which I know the previous member for Swan and Canning, Don Randall, highlighted in his local papers as well.
Since the coalition came to government, there have been some changes—particularly in the electorate of Swan, as I discussed before. When we were elected, in 2013, there were only 34 brownfield premises connected across the whole of Perth. In the six years we had of the Labor government, talking about the NBN and what a fantastic job they were doing, there were only 34 brownfield premises connected across the whole of Perth. In my electorate, alone, there are 78,000 dwellings, so 34 out of 78,000 would not be an achievement. It probably would not even take up a street. For all of the bellowing and hollering from the Labor Party in the build-up to the last election about how well they were doing with the NBN, it certainly did not happen.
To go further, there were only 75 brownfield residences connected in the whole state of Western Australia. There were more announcements and photos by Labor MPs and candidates in WA than there were connections to brownfield sites! I can remember pictures of Gary Gray, the Labor candidate, local councillors and mayors all being lined up with this big red button in front of them and getting photos taken. Then, bang—they pressed the button for the NBN and the NBN was being rolled out. So when it actually came to election day we had 34 brownfield premises rolled out by Labor across just Perth—that is all they had.
But what a difference since the coalition government has come to power—particularly in my electorate of Swan. We can now look at the NBN map on the website. We can talk about a 'sea of blue', but the NBN rollout map for the electorate of Swan looks like a sea of purple, with purple being the colour representing NBN-completed areas where a service is available. In the electorate of Swan we now have 17 telecommunications areas that have been completed, and these span across areas in the City of South Perth, the town of Victoria Park and a segment of the City of Belmont. The actual suburbs with connections now available in my electorate are South Perth, part of Como, part of Manning, part of Salter Point, Burswood, Kensington, Lathlain, Carlisle Victoria Park, East Victoria Park, part of St James, Welshpool, part of Rivervale and part of Kewdale. I would say that is not a bad effort in the period of time that the coalition has been in government, considering what was actually connected by Labor prior to the last election.
There are also nine telecommunication areas in the electorate of Swan which have construction underway. The remaining parts of Manning and Salter Point are also being rolled out. And thanks to coalition's rapid-roll-out fibre-to-the-node plan we are now in build commence across a swathe of southern suburbs in the electorate that extends from Karawara in the west to Langford in the east. Construction began here in November in Karawara, Bentley, Waterford, Welshpool, part of St James, Wilson, Cannington, East Cannington, Queens Park, Beckenham and Langford.
We also have all the remaining parts of the electorate of Swan in the three-year roll-out plan. Looking at the maps provided by nbn co on its website I would suggest that Swan will probably be the first electorate in Western Australia to have NBN rolled out completely. Under the previous government there was no way known that was going to happen.
Areas that still need to be done are Como, where the construction for the remainder will commence in the second half of 2016, and construction is commencing in the second half of 2017 for Ferndale, Lynwood and Riverton. And in the first quarter of 2017 we will have Ascot, Belmont, Cloverdale, the remainder of Kewdale, Perth Airport, Redcliffe and the remainder of Rivervale, which has 14,300 possible sites. We will also have in the fourth quarter of 2016 High Wycombe, which is a new part of my electorate since the redistribution, with an approximate premises number of 20,300.
I also want to make special mention of the Ascot exchange, which services the majority of the City of Belmont. It has been let down by Labor in many ways, but it now actually has a time line to be rolled out and fixed under the government's NBN rollout. There are black spots in Cloverdale and Kewdale where no internet is possible at all. Again, they are now in the rollout phase, as mentioned on the nbn co website.
My constituents are often frustrated with the telcos, that tend to tell them there are connections available when there are not. If we look back at a bit of history, on 17 September 2007 the Labor member for Swan at that time, Kim Wilkie, wrote to the electorate on his Labor letterhead under the heading 'Labor's National Broadband Network will solve Ascot's broadband problems'. He said, 'Labor will invest up to $4.7 billion to establish the National Broadband Network in partnership with the private sector.' For that promise in 2007, we had not seen anything happen by 2013 and still nothing had happened on the Ascot exchange. But that has now actually been included in the rollout under the current government.
In 2008 we also saw the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council commission a detailed broadband black spot survey of the Ascot exchange area that showed the area was in much need of broadband. At that time the report was made as a submission to then Minister Conroy to push for the Ascot exchange to be prioritised by the NBN rollout. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, would you believe that the report was rated extremely highly by the minister's own department. The feedback to the EMRC and to the City of Belmont was that the report was rated extremely highly and that they should anticipate a rollout.
But in the rollout announcement Belmont and the Ascot exchange were left out by the Labor government, for political reasons. The deal signed by Labor with Telstra left no incentive for Telstra to improve infrastructure in the Ascot exchange, so after promising the world Labor left Ascot and the people of Belmont high and dry. The coalition will clean up this Labor mess and prioritise the Ascot exchange in the three-year rollout.
As I said, the NBN is far advanced in my electorate of Swan—I guess it is more advanced than nearly any other electorate in Western Australia. As I said, at the last election there were only 34 brownfield sites actually connected in the whole of Perth. It is something that the people of Perth and Western Australia should remember at the next election. We had a lot of rhetoric but no action by the previous government with their NBN rollout in Western Australia. It was a bit like the way they treated Western Australia with everything: the carbon tax and the mining tax were all anti-Western Australian legislation and taxes to stifle our economy and at the same time we were ignored by their NBN rollout.
The electorate of Swan is likely to be the first electorate in WA to be completed for the NBN, as I said. By the end of next year construction is scheduled to be underway in every suburb in the electorate of Swan. The coalition has turned the NBN around and it has a very good record to take to the next election whenever this may be held. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (15:51): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is just to make a personal explanation; it is not to debate anything? Just a personal explanation?
Mr NIKOLIC: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Bass on a personal explanation.
Mr NIKOLIC: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the ABC Insiders program last Sunday, 28 February, journalist Lenore Taylor attributed the following statement to me, 'He, Nikolic, has reportedly said, "Terrorism makes civil liberties redundant."' I have never made that statement, and when I invited Ms Taylor to correct the record she acknowledged the mistake and corrected it on Twitter. Sitting here in the chamber I just noted another article posted on the ABC online by Mungo McCallum, which states:
Nikolic is on record as saying that in the age of terrorism … the civil liberties debate is simply not relevant.
Again, that is simply not true and I call on the ABC to cease publishing these false assertions.
BILLS
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:52): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. It gives me the opportunity to highlight the fact that access to high-quality, real broadband is one of the most fundamental issues facing the electorate of Greenway. Indeed, it is probably the single biggest issue on which I receive unsolicited representations from residents in all parts of the electorate. As I warned prior to the last election, the electorate of Greenway has been divided into an electorate of NBN haves and have-nots. We have those fortunate people who managed to obtain the real NBN—Labor's fibre-to-the-home network—prior to the last election and we have other areas of the electorate where people literally look across the road and see people who do not have broadband and certainly do not have the NBN.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight a few matters. First, I point out not only how potent this issue is but also the fact that residents understand why broadband is important. They understand many of the technical issues that we probably think are beyond them. They are savvy people, and I can tell you as well that they know they are not getting the promise made by this Prime Minister when he was Minister for Communications. They know they were promised to have minimum speeds delivered by the end of 2016. That promise was made by the current Prime Minister in 2013. It did not even last the year. That was one of the first promises to be broken by this government.
I want to take the opportunity to highlight a few other issues, in particular how lack of affordable and reliable broadband is impacting on small business, the changing nature of small business and why more than ever we need to get this investment in real infrastructure done, and the importance of recognising that innovation cannot just be talk. It needs to have the underlying fundamentals of infrastructure going along with it.
Lastly, I want to talk about some of the lived experiences of my constituents, be it in small business, school or their home use, and the level of frustration at this issue and in particular the level of frustration with the government who came in here and, just as with the last speaker, said Labor had botched this job and they were going to do it better. That was more than 2½ years ago. They completely failed to live up to their promise.
I am not surprised that in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald we see the headline 'Turnbull's NBN plan in crisis'. There has never been a clearer example of this Prime Minister and this government being all talk and no action. Apparently he invented the internet. Apparently he was given the task by then Prime Minister Abbott to demolish or destroy the NBN. Effectively, he did that. He did that through the most misguided means of thinking that he could make such promises and not deliver on them, turning his back not only on the physics but also on the reality of what is involved in building the biggest infrastructure project in Australia since the Snowy Mountains Scheme. He thought he had all the answers. He made all these promises and absolutely failed to deliver.
His mantra was that it was going to be 'Fast. Affordable. Sooner.' Fail, fail and fail by this Prime Minister. It is worth noting some of the commentary in today's headline.
The report—
that is, this report about the epic fail that the NBN has become under this government—
which was never intended for public disclosure, reveals the extent to which the more than $46 billion project has drifted off course, mainly during the time when Mr Turnbull was in direct control as communications minister.
I also quote:
… the NBN Co's own documents show that for all that money, it remains bedevilled with problems from the slow design approvals by power utility companies (FTTP did not require electrical supply but FTTN does) and as a result of material and supply problems. Even expertise in dealing with the copper network is scarce.
It is pretty fundamental. When he was minister, the Prime Minister would come in here and say, 'Oh, nbn co didn't know how to dig holes.' You would think nbn co would know that you need an electricity supply, would know that you need these fundamental things, would know that you actually need some technicians who know how to deal with copper. I note the current Minister for Communications Fifield said in his response today that the coalition had taken a 'businesslike' approach to the project. If this is business, they would be out of business.
You only have to look at the importance of high-speed broadband to the changing nature of work. One of the terms that has become quite common now is understanding the notion of freelancers, as we like to call them. I note a most informative article by Rich Pearson of Upwork in Business Insider on 23 February. He notes the freelance economy is growing:
While the government is moving in the right direction by putting innovation at the forefront of the agenda, they need to more substantively support this statement by investing in digital infrastructure in order to maximize the potential of this growing segment of the workforce. The move towards an 'Ideas Boom' is a great first step, but they haven't fully executed against their vision.
One key ingredient to achieve that is:
Building a future-proof, world-class national broadband network. According to a Nielsen report, three-quarters of the nation's businesses believe a national broadband infrastructure will increase their ability to engage in the digital economy
This is a fact that has been known for some time. I even quote from a Deloitte Access Economics report from September 2013, which noted households 'would reap the benefits of a boosted e-commerce industry'. They even go so far as to quantify the benefits that would accrue to certain types of cohorts if the national broadband network is built. I note a single-income couple that runs a small business and has two children could be more than $7,000 a year better off due to factors including boosted productivity and better education opportunities for their children.
Even if you do not want to take it from that study, you can have a look at the report that has been put out by the New South Wales government. We see the New South Wales Minister for Small Business smiling at the front of the document and talking about the opportunities for business. He says technology advances create opportunities and risks for businesses of all sizes and goes into the NBN, talking about how it is a large infrastructure project to significantly increase internet connection speeds for businesses and households and noting that small businesses can indeed benefit from this. It is no secret. But let's look at how this is actually failing small businesses in practice, by not having a real NBN and by this government failing to deliver on its promise. I quote an insightful article by Eloise Keating, for example, 'Australian SMEs failing to get onboard with cloud computing: research':
Sam Bashiry, founder of Smart50 finalist Broadband Solutions, told SmartCompany in the overall scheme of things, the NBN will 'change things for the better' for companies like his own, which offers broadband products in the B2B market.
But he says the proposed benefits of the NBN have been thrown around for 'way too long' and to date, the connections that have been rolled out have been focused on residential users, rather than businesses.
I totally agree about the importance of rolling out this project to every business and every household. That has been the entire aim of this project as devised under Labor. But what we see happening here, under this government, is lip service being given to the importance of broadband for small businesses. I quote from PwC's Small business: digital growth report:
Small businesses will only realise the benefits of internet and mobile technology adoption if the underlying infrastructure (and the software running on the infrastructure) provides them with a suitable level of reliability.
It is at this point that I can indeed turn to another real-life example. One of these announcements we have had from the government in the past year or so has been single-touch payroll. I see an announcement by then Minister Frydenberg in December 2014. In July last year, SmartCompany reported, under the heading, 'The rollout of single-touch payroll treats businesses with contempt':
Some small businesses are pretty much ready for a system such as ‘Single Touch Payroll’ to be rolled out, as they have moved to ‘cloud’ accounting software. However, many have not moved to these ‘cloud’ systems and many will not at the moment as their internet access is so slow. Enter the Communications Minister Malcom Turnbull.
The Communications Minister would have us believe that the rollout of the NBN is going swimmingly and that in this country we have no issues with getting internet access at reasonable speeds. Now, this doesn’t even pass the bulldust test as people try and use the internet for their business daily and many know that it’s not up to scratch.
This is the reality for small businesses. In particular I note the large and growing number of small businesses who operate from home. Let's look at Renai LeMay's article in DeLimiter:
'The performance of data uploading features strongly in a variety of case studies of iiNet small business customers,' the company wrote. 'In all cases, upload performance is the key to their purchasing decision. Nowhere in the strategic review—
This is the strategic review undertaken by then minister Turnbull—
is there any consideration of upload performance to the small business sector of the economy, or at all. Any business utilizing broadband will confirm that upload performance is ‘mission critical’ and yet little attention has been given to this issue, which is strategically important to the Australian digital economy.'
It goes on. We have a situation where then Minister Turnbull rejected claims—he argued that, if businesses and residences wanted to have fibre cables extended, it would not cost the amount of money that we in Labor estimated it would. Let's look at a recent example, again, as reported by Renai LeMay:
The NBN company has given a Newcastle business an estimate ranging up to $9,500 to extend fibre cables 300 metres from the local streetside 'node' through existing Telstra pipes to their facility in the Newcastle CBD, as signals continue to grow that the Coalition's election estimates on fibre on demand costs were inaccurate.
I note that this is hitting home in Greenway. And I note that before the last election the coalition announced that it was going to reassess broadband rollout to the western suburbs. The Hills News reportedthat then shadow minister Turnbull said, 'the Coalition’s fibre-to-the-node policy would prioritise businesses, schools, and employment areas before homes'. This is most confusing. As I said, I argued before the election—and, as we have seen, after the election—we are creating a divided society in the electorate of Greenway.
Here I can quote from some real-life examples. I have an email here from Previn from Acacia Gardens.
My request to you is to help get Acacia gardens onto the NBN rollout schedule.
… … …
I feel for anyone living in Acacia Gardens who is trying to run a home business. I've had to purchase extra wireless internet cards so that my wife can do her schoolwork as at times it's too slow for Google docs to work.
Here is a recent one from Mr and Mrs Watson from Kings Langley.
We have been told by every internet provider that they are unable to provide internet in our area because there are no ports available.
… … …
We are currently using a mobile hotspot for internet. We are paying $49.95 a month for 1GB. When we go over our 1GB allowance our internet slows down to excruciatingly slow speeds.
… … …
We are not prepared to wait until the earliest estimated time which is the first half of 2017. This is over a year away.
I also note an email I have received from Narinder from Glenwood:
It becomes really difficult to work from home for my son as it takes a lot of time to upload files and share data with his office.
And here is one from Simon in Glenwood:
I manage & provide technical support for corporate IT systems which have very high availability SLAs & when I work on a customer problem I need a reliable network otherwise it can compromise my efforts in solving issues for my customers in timely manner.
Here we have Cheryl from The Ponds:
The NBN is all around me and my next door neighbor was lucky enough to have the Internet installed through Telstra. It seems The Ponds is hit and miss with Internet services from what I have found out from my inquiries I am really frustrated.
I have a number of other emails from constituents—I could actually go on all day—because of the number of people I have contacting me saying that it is simply not good enough.
If we are serious in Australia about having world-class broadband, we need to ensure that we get the underlying infrastructure right. This government needs to acknowledge that it has completely botched, with its multitechnology mix, delivery of world-class broadband services.
I see members who are probably going to come in here and probably say that they are improving on the situation. The reality is it is not being improved. Residents in my electorate understand perfectly well that they have been missing out under this government. They promised big time. They overpromised and completely failed to deliver. We can sit here and argue about it—and I am very happy to do that, and I can give real life examples—but the reality is that unless this Prime Minister starts showing some leadership, when it comes to delivering world-class broadband, it is going to remain exactly what it is. It is going to be all talk and absolutely no delivery for the people of Australia.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:07): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. If there ever has been a more poorly considered project I am yet to discover what it is. Labor's plan to deliver the NBN, which was developed on the back of a drinks coaster, has left this nation wondering, truly, they were up to. They were very good at delivering 'fibre to the press release' but, unfortunately, the connections that they made during their time in government left a lot of people wondering what it was all about. The notion that you can have what Labor promised was an absolute pipedream. It cannot be high quality, cheap and built quickly, at the same time. That is, effectively, what Labor promised. It is evidence of the complete inability of those on the other side to roll out what is one of the most complex and technically challenging projects that our nation has undertaken.
This is why when we came to government we recognised—like so many other jurisdictions around the world—a multimix technology. For a large country it, simply, is not feasible to deliver fibre to the premise. I know that in some of the communities in your electorate, Deputy Speaker, as in mine, it was simply inconceivable that they would be able to have fibre to the premise. So what we proposed was a multimix technology, similar to what is available in other parts of the world that are delivering the highest quality speeds, and in a way that allowed regional and rural areas of Australia to have access to fast and reliable broadband that had only previously been the privy those living in inner cities around Australia, and who already had quite reasonable ADSL coverage and speeds available to them. More's the pity for those communities that live in regional areas of Australia. They had been, effectively, left off the map by Labor. One of the things we did, on coming to government, was to prioritise those areas of the country that had little or no access to fast data. Across the nation 25 megabits down and five megabits up is the base package we are in the process of delivering.
In Tasmania—which is more advanced, it is true, in terms of the rollout of the NBN despite the hiccups that occurred under those opposite—it is quite interesting to look at the uptake of the speeds to those premises that do have access to fibre to the premise. It is quite interesting to look at those who are choosing more than the base package of 25 down and five megabits per second up. In fact, less than 10 per cent of those who have taken advantage of the connections have chosen the 100 megabit per second download and 40 upload speeds. That is, primarily, going to be businesses and they do, indeed, pay for that privilege. The vast majority—in fact, 86 per cent—of all of those who have connected to the fibre to the premise that is available around Tasmania have connected at 25 and five megabits or less.
It is quite interesting to note the trials that have recently been conducted in Queensland and, I am very pleased to say, in my electorate of Lyons. The townships of Evandale, Western Junction and Breadalbane will be very soon connected to fibre-to-the-node connections. I note that the trials that have been completed, recently, in Queensland highlight speeds that are extraordinary. They will provide speeds quite comparable to what is available to fibre-to-the-premise users. So it is that around the world this has been the experience previously, but those on the other side knew better.
In the electorate of Lyons, which is a diverse rural and regional electorate, we also have large areas which, again—despite what you hear from those opposite, Deputy Speaker—were never going to get connected by fibre to the premise. Large areas of my electorate are able to access very good speeds on the wireless service. In fact, there are, in the electorate of Lyons, 17,523 premises that can access the NBN via the wireless service, albeit there are about 2,000 of that 17½ thousand still in build. But of those able to connect via those wireless services, there are only around 4½ thousand people who have chosen to connect to available NBN, in some cases, since the middle of June 2013. I look, for example, at the New Norfolk tower that covers 432 premises, where the activation take-up rate is only 34 per cent. There are some that are better than others. For example, at Lyell, down in the Derwent Valley, there are 133 premises, of which only 23 have connected—17 per cent. Some, of course, are higher than that. Forty one per cent of 444 connections on the Mt Direction tower have connected.
The message from the people of Lyons is that, overwhelmingly, the wireless connections have proved to be a very simple way of being able to connect to the NBN. It has been quite a seamless process. It certainly has not involved the digging up of backyards, as has been the case in many of those communities—and a number of them were in my electorate—that were part of that early rollout under the former government: Deloraine, Midway Point, parts of Sorell, St Helens and Triabunna. The stories that we have had—of backyards being dug up, of people making appointments and the appointments being cancelled—just show the complexity of the build in that area, particularly in the remote and regional areas.
This is why I am so pleased. I had the opportunity with the staff from nbn co to go out and inspect the first of the nodes that has been constructed in the township of Evandale, just outside Launceston. There are expected to be 800 premises between Western Junction and Evandale that will be connected, by May of this year, to the fibre-to-the-node technology, which is delivering—albeit for a price. Those that wish to pay a higher price will be able to access speeds that, on some of the trials, have been approaching 100 download and 40 upload. These are the sorts of speeds that are available on fibre to the premises, and they are similarly available on fibre to the node. Of course, most households will not choose those speeds, because a 25 down and five up service allows you to, for example, in most households stream—on Netflix, iview or SBS On Demand—up to five or six services at the one time. The social costs that that brings in a family are for others to judge, but nevertheless the technology of that speed allows more than most households will require.
There is a lot of noise in this space. If small businesses want faster speeds than those described, they will be available and they will pay for them. But the truth of it is, in most areas in my electorate, the speeds are available through wireless, through fibre to the node and, from the middle of this year, the satellite services. Many of the more remote areas of my electorate will be able to access the NBN through the two Sky Muster satellites that have been launched and will be coming on line in the middle of the year for the first time. They will be able to access fast broadband speeds that simply would have been a dream under those opposite.
This is good news overwhelmingly for the people of my electorate. As I mentioned, there are a number of communities there that have access to fibre to the premise. Increasingly we will see the rollout expanded very quickly—in Evandale, Exeter, Lanena and the communities down the West Tamar. Places that will soon be able to access fibre-to-the-node services include Gravelly Beach, Rosevears, Swan Point, Blackwall and Westbury and Hagley. I note the disappointment of the Meander Valley Council. They recently had a report produced which cost them, I understand, somewhat over $10,000. The request for the report was passed by the council, at the instigation of one of the councillors. They were disappointed with the information that was provided. It is a question for the ratepayers of the Meander Valley as to whether that was money well spent by their council, because they also very soon, in Westbury and Hagley, will have 1,100 premises or thereabouts able to access, through fibre-to-the-node technology, some of the fastest speeds that are available on the NBN.
But I go back to my original point. Of those premises that have had access to NBN for a large period of time—in some cases since the middle of 2014—86 per cent of those retail customers are choosing speeds of 25, five or lower, because they are able to do everything that they need to do with those sorts of speeds. For business, of course, it will be slightly different, and those faster speeds are going to be available through the mix of technologies that are being rolled out around the electorate of Lyons as we speak.
Overwhelmingly, it is a good story as far as the rollout of the NBN in my electorate is concerned. I am very pleased to see now that there are communities where we have almost completed the wireless rollout. There are only now 4,000 premises that are still in a build phase. The Coles Bay east tower had struck a planning hurdle, with the tower being located in the national park at Coles Bay. That has been overcome now, so in the tourist town of Coles Bay, Freycinet—some of you might know it, on the east coast of Tasmania, a very lovely part of our state in my electorate—tourist operators will now be able to offer, to the increasing numbers of mainland and international tourists that are coming to Tasmania to enjoy what we have to offer, speeds that they expect. So they are very happy about that.
The fibre-to-the node rollout is commencing, as I mentioned, in those towns. Evandale and along the West Tamar will be the first. Not long after that, you will see fibre to the node being rolled out in Westbury and Hagley in the Meander Valley; Bicheno on the east coast; Campbell Town; Dodges Ferry in the south-east, a growing area of my electorate; Exeter, as I mentioned; Longford, one of the major towns in the Northern Midlands; and New Norfolk, a large town. It will be a simple process. As I say, people will not have to have their backyards dug up. Certainly in the township of Evandale, where there are a lot of heritage houses, that is the last thing that they need. The simplicity of being able to connect to the NBN and access very fast speeds through fibre to the node is indeed welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the people in my electorate who previously have not had access to data connections at anywhere approaching these speeds. Regional Australia finally is being considered and has been a priority for the rollout under this current government. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute on this debate.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:22): Changes made to the telecommunications legislation in this bill perfectly represent the chaos and dysfunction of this government. What a complete mess this government has made of the rollout of the National Broadband Network across Australia. It is probably one of the biggest and most important infrastructure projects of recent decades, and all this government has done is seek to score political points in the manner in which they have changed the project and introduced a new regime.
This bill, in its original form, was introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 December 2015. What it does is codify many of the recommendations of a review that was established by the former Minister for Communications, who is now the Prime Minister. When they were in opposition the current government promised an independent review of the operation of the National Broadband Network and its future. Well, we did not get that independent review. What we got was a partisan review. The Vertigan panel, as it has become known, was appointed with former Liberal Party staffers. They are the people they appointed to this review to look at the National Broadband Network, and all of them have been critics of Labor's approach to the National Broadband Network in the past.
Unsurprisingly, the Vertigan review recommended the rollback of a number of Labor's competition and consumer friendly reforms that underpin the National Broadband Network. The important principle of universal access to telecommunications throughout the whole of Australia was at threat because of the recommendations made by the Vertigan panel. One of those recommendations was to axe the universal national wholesale pricing regime. This regime ensures that Australians who live in rural and regional areas pay the same wholesale price as people who live in the big cities for the equivalent services. This is a principle that Labor put in place to ensure that we had fairness and equity in telecommunication service delivery in this country.
We all know that Australia is a very big nation, and the tyranny of distance has been a challenge for people who live in rural and regional communities when it comes to accessing government services. So Labor put in place the universal national wholesale pricing regime to ensure that, regardless of where you live in Australia, you pay the same wholesale price to access what are now vitally important and essential telecommunication services. The Vertigan review recommended watering that down. The question I have is: where is the National Party on an issue such as this? Where is the National Party when it comes to such an important government service as telecommunications and the prospect of having the universal national wholesale pricing regime undermined?
The Vertigan review was clearly biased. It was clearly put in place for political means, not to find out what is in the best interest of the nation or how we will get world-class telecommunication services. That is ultimately what is behind the National Broadband Network that Labor put in place: we want world-class telecommunication services. Other nations throughout the world are receiving speeds of up to 100 megabits per second when it comes to accessing the internet. Not many houses or business premises in Australia are able to access those speeds, and that was why we built and intended to build a fibre-optic cable to the premises network. That is what the rest of the world is doing. That is what a modern telecommunication system looks like, not the one that this government has sought to introduce for purely political means—purely to say that their version was cheaper than Labor's and would be rolled out more quickly. In the end, what they have done is give us a half-baked NBN. It is an inferior system. It is a second-rate system for our nation. That is unacceptable in modern-day Australia. A wealthy nation like Australia, with the government services that we have, should not put up with a second-rate system. That is why Labor has been critical of what this government is doing with the National Broadband Network.
But it is not just the Labor Party that is critical. There has been much independent analysis of what this government has been doing on the National Broadband Network, the recommendation of the Vertigan review, the amendments that are made through this bill and the effects that they are having on the delivery of the National Broadband Network. I will quote some of them for you because I think they perfectly highlight what this government is up to when it comes to the National Broadband Network. If anyone knows anything about accessing telecommunication services and ensuring competition and fair access, it is the former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Professor Graeme Samuel. He said:
Multiple reviews, at vast cost, have been completed, primarily focused on demonstrating that the Labor government’s NBN concept was flawed or at least was less economically viable than that of the Coalition. Unfortunately, much of the review analysis has had a political tarnish which diminishes its value in forward planning for this important infrastructure project.
I could not have summed it up better. Professor Graeme Samuel has hit the nail on the head. With this government it is all about political point-scoring rather than delivering a first rate National Broadband Network and doing what is in the interests of Australians across the whole of the nation.
The Senate select committee that had a look at the review of the National Broadband Network—the so-called independent cost-benefit analysis that was part of the Vertigan panel's review—had this to say about it:
The Cost-Benefit Analysis is a deeply flawed and overtly political document. It is not credible and is not a reliable basis upon which to make decisions about the NBN.
That is what the Senate committee said about the Vertigan panel. But what does this government do? They are amending the telecommunications legislation based on what is a deeply flawed and clearly biased political report. Unfortunately, all Australians will suffer because of this.
Labor indicated that they would oppose those elements of the bill that are flawed and that come from this clearly biased and politically motivated review. They include parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the telecommunications legislation. So we indicated to the government that we would not support those parts of the bill. What does the government do? At the last minute, they withdraw those parts of the bill. They are amending their own legislation and withdrawing those parts of the bill, because they have worked out that they are deeply offensive, come from a politically biased report and are not in the best interests of Australia.
The way this government is developing policy on one of the most important infrastructure projects in our nation's history is: they are making it up as they go. As we have seen in a number of policy areas—tax reform, competition policy, other important economic principles—they are making these policies up as they go, because they do not have a clear plan and an economic vision for our nation.
In this policy area and in a number of other areas, the Australian people are suffering from the constant changes that are occurring—ministers being replaced, leaderships ballots, people having to resign because they have done the wrong thing as ministers and a revolving door of ministerial appointments are all having an effect on good government in this country.
We all know that these are big portfolios, particularly telecommunications, and it takes a long time for a new minister to get across the issues and meet with all the players and stakeholders who operate in that area. Clearly, the government is suffering from this. At the last minute, the government is seeking to amend its own legislation, because it has worked out that it is flawed and that the Australian people are suffering. This is symbolic of this government's approach to the National Broadband Network and policy development more generally.
As I mentioned earlier, these reviews are aimed at political pointscoring and trying to blame the Labor Party rather than having good policy, and the people of Australia have been suffering. We are going to be saddled with a second-rate national broadband network. Every other broadband network in developed nations is delivering fibre optic cable to the premises. Why? Because that is the latest and most up-to-date technology. Nations across the whole of Europe and much of the United States are delivering the best technology for their citizens. Why wouldn't Australia do the same thing? Under the original plan of the previous Labor government, we were doing that. Sure, there were some teething problems in the early days—there always are with big infrastructure projects; we all know that—but, at the end of the day, you are better off, if you have an up-to-date system that delivers first-class and world-class communications technology for its citizens. This government has sought to score political points by trying to blame Labor and introducing an inferior system so that they can say that it is cheaper than the Labor Party's. It is infuriating because, instead of getting fibre to the home and fibre to the business—fibre optic cable, the latest technology—you get fibre optic cable to the end of the street and then the information runs down the old copper network.
The copper network was installed before the first man walked on the moon—that is how old it is. It goes back to before the 1960s. So here we have first-rate technology delivering information to the node and then slow as a wet week down the copper network to the home. Naturally, we are seeing the consequences of that and some of the testimonials from people who have connected to this new system are quite shocking, because guess what? At the end of the day, when everyone goes home and gets on the internet, it slows down; it is using outdated technology. Australians are suffering. We have had testimonials from people who have been connected, saying, 'Bring back my ADSL2 connection, because what they've given us is inferior even to that old technology.'
In a number of areas, we have seen that the government is not meeting the targets it set for itself. Malcolm Turnbull, the now Prime Minister, when he was the communications minister, said that the second-rate NBN would only cost $41 billion. Two years on in the progress reports that have been released on the delivery of the NBN, we see that the second-rate NBN will actually cost up to $56 billion—a 37 per cent increase in the cost.
The Prime Minister said previously that the cost to connect fibre to the node to the home would cost about $600; it is actually costing $1,600—a 167 per cent increase. This is something that Labor said would be an issue. Under our system, we had a reasonable price to connect. Everyone had the same access; there may have been differences in plans and the like, but there was competition and people could make their own choices. We said that you would pay more to connect to lousy, inferior technology, and that is exactly what is occurring.
The Prime Minister said that it would cost $55 million to fix up the copper network: it is actually costing $641 million. I have had a number of Telstra technicians, living in my electorate, come to me, saying that they could not believe that they were actually using the rusty old, outdated copper network to connect people to the National Broadband Network—it is almost criminal to call it the National Broadband Network, given that people are being connected through this second-rate technology.
With all the changes in minsters in this area, a new Prime Minister and these partisan reviews that have been conducted, which are clearly trying to score points against the Labor Party, we have seen an inferior national broadband network developed for this country. The people of Australia are suffering. In my community, in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, under Labor's plan we would have been receiving the National Broadband Network now. Fibre to the premises was being rolled out from July 2015 from Kensington and gradually making its way east and south across the whole of the electorate. When the Liberals came to government, they stopped the rollout of the National Broadband Network in our community; they took us off the rollout map.
The people of my community have suffered ever since. We have got a handful of brand-new unit developments that have the National Broadband Network and that is it. No-one else is getting the fibre-to-the-home or business National Broadband Network that they are rightly entitled to and should expect from a modern-day Australian government. What is being delivered is an inferior system. People in areas and communities like mine have been taken off the rollout map, and it is clearly not good enough. The changes that are being made to this bill at the last minute reflect the fact that this government is completely ballsing up the National Broadband Network rollout, and that chaos and dysfunction are affecting the policy development of this government.
Debate adjourned.
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (16:38): I am pleased to be speaking on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. This bill amends the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme to provide a higher payment to people with disability who are paid an unfair wage under this tool. This issue has a long and complex history so it is worth briefly recapping just how we have come to this point.
The Business Services Wage Assessment Tool, otherwise known as BSWAT, was used to determine the wages of people with disability working in Australian disability enterprises. There are around 20,000 Australians who are employed at these ADEs. Supported employees working at these organisations are paid a pro rata wage, calculated using a number of different wage assessment tools of which BSWAT was one. Around 10,000 workers were assessed using BSWAT.
In 2012, the Federal Court found that this particular tool indirectly discriminated against people with intellectual disability. This was because the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme assessed the competency as well as the productivity of the employee—meaning a person with an intellectual disability was paid a lower wage on the basis of their intellectual impairment. Following this ruling, a class action was brought against the Commonwealth on behalf of supported employees seeking back pay for the wages they had been underpaid as a result of being assessed under this discriminatory tool. While this class action was underway, the government introduced legislation to set up this payment scheme.
The scheme offered back pay worth 50 per cent of the difference between that which workers actually received under the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool and what they would have received if the competency component of the tool had not been included. Labor opposed the original bill not because we do not support such a payment scheme because of course we do. The Federal Court found that these supported employees were indirectly discriminated against because of the type of their disability. Of course we support justice for them and we support a payment scheme to help compensate for the wages they lost.
Labor opposed the original bill because it unfairly tried to silence people with disability. It meant that people who accepted a payment under the scheme were precluded from pursuing further legal action for lost wages. In Labor's view, it was wrong for the government to deny the legal rights of people with disability at the exact same time as a class action was underway.
People with disability who are denied justice and denied wages deserve their day in court. Labor came to this position after listening to the views of people with disability and their advocates. We did not pretend to know what was best for them. We certainly did not pretend to speak with them. We did not make decisions affecting them without first hearing their views. People with disability did not support the original scheme and the onerous conditions that it placed on them, so Labor opposed it. We were guided by what people with disability wanted. It was true then and it is true today.
This important legal process has now been completed. Labor welcomes the settlement that has finally been reached between supported employees and the Commonwealth. The settlement means that thousands of workers with disability will get fairer back pay for the wages they were denied, a much better deal than would have been the case if this class action had not proceeded and the original payment scheme was left in place.
Under the settlement, people with disability who were originally paid wages under the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool will be paid 70 per cent of the difference between the wage they received and the wage they should have received. The original act now needs to be amended to reflect the agreement that has been reached. The Federal Court will then be in a position to approve the mediated settlement once this legislation has passed.
Now that people with disability have reached the settlement, an agreement that they are happy with, an agreement that actually involves them, we do support this legislation to give effect to the settlement. Once this happens, those who were involved in and supported the class action can apply for payment under the scheme. Those who have already received a payment under the existing scheme will receive an automatic top-up to reflect the better deal reached under the settlement.
Importantly, the registration period for the scheme will be extended by 12 months to give people more opportunity to apply for the payment. These payments will reflect historic indexation and will not be assessed as income for social security purposes. Labor is pleased that this issue can finally be resolved and that people with disability can receive a fairer wage for the work that they perform.
On behalf of the opposition, I particularly want to pay tribute to the two individuals who initially challenged the validity of this wage assessment tool and the thousands more who subsequently joined them in the fight for fairer pay. I also want to acknowledge the many organisations and advocates who stood with the employees and supported their cause. We can now move on from what has been a difficult process over many years and we can focus on the other issues in this area that are yet to be properly addressed. While this bill gives overdue justice for some supported employees with disability, it unfortunately does not end the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the future of Australian disability enterprises and supported employment.
The government is developing a new productivity-based wage assessment tool to replace the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool. I understand this work is still being progressed through the Fair Work Commission. This must be finalised as quickly as possible, and I urge the minister to make it a personal priority. The sooner we have an unambiguously fair assessment tool, the sooner we can be sure that people with disability are being paid a proper, non-discriminatory wage. And the sooner we can end the financial and legal uncertainty that is shrouding the sector, the better for people with disability and their employers.
The government must also address the concerns regarding wage supplementation for Australian disability enterprises. Many opposition members have received several troubling reports from our local organisations, reporting that this process is unwieldy, lengthy and inadequate. Alarmingly, some ADEs have told us that they are hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket after their wage supplementation payment. This is placing some ADEs in immediate financial jeopardy. Labor believes that the government can do more to support and reassure the sector—and they must get on and do so. The interests of people with disability are best served by having a sustainable ADE sector capable of paying fair wages. That is what the government should aim to achieve.
The truth is that we can all do more to make sure that people with disability are full participants in the community. Too many people with disability want to work and can work but are not given the opportunity. Australia continues to have one of the lowest employment rates of people with disability in the OECD. This is just not good enough. Too many people with disability live in poverty and disadvantage. Too many live on the margins of society, isolated and alone. We can all do more. Of course, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is going to be a big part of addressing this—but just one part. While the NDIS will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability, many more people with disability will still need our support so that they too can reach their full potential. It is for this reason that Labor believes that the National Disability Strategy must be reinvigorated to ensure its goals reflect the goals of Australians living with disability; to ensure our efforts stretch across every area of policymaking; and to make sure that we implement these strategies, and not just talk about them.
In closing, I want to quickly return to the central issue: the wages that people with intellectual disability deserved but were deprived of. In the final analysis, this issue is about more than just a wage; it is about respect. It is about whether we respect the capabilities and contributions of people with intellectual disability. It is about whether we value their work and whether we recognise them as equal members of society. With this settlement, we can go some way to restoring not just the wages but also the respect that people with intellectual disability had been denied. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:48): In 1992, under a federal Labor government, the Disability Discrimination Act was made law. That is a piece of legislation that is very important because it is about dignity for people with a disability and ending discrimination against them. Twenty years later, in 2012, in a decision brought under that legislation the full court of the Federal Court found that the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool—the tool that is the subject of this bill, the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016—was discriminatory and unlawfully discriminated against people with an intellectual disability, because it assessed competency as well as productivity. Of course, the consequence of that for people with an intellectual disability was that, though their productivity, their output, might be exactly the same as someone without the same disability, under that tool, they were able to be paid less. I am informed that the administration of that tool resulted in some workers with an intellectual disability being paid as little as 99c per hour.
Following on from that full court of the Federal Court decision, my friends and colleagues at my old firm, Maurice Blackburn, decided to commence a class action—and I want to say a bit about that. When my friend, Josh Bornstein, mentioned to me that he intended to pursue a class action in relation to disabled workers, my initial reaction was to see the possibilities not just for the class action and the workers who had suffered discrimination who might be able to get access to justice because of the existence of the class action rules when otherwise they could not individually afford to bring proceedings but also because of the cultural change that the prospect of class actions can bring. That is of course to remind people in our community that, though individually complainants might not have much power, collectively they have a lot of power—and that can change behaviour.
Obviously I was not involved in the class action, given I was leaving at the time to do something else, but I was very interested to watch the progress of the class action in relation to the BSWAT. I was also very pleased that a woman I recruited to that firm, Ms Kelly Thomas, ended up being one of the solicitors on the matter. She is a very talented solicitor and one of my best hires in a long period in the law. She and Josh wrote to me last week or the week before about the class action and about the resolution to which effect is to be given by this legislation.
In 2014 a piece of legislation was brought forward by the Abbott government, and now Turnbull government, in relation to this claim. We did not support that legislation. There were a few reasons that we did not support that legislation. Firstly, it was going to give people only 50 per cent of the value of their wages. Imagine being told that you were entitled to back pay only to find that you were only going to get half of it. But, probably more importantly, it was going to take away people's ability to pursue justice through the courts. We were very concerned about that legislation because it was aimed at extinguishing rights without compensating for the loss of those rights. In this House, people would not be keen to support the sort of legislation that says to disabled people, 'All right, you have been exploited, you have been underpaid, but take half of what you are worth and promise not to sue the Commonwealth for anything else.'
Of course, things have now changed. What has changed is that there has been a long period of negotiation and resolution in the intervening period. My own view, having been a lawyer, is that it is always best to seek to resolve litigation by agreement, where possible, because that is the only way the parties get to have control over their destinies. If you are unable to resolve your litigation, what you are really doing is putting your destiny into the hands of a third person, the judge. I do encourage parties to, where possible, seek to resolve by agreement for that reason. It is also a more efficient use of taxpayer resources if parties can find a way to reach agreement between themselves rather than using court time, and it is generally safer for parties not to have to bear the costs and risks of litigation if possible. Settlement is generally the best way to resolve litigation.
Determination by a court is usually not the best way to resolve litigation. And so it is here: a class of people—real people with intellectual disabilities—have been put in a position of controlling their own destiny by deciding whether to agree to a resolution, and we are now seeing that resolution being given effect in this legislation. I would make the point that they did so via the vehicle of a class action. Not everyone loves a class action, and not everyone loves class-action law firms. But I would say this: in this country, where access to justice is a serious problem and where we have had a Productivity Commission report which recognises that there are plenty of people out there who just cannot have access to the courts because they cannot afford to do so, vehicles by which people can have access to justice are important. A class action is one of those vehicles.
We should think very carefully about this question: do we want to live in a country where the only people who can get access to justice are those who are wealthy enough to pay for private lawyers? Or do we want to live in a country where the people who can get access to the court system are people who need to access the court system? Of course, I am not just talking about a class action—that is one vehicle. Another very important component of access to justice—and there are many—and probably the most important one for people without the means to hire private lawyers, is community legal centres and legal aid commissions. It is unfortunate that this government has, for example, cut tens of millions of dollars from community legal centres and legal aid commissions since coming to office, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family violence legal centres. It is not only a terrible cut at a time when, because of the work being done, people are more and more willing to seek help in matters of family violence—and those legal services do other things as well—but a direct attack on access to justice at a time when access to justice is the focus of national attention through the Productivity Commission inquiry and report. As I said, there are many ways of obtaining access to justice. Class actions are one. Legal aid commissions and community legal centres are others. And pro bono work by private firms certainly ought not be disregarded; it is a very important component of our legal system.
This a case that relates to a very particular type of class action that centres on claims that arise in relation to contraventions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Given that action have arisen, and given that the parties have had the opportunity of mediation and settlement discussions, it is now a matter of respect that we should support this bill. This is a settlement that the people who are claimants themselves, the people with intellectual disability who are owed money, are seeking to have endorsed. As the member for Jagajaga said, in the event that this bill is passed, the parties will be able to go back to the Federal Court for endorsement of the resolution. We should respect the decision that they have made in relation to agreeing to this settlement, and we should support this bill. This bill is definitely a more favourable bill than the previous bill, the 2014 bill. It is a bill with a back-payment of 70 per cent of the amount underpaid rather than 50 per cent. There will be indexation and there are other positive aspects of this bill compared with the previous bill.
The matters of fact, the merits of the settlement, are important for us to consider. But, most importantly, we should consider the wishes of the people for whom the class action was brought, the people who will receive the benefits of that class action. That is something that I am very keen to do. We should also recall that this is just one incident of a much broader imperative that we have as a parliament to recognise the needs of people with a disability. There are so many things you could talk about in that context. The shadow minister spoke about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a signature achievement of the last Labor government, including the current Leader of the Opposition in his role in the last Labor government. I am certainly looking forward to seeing the NDIS rollout in my own area in Brisbane.
But there is always more to be done. As the shadow minister said, we certainly need to reinvigorate the national disability strategy. In the context of this issue, I also want to mention for the benefit of the House the work that is being done in my own part of the world in the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. A friend of mine, Brad Sparrow, has set up a group called Labor Enabled. I certainly hope that group will continue to agitate for better pro-disability, pro-ability and pro-access policies internally within Labor and within the broader community. I am very pleased to say that they were kind enough to invite me to be the patron of that group, an opportunity that I took up without hesitation because I can see the opportunities for policy work, organising and community support that such a group can and will deliver.
But I digress. I rose to speak in favour of supporting this bill, because I think supporting this bill is the right thing to do on the merits of the settlement that has been reached in support of the people who would form part of the class that is the subject of the class action and to whom benefits from this bill would accrue. But, as I said, most importantly I did so as a matter of respect. People should be able to determine their own destinies in this world. When it comes to litigation like this we should respect the people for whom the action was brought and we should honour their wishes, and in supporting this bill we certainly would be doing that.
So, I commend the bill to the House. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I certainly hope that we will see more and more attention being paid to the needs of people with disabilities. I certainly have appreciated the opportunity to acknowledge the significance of the Disability Discrimination Act—that great Labor reform from 1992. I know there is much more to be done, but with continued focus and continued political will and effort we will continue to make Australia a better place for people with a disability.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:00): It is great for the people who are involved in this case that they will reach some settlement. It is also great that they will get fairer compensation as a result of the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. A few people in my electorate have approached me about this issue and have raised it on several occasions. Bendigo is home to a number of our disability support agencies. Because we have a lack of businesses locally that are able or willing to engage people with a disability, a number of them have set up their enterprises to partner with their disability support services. These enterprises employ a number of people in my community who have a disability. Through no fault of their own—they thought they were doing it in good faith—they engaged people and, they acknowledge, have underpaid them. That is why this issue is very dear to the hearts of many people in my electorate, whether they work for these businesses or whether they are the businesses that employ them. So, they welcome this move to bring forward this payment. Of course, the workers said that they would have liked 100 per cent compensation, but understand that when you are involved in negotiations, when you reach a settlement, 70 per cent is better than a drawn out case.
So, we welcome the settlement of the class action between the supported employees and the Commonwealth. A number of organisations have been very worried about what the future would be, and I will touch on why the government needs to settle the uncertainty by bringing forward a new non-discriminatory wage tool as soon as possible for the sector. They are hoping they can draw a line in the sand on this issue and move forward. This settlement means that thousands of workers with a disability whose wages are being paid using the BSWAT, a discriminatory wage assessment tool, will now have fairer compensation for the wages they were denied. And it is hard, using this particular tool. I have had people come and say that they have not had an assessment done in a while. I have had people say that they believe their competency level and ability are higher than what the agency has rated them as having. These are workers, at the end of the day. They are very proud of the work they do and should not be discriminated against just because they have a disability.
We are pleased that the parties have finally come to an arrangement. It is disappointing, however, that it has taken so long to come to this point. We opposed this legislation when it first came into the House, because the people at the very centre of this issue were not happy with the 50 per cent mark. And you can understand why, which is why we are taking their guidance in supporting this bill today. Too often people with a disability do not have a strong enough voice, whether in our community or in law. That is why it is so important that people in this place ensure that people with disability do have a strong voice and that they are represented.
It demonstrates again how this government failed to listen to people with a disability and their advocates the first time around. They failed to listen to the peak disability organisations, and the also failed to listen to what the many enterprises, like the ones I mentioned in my electorate, were saying about this particular case. It is only now that we have agreement across the board that we on this side are ready to support it.
I will just give the House a bit of an outline of the great work going on in some of the organisations in my part of the world, starting with Radius Disability Services. They have just opened an exciting retail and hospitality emporium, right in the heart of town. They took over the old Toyworld building and have started to renovate that space. They are focusing on retail and hospitality. Their retail side is basically vintage clothing; they screen-print their own designs and they also make their own clothing. Since their doors opened they have been going quite well. It is an enterprise in which, as you can imagine, they have to sell a lot of shirts that they make in order to break even, so the support they get from the community for this enterprise is welcome. It is also one of the supported-employee locations where they are desperately waiting for the government to finalise the new tool so that they can make sure that their business remains profitable into the future.
The other side of the business, apart from the clothing side, is a hospitality service—catering that they are able to do in the local community as well as hospitality work, such as working in cafes. Through the establishment of this emporium they are training a group of workers, and some of them are applying for work in our local cafe industry. It is wonderful to see people who once might have been written off by our community—saying they could not gain the skills needed to work in hospitality—having, through being involved in Radius, new skills and the ability to go on to further employment. Yes, the training program may have taken a little bit longer than for somebody who goes straight into the hospitality industry, but that is what Radius has been able to offer them.
Another organisation in my part of the world that has a number of small businesses providing supported employees an opportunity to work is Bendigo Access Employment. They have a number of contracts, from environmental services, car services and management services to their PepperGreen Farm site. This is a unique site. It used to be the Chinese Garden markets—until the 1950s. Later, it was turned into a plant nursery, only to be passed on to become the PepperGreen Farm site. At this particular site, supported employees work with their supervisors on their horticultural garden, growing local produce. That produce is for sale—you can buy your PepperGreen Farm produce on Thursdays.
They have now established a kitchen, which is producing meals. This is another catering opportunity, offering 'meals on wheels' for people who may be at home, who may be alone or who may not want to cook. So they are growing their business. Again, this is giving people with a disability an opportunity within this enterprise. The community park has horticulture, environmental education and heritage awareness, and it is operated under the umbrella of Bendigo Access Employment, delivering a number of employment initiatives.
One thing I will say about our supported employee enterprises, our not-for-profit enterprises that rely on supported employee labour, is that they are creating opportunities for a group of workers who would otherwise miss out. They need our support in making sure the wage assessment tool is fair and in accordance with our obligations regarding to workers' rights. They need the acknowledgement that running these enterprises is not like being on the open market. It is more expensive to train people. It is more expensive to make sure that they have the equipment and the appropriate places than it is for private enterprises, so there is a role for government to play in supporting these businesses to make sure that they are meeting the benchmarks required.
I hope that a number of these organisations will be successful in our first round of Stronger Communities grants. Unfortunately, in Bendigo, we are still waiting for many of our grants to be approved. Our disability enterprises, such as Radius and Bendigo Access Employment, have all applied. They have passed the first stage of the process to receive funding to ensure that they have the most up-to-date capital equipment that they need to continue growing their businesses.
We also have the Kyneton and Castlemaine copy centres that do a lot of work for local businesses and schools. At a copy centre, as the name says, they do the printing and the photocopying. The last time I was out at Castlemaine they explained to me that there is a waiting list for people to use the photocopier. They enjoy doing the photocopying and the folding. In the upcoming election, I might need to remember that we have a group of people in the south of the electorate who are very keen to do those jobs.
I am just highlighting how these are people who go to work, who enjoy their work and who just want a fair pay for a fair day's work. It comes back to the key point: whilst this bill is about ensuring that people who have been underpaid get some kind of compensation, the government needs to get on with the job of finalising the new non-discrimination wage tool so that future supported employees are not underpaid and are not left with so much uncertainty. It is also so important for their organisations that they know they are paying people the right rate of pay.
I would also call on the government to make sure that there are clear rules and guidelines about where and when you can apply this tool. In one particular case, a business in Bendigo that was doing traffic management, came to see me because they had lost their entire contract to a business, based in Melbourne, that was coming up to Bendigo to do the work. They were paying supported employees as little as $2 an hour. The Bendigo business said: 'We cannot compete with that. We are paying people award wages and this business, which claims to be a disability support organisation and has people on supported employee wages, is paying them $2 an hour.'
When we are in the space of workers' rights, when we are in the space of wages, when we are in a contracting industry, like traffic management, where wage bills can be the competitive edge, we need to make sure that this tool is not being used inappropriately. Where it can be demonstrated that it is, we need to make sure that the employer is held to task and that they are not misusing this tool and underpaying people, deliberately, in order to win contracts. It is not the only place that it has happened. It has also happened in the cleaning and maintaining of local government cars. The local government stepped in to say: 'This is not appropriate. If person A gets paid X wages, person B should get paid X wages.'
The whole point of the tool is to fairly assess people in their capacity to do a job. That is part of the problem, in this space, when it comes to Australians with a disability. We need to give people with a disability more of an opportunity to gain meaningful employment. In Australian workplaces, we have one of the lowest rates of people with a disability working. It is the role of government to help support people with a disability gain employment—not only to help businesses to hire people but also to help change the culture.
I can remember that when my offices were renovated in Bendigo we were hoping to have somebody from Scope come in and volunteer with us. We were hoping to offer work to somebody who is in a chair. But when we put forward the plans to have our offices renovated, what was knocked back was having a disabled toilet installed. It makes it very hard for me as a local federal member to employ somebody who may need a disabled toilet, because it was knocked back. The Department of Parliamentary Services said that the budget just did not stretch far enough. So that is just an example of how if, as a parliament, we want to be a model employer, we need to make sure that we have appropriate facilities for people with a disability.
It also goes beyond just government; it also means that we need to challenge employers about who they give a job to. We need to make sure that there is not so much a cash incentive on the table but that we are actually rewarding and encouraging best practice—making sure we are giving people who might be differently-abled the opportunity.
I met a fantastic young man when I was out at Radius Enterprises. They have a recycling and environmental service where they drive around in empty trucks to where people have donated goodwill items in clothing bins. They then load up the trucks and send them to Melbourne. Basically, the old clothes are turned into new product. He had gone from being a supported employee to being on the books as a full-time employee, as a supervisor. He said that when he was younger he was just written off, 'I still don't quite know what disability I have, but I was just kind of judged.' Now, he is running the service. It is a great success story and we need more of those.
We need our government to get serious and to finalise the new non-discriminatory wage tool so that more people have an opportunity.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:16): When this Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016 came before the parliament I was keen to speak on it. I was keen to scrutinise the legislation and I can say that I stand here to support it.
Before entering this place I worked in the disability sector for many years, with people with disabilities—both physical disabilities and children with intellectual disabilities, so I have some affinity with the subject matter. I also worked as an industrial and employment lawyer, so the issues that are being grappled with in this legislation and the course of events which led to it are well known to me.
It concerns, of course, the employment of people with a disability and it grapples with the issue of how we pay them a fair and decent wage. The Business Services Wage Assessment Tool was a tool used to determine the pro rata wages of supported employees. In essence, the benchmark is the award wage and the tool was used to assess the capacity of that worker, effectively discounting the full-time award wage against the assessment tool.
Of course, the matter was subject to litigation in the Federal Court and eventually found itself before the full court of the Federal Court. In December 2012 the full court of the Federal Court found that the tool was discriminatory. His honour, Justice Buchanan found:
The basic defect in the use of BSWAT is that it reduces wages to which intellectually disabled workers would otherwise be entitled by reference to considerations which do not bear upon the work that they actually do.
That was in the case of Nojin and Prior in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, the respondent in that matter, appealed and in May 2013 was refused special leave by the High. Court. In reaching her conclusion, Justice Crennan said:
The Full Court of the Federal Court, by a majority, concluded that the use of the BSWAT disadvantaged intellectually disabled persons. Although it was widely used, it was not reasonable. … The unchallenged expert evidence was that the BSWAT produced a differential effect for intellectually disabled persons and reduced their score. We see no reason to doubt the conclusions of the Full Court.
Well, that is the case and those are the circumstances which led to this matter being brought before the parliament today.
Of course, it is not for the first time, because in 2014 the government passed legislation which put in place a payment scheme for those who were affected by the legislation. People with a disability would be entitled to a payment from a fund administered by the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the payments would have been limited to 50 per cent of the amount the worker would have been paid had the productivity element been used—that is, what should have been done.
Labor opposed the legislation for a number of reasons. Firstly, on its face, we believe that the 50 per cent payment in compensation was insufficient. We reached this conclusion after having received representations from many of the clients, advocate groups and litigants who were then in negotiations with the Commonwealth. There is also a second principle involved in matters such as this, and it is this: the Commonwealth parliament should be very slow indeed to pass legislation which effectively distinguishes the rights of parties who are engaged in a litigation, particularly when they are negotiating between themselves for the settlement of that litigation. When the Commonwealth does that it effectively inserts itself in between those parties and comes down on one side or the other of them, distinguishing and affecting rights. Of course, when one of those parties to that dispute is the Commonwealth itself you have to reach the conclusion that it is an improper use of the power of the state.
We take a different view of the legislation that is before the House today. The bill gives effect to a settlement that was reached in December last year. The parties have agreed to a deal that provides a better deal for the supported wage employees. They will receive compensation worth 70 per cent of the alleged loss under the Commonwealth payment scheme. This is an increase of 20 per cent of what they would have received under the 2014 bill. People who have already received a payment under the scheme will automatically receive a top-up payment to reflect the increased payments available under the settlement. They will not have to make any further applications to receive this payment.
Labor has always supported the establishment of a payment scheme for supported employees involved in this matter. We believe that it is essential to the resolution of the case. I have received many representations from Australian disability employment enterprises within my electorate. In fact, before coming down to speak this afternoon I spoke to Mr Ross Johnson of Flagstaff Group and discussed with him his views of the legislation and the litigation which led to it. He is keen to see the matter resolved and he is keen to see the legislation passed before the parliament, but he makes the point that it only deals with the current stock of litigants and those who may wish to join the class. It does not go to the issue of the discriminatory tool that led to the litigation in the first place. That is the unresolved matter, and it is my view and the view of the disability employment enterprises that I have spoken to that this matter needs to be resolved posthaste.
I am aware that the matter is being dealt with at an award level and has been referred to Deputy President Anna Booth in Fair Work Australia and that a conciliation process is underway. I argue that that is the best way to deal with this matter. With complex issues a final settlement is one that is best reached as the result of consent between all of the parties. That way we can be assured that the tool that is used into the future not only has no evidence of any of the discriminatory matters which have so afflicted this tool but also has the full support and understanding of the parties who are required to use it.
I have been in receipt of a number of piece of correspondence and other material as this matter has progressed before the parliament. In some of that material there has been an in my view unfortunate suggestion that there is no place for Australian disability enterprises in modern Australia. I think this is, frankly, an unsophisticated approach to the matter.
I support the maximisation of people with disabilities working in open employment in the community alongside you, I or anybody else who is working in any workplace around the country. I think that should be the goal of every member in this place. But I am familiar with the work of a number of the ADEs in my electorate. I single out The Flagstaff Group and Greenacres Employment Solutions. I spent a fair bit of time with them over the years. I know the people who work there. I know the supervisors. I know the management committee. I understand that it is unrealistic to think that many—not all—of the people who are working in these enterprises would be working in open employment if that were to be the only employment.
It is not just because of the capacities of these people, but we have to be realistic. When the unemployment rate in the electorate that I represent is often two per cent and sometimes three per cent above the national average—and even higher; sometimes three and four times the national average for people who do not have higher qualifications—we have to be cognisant of this and understand that ADEs play a critical role not only in providing employment but also in providing a social space for people with disabilities and respite for their families.
This is not meaningless work. This is not digging holes and filling them back in. Flagstaff employment, an ADE in Unanderra in my electorate, has a range of businesses from laundry services to coffee roasting to packaging. They run a printing business. They run the staff cafe out at BlueScope steelworks just down the road. They run a paper and cardboard recycling business as well. I have moved among the workers who work in these workplaces. They are doing a great job. It is meaningful employment, and they savour every day that they get to go to work and engage in it. I will make the same comments about the other ADEs in my electorate.
It behoves us to support this legislation but also to encourage those parties who are currently in conciliation before Fair Work Australia. Anna Booth, whom I know to be a very skilled conciliator of long standing and great respect amongst all the parties, will do all things necessary to ensure that a new tool is put in place so that we are not faced with dealing with similar legislation such as this in a future parliament.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:27): I am pleased to offer a contribution to this debate. In the electorate of Kingsford Smith there are a number of Australian disability enterprises, or ADEs, that do a fantastic job providing employment opportunities for people in our community living with disabilities. This has been an issue that has gone on for quite a while, and there has been a degree of uncertainty in these businesses for parents and people who work in these businesses regarding their wages and conditions into the future.
The purpose of the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016 is to provide some of that certainty, to amend the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Act 2015 to increase one-off payments from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the difference between the actual wage paid to an eligible person and the amount they would have been paid had the business services wage assessment tool—BSWAT—productivity-only component been applied. It also provides a top-up payment for persons who have already received a 50 per cent payment under the BSWAT payments scheme. It removes the current compulsory requirement to obtain legal advice before any payments are made. It extends all relevant scheme dates by 12 months, clarifies certain administrative arrangements and enables a deceased person's legal representative to engage with the payments scheme on their behalf.
The catalyst for this bill and the reforms that result comes from the bravery of two men with disabilities who in 2012 were successful in challenging the fairness of their wage, which under the old payments scheme was less than $4 an hour. That case went all the way to the Federal Court, and the Federal Court had a look at the BSWAT system and found that it unlawfully discriminated against people with intellectual disability, because it assessed competency as well as productivity. This meant that employees with physical disabilities could receive a higher BSWAT score than someone with an intellectual disability and thus receive a higher wage because of their lack of intellectual impairment. The court found that that was discrimination and breached the nation's antidiscrimination legislation. Following this case, a class action was launched, on behalf of supported employees, seeking similar compensation to those that had that outcome in that case.
In 2014 the government passed legislation to establish a scheme to compensate supported employees with intellectual disability who were paid wages using the discriminatory BSWAT tool. Eligible people were able to receive a payment amount worth 50 per cent of the amount the worker would have been paid had productivity element of the BSWAT tool only been used for the purposes of calculation of their wage.
Labor opposed the original legislation because it denied people with disability the legal right to pursue further compensation from the Commonwealth through the courts. When the original legislation was before the parliament, Labor unsuccessfully moved amendments that would allow people with disability to pursue further legal action, even if they accepted a 50 per cent payment under the scheme.
While this bill still precludes people from taking future legal action if they accept payment under the scheme, this is common with the resolution of legal claims. Importantly, people with disability have now been able to exercise their legal rights through the class action. This bill gives effect to the settlement reached in December 2015 between the Commonwealth and the applicant in the class action, proceeding on the basis that eligible supported employees receive compensation worth 70 per cent of the alleged loss under the Commonwealth's payment scheme, instead of 50 per cent. Labor welcomes the outcome of the class action, which has brought about a greater focus on ensuring a fairer wage deal for people with disability. And, now that people with disability have reached a settlement to finally receive wage justice, we support the legislation to give effect to the terms of the settlement.
In relation to this matter I, and my Labor colleagues, have always said and been guided by the wishes and views of the stakeholders in the disability sector—by the people living with disability, by their carers and loved ones and by the people advocating on their behalf. I have a number of ADEs in my electorate and a number of organisations that provide respite services for people living with disability and the families and carers. I value and cherish their feedback on important reforms such as this, and that has gone into the decision I have made in respect of this bill. These are the people who know best the challenges and the many, many skills of people with disability. Labor respects and acknowledges their wonderful work in helping to reach this outcome.
Funded by the Department of Social Services, Australian disability enterprises seek to employ and support people with disability in commercial environments. Currently, there are around 20,000 people with moderate to severe disability employed by ADEs, and they commonly undertake work including packaging, assembly, production, recycling, screen printing, plant nursery, garden maintenance, landscaping, cleaning services, laundry services and food services.
As I have mentioned, I have a number of these ADEs in my electorate. One of them was a pacesetter in many respects for these types of businesses—and that is Windgap Foundation Limited. Led by CEO Serhat Oguz and COO Hercules Kotsornithis, Windgap has been supporting people with disability through residential and day program services and work support since its inception in 1953. It was one of the first such businesses operating in this space. Windgap has a terrific reputation for increasing quality of life for members while doing great work to promote the importance of a truly inclusive society that embraces the ability of those living with disability. I have been delighted to visit the wonderful people of Windgap on a number of occasions. In November last year I was honoured to bestow upon the Windgap choir, which is well known in our community, a Kingsford Smith community service award for their work in volunteering at community functions and events and for their outstanding service to our community. I am tremendously proud to have such a wonderful organisation in our community. I am thankful for the work they do.
I say to businesses in our community: consider Windgap and other ADEs that do this sort of work when you are next looking at contracts, particularly around those services I mentioned earlier, because you do get great quality employees or work from ADEs and you are doing a great thing for our community and our nation.
We support the passage of this bill. We do call on the government to work quickly to fulfil its promise to develop and put into operation a new non-discriminatory wage assessment tool. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation today goes part of the way to resolving the uncertainty that still exists for ADEs and their employees and families and friends throughout the country.
The government does need to get on with the job of avoiding further uncertainty to ensure that people living with a disability and working with a disability can do so with confidence and with certainty about receiving a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:36): We have before us the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. In providing a summary to the second reading debate I would like to thank all of the members opposite for their various contributions. I particularly want to thank the member for Jagajaga.
The policy space that is pertaining to ADEs has several related but nevertheless distinct and severable issues. They are presently until this point running in parallel. This bill resolves one of those issues. Centrally, in resolving litigious issues—about which I will speak in a moment—this bill is an important part of establishing certainty and continuity in what has been a very crowded policy space in which a number of issues running parallel have created a degree of uncertainty, which is not in the best interests of those people who are and have been employed in Australian disability enterprises.
I will further note that I have listened to the member for Jagajaga, and she has raised some of the related issues in this area. I understand and appreciate her concern on those issues. I would, again, like to put forward my appreciation for her cooperation with respect to the passage of this bill, and note, again, that a primary and substantial virtue of this bill is in resolving present litigation that in itself provides a very substantial source of certainty in what is a very busy, crowded and uncertain policy space. This is the foundation from which other issues can then be resolved. I will go as far as to say that it is almost a necessary condition to the resolving of all of the other parallel issues that have been mentioned in the second reading debate with respect to Australian disability enterprises.
The bill itself gives effect to the settlement agreement between the Commonwealth and the applicant in the representative proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia. Both the Commonwealth and the applicant accept that the settlement agreement is a fair and equitable outcome. The bill delivers on the government's priority to ensure that all Australians who can work and want to work have access to employment opportunities. Australian disability enterprises—or ADEs, as I will refer to them, in shorthand, in this short speech—play an essential role in providing these opportunities for Australians with a disability. ADEs provide supported employment to Australians with a disability who have significant needs, ensuring that they can continue working.
The Commonwealth's payment scheme helps to provide certainty to supported employees that their employers will not close because of concerns about employers' perceived liability for discrimination following the Federal Court decision, in 2012, in the matter of Nojin v the Commonwealth of Australia [2012] FCAFC 192. The improvements to the payment scheme provided for in this bill will increase payments to every eligible supported employee, provide certainty for employers, give eligible supported employees more time to register and apply for the scheme, and remove several impediments to providing payments quickly. The bill achieves this while maintaining the protections necessary to ensure people have choice and control, including appointment of nominees and review mechanisms.
This bill increases the payment under the scheme from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the difference between the wages that employees were paid and the wages they would have been paid if they had been assessed under a productivity-only tool. The bill preserves the benefits of the payment scheme, including: making payments under the scheme eligible for a lump sum in arrears tax offset; ensuring a payment under the scheme does not count as income, which reduces the risk of affecting an individual's social security entitlements; and indexing payments under the scheme to the CPI rate, each year, in the period relating to payment amounts. The parties to the representative proceedings have agreed that in combination with these modifications the change to 70 per cent is a fair outcome for the relevant eligible supported employees.
Advocates for supported employees, such as the AED Legal Centre and People with Disability Australia, also agree that the increased payment amount is just and a win for employees with a disability. This is a win not only for the class represented in the representative proceedings but also for everyone currently eligible for the scheme. Although the amendments in this bill will give effect to the settlement agreement, the Commonwealth will ensure that everyone currently eligible for the scheme will benefit from the increased proposed payment. The bill will also allow a deceased person's legal personal representative to engage with the payment scheme on their behalf. Any money that would have been paid to the person will now be able to be paid to the person's estate. The bill will also ensure that people who have already received a payment under the scheme will benefit from the increased payment by ensuring that they receive a top-up. Top-ups will be automatic, and people will not have to make an additional application or provide further information to the government.
Many eligible supported employees have not yet registered for the scheme. Under the current act, eligible supported employees will only be paid if they register for the scheme by 1 May 2016. This bill extends the dates for registering, applying for and accepting the payments from the payment scheme by a further 12 months so that people have more time to register for the scheme and submit applications.
As has been described, the bill amends the legal advice provision to provide that the requirement for legal advice is voluntary, rather than mandatory. In effect, this removes a current impediment to participants receiving their payments quickly, especially for those who receive small offers of payment. Access to independent legal advice and financial counselling will continue to be funded under the scheme by the Commonwealth, and the government remains committed to ensuring people are able to make informed choices about accepting a payment offer.
When the government established the payment scheme, it was committed to providing choice and control for supported employees and to providing an alternative to the representative proceedings. This bill will improve the payment scheme for those eligible supported employees who choose to participate in the scheme. Once the bill is passed by the parliament and the terms of the settlement are accepted by the court, the proceedings will be dismissed. All parties in the representative proceedings share the purpose that this bill is passed and that the Commonwealth is able to make payments based on the 70 per cent principle as soon as is practicable.
This bill demonstrates Australia's commitment to ensuring the most favourable outcome for supported employees, their families and carers. It is supported by all parties in the representative proceedings as well as by advocates of supported employees. It will provide a speedy and fair resolution for class members of the representative proceedings and provide improved outcomes, in the form of increased payments, for all eligible supported employees. This bill will remove any perceived liability from ADEs and provides ADEs and the 20,000 workers they support with greater certainty to operate into the future.
Combined with the many measures that the government has put forward to improve the independence and viability of the supported employment sector, this bill will play a very important role in helping people with intellectual disability enjoy the greater quality of life that Australians gain from employment. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:44): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DOCUMENTS
Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Presentation
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (17:45): I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015.
BILLS
Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (17:46): I rise today to voice Labor's support for the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2016, which implements two categoriesof changes to Australia's trade legislation. Firstly, it gives effect to a name change of the Australian Trade Commission, commonly known as Austrade, to the Australian Trade and Investment Commission. Secondly, it makes a number of minor and technical changes to the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997.These modest amendments will improve the operation of the Export Market Development Grant scheme.
The EMDG scheme is a key part of Austr alia's export promotion effort. It has been ever since it was instituted by the Whitlam government in the 1970s. It is good to see something that both sides of the House are supporting because it does provide good opportunities for our local companies, in particular by providing government grants to help Australian small and medium sized the enterprises—something I know my colleague at the table is very passionate about—and it helps them promote their products in export markets. Under the scheme, SMEs can obtain grants for activities such as attending trade fairs, advertising their products in overseas markets, and conducting market research to identify export opportunities.
As we know, one of the unfortunate realities about the way that the business community does not take sufficient advantage of all of the various trade deals that are available to them is that only 19 per cent of Australian exporters make use of free trade agreements, which leaves a lot of room for improvement in this country when it comes to ensuring that our businesses get a slice of the action in our region and that our businesses get a slice of the action when it comes to taking advantage of these FTAs. I was involved in a committee process which tried to dig into some of the issues that are preventing a lot of our businesses from taking full advantage of the agreements in the region and beyond. I think it is important that Austrade and the EMDG program and all of that are geared towards helping businesses make the most of those opportunities. The EMDG scheme helps small businesses to grow and to take advantage of export opportunities. It also helps the wider Australian economy to improve its export performance , which is good for growth and jobs. That is why Labor has been for some time such a strong supporter of the EMDG scheme .
The scheme has been reviewed a number of times since it was instituted by the Whitlam government in the 70s, most recently by Mr Michael Lee , who handed his report to the g overnment last year. Mr Lee found that the EMDG scheme continues to operate effectively in encouraging the development and expansion of overseas markets for Australian goods, services and intellectual property. We also know modelling done by KPMG concluded that the scheme generates a net benefit for the Australian economy. That modelling estimated that each dollar provided to SMEs generated $7 in benefits when industry spill-overs and productivity gains are taken into account. So $7of benefit from every dollar of that of money going into the scheme is good bang for the buck. That is a good outcome for the Australian people as well as for the specific businesses involved. Mr Lee recommended that the EMDG scheme be maintained with a number of changes to improve its operation and performance. Some of his recommendations are reflected in th e amendments contained in this bill that we are debating today.
For example, the b ill removes the EMDG A ct's current sunset provisions. Under the a ct's existing sunset arrangements, the EMDG scheme would effectively lapse unless it is extended by legislation every five years —that is a pretty bizarre state of affairs . It is good to see that discarded in the amendments today. By amending the a ct's d efinition of a grant year, the b ill will ensure the EMDG scheme continues on an ongoing basis rather than requiring periodic reauthorisation. Labor supports this change because it will deliver greater certainty for business about the future of the scheme.
The opposition notes that the b ill also provides the minister with greater flexibility over the timing of reviews of the EMDG scheme. Under the amendments we are talking about today, the m inister will be required to commission an independent review to report by 31 December 2021. After that, the m inister will be required to commission subsequent reviews for completion on dates that he or she determines, rather t han on dates prescribed by the a ct. I think that is a much better way to go about it, so long as it is not abused and so those reviews are not conducted too frequently. I think that is a good way to go about it. The o pposition believes the EMDG scheme, which costs taxpayers more than $130 million a year, should continue to be subject to regular reviews , even with the additional flexibility that has been provided to ministers in this bill we are talking about .
The b ill makes other amendments which amount , in my view, to sens ible fine-tuning of the scheme. These include: c ommunications will be removed as an eligible expenditure category to reflect the reduced cost of communications as a result of advances in technology; a limit of $15,000 will be imposed on the free sample expenditure category; t he promotional literature or other advertising expenditure category will include material in electronic form —commonsense changes to keep up with the available communications technology ; p rovisions for reim bursement of in-country travel—other than air fares— will be repealed and the daily allowance for overseas visits will be increased from $300 to $350; e xpenses incurred on activities or products which the CEO of Austrade considers may have a detrimental impact on Australia's trade reputation will be excluded from the scheme; A ustrade will be permitted to direct funds from other sources towards EMDG administration costs. These are the sorts of changes that the bill before us today makes to the current arrangements.
As flagged at the outset of my contribution today, the bill also changes the official name of Austrade from the Australian Trade Commission to the Australian Trade and Investment Commission. By this point of the speech, I think honourable members get the impression that, while many of these changes are worthy changes, it is not exactly a substantial bill, it is not a particularly visionary piece of legislation and it is a bit of a reflection that we are spending time on some of these more minor issues. You do really get the sense of an absence of a broader plan for investment and a broader plan for the economy.
Since coming to government, those opposite—under the member for Warringah and now the member for Wentworth—have talked about Australia being open for business. Unfortunately, when it comes to investment, and foreign investment in particular, this sort of sloganeering is little more than a fancy website, a new logo or some of those cheap pull-up banners that you see at trade fairs around the place.
The fact is that when it comes to the investment community there have been some pretty inconsistent actions from the government which are having the opposite effect of building confidence in the investment community itself. For example, the changes to the Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds and new application fees have meant more hurdles for foreign investors in an already overburdened Foreign Investment Review Board system. Labor recognises Australia is hungry for an increased share of highly competitive foreign direct investment flows to underpin our future economic development. That is why we have opposed the government's anti-investment FIRB legislation changes in this place.
Labor's position on the government's FIRB changes has been supported by the Business Council of Australia. For example, in its December 2015 report entitled Building Australia's comparative advantages: a 21st century agrifood sector, the BCA criticises the Turnbull government's new barriers to investment in the agriculture and food sectors. The BCA criticises the government for swathes of new red tape, onerous Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds and new application fees for would be investors. In their report, the BCA says very clearly:
The government has declared that it is 'open for business', however its recent decisions have sent the opposite message to potential international investors considering investing in the Australian agrifood sector.
Alarmingly, the report finds that the new rules may result in diminished investment returns in those agriculture and food sectors. The BCA also criticises the Turnbull government for amending FIRB thresholds without undertaking a proper regulatory review process.
The BCA is not alone in its criticism of the Liberal government's foreign investment policies. The investment screening thresholds have also been criticised by the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Queensland Farmers Federation, the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Lot Feeders' Association, the Financial Markets Association, Wellard, GrainCorp and Ridley Corporation—
Mr Williams: All our friends.
Dr CHALMERS: As the member opposite interjects, in a disappointed way, all of these so-called friends of those opposite have lined up to take a swing at the antibusiness approach of those opposite when it comes to foreign investment in this country.
Under a banner of 'open for business', those opposite have actually introduced and progressed a 'closed for investment' policy in relation to FIRB. These are changes that will make Australia less attractive as an investment destination. It will make it harder for farmers and food manufacturers to raise capital and it will put downward pressure on the values of farm assets.
This was the type of economic incoherence we came to expect under the member for Warringah, but it is disappointing to see it continue under the member for Wentworth. Unfortunately, it is another example of how the Prime Minister says one thing and does another—in this case when it comes to investment in our country. Given all the other minor changes that the current bill brings—the name changes, the travel allowances from $300 to $350 and all of these sorts of minor worthy things—when we are debating issues of this magnitude, it really does shine a light on the absence of a substantial economic policy from those opposite. Whether we are a few weeks or a few months from election, the government's legislative priority is a bill which changes the name of a government agency.
We support the very modest changes to the scheme which are contained in this bill. We support the bill itself. But we call on the government to provide us with substantive trade and investment legislative amendments that will provide deep and lasting economic benefits for Australians as part of a genuine, broader, well-considered economic plan.
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (17:57): The growing middle class of Asia is to become one billion, or 1,000 million, over the next decade and this will be a crucial piece of the puzzle in Australia's economic prosperity. Whether it be trade agreements or the export market development grant—the EMDG scheme that we are talking about today—the coalition is providing the foundations and policy initiatives for a better Australia and, importantly, to allow Australian companies to grow. The EMDG scheme is a key Australian government financial assistance program. It provides support, by way of a reimbursement of eligible export promotional expenditure, to Australian small and medium sized businesses that want to begin exporting or grow their export markets. The design of the scheme recognises that developing export markets takes time.
Having worked in Europe, assisting South Australian companies expand, I know the challenges faced by these businesses that are keen to explore new markets. Furthermore, from my time in the private sector, I have assisted companies to access the EMDG and other government grant programs, and I know how valuable they are. They are particularly valuable to the over 3,000 recipients from around Australia who have received $141 million in grant payments. Sixty-four per cent of recipients were from services industries—a real growth area of our economy—including 14 per cent from education and culture, 11 per cent from ICT services and over 10 per cent from tourism and related industries. Importantly, 31 per cent were from manufacturing sectors as well.
I want to talk about trade in a bit more detail as this provides significant opportunities for our future. The recently signed trade agreements will bring unprecedented opportunities for my state of South Australia, with our Asian neighbours demanding a diverse range of goods and services: health and aged care, tourism, education and high-quality foods and wines. Thanks to the federal government, South Australian businesses and primary producers have been provided with the platform to tap into this market. For all the news about the South Australia's unemployment rate and the decline in manufacturing and downturn in the resources and energy sector, there is always hope. Agriculture and services such as education, tourism and health remain strong foundations and offer potential.
On the future, I am an optimist. I want to reflect on why I am a strong believer in our future. The Turnbull government is to deliver and will continue to deliver a great outcome for our nation. To provide the context, I need to look back at recent years. As I said in my maiden speech:
Innovation, knowledge and creativity are the new drivers of economic growth in developed nations around the world.
… … …
… We need to foster an environment where innovative sectors can grow and entrepreneurs can flourish. We need to seek and encourage greater business and technological innovations.
The Turnbull government's National Innovation and Science Agenda is so important in this respect, not just the $1 billion in initiatives that the government has announced but also the new focus on an enterprising nation, a country where entrepreneurs and growing companies are celebrated and where business and industry better understand the need to invest and innovate.
During my first term, I have spoken to a number of successful South Australian businesses and leading manufacturers like Philmac, in the irrigation pipes and fittings area; Seeley, in air conditioners; Coopers; and Australian Vintage, in wine. What these companies have done well is innovate, expand and grow their businesses, helping jobs and the local economy. A number have also been successful and received strong financial support from the federal government as part of our $155 million fund to help the economy transition from the downturn in the automotive sector. However, many of these companies are well established. The innovation statement and Prime Minister Turnbull's focus are on encouraging the next Apple, Google, or Amazon to come from Australia and not the United States.
The trade agreements entered into by the coalition will provide a great platform for economic growth. As the Winemakers' Federation of Australia chief executive, Paul Evans, said on the China FTA:
The potential of how much value we can derive from this announcement is really now back in the hands of industry …
With exports surging into China, the FTA will allow us to build on our strength that we have in the market. With China's middle class growing at levels that are hard to get your head around, this is an exciting time for Australian winemakers.
From wine to food: that is another sector in which my state has standout companies such as San Remo and Thomas Foods. If we are talking about Thomas Foods, they employ 3,000 people. They are one of the fastest growing companies in our state. If we move from meat to tuna, there is Hagen Stehr, from the Stehr Group, saying that the China FTA will open a new market, and they are hoping to export 200 tonnes of tuna to China over the next year. Catherine Barnett, the Chief Executive Officer of Food SA, said that the free trade agreement provided a gift for food industries in South Australia. She said:
It is now up to businesses to seize this opportunity to grow by being smart with their marketing, branding and positioning …
Darren Thomas, owner of South Australia's largest meat exporter, Thomas Foods International, said that the tariff reduction would allow the meat industry to be more competitive, especially against the New Zealand market. He said:
We certainly have had a heightened focus on … China with the Free Trade Agreement in mind. We are working closely with our clients to ensure they are aware of the benefit of the FTA.
Transporting food and wine to the port and then to the export markets is vital in the supply chain, and that is why the north-south corridor in Adelaide is so important. One of my first priorities upon being elected to parliament was to make the case for a better South Road. Just over two years later, we see the construction of the Torrens-Road-to-Torrens-River section, with Darlington due to start this year. Furthermore, the coalition government announced the billion-dollar Northern Connector project. These three projects show that the government is committed to South Australia. Further, these projects will result in hundreds of jobs and a better economy.
When one thinks of industries in South Australia, defence is close to the top of the list. As I said in my maiden speech:
The many employees in the defence sector in Hindmarsh look forward to the coalition's commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP … The air warfare destroyers and the next generation of submarines are two such examples where Australian workers, South Australian workers, will be part of something special.
Just last week in the defence white paper we reaffirmed our commitment to increase defence spending and, importantly, committed to build nine frigates in Adelaide and bring the project forward to 2020 to mitigate the downturn in defence projects as a result of Labor not making a decision on defence shipbuilding in 2011. And, as residents of Hindmarsh know, I have been outspoken in my desire to see the submarines built in Adelaide. These projects will deliver more jobs for South Australia, some 2,500 for shipbuilding, with more jobs to come once the evaluation process for the submarines is completed.
So, as we progress into the third year of the coalition government, the residents of Hindmarsh and South Australia are seeing results and action as a consequence of a federal government that is delivering for them. There are green shoots across key sectors such as food and wine, infrastructure and defence. Yes, there are challenges for my state as the automotive sector closes down. We have seen the Holden announcement, Nissan in the 1990s, Mitsubishi in 2007 and Ford in the last months of the Labor government in early 2013. But, just as the state recovered from the decline in the whitegoods and clothing sectors in the 1980s, we will again recover and prosper. I look forward to continuing to work with local companies and delivering on projects creating more jobs, a better economy and a better future.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:05): I support the passage of the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 with my Labor colleagues. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act, or the EMDG Act, and the Australian Trade Commission Act. The Export Market Development Grants scheme is a great Labor initiative that has been very successful in promoting Australian businesses in international markets. There are many businesses, particularly small to medium-sized businesses, in the electorate of Kingsford Smith that have benefited from this program. Labor supports this bill, which comprises mainly minor amendments and technical changes designed to improve the operation of the scheme.
The scheme was established in 1974 by the Whitlam government and administered by Austrade. Its primary focus is to bring benefit to Australians by connecting and nurturing foreign markets for Australian goods, services, intellectual property and general capability. This is done by providing financial support and advice on prospective markets and opportunities to small and medium Australian businesses actively seeking out and developing export business. Further support is provided in the form of on-the-ground assistance in targeted countries.
Small business of course is the backbone of the Australian economy, employing 4.7 million Australians as at June 2014. EMDG have assisted a number of businesses to excel both domestically and abroad. Some of the success stories are well known. Xelon Entertainment, a prominent digital music distribution company, has grown to represent over 150 labels, both domestically and worldwide. Thanks to the EMDG scheme this company has been able to regularly attend international conferences and international music summits. It is the face the new music industry in Australia. The scheme has helped it develop and expand its export sales significantly in recent years, to over $1.5 million in 2014-15.
Another success story is SAGE Automation. A leading independent system integration company, specialising in industrial automation and control systems, SAGE has managed to leverage the help it has received through the EMDG to break into markets, particularly in computerised global supply chains, and secure big customers, such as Glencore, BHP Billiton, Orica and Santos. It has allowed the business to have up to $40 million in revenue a year.
Under section 106A of the EMDG Act the scheme was scheduled for review in 2015. The review was aimed at increasing the number of businesses that develop into exporters, increasing the number of businesses that achieve sustainability in export markets and generate additional exports, and further developing an export culture in Australia. The review found that the EMDG scheme generates a net economic benefit and recommended that it be maintained with minor changes. That review conducted by Michael Lee made a number of recommendations including: the removal of sunset provisions from the act, which said that the act sunsetted, or was discontinued, every five years; the augmentation of Austrade's budget to free up EMDG funding for export promotion grants; and Austrade to continue monitoring changes to any program's accessibility and processes as well as the outcomes of progressive changes. Further amendments to the act contained in this bill include a limit of $15,000 on the free sample expenditure category, provisions for reimbursement of in-country travel, and expenses incurred on activities or products considered detrimental to Australia's trade reputation being excluded from the scheme.
Modelling by KPMG estimated that each dollar provided to SMEs through this scheme generated $7 in benefits when industry spillovers and productivity gains are taken into account. There is no doubt that the scheme provides a net economic benefit to Australia. By amending the act's definition of a 'grant year', which is currently defined as any year up to 30 June 2016, the bill will ensure the EMDG scheme continues on an ongoing basis rather than requiring periodic reauthorisation. Labor supports this change because it will deliver greater certainty for business about the future of the scheme.
The opposition notes that the bill also provides the minister with greater flexibility over the timing of reviews of the scheme. Under the amendments the minister will be required to commission an independent review to report by 31 December 2021. Thereafter the minister will be required to commission subsequent reviews for completion on dates he or she determines rather than on dates prescribed by the act. Labor believes strongly the EMDG should be subject to regular reviews. This way business and stakeholders are given the opportunity to raise concerns and have input into the ongoing operation of the scheme, which should help the scheme continue to be responsive and meet the specific needs and expectations of small and medium enterprises while delivering value for money for taxpayers.
The bill makes other amendments which amount to sensible finetuning of the scheme. Most notably they are: communications will be removed from the eligible expenditure category to reflect the reduced cost of communications as a result of advances in technology—a lot of companies are now using social media as a means of promotion, which in many respects is free; the promotional literature or other advertising expenditure category will include material in electronic form; and Austrade will be permitted to direct funds from other sources towards EMDG administration costs.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support this bill and the changes embodied by it. It will help consolidate the scheme and bolster its effectiveness as a major supporter of small and medium Australian businesses and ensure it can continue to support Australian business well into the future.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (18:12): I rise to speak in support of the Trade Legislation Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2016. The bill amends the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 giving effect to several key recommendations from the 2015 review of the Export Market Development Grants scheme. Further, it improves the operation of the EMDG Act 1997, delivering savings that better align the scheme closer to its budget.
The bill makes a number of common-sense cost savings to what is a very important Australian government financial assistance program. It provides support, by way of reimbursement of eligible export promotional expenditure, to Australian small- and medium-sized businesses that want to begin exporting or grow their exports. Eligible exporters can access up to eight grants. These grants do not need to be in consecutive years; exporters can pick the years that they access the scheme, so that they can maximise the benefits that the scheme delivers. The design of the scheme recognises that developing export markets takes time.
In Calare there have been a number of great business taking advantage of, and benefiting from, this scheme. Angus Barrett Saddlery specialises in leather tanning, fur dressing and leather product manufacturing. Angus Barrett has been doing leather work and selling his handmade goods since 1986, when he was just a boy. Angus worked across Australia on farms and cattle stations and in mines and drilling camps and finally decided to settle in Orange. In 2000 Angus registered his business and started manufacturing his saddlery goods part time. In 2005 Angus purchased his first manufacturing premises and committed full time to his craft. In 2007 he undertook his first big research and development trip, travelling to the USA to enhance his saddlery skills and manufacturing techniques and to source modern machinery. Angus studied under two very experienced and talented saddlers: Randy Severe in Oregon, USA, and Joey Jemison in Texas, USA—and, having a daughter and a son-in-law involved in the horse industry in Texas, USA, I can tell you that is where the horse industry resides.
Angus is a prime example of how Calare residents and other Australians can look outside the box and to other industries for new ideas and manufacturing techniques that have helped grow his business. Angus and his wife, Sarah, continue to look for innovative ways of continuing his craft, taking his second research and development trip to Europe and the UK in 2012. His forward thinking and ability to learn from the international community have seen his business grow from a small tool box to an industry-leading business. I had the pleasure of opening his business in its modern premises a few years ago, and he has really done well. In fact, on his trips—I think it was on his trips—I think he was the first person to try cutting leather with a very modern air and sand type cutter, which does an amazing job despite actually being designed for other articles.
Other recipients in Calare include Emirates Hotels (Australia), who own and operate the award winning Wolgan Valley resort; Innotec Building Systems from Orange; Orange's Pixc Co. Pty Ltd, an internet publisher and broadcaster; Madrez Wine services, who sell the fantastic cool-climate wines being made in the Calare electorate—mind you, there are a lot of fantastic cool-climate wine producers in Orange and Calare, and I can attest to that; and Bathurst's Tru-Flo pumping, who specialise in pump and compressor manufacturing.
The bill ensures continuity of the scheme and certainty for exporters. The EMDG Act currently contains a definition of a grant year up to 30 June 2016. The bill amends the definition of a grant year so that the scheme can continue beyond this date. It also removes the requirement that a review be conducted for the specific purpose of making a recommendation about the continuity of the scheme. The scheme will still be regularly reviewed, and the amendment sets a date for the next review, with later reviews to be completed and reports given to the minister by dates determined by the minister.
In a place like Calare, we are not paper shufflers. We are not hanging around waiting for something to happen. The people of Calare are doers. They dig things up. They make things. They grow things. They create energy. We export the products of forestry, mining and agriculture in all its varied forms, whether it is horticulture, meat or wool. It is a truly wonderful part of the world, and it is the engine room of the state and one of the engine rooms of Australia.
That is why the trade situation is just so vital to it. Without trade, Australia is done for, and I guess any legislation which encourages innovation by emerging businesses or people who have never tried being involved in overseas trade or the expansion of current trade is just magnificent for regional Australia and our part of the world in particular. Of course, we have such possibilities.
I cannot underline enough the importance of this sort of legislation, which provides assistance to someone like Angus Barrett, who was running around a property a few years ago and is now a serious businessperson with serious export opportunities. Over the last year or so, we have concluded a lot of trade deals. In fact, Andrew Robb, when he was still the trade minister, was planning to come out to our electorate next month, which has kind of gone by the wayside. Our businesses have nothing against Steven Ciobo, who has now taken over the reins as Minister for Trade and Investment, but they want the new envoy, the man who was there and who did it all, to come out and explain to them what their opportunities are, and certainly we will be working towards that point. This is just another part of making not just regional Australia but the whole of Australia totally competitive, with all those businesses taking the opportunities that exist now or that can exist in the future and most certainly will exist in the future.
WYATT ROY (Longman—Assistant Minister for Innovation) (18:20): It is a great honour to rise to speak on the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016. We live in a world that is more connected than ever before. We live in a world that is very much defined by globalisation, and the great challenge for us as a country is to be brave enough and bold enough to think of ourselves not as a marketplace of 23 million Australians but as a marketplace that has access to all global citizens, and particularly to the billion people who are coming into the middle class in our north, in Asia. It is a very difficult thing to comprehend, as a country of 23 million people, what a billion people looks like. As our neighbours in our north move into the middle class, they will increasingly want to buy not only our resources, food and fibre but particularly our services, our products and our ideas, which really are changing the world for the better. This represents an amazing moment in history—an amazing opportunity for us to seize the opportunities of globalisation by selling our products, our businesses, our services and our ideas into that global marketplace, to those billion people coming into the middle class to our north.
We have managed to unlock this incredible opportunity. We have managed to give ourselves a seat at the table, predominantly through the free trade agreements secured by this coalition government and particularly the former Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb. He has done an incredible job at giving us access into the Korean marketplace, the Japanese marketplace and, particularly, the Chinese marketplace that no other country on earth has, and certainly no other Western country has, particularly on the service side of the economy, whether that is in health care or education or legal services or financial services. It is an amazing opportunity, should our country be brave enough, be bold enough to seize this moment, to seize that opportunity, to sell our products into the Asian marketplace, which will drive our future prosperity as a country for decades to come and, ultimately, ensure that we can hand over to the next generation of Australians a country that has more opportunity, not less, a country that has increasing job opportunities and rising living standards. It is this growth in our region that will drive our future prosperity. I want to commend the former Minister for Trade and Investment on achieving this seat at the table. But, of course, it is then up to us to seize that moment and to fully utilise these free trade agreements.
The Export Market Development Grants scheme is a pivotal way that Australian businesses can fully utilise the opportunity that presents itself when it comes to exporting to a global marketplace. The Export Market Development Grants scheme is a government financial assistance program which has helped grow and will continue to expand our great export industry. The EMDG scheme provides significant marketing support through reimbursing eligible export promotional expenditure for Australian small and medium sized businesses that are aiming to begin exporting or to multiply their exports. What exporter does not aspire to do that? Eligible exporters can access up to eight grants, and these grants do not need to be in consecutive years. Exporters can select the years they access the scheme to maximise its benefits. The premise of the scheme and accompanying framework recognise that developing export markets takes time. For the first two years, applicants can combine expenses into a single claim, and exporters do not need to satisfy an export performance test until their third year in the scheme.
The then Minister for Trade and Investment, the Honourable Andrew Robb, when introducing this bill to the parliament, proposed that the EMDG scheme might indeed be one of the most successful programs that the Australian government has known. It has had bipartisan support since 1974—an incredible thing in this place—and is particularly extolled by the small business sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure what you were doing in 1974, I am not sure what members opposite were doing in 1974, but I am sure it was your heyday.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): I was at school. It was my heyday!
WYATT ROY: That the two sides of politics can come together since 1974 in this place to support a piece of public policy is a truly remarkable thing, and I think it shows the virtues of this program—one that has stood the test of time and will continue to drive future prosperity for the Australian economy and generations to come.
At the core of this bill is an amendment to the definition of a grant year, which is currently up to 30 June 2016. In effect, the scheme will be made evergreen so that it may continue beyond that date. This bill will, in fact, remove the need for a four-yearly reauthorisation review, which can create uncertainty for those very claimant exporters it seeks to serve. As the former trade minister pointed out, given that it has enjoyed more than 40 years of bipartisan support, there is little to be gained by subjecting the scheme to prescribe four-yearly sunset provisions—surely a common sense approach to this policy.
The reach and the impact of the scheme are striking. For the 2013-14 grant year, paid in the 2014-15 financial year, more than 3,100 recipients from around Australia received over $141 million in grant payments. The average grant was a pretty significant $44,270. Fifteen per cent of recipients were from rural and regional areas—a great achievement for our rural and regional enterprises and exporters. Sixty-four per cent of recipients were from service industries, including 14 per cent from education and culture, 11.8 per cent from professional scientific and technical services, 11.3 per cent from ICT services and 10.6 per cent from tourism and related industries. I think we can expect those numbers to grow in the decades to come. The mining boom and the agriculture boom has been a great thing for our country—my family are farmers, my brothers work in the coal mines; it has served our country well. As our country continues to transition and diversify its economy post the mining boom, this will really drive that future job creation for the next generation of Australians—those high-skilled, high-paying jobs in the service industry. This represents an incredible opportunity. This piece of policy has really driven their ability to access that global marketplace to sell our services across the globe.
For the 31 per cent that are from the manufacturing industries, I think often we forget the ability of Australian manufacturers to export to the globe. To give you a great local example, Packer Leather in my electorate is a 100-year-old manufacturing firm. It manufactures the leather that goes into Kookaburra cricket balls, the kangaroo leather that goes into Nike and Adidas shoes—it is in the RM Williams boots that I am wearing today. This is an incredible textile manufacturer that is exporting into the Chinese marketplace. To think that Australian manufacturers cannot compete on the global stage is, seriously, to talk ourselves down and miss the opportunity that is presenting itself. Seventy-two per cent of recipients were small exporters reporting annual income of $5 million or less. This is a great opportunity for our small and medium enterprises who are making a big difference on the global stage.
The benefits and opportunities really do hit home. They are reverberating through local economies and communities such as mine. In my own electorate, we have seen four local businesses that have recently been awarded EMDG grants. There is Akwa-Worx Pty Ltd, a water waste and treatment enterprise which, again, is punching above its weight on the global stage. There are some incredible businesses in the safety, performance and management of pole assets that are accessing these grants and selling to the global marketplace. We are seeing local, internationally renowned workplace training organisations accessing these grants. One that I am particularly excited about is Prolific Designs from Beachmere, a signage expert providing intellectual capital as well as the actual products to a global marketplace. They are making a very significant difference.
In conclusion, I think we stand at a very exciting time in human history, as the Prime Minister likes to say. Globalisation is presenting enormous opportunities, and we should not allow fear to define our response to a changing world. Instead, we should seize those opportunities and the ability to market our businesses, our products, our services, to the global marketplace, particularly the billion people coming into the middle class in our north. The free trade agreements that have been concluded by this government give us a very powerful seat at the table, but, if we are to fully utilise that opportunity, it is good public policy like this one that we are supporting in the House today that will drive our future prosperity. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:30): I am pleased to speak on the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 this afternoon. I would like to start by saying that I was very disappointed with the member for Rankin in his speech. He gave the impression that this bill was unworthy of the House's time. He clearly did not understand the importance of the Export Market Development Grants scheme to this nation, to our exporters and to our future prosperity. Ninety-eight and a half per cent of the world's commerce occurs beyond our shores. What is going to drive the future prosperity of our nation is innovative, experimental small businesses, taking risks to take their products offshore and sell them in those markets. That is why the free trade agreements, the trade liberalisation agreements, that this government has struck with China, South Korea and Japan are so important. For the shadow Assistant Treasurer to come in here and play down the importance of this bill is very disappointing. He simply does not understand the importance of this legislation.
We also heard him claim that the coalition somehow has some antibusiness approach with regard to this. I would remind the member for Rankin that it was the Labor Party that slashed the funding for the Export Market Development Grants scheme when they were in government. They slashed it from $200 million back to $125 million. That was how much they slashed it, and yet we know the KPMG reports show that this scheme, for every dollar of government investment, gets a $7 return to the economy—seven for one. The former Labor government had money to spend and throw everywhere, yet they slashed this scheme back from $200 million to $125 million.
We do not have an unlimited budget. It would be very nice if we here in the coalition government could restore that funding back to $200 million and then index it. With the times that we live in and the budget constraints that we have, unfortunately that is just not possible. But what we have done is we have kept our election promise: we have increased funding for the scheme. Another $12.5 million went into it in the 2014-15 year, so the scheme now sits at $137.9 million. It would be nice if we could increase it further, but we need to live within the budget restrictions that we have.
It was interesting that the member for Rankin, as I said, talked about the antibusiness approach of the coalition, yet he is part of a party that plans to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent. What antibusiness message does that send? If the members of the Labor Party are planning to increase capital gains tax in this country by 50 per cent, they are sending an antibusiness message to every single investor, to every single business, in this country. They do not know the damage that they are preparing.
It was also interesting to hear the member for Longman, the Assistant Minister for Innovation, talk about how the Export Market Development Grants scheme was first introduced in 1974. I actually first applied for an Export Market Development Grant about eight years after that, in the 1982-83 year. I think I am one of the few people in this place who has actually filled in one of these forms and who understands the importance of the scheme to small business and how it actually works.
I will give an example of how this scheme is important to incentivise small business. I was working for my parents' company in the mid-1990s, and we had been successful doing an export job in Singapore, for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. It was very successful. It created a lot of jobs, a lot of employment, a lot of work, for people here in Australia. At the time, we thought, 'Is this just a one-off or is this a market—up in Singapore—that is worth exploring more?' The Export Market Development Grant scheme was available, so we decided, on the back of that scheme, to take the risk and to participate in a trade fair in Singapore. It was an expensive exercise, because you needed to design a stand, make the samples, pack them up, airfreight them all to Singapore and fly up yourself. Then you had your accommodation on the ground and you had the cost of going into the exhibition. It was an expensive exercise and it was a risk-taking exercise. But what tipped the decision in favour of doing that, of taking that risk, was the fact that we had that Export Market Development Grants scheme behind us. We would have to cough up the money up-front, but there was a little bit of a relief there from government to help offset some of those expenses down the track if we were unsuccessful. From that exhibition, I remember we wrote about $1 million-plus worth of orders that we would never, ever have achieved otherwise, purely because of the scheme. And that is just one example of the thousands and thousands of companies that have taken advantage of this most important scheme.
So, contrary to what the member for Rankin says, this is a very worthy bill to take the time of the House and spread the message to those small businesses out there in this country today who are thinking of what they can do to expand. I would say to most businesses in Australia today: look at what you can do in the export market. We are in a unique period of human history. Never before have we seen so many people lifting themselves out of poverty and into the middle class who can become consumers of goods made here in Australia.
'Made in Australia' carries a lot of weight. It is not all about competing on price; it is about competing on quality and style—and with the 'Australian made' logo behind it. It is the high end of the market. That is where our future prosperity lies. So we as a government need to do everything we can to encourage businesses to go out there, take that risk and explore those markets. For the member for Rankin not to understand the importance of that and come into this chamber and say this bill is all just a waste of time is frankly a disgrace.
Since the scheme has been going, since 1974, there have been four-yearly reviews. This legislation gets rid of those four-yearly reviews. Each review has been important. Each review has made minor changes. But we think this scheme should be legislated with no sunset clause, and that is exactly what this bill does. The message we are sending to small businesses out there is that this is how the scheme works: if you have eligible export promotional expenditure, the first $5,000 is not counted; above that, you are able to get a reimbursement of 50 per cent of all of your eligible expenditure and you are able to get grants for eight years. That can be consecutive years or it can be spread out. After the first two years there is an export performance test to make sure the grant money is being wisely given out and people are spending it wisely. The maximum grant is $150,000—although, as the assistant minister said, the last year averages $44,000. That is the message that we should all be selling and sending out to our businesses in our electorates to encourage them to get out there, have a go and utilise the scheme.
There are a couple of changes in this legislation that I would prefer not to see there. One is the capping of the free samples provision. That is capped at $15,000. Each individual business determines whether promotion should be done through overseas representation, marketing consultants, marketing visits, trade forums, promotional literature or free samples. I understand that there have been times in the past when those free samples may have been overclaimed, but I think that should be left to each individual business rather than putting a cap on it. I would not like to see that there, but it is there. The other one is the removal of communications. As someone who sat up at night and spent many long hours on the phone talking to customers over in the Middle East, I would like to see communications still in there.
Although these things have been removed, this is still a very good scheme. This is still a very important scheme for our economy. It shows the commitment that this government has to the small businesses of this country. It shows the commitment that we have to risk takers—those who innovate and will drive the prosperity of our nation forward in future years. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister for Defence) (18:41): It is my pleasure to sum up on the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016. In doing so, I thank those who have contributed to this debate—in particular, the member for Hughes. He is always on the positive side of business and talking up the government's agenda, innovation and the fact that we are talking about jobs and prosperity going forward. He need not be alarmed, or even surprised, about the member for Rankin objecting to this legislation. On 10 February, when the member for Goldstein announced his retirement, the member for Rankin criticised him—or did not pay him due respect—for the trade deals he had negotiated. Coming into this chamber and pouring scorn on the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill is typical of the member for Rankin, who does not actually understand business. I do not think he always understands the need to push productivity and create more jobs. I am not surprised; he used to work for the member for Lilley. Hr should have taken some notes from the Leader of the Opposition's magnanimous speech about the member for Goldstein. Minister Robb has done a wonderful thing for this parliament and for this nation in securing trade deals with China—our biggest trading partner—South Korea and Japan. His name will be revered for as long as those trade markets continue to flourish. His name will be etched in gold, let me tell you.
I will give you some of the key facts on the grant scheme payments. As the member for Hughes has just pointed out, more than 3,100 recipients from around Australia received more than $141 million. The average grant was $44,270. Even just my own electorate had five recipients of these wonderful grants—Paul Pearsall's Australian Grain Link Pty Ltd, involved in cereal grain wholesaling at Wumbulgal in the Leeton Shire was one. Berton Vineyards Pty Ltd received the grant for wine and other alcoholic beverage manufacturing—it is located at Yenda. Flip Screen Australia Pty Ltd at East Wagga Wagga—Sam Turnbull started that particular business in 2002 to manufacture and market his invention, the flip screen, a portable mechanical screening attachment built for skid steers, excavators, wheel loaders, backhoes and telehandlers. This grant is going to enable him to better enhance his export capabilities.
There is Quarisa Wines Pty Ltd, another fabulous winemaker from near Griffith—actually Tharbogang—and also RFM Ag Pty Ltd located in Wade Street, Coolamon. It is a leader in developing revolutionary technology for efficient no-till planting—something that is so important for the Riverina where so much of this nation's food and fibre is grown. That is why these export market development grants are so crucial. Fifteen per cent, as we heard the member for Longman say in his contribution, were from rural and regional areas. Sixty-four per cent of recipients were from service industries, including, as he pointed out; 14 per cent from education and culture; and 11.8 per cent from professional, scientific and technical services—so important, we are talking a lot about science and innovation, the agenda that we are getting along with.
We heard the member for Longman say in his contribution about the need to look at services such as information and communications technology, which were the recipients of 11.3 per cent of these grants. It is so very important, given the fact that we are transitioning from the construction phase of the mining boom. We are looking at diversifying the economy. Agriculture is always important—that has been enhanced, enlarged and expanded by our trade negotiations—but there is so much more that this country can export. We only have to look at the member for Goldstein's successful negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Elsewhere, with these grants, 10.6 per cent were from tourism and related industries. Thirty-one per cent were from manufacturing industries, including eight per cent from the machinery and equipment manufacturing sector—I mentioned a couple of those from my electorate—and 6.4 per cent from food and beverage manufacturing such as those two fabulous wineries in the Riverina.
When we talk of the Riverina, people have heard me say it in this chamber before that one in four glasses of wine is produced in Griffith alone—right across Australia, a quarter of the wine is produced in Griffith. Just in recent weeks, Casella Wines, of course, famous for its trademark yellow tail brand, has bought Howcroft Estate Vineyards near South Australia's Limestone Coast. It is the first big vineyard's deal of 2016. Family-run Casella is one of the country's biggest wine producers with brands including yellow tail, as I said before, Peter Lehmann Wines and Brand's Laira. It has bought that South Australian vineyard. It is building more containers, more storage units, at its massive processing plant at Yenda. It provides many, many jobs. It underpins the Yenda economy. Indeed, it is a wonderful success story of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. May long that success of the Casella family continue.
The importance of the Export Market Development Grants scheme is a key Australian financial assistance program. It provides support by way of a reimbursement of eligible export promotional expenditure to Australian small and medium sized businesses which want to begin exporting or grow their exports such as those producing food and fibre from the Riverina. We heard how important this is for regional businesses.
Eligible exporters can access up to eight grants, and these grants do not need to be in consecutive years. So there is the ability for them to gain these grants and promote, market and build their businesses. How important is that? How valuable is that to many of those businesses which are providing so many jobs, so much security and sustainability for country communities right across the Riverina, regional New South Wales and our nation?
In introducing this bill into the parliament, the then Minister for Trade and Investment, the Hon. Andrew Robb, argued that the EMDG scheme might indeed be one of the most successful programs the Australian government has known. Of course the member for Moncrieff has taken over that important portfolio from the member for Goldstein and he is getting on with the job of not just building on what the member for Goldstein did but looking at other markets—and of course India is a huge market with huge export opportunities that I know my Riverina winemakers, producers of cotton and everything else are looking at being able to tap into in the years to come after we, hopefully, can secure that market as well.
The 40 years of bipartisan support that the EMDG has enjoyed—and we heard the member for Longman talking about 1974 being a starting point—certainly supports the views of the former minister for trade, the member for Goldstein, when he argued that the EMDG scheme might well be one of the most successful trade grant programs that the government has known. Indeed it is.
Australia's exporters work in markets around the world. It is so important that they are able to do that. It is so important that we are able to tap into those valuable markets, those valuable export opportunities, to grow trade and investment in our country.
The Turnbull coalition government is committed to supporting Australian exporters. In 2013, the coalition committed to progressively restore funding to the EMDG by allocating an additional $12½ million per year for four years beginning in 2013-14. Last year the EMDG scheme supported more than 3,100 small and medium sized exporters to develop export markets for their goods and services.
This bill gives effect to several recommendations of the 2015 Lee review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, tabled in parliament last year by the member for Goldstein. The bill delivers several minor policy and technical amendments to improve the operation of the EMDG scheme and aligns the scheme closer to its budget. The bill amends the definition of a 'grant year' so the scheme can continue beyond its current sunset of 30 June 2016. While the requirement for a review to be conducted simply for the scheme to continue has been taken away, the scheme will still be regularly reviewed, as it ought to be, and this bill sets a date for the next review.
The bill removes communications as an eligible expenditure category, reflecting the reduced cost of international communications from technologies such as Skype, Viber and WeChat. To bring the scheme in line with modern business practises, promotional literature or other advertising expenditure can now be in an electronic or digital form. The 'free sample' expenditure category has been limited to $15,000. In-country travel expenses other than airfares are no longer reimbursable expenses. However, the eligible daily allowance for overseas visits has been increased by $50 to $350. Activities, things or products that, in the opinion of the Austrade chief executive officer, may have a detrimental impact on Australia's trade reputation can now be excluded expenses.
The bill permits Austrade to direct funds from its other funding sources towards administrative costs of the EMDG scheme if required. The bill will also change the name of the Australian Trade Commission to the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, in recognition of its role as Australia's investment, promotion and attraction agency.
I do thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Providing small and medium-sized businesses, those engine-room providers of the economy, with certainty about the EMDG scheme rules is vital, as they start making their marketing plans for the new financial year. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister for Defence) (18:54): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (18:55): Two years ago this week, on 3 March 2014 I rose in this place and said that Mr Abbott and the Liberals were pulling the plug on the National Broadband Network fibre rollout in my electorate. Well, the result of this decision has been enormous. We have become an electorate of the haves and have-nots. We have already seen people being forced to move away from the electorate purely because they cannot get access to high-speed broadband. Children in my communities do not have access to educational resources and businesses do not have the same connectivity to customers and wholesalers alike.
Two years later, we have a new Prime Minister and a new Minister for Communications. Two years later we are told there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. I can tell you, two years later there has never been a worse time to be a resident of McEwen, whose hopes were pinned on receiving fast and affordable broadband under the failure that is the Abbott Turnbull government. In suburbs like Mernda and Doreen, there has never been a worse time for a kid studying for a VCE. In places like Sunbury, there has never been a worse time for local businesses trying to compete on the global stage. Why? Because Mr 'There has never been a more exciting time' was the communications minister for two years and is now the Prime Minister. Basically, his only job for two years was to get the NBN right, but it was two years of mismanagement and neglect, two years of spending more time scheming to wrestle the job from the member for Warringah than doing his own job. As we know, with Malcolm it is all about Malcolm.
What does the Prime Minister have to show for his two years of effort? The NBN that Mr Turnbull has left behind is an absolute mess and this bill will go nowhere to actually fixing it. The Prime Minister promised that his second-rate version of the NBN would be rolled out faster and cheaper. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cost of his NBN has just doubled from $29.5 billion to $56 billion. He promised that it would be rolled out to all Australians by the end of 2016. Now that has more than doubled to seven years.
We are told that this bill will enhance the regulatory framework for telecommunications, implementing in part the government's response to the Vertigan panel. Let us have a look at the Vertigan panel and what has been said about its work. The Senate Selection Committee on the NBN put the Vertigan panel's independent cost-benefit analysis under the microscope in 2015 and what they found was concerning, including fatal shortcomings in the analysis. These included the absurdly pessimistic quantification of technical household demand: 15 megabytes per second by 2023. That relied on a study conducted by firm known for its uniquely pessimistic view of broadband demand rather than demand forecasts from reputable firms like CISCO.
The select committee also said, 'Incredibly, the panel inflated nbn co's fibre-operating expenditure assumptions by 180 per cent compared to only 12 per cent for the Malcolm Turnbull mess, despite the low operating costs of fibre compared to legacy technologies.' But the select committee was not alone when it examined the credibility of the report. Telecommunications analyst Chris Coughlan observed that:
It is clear that in commissioning the National Broadband Network reviews the government has carefully selected consultants, analysts and economists that have previously expressed views that support their position.
IBRS analyst Guy Cranswick did not hold back when he described the cost-benefit analysis as 'politically stacked' and the panel of experts as 'full of acolytes and sympathisers' with the coalition government. Professor Graeme Samuel, former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, observed:
Multiple reviews, at vast cost, have been completed, primarily focused on demonstrating that the Labor government’s NBN concept was flawed or at least was less economically viable than that of the Coalition. Unfortunately, much of the review analysis has had a political tarnish which diminishes its value in forward planning for this important infrastructure project.
The select committee concluded:
The Cost-Benefit Analysis is a deeply flawed and overtly political document. It is not credible and is not a reliable basis upon which to make decisions about the NBN.
Since the select committee conducted its analysis of the Vertigan panel's cost-benefit analysis, developments have borne out its conclusion.
The Vertigan panel based its cost assumptions for the government's NBN on the cost models developed by nbn co for the 2013 strategic review. These cost models have proven to be hopelessly wrong, as the cost of the government's second-rate NBN has blown out from the $41 billion assumed in the December 2013 strategic review to the up to $56 billion assumed in nbn co's August 2015 Corporate Plan 2016. Malcolm Turnbull's assumptions in the strategic review are not even close. When he released the strategic review, he said it was 'the most thorough and objective analysis of the NBN ever provided to Australians.' He also said:
Importantly, all forecasts in the Strategic Review have been arrived at independently by NBN Co and, in the view of the company and its expert advisors, are both conservative and achievable.
We know this Prime Minister likes to talk—he will not give you a three-word slogan, but he will punish you with a 5,000 word essay—but, when it comes to action, he has a problem: he cannot walk the talk.
We know that this bill is on some very, very rocky foundations—foundations built when this Prime Minister was in charge of the NBN. Let us look at the foundations he put down in the electorate of McEwen. Labor had a plan for McEwen—a firm plan for our local communities to receive fast and affordable broadband. Under Labor, places like Mernda and Doreen would have had the NBN by now. Under Malcolm Turnbull, it is supposedly being started in 2017. So people in my communities—the fastest growing communities in Australia—do not have access to broadband, and it is because of the failure of this government. Under Labor, Sunbury would have finished construction of the NBN by 2016. Under Malcolm Turnbull they are supposedly starting construction in 2016. And let's remember that, at the last election, their candidate went out and said, 'The NBN is fine. We do not need faster-speed broadband; it is acceptable.'
They are just a couple of communities. These delays are not just shifting dates on paper; they affect real people and their lives. They affect schoolkids and businesses. They make us a community of have-nots. Take for instance Barbara Marshall, an international design consultant who, with her husband Alan, provides multimedia, digital and animation design services. She said that they made a 'conscious decision' to work from their Doreen home to avoid the long travel into the city, but that:
As the industry technology norms have changed to delivery of large files via Internet, we are struggling to service our clients' expectations. With a maximum of wireless 15 gig a month from Telstra our only option, it makes our business uncompetitive. The limit on the availability of high speed broadband is directly affecting our productivity and our ability to employ more young designers.
Or take, for example, ecoMaster, a family-owned business that was in Gisborne which designs, produces and distributes customised thermal solutions for houses and businesses across the country. ecoMaster owners Lyn and Maurice heavily rely on the internet to run their business. But, with constant interruptions and slow speeds of their then internet service, it became almost impossible to conduct business in the local area. Lyn said:
We would love to continue running our business here in Gisborne, but with the NBN rollout not continuing through to this region, it may just be that we have to move our business to Melbourne.
Unfortunately for the people of Gisborne, they did move to Melbourne, which means a loss of jobs for the employees.
We have waited so long for the NBN to be delivered to our communities, that one council, the City of Whittlesea, was so sick and tired of this government and their inferior NBN and slow rollout that they have gone it alone. For Mernda and Laurimar, suburbs with around 20,000 young residents, work will not start on the NBN until at least 2017 and, if you can believe the Wentworth waffler, he says that it will be there by 2018. That is not the case. They are already three years behind, and the delay will just keep growing and growing. Most residents cannot even access ADSL. A few pockets of new builds have NBN, but most of the area just struggle.
In 2010 the City of Whittlesea spent hundreds of thousands in infrastructure, making sure the suburbs were NBN ready so they could be close to first in the rollout—and, under Labor, they were; South Morang was one of the first places to get fibre optic cable direct to the home—but, since the election, they have been put to the bottom of the list. Whittlesea invited companies to make use of council's underground service conduits, allowing companies to run their high-speed internet cabling to reach homes not connected to the NBN. Even the former Liberal Mayor of Whittlesea could not support the Abbott-Turnbull government's dud rollout plan, and he said, 'Council is committed to ensuring our community gains access to high-speed internet, which is so essential for our residents and businesses to make the most of the digital age.'
Redtrain Networks were the successful carrier from an EOI process to be provided the opportunity to access council's conduit and bring an additional broadband option local residents not currently served with high-speed broadband. This network offers fibre to the premises and services up to one gigabit per second. They started building their network in about March 2015 and have been identifying customers who did not want to wait the three-plus years for the NBN technology to be deployed. The Whittlesea council rollout for fibre to the premise will be underway in the next few months. Whittlesea council have been forced to deliver a proper NBN service for its residents and will roll it out quicker than Malcolm Turnbull ever could.
Mr Turnbull promised us a faster and cheaper NBN which would be rolled out to all homes and businesses by the end of 2016. Even with the unrealistic revised proposals, we will not see work begin until two years later. When it will reach its completion is anyone's guess.
Talking about local issues, this bill attempts to reflect the government's policy of axing universal national wholesale pricing and replacing it with wholesale price caps. Universal national wholesale pricing is a reform introduced by the former Labor government. What it means is that people living in rural and regional areas will not be penalised and will pay the same wholesale price that people in the cities pay for equivalent services. You would have thought that would be something the National Party would have supported. But, as usual, when it comes to Canberra the National Party are silent. They do not support rural and regional broadband and users getting the same pricing as those in the city. It says a lot about the National Party and why they lost party status in Victoria.
Axing this reform means that all Australians will be paying more for essential communication services. Labor does not support the government's move to axe universal wholesale pricing and is at a loss as to why the National Party would support this change. As I said, two years ago I stood in this place and pleaded with the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the then Communications Minister Turnbull not to wreck the NBN in our community. They did not listen. For those who have been lucky enough to be connected—and they are few and far between—we have a second-class broadband network that has been delivered for twice the price. So much for the great economic managers that the conservatives like to pat themselves on the back and claim they are. For those who have not been able to connect due to the neglect and the failures of this Prime Minister, I will recommit to you that we will make sure you receive the fast and inexpensive broadband you deserve.
Earlier today the lead speaker of the government spent 15 minutes talking, and he spent less than two minutes talking about the NBN. He talked about black spot towers. I want to remind him of the way the so-called black spot towers were rolled out. In New South Wales there were 144 towers rolled out. Labor electorates received 12. In Victoria there were 110 towers rolled out. Labor electorates received only 12. This shows that this program is not working. It is not working because the government did not even follow the three criteria it lauded itself on—that is, rural and regional, close to major transport routes and prone to natural disasters. This was a pork-barrelling exercise to ensure that they looked after their own mates in their own regions.
We also had the member for Grey come in here and say, 'There is not a cigarette paper between Labor and Liberal when it comes to broadband.' We have heard that before in education, and look how that went! If we go by the member for Grey's words, you can be assured that a re-elected Liberal government will not give you high-speed broadband now or into the future.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:10): I rise to speak about the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015—and I have often been on my feet in this place to talk about the absolute mess that this government has made of the great National Broadband Network. The government has today gutted its own bill and removed the contentious elements that Labor opposed—cynically perhaps, because talking about telecommunications and the second-rate NBN is not what this government wants to do today. Of course, it is not surprising when they woke this morning to the front-page headline 'Turnbull's NBN plan in crisis.' We saw in question time today that the Prime Minister would like to hide behind the new minister. But Australia knows who is responsible. Australia knows who stood at the dispatch box in opposition and slated Labor's plan for an NBN. Australia knows who was responsible for the NBN in the first two years of this government and who the communications minister was.
Today the government has been forced into a humiliating backdown on its own bill that it was bringing into this chamber. The amendments introduced today by the government follow to the letter Labor's recommendations in its dissenting report. Some might see this as common sense; others might see it as a government that would like to close down the debate and get a piece legislation through before we all get up to talk about our experiences with the NBN.
The bill was a misguided. It was an ideological attempt by the government to roll back a number of competition and consumer friendly reforms underpinning the NBN. In the electorate of Lalor, the people I represent are living the digital divide that has been created by this government in the last 2½ years. They are acutely aware of the mess that is this government's NBN. They are acutely aware that, at the last election, this government promised that the NBN would be faster and cheaper and they would have it sooner. They are acutely aware that the NBN is slower, more expensive and the time line for delivery has stretched under this government.
It is worth looking at the history of the NBN and, in particular, the utterances of our now Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, who was of course responsible for it in his previous portfolio. While in opposition, the then shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull said: 'We are going to do a rigorous analysis. We will get Infrastructure Australia to do an independent cost-benefit analysis.' Of course, that was before the election. After the election, instead of appointing Infrastructure Australia as promised, the now Prime Minister appointed the Vertigan panel, a panel made up of former Liberal Party staffers and strident critics of the NBN. Who better to do an analysis of the NBN than people who think it should not exist! The Vertigan panel, responsible for the initial provisions in the bill, based its cost-benefit analysis on certain assumptions that were hopelessly, outrageously and embarrassingly wrong. What was the industry response to the Vertigan report? The industry response was scathing. The Competitive Carriers' Coalition released a statement calling on the recommendations to be 'binned'. I am sure they are pleased to see that some of those recommendations in the amendments before us today have been binned. They said:
After deliberating all year, the Vertigan panel has recommended that Australia look to emulate 1970s US telephone industry policy to promote investment in 21st century broadband networks.
… … …
Most of the Vertigan recommendations represent nothing more than rehashed, discredited theoretical arguments promoted by opponents of regulatory reform and the NBN.
Labor is pleased that the government is finally heeding the recommendations of industry and is binning the recommendations of the Vertigan review in this chamber today.
But I have to spend some time this evening talking about the NBN in the electorate of Lalor, because I have done it so many times in this place since coming here in the 2013 election, because there are so many people in my community who are having difficulty accessing any kind of internet service, let alone the NBN. Last year I sent out a broadband survey to connect with residents about the problems they are facing. The survey showed that suburbs like Tarneit, Truganina, Wyndham Vale and Point Cook are riddled with internet black holes. In those suburbs ADSL1 is not available to residents, there is a waiting list to get onto a port so that you can get ADSL, and many residents are paying high prices to access 4G and other options because they cannot connect to broadband. Many of the new areas being built are fibre ready, but there are no nbn co plans to provide that fibre. These estates have to rely on wireless access, because no new copper has been rolled out. If you live in Point Cook, Wyndham Vale or Seabrook, you will be waiting until 2018 to get off your ADSL, if you have it, or to get from wireless onto something that has a reliable speed. And of course each of those suburbs, such as areas of Wyndham Vale, have the originally planned Labor Party NBN: fibre to the home. Those people are singing its praises, while across the road their neighbours cannot get ADSL1.
In Lalor no new areas have been added to the NBN rollout since the 2013 election. So, sooner? I do not think so, Prime Minister. In our growing community the NBN is a necessity. It is critical for small and medium businesses to be on the NBN. We are talking about a community where people can be in the snarl of a traffic jam for an hour and a half in the morning and an hour and a half in the evening. Many opt to run a microbusiness or a small business from home or locally, and many are struggling to make a profit in those businesses because of limited access to what is now a requirement for business. And most residents have no idea when they will be receiving the NBN.
I recently received an email, one of many, from a gentleman in Wyndham Vale. He said:
When I made an inquiry to the NBN about laying their network in my current area they are either not sure or they don't know how much time it will take more to start laying cables in our area.
His email is representative of the dozens of emails I receive a week on the NBN. From another Wyndham Vale man:
I am writing you this e-mail to raise the unavailability of phone connections and internet services in our area. I have recently purchased my own house in Wyndham Vale. But I am unable to get this very basic facility of internet at my place because of lack of ports in the area, as per told by every provider including Telstra.
And I am wondering what is the reason of lack of ports as the latest internet provision NBN has been started in the area just across Ballan road which is more far to city than my area.
So, the man asks reasonably: when? The man asks reasonably why his neighbour can access this and he is left not just with last century's technology but the technology pre any of our collective memories.
Last year I received a complaint from a concerned mother, and as a former teacher I understand the pressure on students coming home; their schools are digitally ready, and they come home and have all the equipment in the house—the hardware—but they cannot access the internet at a speed that will allow them to do the downloads or the uploads that they need. This is a matter of equity. This mother wrote:
Our internet connection is very slow, impacting on our daily lives and on our children currently doing VCE. It is really unacceptable considering our world and society is now heavily based on technology.
We sit here now listening to a Prime Minister talk about innovation—a Prime Minister who has cut funding to education and who has made a mess of the NBN, who has created a digital divide. He said everyone in Australia would have the NBN this year, and that promise is just not going to be met. There are areas in my electorate where the rollout will not start at least until 2018. There are other areas that will not get the NBN. It is clear; these areas are in the documentation released by nbn co. This government promised high-speed internet by 2016. Malcolm Turnbull said he would get it to all homes in Australia by this year, and that has now blown out more than double—to 2020. The federal government's handling of the project has been nothing short of a disaster. It is a farce—but it is a farce that is hurting people all over this country. It is hurting people in my electorate. Our now Prime Minister had one job as minister for communications—one job—and over the last 2½ years he had one job: to build the NBN. But he has failed. It is an absolute disaster.
We know the NBN is facing mounting delays and rising costs, and the reason we know this is from yet another leaked document. The transparency around the NBN is such that we do not know what is going on until we get a leak from the department. A shroud of secrecy has descended over this project since the Prime Minister took over as the former minister and Prime Minister, with basic information, which was made public under Labor, now being hidden. So, today we saw another leaked document form nbn co that revealed that the Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN is hopelessly delayed and over budget, so it is going to cost twice as much as Labor's fibre to the home, and what we are going to get is copper to the street corner that relies on mains power. We are rolling out reams and reams of copper when we should have optic fibre. When I was a principal in a school years ago we put optic fibre in our schools, ready for the NBN, and now those schools could be faced with copper at the gate. It is a disaster.
The Prime Minister said today, in question time, that we should let the facts speak for themselves. Well, here we have something we can agree on: let the facts speak for themselves. He said his second-rate NBN would cost $29.5 billion. We now know it will cost almost double—up to $56 billion and growing. He said that his second-rate copper NBN would cost $600 per home for connection; this cost has nearly tripled to $1,600 a home. He said it would cost $55 million to patch up the old copper network; this cost has blown out, by more than 1,000 per cent, to more than $640 million. This is for copper. This is for last century's technology. He said that 2.61 million homes would be connected to the pay TV cables by 2016, but nbn co is now forecasting they will connect only 10,000 homes by June 2016.
I agree, Prime Minister: let the facts speak for themselves. He said his second-rate network would bring in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2016 and 2017, but this has crashed to $1.1 billion. He has blown a $1.4 billion hole in nbn co's revenue line. Time is running out. The excuses are getting longer. Australians know who is responsible. The people in my community deserve better than the ever-increasing waits. They deserve better than what is being delivered. The Prime Minister saw the creation of a digital divide that is embedding itself in my community, not shrinking, under this government.
We have heard a lot about the price of housing in the last few days. We have heard the Prime Minister wax lyrical—sorry, waffle lyrical—at the dispatch box about his knowledge of how much houses cost all over this country. Does he know that in my electorate the key decider on what a house is worth is now whether or not it gets access to the NBN? That is now creating a bubble in the housing market in the electorate of Lalor. This digital divide is playing out in our community. It is having an impact everywhere. The community I represent needs a Prime Minister who will do more than invest in telecommunications—they need a Prime Minister who will invest in this country's future. There is no innovation without education. There is no innovation without a decent NBN for people all over this country.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (19:25): The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, as introduced by this government, just shows what a mess the government is in with its NBN. We see it day in, day out. We saw it today on the front page of TheSydney Morning Herald, through a leaked nbn co internal document. But we do not need to read about it in the paper to know what a mess it is. All you have to do is go out and talk to your constituents or read your emails to know what a mess the NBN is, in Australia, under this government and to know what a mess was made of the NBN rollout under the Prime Minister, when he was communications minister.
In my home state of Tasmania, before the last federal election, we were promised that the NBN would be a faster speed, be delivered sooner and be cheaper. We now know that that is not true—not just for Tasmania but for the whole country. In their pre-election document, the Liberal Party promised, in black and white, that the full NBN rollout in Tasmania would be completed by 2015. Since that time, not one home or premises has been connected to the Liberal Party's second-rate copper fibre to the node. Not one home in Tasmania has been connected to their NBN.
Since their election, in 2013, we have had a whole range of excuses from Liberal members in Tasmania. I was astounded to see, earlier in this debate today, the member for Lyons stand up and talk about the NBN in Tasmania and about good news for his electorate. I am sure his constituents do not agree that it is good news that their NBN is going to be a couple of years later than they were promised. I am sure that his constituents are not pleased with the good news that the NBN may be costing more, in regional Australia, thanks to the part in this bill where the government is seeking to change the wholesale price.
What they are suggesting in the original bill is that the wholesale price will be different in regional Australia from what it is in the cities. People in regional Australia should be outraged by this suggestion. The member for Lyons, the member for Bass and the member for Braddon from Tasmania should be outraged by this suggestion. I am not sure where the Nationals in the coalition are on this matter. I would be astounded to hear the Nationals members come into this parliament and support a wholesale price differential in rural and regional Australia compared to the cities. It is an outrageous suggestion that people in the city should get the NBN cheaper. The NBN was designed to overcome the tyranny of distance, so why would you make it more expensive for the people who will need it the most, the people in rural and regional Australia? It does not make sense.
I understand the government has decided that it will cut that part out of the bill in the amendments it intends to move. I am pleased to hear that is the case, although I am not sure what motivated it and whether or not it might come back. The Vertigan report, which has led to this bill, suggested wholesale pricing and a differential in wholesale pricing. I am not sure whether the government is now saying it does not agree with the Vertigan report—which it commissioned, full of its own Liberal Party experts and Liberal Party advisers, rather than the Infrastructure Australia full-cost analysis, which the Prime Minister promised before the election and, of course, did not do. They were out trumpeting it at the time and the assumptions in that report used figures that were completely wrong, as we found out today. What we heard was Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, said that his second-rate NBN would cost $29.5 billion, but we now know it will cost almost double that at $56 billion.
We of course heard from him that we would get his second-rate NBN to all Australian homes by this year—2016—but we now know that the time frame has pushed out to 2020. We of course heard that the second-rate copper NBN would cost around $600 per home and that this cost is now $1,600 a home. And then, of course, there was the state of the old copper network, which would need to be upgraded. Of course, the assumptions here were just quite extraordinary.
We were told it would cost around $55 million to patch up the old copper network. Obviously, they had not been out and seen any of it. I have certainly seen some in my electorate and it needs more than a patch up. It has now come out that it is about $640 million to fix the existing copper network, because it is so degraded. But they should have known that already. We heard today from one of the ministers that he used to work in the industry. He should have known what condition that copper was in. The government should have known what condition that copper was in. It is just remarkable that they would have said that it would only cost $55 million to patch up, and it is now $640 million.
Then, of course, was the assumption that 2.6 million homes would be connected via pay TV cables by 2016. We now know that nbn co is forecasting that they will only connect around 10,000 homes by June 2016. And we heard that the second-rate network would bring in about $2.5 billion in revenue; this has now crashed to around $1.1 billion in revenue. We also heard before the election that the satellites that were going up were not required. Indeed, the then Minister for Communications, the current Prime Minister, said prior to the election:
There is enough capacity on private satellites already in orbit or scheduled for launch for the NBN to deliver broadband to the 200,000 or so premises in remote Australia without building its own.
How wrong was he?
Indeed, I believe he actually went to the launch of the satellite and stood there, trying to claim credit for it. And we have now had members from the other side stand up and talk about the wireless satellite access that people will be getting and have been getting because of the satellite that Labor suggested needed to go up. We heard from those on the other side when they were in opposition that these satellites were not required and that private capacity was already there. And now we know that that is not true. There are so many errors, and what a debacle it has been!
And yet today, when getting questions here in question time, we heard nothing really from the Prime Minister to explain what went wrong. Why are we now hearing about the cost blow-outs? Why are we now hearing about the time frame blow-outs? Why is it not faster, sooner and cheaper as we were promised prior to the last election? Those opposite have been in government for 2½ years; it will be interesting to see the next lot of documents that suddenly appear in the newspaper about what the forecasts are going to be in coming months as we go into the election campaign, because my constituents in my electorate have really had enough of it. There are still parts of my electorate where people cannot even get ADSL. People cannot even get ADSL!
They cannot wait for Malcolm Turnbull's slower-to-turn-up, slower speeds, second-rate copper NBN. They cannot wait! They need internet services now. They are moving out of suburbs, their kids cannot do their homework and they cannot log online to their work emails. It is absolutely disgraceful that in this day and age, when we come into this place and talk about jobs and innovation and the jobs of the future, that Australia is in this position. We are in a position where we are not getting the world's best technology and where we have a complete mess of the National Broadband Network rollout.
Other countries in the world are moving to fibre to the premises, which of course was what we committed to when we were in government and which this government has backtracked on. Countries around the world realise that fibre to the premises is the way of the future. Instead, we have a messed-up, second-rate NBN going out. I will have constituents in my electorate who will be the haves and the have-nots. We have people, as I said, without internet access at all, but we will soon have—I understand in about six or seven months' time—people who will be the first people in my electorate to be connected to fibre to the node.
I have fibre to the premises at my home, as do a lot of other people in my electorate—fibre to the premises: Labor's real NBN. Indeed it is the NBN that everybody in my electorate wants and that everybody in my electorate thought they were going to get. One of the reasons that everybody in my electorate thought they were going to get it was because of a letter to the editor. When I raised the NBN prior to the last federal election I was accused of a scare campaign by Liberal senator for Tasmania, David Bushby. Indeed, in a letter to the editor he actually said, 'Julie Collins is running a scare campaign. There will be no difference in who gets fibre to their home in Tasmania under Labor or Liberal.' That was from Senator David Bushby in the newspaper, prior to the federal last election.
My constituents firmly believed that they were getting fibre to the premises. That is the fibre to the premises that some of my constituents actually have, as I said. Other constituents do not have the internet at all, and some are going to get fibre to the node—second-rate—who want fibre to the premises. There are whole suburbs and small towns in my electorate which still do not know when they are going to get the NBN. If you look up their address on the nbn co map they still actually have no idea when they are going to get it, after being promised the full rollout would be completed by 2015. So we have the situation in my home state where we have Liberal members coming in here, saying how wonderful their NBN is, how grateful their electorates should be and what great news it is when the truth is actually starkly different. Out and about in Tasmania, no matter where you go, people are complaining about the internet access—except, of course, for those who have Labor's fibre to the premises—Labor's real NBN. They know the value of Labor's real NBN; everybody else has seen it and everybody else wants it, because they know of the value and they know of the innovation and the jobs that will come with that.
Under the Labor Party, Tasmania was going to be the first state to be fully connected to the NBN—the first state. Of course, we do not think that is going to be the case now and we still do not know when the NBN rollout will be fully complete in Tasmania. As I said, I have small towns and suburbs that still do not know when they are going to be connected and which do not have the time frame for that. We have people on the west coast of Tasmania who were going to get fibre to the home who are now, of course, not getting that. There is great unrest in the Tasmanian community no matter where you look, so it is quite astonishing to have the Prime Minister in here today not fully and adequately answering questions in relation to the NBN and, even more bizarrely, to have the member for Lyons come in and say it was great news.
I was really surprised to listen to his speech today. I am sure that his constituents will be very surprised, because I certainly intend to tell them. He can rest assured that I will be out and about, campaigning in his seat and ensuring that Labor senators do the same about his comments on the NBN today, because, quite frankly, his electorate will not appreciate his comments in here on the NBN. They will not appreciate that what he said to them is good news. They will not appreciate the mistruths and the lies they were told before the last election by members of the Liberal Party in black and white on not one but several occasions: in their economic plan for Tasmania, in letters to the editor and in media statements. Every single time, the Tasmanians were told, 'Don't worry; you'll get the same under us as you're getting under Labor.' Of course, they now know that is not true and they are not very happy about it at all.
It is interesting that the members for Bass and Braddon have not come in to speak on this bill like the member for Lyons has. Perhaps they have been out talking to their constituents a little bit more. Perhaps they know from their constituents just what a terrible debacle it has been. Perhaps they also know that Tasmania is missing out on jobs of the future and the innovation jobs that Tasmania was expecting to receive thanks to being the first state to be fully connected to the real NBN.
To sum up: clearly, this government is in a mess with their NBN. Clearly, what was promised before the last election is not being delivered. Clearly, what the current Prime Minister when he was Minister for Communications said even when they came to government is not correct. Indeed, we have had very little explanation of what is going on with the NBN from either the Minister for Communications or the Prime Minister in this place or from the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Obviously, they have a very good reason to hide it: they know that, when the truth comes out, when people know just how far behind they are going to be and just what the blown out costs are going to be, it will show just how badly the current Prime Minister mismanaged this.
He had just one job as Minister for Communications, and that was to roll out the National Broadband Network and do it within his promises. That has not been delivered, and, frankly, he should be ashamed of his record.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Before I call the member for Shortland: the member for Shortland has suggested that she will not be going on after the next election. Is that correct?
Ms Hall: That is correct.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to say to the member for Shortland that she is probably one of the hardest working, most diligent members of parliament that I have seen in this place, not only in the parliament and the Federation Chamber but also in her committee work. Her commitment to her electorate and those who are—how can I say—least able to care for themselves across her electorate and across this nation has always been noticed. You will be sadly missed in this place.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (19:41): Right. Now I've got to do a speech where I'm going to give the government a serve! Is this a way to calm me down a little bit?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you also have been a great political warrior for your party. I should have said that too.
Ms HALL: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your kind words. They mean a lot, and I think they will mean a lot to the people of Shortland as well, so thank you. I know that they are very genuine and I really appreciate you saying what you just said.
Now, on to business. Unfortunately, being a very strong advocate for my electorate, I have to stand in this House today and say the government has failed when it has come to the NBN. It has not delivered what they promised and it has caused a lot of angst within Shortland electorate. The NBN has been very unreliable. People have been exceptionally disappointed.
The legislation we have today before us looks at the Burdekin panels. Those panels were assembled by the current Prime Minister in December 2013 and are made up of former Liberal Party staffers and advisers. There has been strident criticism that has noted the fact that it has not really delivered what it was put there for. Industry and consumer advocates have raised significant concerns with measures in this bill, and I can only judge this legislation against what has been delivered as far as the NBN is concerned.
People have been contacting my office in droves. I was quite excited; Shortland electorate was one of the electorates in Australia that was really going to benefit from the rollout of the NBN. We were anticipating that we would get fast-speed broadband. We were disappointed that it was fibre to the node and copper to the house but we actually thought that it would be better than what existed previously. But the really disappointing aspect of the NBN and the rollout is the fact that it has not delivered the speeds that were promised. In actual fact it has led to lots of heartache, with people being without telephones or internet and with people feeling quite isolated as a result.
I will start with an example from just before Christmas, when it first started rolling out. A man on the disability pension agreed to have his phone and internet switched over to the NBN. When the switch-over took place, he was out a telephone, he was out any internet and he had very poor mobility.
So this man had to struggle—and I say struggle—down the street to a pay telephone. He rang, and appointments were made. And of course, as happens with this change-over, the appointment was broken—it was not kept. This person had absolutely no communication with the outside world. He did not have a mobile phone. We talked to the provider and we talked to NBN, and it soon became very apparent to us that they were not talking to each other.
So I went up the back and bought a mobile phone. I was loading it up. We told the provider that I was going to post on my Facebook that they would not even give him a mobile phone. Believe it or not, they then actually delivered a mobile phone to him the day before Christmas. But it should not come to that.
I am going to use the remainder of my time here to highlight some of the problems with the NBN. I did an interview on ABC Central Coast this morning, and one of the issues that was raised was around the NBN. The person that was interviewing raised the point that, not only on the Central Coast but also in Lake Macquarie, there have been enormous problems. He told me he had heard of a doctor who received information, and it was lifesaving information, via the internet. Previously he had ADSL and he received it, but now he has the NBN installed he cannot receive the data. This is really important information. He has to make a split-second decision as to the treatment of a person, and that decision can influence that person's life into the future or influence whether that person will survive the incident.
The most common problem is the fact that the NBN is not delivering the speeds that people were promised. That is one of the common problems. One of the constituents who has been in contact with my office quite frequently said that his NBN fluctuates between '95mps to 3mps'. He took 'the top plan of 100mps'. Despite paying the extra $30 to get the extra-fast internet, he is not getting it. He is very upset. He is a person that works from home and a person that has been having problems.
Another problem is that the NBN connection keeps dropping out. New modems have been supplied yet the problem continues. The internet is not working after the NBN has been connected. Once again, this is another person that has medical issues. I cannot emphasise enough how many times we have contacted the service provider—and it does not matter which service provider it is—and we contact the NBN, and yet the problem cannot be solved. There is appointment after appointment organised with technicians—and they are broken. The technicians are going to come around to connect the NBN, and then the next minute the appointment is cancelled and another one is set for the next day. For one customer, it took 10 weeks between the phone call requesting and ordering the NBN—and this is a person that was very computer literate—and she, as of the beginning of February, still did not have it installed.
Another person had the NBN connected but there was no switch-over and no service whatsoever. There are people, particularly older people, who are totally isolated—no telephone and no NBN. I have had numerous people contact my office and ask to be switched back to the previous system, to the old system. And of course they cannot be switched back.
I would not be raising this issue and emphasising the absolute importance of it if the problems were not as bad as they are. I have heard members on the other side talk about looking forward to the NBN coming to their area. Please, believe me: there are serious problems. You need to take it up with the Prime Minister, because it is his NBN. Do not for a moment think it is anyone else's. This rests with the Prime Minister. It is his plan and it is his scheme for the NBN. It needs to be taken up with him and it needs to be taken up with the communications minister. You do not want this to be rolled out like this in your electorates. You do not want it.
My staff have said to me that they think they should put a sign out the front saying, 'NBN complaints office'. That is how bad it is. I have in my hand here—and this is just a small number of what I have—over 80 complaints that we are working on in the office now. It is not one; it is not two. It is unbelievable how many people are experiencing problems.
The fact that people can end up with just a phone connection and no NBN connection—and then the provider and the NBN blaming each other—shows that it is a flawed system.
So does the fact that there have been so many problems in Shortland, which is an area that is, generally, fairly low-lying. I believe a lot of the problem has been associated with the condition of the copper wires—the fact that they are in such poor condition. So does the fact that we all know the government has been ordering more copper wire in from overseas. We are getting such a poor deal with this NBN. I say to all Australians: look at it very carefully. At least, when it comes to your area, wait and see what happens before you connect, because it is fraught with problems.
This second-rate NBN would have cost $41 billion, but it has gone up to $56 billion. That is an increase of $15 billion. The fibre to the node is costing a lot of money. It is costing $55 million to fix the copper wires, and this is a system that is going to be obsolete, nearly, by the time it is rolled out across Australia. At its best it cannot deliver the speed that is needed. In those countries where they have gone down the line of fibre to the node and copper to the home they are already moving to change to a different system. It is extremely worrying at this particular time in our history when we should be embracing new technologies and making ourselves as globally competitive as we can. The Prime Minister tells this House that it is an exciting time to be an Australian, that we must be agile and that we must be innovative, but we must have the tools. We must have the tools to be innovative and competitive. Until this government gets in there and fixes the problem that is not going to happen.
On Saturday, last week, I was outside the Belmont Medicare office. Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, I know you have a Belmont Medicare office, but I am quite sure the government is not about to close your Belmont Medicare office. Mine opened at the same time as yours. I was getting signatures for a petition. People were lining up to sign the petitions that I had with me. I had about half a dozen people with me and there were lines, all through the shopping centre, with people falling over each other to sign the petitions. But the thing that really struck me was the number of people who came up to me and said, 'I have the NBN. I wish I'd never signed up for it. I have so many problems with it.' We had a list; we were taking names of people as they were signing the petition.
I really need the government to listen and to understand that there is an enormous problem. It is vitally important that people can communicate with each other. We rely on the internet and we rely on the telephone. Without being able to communicate effectively, people are isolated. Without being able to communicate effectively, we as a nation will go down the drain. When I am down at the shopping centre raising an issue that is very important to people—and they are signing petitions about that—at the same time those people are complaining about the NBN and raising that as a major issue. The government needs to listen and act.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:56): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. It is hard to know how to limit my remarks to 15 minutes in this particular debate because I could talk all day about the problems we have had in my electorate regarding the rollout of the NBN. Like the member for Shortland, I would like to take this opportunity to place, again, on the record the frustrations that Bendigo and Central Victoria have had as a result of decisions that this government has made on the NBN.
Let's just, for a moment, stop and remember what this government, when in opposition, promised the people of Central Victoria. They did pop up to Central Victoria quite a bit, including the then shadow minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy, later the Minister for Communications and now the Prime Minister. He promised in the lead-up to the last election at a Bendigo Business Council event: 'The Coalition's plans would be cheaper and faster to install by using fibre-to-the-node technology rather than fibre to the premises to the homes and businesses in Bendigo.' That is what the Prime Minister said to a Bendigo Business Council forum held on 26 March 2013. Here we are. Tomorrow is 1 March 2016 and no-one in Bendigo has fibre to the node.
This Prime Minister, when he was the shadow communications minister, stood up at a Bendigo Business Council event and effectively lied. He conned them. He said, at the time, that homes in Bendigo would get fibre to the node by 2016. We are there. We are however many years on from that particular event, and we still do not have fast-speed broadband delivered in Bendigo. We do not have it in the way that was promised by this government. What this government did when they got elected was to rip up the plan, which would have seen Bendigo homes connected to fibre to the premises—the Labor plan. We would have got it under the Labor plan. It would be rolling out, as we speak, to the brown sites that we talk about. We would be getting it, but this government ripped up the plan and threw Bendigo off the map. We are still waiting.
Some in our area are okay with it. They say, 'If Labor wins the next election, can we get fibre to the driveway?'—this hidden concept—'Can we get fibre-to-the-premises?' What the people in Bendigo know is that they cannot trust this government even with their own plan. Not only has it not been built but also it is costing this country a fortune. Replacing copper—what kind of a joke of a government is it that replaces copper with copper? Why not admit it and say, 'All right. Where we have to replace the copper we'll go one step further—we'll replace it with fibre. We'll replace it with a cable that will deliver the internet speeds we need tomorrow and every day after tomorrow'? What kind of ideologically arrogant government do we have that it replaces copper with copper? Maybe it is because they have friends in the copper industry and they want to throw them a bone and try to help their copper prices. No other country in the world is doing what this government is doing and replacing copper with copper at the rate and cost this government is.
It was not just the shadow minister, who has since become Prime Minister, who came to Bendigo and made these promises. We also had the then Leader of the Opposition and now former Prime Minister make the same promises—that, under a coalition, by 2016 there would be minimum download speeds of 25 megabits:
So we will deliver a minimum of 25 megabits … by the end of our first term.
Well, the election is coming round the corner—the clock is ticking; people on the government benches think that we could go to a double dissolution election any day—but the people in Bendigo still do not have their NBN. Do you know what we do have in Bendigo? We have the advertising. The government did not cancel the advertising contracts. We have the 'Connect to the NBN' advertising trucks. We have NBN advertising at our cinemas. We have NBN advertising in our newspapers. Jeez, with the advertising budget of this government, you would think that every house in Bendigo could connect. But they cannot.
The only houses that can connect to the NBN in Bendigo are the houses that could connect because of Labor government decisions, because, under Labor, our greenfield sites, our new estates, got NBN fibre to the premises. We are not a growth area like Melbourne, so we do not have the big estates coming online like Melbourne does, but some of our homes can connect to the NBN. We do have some towers, built under Labor, switched on and connecting to the NBN, but not as a result of any decision that the government have made. Yet they stand in here and claim the credit for these homes being connected, because they were connected under their watch, but it was not their decisions that meant these houses were connected.
What we also have in Bendigo is the government's failure to turn on towers. We have four NBN towers built in the northern part of the electorate that would have serviced homes, businesses and farms in the northern part of the electorate. They were built in 2013 but not switched on. How incompetent are you as a government to not switch on towers that were built? You claim to be people who care about business and are smart at business. Well, you have got to ask the question: how can you build an asset but not switch it on to generate the revenue with which to make the asset sustainable going forward? The reason why they have not been switched on is that the fifth tower, the relay tower at Mount Camel, was knocked back for a planning reason. That was 12 months ago. Over 12 months ago, that tower was knocked back and yet, to this day, there is still not an engineering solution. We still cannot get a switch-on date for the people in that area affected.
There are lots of people in the Bendigo electorate whose delivery for the internet, for the NBN, will be fixed wireless, yet we have no confidence in the government being able to deliver that plan, because of what has happened in the north of the electorate: their failure to consult with the community, their failure to find an engineering solution, their failure to ensure that communities like Huntly, like Ladys Pass, like Goornong, can actually connect to the NBN. What frustration they have, to look out their windows and to drive past NBN towers that have not been switched on. Yet the government are congratulating themselves for doing such a great job. How great has their job been? Their so-called fabulous fibre to the node has been so successful that, since they introduced fibre to the node, under 30,000 homes have been connected to it. That means that every other home that has been connected has been connected because of decisions that the Labor Party made in government. You cannot claim somebody else's achievements or homework. It just does not work.
On this issue, the people in the regions will not be conned. They want access to the internet. They want access to the NBN so that they can do their business. There is currently a massive digital divide between the country and the city, between the regions and the metro areas, and people are being left behind in the regions. We do not even talk about being able to watch Netflix in central Victoria. We just want to be able to log onto the internet to read emails, to do homework, to do online coursework for university—because our universities are shutting down and moving to the metro areas. We just want to be able to have the internet to be able to upload our business activity statements on time and in real time. The people in the areas of central Victoria and regional Victoria are not talking about internet speeds to be able to watch movies; they are talking about internet speeds to be able to do the basic, fundamental aspects of our lives, because so much of our lives is online these days, yet we cannot get decent fast-speed broadband.
In the few moments I have left, I would like to put on the record some of the issues that have been raised with me personally. Like the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, I can say that this issue tops all other issues in my electorate: people's inability to connect to fast-speed broadband. Because under the Labor plan we should be having fibre to the premises being rolled out right now, Telstra stopped adding new ADSL ports into parts of the Bendigo electorate—areas like Castlemaine and Golden Square, where we have had a lot of growth and infilling and building going on within housing estates. Yet, when people ring up to connect to the internet, they are told, 'Sorry; there are no ports available.' When you talk to Telstra, they say, 'That's because we're working to the NBN rollout plan, and they should have access to the NBN right now.' You cannot blame Telstra for the fact that nbn co have failed to build on time.
What it means is that the people in Golden Square, Castlemaine and other parts of the electorate that cannot get access to an ADSL port are told to rely on their mobile phones. People are waiting two to three years to get access to ADSL because there are no available ports for them. They literally call up every day hoping that somebody has dropped off the list so they can go onto the list. If the government had kept their promise then this would not be an issue. But they did not. They ripped up the plan. They threw Bendigo off the map. Two years later, we are back on and we are going to get inferior technology.
So you can understand why the people of central Victoria feel betrayed by this Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, who went to Bendigo and made these promises, who stood up and said that we would get the NBN sooner, quicker and cheaper. Well, that is wrong. Under the Labor plan, people would have had it rolling out down their streets right now. Under the Liberal plan, they have promises to be able to connect some time by 2018. There is a problem too in that parts of the area are still not on the rollout map. Maiden Gully, a growth area in Bendigo, is still not on this government's map. People living there cannot get ADSL and all I can say to them is, 'Sorry, you're not on the map yet.' It is a growth area with new schools and they cannot get access to the internet. It is a disgrace and this government needs to fix it.
In Redesdale they have a tower. But those who have access to the tower say, 'It's great. Thank you very much, Labor, for building the tower, but we have a problem with the satellite service'—because under this government the satellite service has been oversubscribed. In regional and farming communities, one or two households are supposed to rely on the satellite service. We also have entire townships, such as Queenstown in Tasmania, a township of 3,000, being offered the satellite service. So people in Redesdale say, 'How's it fair that Queenstown is accessing the same service as me?' They are asking for a new tower to be built in their area so everybody in their area has access to towers.
Then we have the famous Spencer Street—famous for all the wrong reasons. In this street there are four different technologies—or five if you include 'none at all'. The four different technologies that one street in one part of the electorate has been offered to connect to the internet are ADSL1, ADSL2, mobile broadband and interim satellite. All who live in that street say their speeds are appalling and low. All of them say they cannot connect to the internet to do the basics.
We also have Newham. We have actually had some fairly constructive meetings with nbn co and they have indicated that they want to build two towers. Learning from the mistakes of Mount Camel, we have been able to convince nbn co to come and meet with us to talk about where to put the two towers in Newham. They are referred to as the south and the north tower, and we are hopeful that they will be built and connected. We have problems with other parts of the electorate that are not able to connect to fast-speed, reliable broadband. Large parts of the electorate—the great township of Moulden and places like Maiden Gully—are still not on the map. And we still have issues with towers that have not been switched on.
And we hear from people about their experiences. Darren Williams, from Kangaroo Flat, has access to no ADSL. In an email about internet services in central Victoria he said: 'We purchased a block of land in Kangaroo Flat. It was not an old subdivision and we built our home.' The email ends up being a very long email that describes their experiences about trying to connect to the ADSL. Bronwyn Gibbs, from Strathfieldsaye, speaks about the digital divide. She used to live in an area where the NBN was being delivered and then she moved into Strathfieldsaye. She said it was like going back a decade, like a time warp, like going from the NBN to ADSL.
A lot of students contact us to talk about how they cannot log on to do their homework because of the lack of access to fast speed broadband. This government does not really care about the regions. They do not really care about ensuring that there is no digital divide in this country. This government does not really commit to ensuring that everybody has access to fast speed broadband. They are not in the interest of building a nation. They are not in the interest of nation-building projects. This bill, and what is trying to do, at the end of the day does not address the real issues when it comes to the— (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:11): Of all the things that the Abbott-Turnbull government has done over the last 2½ years, it is the trashing of the NBN that completely boggles my mind. Every time I think about it I am just stunned by the stupidity and the incompetence that we have seen by the current Prime Minister in his previous role as the Minister of Communications and since he became Prime Minister. In making that statement I include walking away from action on climate change, so it is a big statement to make. The trashing of the NBN is one of the most stupid things I have seen any government do. I sit here on this side of the House and I go home to my electorate. I see businesses that cannot work from home, kids that cannot download work for homework and schools where only one kid can be online at a time. I am just astonished at the stupidity.
I hear this Prime Minister talking day after day about our houses being our biggest asset. If you are a bit older and you have paid for your house and you are heading towards retirement, if you are same generation as the Prime Minister and me, then maybe that is true. But if you are younger, if you are starting life or you are in your 20s or your 30s, your biggest economic asset is your capacity to earn. That allows you to maybe get a house one day, and it allows you to pay it off, but your earning capacity is actually your biggest asset when you are young.
We have a government that slashes education spending. We have a government that destroys the TAFE system. We have a government that makes degrees unaffordable. We have a government that rips up the very infrastructure that we as a nation need in order to earn an income. We are being seriously left behind by our neighbours and by the rest of the world, and we have been for over a decade. We have been getting further and further behind and our internet speeds have been getting worse and worse relative to those around us who had the foresight to do something about it before we did.
When Labor came to government in 2007 we decided to change that. We started embarking on an infrastructure project that would put this nation where it needed to be 50 to 70 years into the future. We started building the infrastructure that we needed for the future—not the infrastructure that we needed for a decade ago, not the infrastructure that we need to download videos and film, but the technology we need to work in remote locations, to work through the internet rather than the same office, to conduct e-health in regional centres and for people to phone in their results. We do not even know what the NBN will be used for in the future, just as we did not know what telephone lines would be used for when we connected them right across the country nearly a century ago.
This decision by this government is as illogical as the one that was made when we built the rail lines. For those of you here who remember what they learnt in primary school, there were several gauges. There was the Queensland gauge. If I remember correctly, it was three foot six—the member for Chifley might know—
Mr Husic: I do not know—pass!
Ms OWENS: No? You were at primary school more recently than I was, Member for Chifley!
Mr Husic: Thank you.
Ms OWENS: It was three foot six in Queensland, I think four foot 8½ in New South Wales and five foot two in Victoria. So every time a train crossed a state border, they had to—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Ms OWENS: That is right—it was crazy, but they had an excuse at the time because they were different states, so different people made decisions. But this government for the last 2½ years has had total control of this and, again, the decision to go back to copper when the rest of the world is going fibre to the home, the decision to start rolling out copper, to start repairing copper, is extraordinary and yet they did it. It totally and absolutely beggars belief.
We know that when Prime Minister Abbott handed the NBN over to the then Minister for Communications, he was instructed to demolish the NBN. We know that that was the instruction that was given. On command, the now Prime Minister did just that, but there is no excuse that, when he became Prime Minister and was in total control, he allowed this particular piece of infrastructure to go down the path that it is going.
Let's look at what he did at the time: he appointed Liberal staffers, Liberal Party advisers and strident critics of the NBN to a committee to investigate what to do the about the NBN. He basically put saboteurs in charge of policy development. In an absurdly pessimistic quantification by that committee, it based its analysis on the ridiculous idea that, by 2023, the average household would only want 15 megabits per second. It is not enough now. It is also by the way what we average now but it is not even enough to do the things we know that people want to do. It is not fast enough for decent Netflix. It is actually not fast enough even now, and they put forward this ridiculous quantification that households would only be wanting 15 megabits per second by 2023. That is an extraordinary assertion by what was known as the Vertigan panel.
Then the government, of course, proceeded to put together this shonky, low-tech version of an NBN—dared continue to call it a national broadband network even though it is nowhere near it. We still have copper being rolled out down the street in Carlingford and we have now seen it blow out. This minister who said it would be delivered faster, be cheaper and sooner got it all completely wrong. He estimated the second-rate NBN would cost $41 billion; it is now costing $56 billion—that is a 47 per cent blow-out. The fibre to the node was estimated to cost $600 per home; it has now blown out to $1600 per home—that is a 167 per cent blow-out or $1,000 per home.
They budgeted $55 million to fix up the copper; it is now $641 million to fix up the copper and growing. It is that fixing up of the copper that is delaying things so incredibly badly—$641 million to fix up copper? It is cheaper to roll out fibre. It is cheaper to do it the right way. It would have cost less now and it will certainly cost less than the maintenance that will go into upgrading last century's system. They are rolling out last century's system, and all this century we are going to pay to repair it. This is absurd.
They estimated that they would have 2.61 million homes connected to the NBN by 2016 and they will only have between 10,000 and 875,000 by the end of December this year. They said, by the way, that every home would have 25 megabits per second minimum by the end of 2016. Well Parramatta is not even on the map for 2016. We were under the old plan under the previous government. Parramatta, as you would expect—a CBD, the centre of one of the largest economies in Australia, 80,000 small businesses surrounding Western Sydney—would actually be on the list quite early. It was on the list for 2016. It got ripped off the list pretty quickly when the government changed—I think North Sydney got added instead: Parramatta went off; North Sydney went on. And now, in 2016, even though every household is supposed to have 25 megabits per second by the end of this year, we are not even on the map. Parramatta, the second CBD in Sydney, is not even on the map.
Deputy Speaker Goodenough, go around and talk to small business in Parramatta—and big business for that matter—and it is the first thing they talk about: this essential infrastructure. This is not some glamorous opt-in opt-out technology we are talking about; this is the basic communications system for the world. When the Prime Minister gets up here and talks about services being exported to Asia and how wonderful all of that is, when he gets up and talks about this wonderful world of the future and the sharing economy and start-ups, this is the basis of all that. You cannot have a sharing economy, if people cannot actually get online and get decent speeds. If you do not have decent speeds and a critical mass of fibre, then you will not have entrepreneurs working as hard as they can to develop new ways to use it. If you do not have the population on fibre, then you will not have the kind of innovation that we need if we want to own the products of the future. You will not have people in country towns providing services to Asia, if speeds are still—let's face it—pretty close to dial-up.
I was in a country town, Bemboka, just a couple of years ago. It is not in the middle of nowhere; it is between Canberra and the snow. It is a few hours away. I went into an art gallery, which someone had just opened. I found these beautiful pottery cups and I thought I would buy them—nice gallery. He took half an hour to complete my credit card transaction. He ended up walking out into the middle of the field and holding it up, trying to get a signal. If I did not actually want the cups and feel sorry for this guy, who had just started a business in a place where he could not do credit card transactions, I would have walked out. If it had been Sydney, I would not have waited half an hour. But I waited half an hour for this small business in a reasonably located country town to wander around, holding his credit card device in the air trying get a signal—in the paddock. This is what this government is leaving people with.
You can hear the member for Indi talk about her NBN, because they got the real one. She came in here today and talked about how fabulous it was, because she got the real one. Listen to the member for Shortland, Bendigo or any member who has had this shonky second-rate, last-century—I am not even going to call it the NBN, because it is not—infrastructure rolled out in their electorate and they will tell you what a mess it is. They will tell you that as soon as the kids get home from school and logon to do their homework, forget it; the speed is out the window. Unless you get on between 11 and two when no-one is home, forget it. What about if you happen to be a small business or if you happen to be working from home? And we want people to do that, by the way. We actually want these hubs where people work closer to home. We do not want everyone getting in their car and unnecessarily driving to an office in the city because they do not have broadband or their internet connection is not fast enough so they have to continue to drive in, and we keep upgrading the roads and public transport system to cope with the tens of thousands of people unnecessarily travelling. We want people to work from home. But how on earth does a small business that relies on upload and download do it if they are getting speeds of five megabytes per second and less? In Parramatta, that is what we get.
I surveyed my community last year and I asked them to test their NBN connections. The worst was the suburb of Merrylands, where they are getting download speeds as low as 0.14 megabytes per second.
Mr Husic: How much?
Ms OWENS: 0.14 megabytes per second It is so slow that it is not worth talking about. In fact, the Parramatta Advertiser quite correctly said that it is faster to phone a friend in the Congo, where the average speed is 1.75 megabytes per second, and have them read the article to you. That is actually true. If you live in Merrylands, it is faster to phone the Congo because the Congo has faster download speeds.
In fact, it is interesting to see who does have faster download speeds than us. I actually printed out the list today because it is so extraordinary. We are currently ranked between 44th and 46th, depending on who you talk to. In fact, we have gone backwards while we have been building the NBN. Our NBN is rubbish and the rest of the world is building good stuff. They are building faster fibre; we are building rubbish. We are going backwards. We are spending $46 billion and we are going backwards. This is absurd.
It is once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right and we are spending money to go backwards relative to many countries. The 10 on the list that are all better than us, higher on the list, are Qatar, Madagascar, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Poland, Slovenia and Ukraine. They are the ones that are just above us on the list.
By the way, business has to upload and health and e-services have to upload. So it is not just download speeds. If you want to find a country that is slower than Australia's average upload speed of 3.89 megabytes per second, there is Senegal, Jamaica, Argentina, Colombia, Fiji, Montenegro, Italy, Croatia, Faroe Islands, Turkey, Serbia and Oman. They are the countries that have slower upload speeds than us. Yet we have a Prime Minister that comes in here and dares to talk about innovation but does not provide the basic infrastructure, and spends $46 billion building something that will not even support basic level innovation. In fact, it will not even support what we already know we are going to do with this technology: work from home, basic movie downloads, e-health. This is a shambles. If there was ever an example of a government that cannot run a raffle, this is it. This is a government that took a great project and turned it into the most massive waste of money and opportunity this country will probably ever see.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (20:26): The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015 is before the chamber and I want to very quickly talk about the National Broadband Network. I will not use all my allotted time. I want to reflect on the role of public investment and the role of private investment. Ultimately, I am a strong believer that technology is overtaking us and wireless will be the way that everyone wants to go.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr BROAD: They might laugh at me, but if you look at national broadband networks that have been built around the world, people are accessing their technology through wireless. They simply are not accessing their technology through fibre as the long-term program. What I can access on this iPad and this iPhone here is really critical. I cannot help but think that when we compare NBNs in different parts of the world to Australia's, most of the countries that have superior national broadband networks have not been built by their governments; they have been built by private investment. There is nothing like private investment to get things done.
What we saw when the NBN was first announced was that all private investment stopped. In fact, Horsham, the township I represent, had been promised the NBN but it was not delivered in the time frame—and still has not been delivered. Services have been lacking there because Telstra stopped putting in exchange ports for ADSL and stopped putting in fibre. The area that was never flagged was Mildura and that is where private investment came in and built a fibre network. They actually have reasonably good fibre in the main investment hub.
The irony of it is that the way of the future, whether we like it or not, should be some fibre to businesses in our main business centres, but otherwise it should be wireless. People are choosing to use wireless. I put the alternate view that no-one has ever talked about: what would Australia look like if a commitment of $37 billion had been made to subsidise mobile and wireless technology right across Australia? You would find people in my electorate being able to use their phones to take scans of different things in their vineyards, for example. Wireless is the way that people are heading.
I think that in the future the technology we are building will not be seen as First World; it will be seen as yesterday's technology. By the time it is built—and, admittedly, it is taking time and I hear lots of banter and candid contributions from both sides of the chamber—we will reflect on it and say that if we had spent the same money on wireless, we would have something that would take us into the future rather than what we eventually might have in the years to come.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (20:29): That contribution shows the kind of thinking on telecommunications in this country that has condemned or, I should say, consigned those opposite to mistakes for years on broadband. In fact, I would say that, from the top down, they all suffer from reverse broadband Midas touch. Every time they touch broadband they stuff it up. The argument made by the member for Mallee is a clear example. To be fair to you, Member for Mallee, you are not the first time to put this argument. The first one to try to argue this line was your Prime Minister way back when he was first appointed as the then opposition shadow communications minister. The Padding Manning book, the biography of Malcolm Turnbull, says:
For all his industry experience, some of Turnbull's early steps were amateurish. At first he appeared to line up with his leader believing the whole world was going wireless and this would make FTTP redundant.
That was the argument back then, Member for Mallee. In an op ed that he wrote, he said:
Wireless broadband has been growing at nearly ten times the rate of fixed-line broadband, whose penetration has remained fairly static. The convenience and flexibility of wireless is compelling and likely to become more so. It will be a fierce competitor with the new network.
This was the canard, this was the dummy argument, being put out so you would not rollout fibre; you would just rely on wireless. So what is the truth?
Mr Broad: What are you reading from?
Mr HUSIC: I just said it. Listen to me and you will learn. The biography went on:
The truth, however, was that the explosive growth in wireless as dependent on fixed-line technology, and price sensitive consumers were going to be careful to avoid heavy use of data over 4G mobile networks that would be far more expensive per megabyte.
That is the point. When you lose wireless it costs you more. So what you arguing for on behalf of your constituents is for them to pay more rather than get a better service delivered through fixed-line and optic fibre to their home. There would be a mix of wireless and there would be a mix of satellite. So that was argument No. 1.
Then we have the Nationals in this debate. This bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, will break down the notion that you would have uniform pricing. And you as a National Party member can come into this place and not bat an eyelid that it will break it down and make it more expensive in the regions than it is in the cities. When I think of the fact that you are sitting on the sideline and not saying a single word about that, I am reminded of that saying: 'Thank God for the starch in your shirts, because your spines are not holding you up.' You are not defending your constituency whatsoever.
When you speak in this debate and fail to point out that fact to your own constituents, you are letting them down, you are being a sell-out and you are being the best doormat that the Liberal Party could have in letting them get away with this. It is astounding. Then you come in here with an argument saying, 'Oh, we should just go wireless. Wireless would be way better.' What you need in your regions is better broadband. Wireless will fix some of it for those areas that are hard to fibre up, but, like what we were saying when we were in government, your main aim should be 93 per cent fibre to the premises. Everything else is a sad joke, and you are going to have to play catch-up at some point.
That was not the first mistake that Malcolm Turnbull made. The other mistake that he made—and again I say this for the benefit of our great friends in the National Party, because they use this argument as well—was that he tried to criticise the need for the two satellites that we had commissioned when we were in government. It was planned to launch them in 2015, delivering fast broadband to about 200,000 homes in the most remote communities, Member for Mallee. Mr Turnbull tried to bag us out for that and then realised that, because of the huge demand out in the regions, this was actually a good idea. He then tried to argue that we had not planned properly for this satellite service because it was oversubscribed. There was a reason that it was oversubscribed. When people in the regions heard—and I know this from talking with people in the regions—about the speeds that they could get for download and upload compared to what they were getting, they were flocking to use it. They were flocking to use a satellite service that had been bagged out by the coalition.
How in their minds they could bag out a satellite service that would deliver better broadband for their constituents is astounding—but it does not surprise me, when the Nationals fail to come in here and stand up for the regions on broadband. Their big fixation in this debate is mobile phone towers. That is the extent of telecommunications reform and improvement in infrastructure from the Nationals' perspective. No wonder the Liberals walk all over you, when you do not have the intellectual grunt to be able to step up and put the argument forward for your regions. It is Labor that is arguing for the regions not only to get access to the infrastructure but also to make sure that the wholesale price is uniform and that you are not penalised by virtue of the fact that you live in the regions.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Member for Chifley, when you use the word 'you' you are referring to me, and I do not like to be walked over.
Mr HUSIC: I take on board your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not even imagine trying to do that to your good self. I have huge respect for the Deputy Speaker, but I have even greater respect for the people that he and some of the regional members represent in this place, and I frankly think that more needs to be done for the regions to improve telecommunications availability and, in particular, broadband.
As I said, there were some fundamental errors right at the get-go in the way in which the now Prime Minister—then shadow communications minister—approached this. He also tried to talk it down, saying that it was just going to be a video delivery service—mimicking the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah—not realising that most projections for data growth across the planet were showing that data would grow at a phenomenal rate and you needed a network to be able to manage that data growth. And the best the coalition could do was dumb down the network and dumb down the argument about supporting a better network—trying to weave it into all their usual attack and all their usual spin. As a result, public policy has suffered, and it has been not only Labor constituents who have suffered but also, importantly, coalition constituents, particularly in the regions, who have suffered.
There was a point at which the coalition said, 'We will make sure that we look after the worst affected and we will prioritise them in the rollout.' Well, like every other promise the coalition has been made in this debate, that went by the wayside as well. So did the promise that, by the end of this year, 2016, everyone will have access to at least 25 megabits per second download—and, off the top of my head, that would be 50 megabits by 2019. That promise went by the wayside as well.
The other noteworthy thing is that the former CEO, Mike Quigley—who was hounded by the Prime Minister, whose reputation was completely trashed by the Prime Minister when he was the shadow communications minister, an outrageous bullying of the then CEO—has taken the time to analyse where we are at with the NBN. What appears to have occurred is that there has been a $15 billion blow-out in the total cost of the NBN project since the coalition came to government, and there has been a review of how that could possibly be the case. The paper put forward by Mike Quigley analyses the difference in the cost of the various parts of the NBN between the 2013 strategic review and the 2016 corporate plan. In round figures, it found that the cost of rolling fibre to existing premises fell from $14 billion to $11 billion, the cost of rolling fibre to new premises fell from $3 billion to $2 billion and the combined cost of the fixed wireless and satellite components of the rollout fell from $6 billion to $4 billion. On those bases, on the existing configuration of the network that Labor had commenced and which was carried over by the coalition, those costs fell. The cost of the transit network, the backbone of the NBN, is virtually unchanged at $1.5 billion, up only by $100 million. It leaves the HFC and fibre-to-the-node networks as the only possible cause of the blow-out. Mike Quigley writes: 'HFC and fibre to the node are the real culprits of the $15 billion increase, not previous management, not inadequate financial systems and not hidden costs in the FTTP rollout.' The Prime Minister consistently talked up the cost and time taken to roll out fibre to the premises and talked down the cost of rolling out fibre to the node and HFC. But, as Mike Quigley said, the chickens are coming to roost.
There was the delay and extra expense involved in the renegotiation of the definitive agreements with Telstra. We were told it was only going to take six months. Wrong! It took way longer. The cost to rollout HFC and fibre to the node in the timescale that the coalition promised was grossly underestimated, and that is largely why we are seeing a $15 billion increase. On every measure, on all of the key measures, the coalition has got it wrong. As I said, they have a reverse Midas touch when it comes to broadband: every time they touch it, they stuff it up!
The strategic review said the second-rate NBN will cost $41 billion. After two years, the reality is that the second-rate NBN has cost $56 billion, up by $15 billion. The strategic review said fibre to the node would $600 cost per home. Two years later, fibre to the node costs $1,600 per home—up $1,000 per home or nearly 200 per cent. The strategic review reckoned it would take $55 million to fix up copper. The reality is $641 million—up nearly $600 million or over 1,000 per cent. The strategic review claimed that 2.6 million homes would be connected to NBN pay TV by December 2016. Wrong again. Only between 10,000 and 875,000 homes will be connected by December this year. That is down by between 1.7 million and 2.6 million homes, or roughly 66 per cent to 100 per cent lower revenue. The government reckoned they were going to rake in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2016-17. Two years on, it has been estimated that revenue in 2016-17 will be $1.1 billion, down by $1.4 billion. IT capex was estimated at a shade under $2 billion. But it is over $2½ billion, so that has increased as well.
All the measures of what they are doing are continuously wrong. As the shadow communications minister said, in any other circumstance where you had performed so poorly you would expect a demotion. But the communications minister, after stuffing up the NBN and after exhibiting his reverse Midas touch on broadband, did not get demoted; he got promoted to the top job in the land! You can see all the ways he has affected the NBN rollout and he is cheered on by the National Party. who swallow the line that they are doing well when, on every single measure, they are not.
This bill makes it even worse. It waters down the consumer safeguards, it waters down the ability to get uniform pricing and it has been criticised by industry. It is yet another example of all of these things. From the moment the Prime Minister took on the job of shadow communications minister, he made errors and kept compounding them. He made promises that he could not conceivably keep. When he went from being shadow communications minister to communications minister, he made the promise of download speeds of 25 megabits per second by December 2016. He made the promise that everyone would get faster download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second by 2016. Within 12 weeks of getting the job, he came into this chamber and admitted he would not be able to keep his promise. Some people would say it was a lie. But they continually made promises they had no capability of being able to extend to the Australian public. I reckon it demonstrated that they had not had the full rigour and testing of whether they could feasibly extend that commitment to the Australian people. They led people on that they could deliver faster, cheaper and better than what was on offer at the time. They have failed on all those counts.
This is an absolutely outrageous way to treat the Australian people. To condemn them to poor service when we are in an age where service needs to improve and not to be more of the same or worse. Countries are overtaking us in the quality of our broadband network. Countries are using good broadband to support the innovative activity required to diversify economies, create new jobs and generate new wealth. These are the type of thing that happen when you allow the broadband network to degrade. To be fair to the Prime Minister, it is not just him; it is the entire coalition. They tried to fix broadband 19 times in the Howard government and failed. They then came up with a dodgy policy leading into the 2010 election. Ever since the once shadow communications minister and now Prime Minister has been in place, everything he has done has been terrible and we have suffered as a result. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (20:44): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. But before I talk about this misguided and ideological attempt by the Turnbull-Joyce government to roll back a number of competition- and consumer-friendly reforms that underpin Labor's National Broadband Network, I wish to put it into a little bit of context, and I do so from the context of Australia being obviously an island nation that is reasonably far removed from most of the population centres in the world. This is important, because it illustrates how important it is that we get our communications with the rest of the world correct. We also need to focus on that because we are a country that values higher wages. We have a welfare net and, going back to the harvester cases when it comes to industrial law, we say that our workers are not slaves but need a decent return. That is the context of Australia.
That is why Labor governments for the past 40 or 50 years have always focused on getting the productivity gains right when in government. We do so in the context of protecting wages but making sure that Australia can compete with the rest of the world whilst maintaining those high wages. And how do you do that? In 2016, in the middle of the digital revolution, in the age of technology, you make sure you invest in communications. And we know how important this is. In fact, I was a member of the 43rd parliament, a minority government under Prime Minister Gillard, which came to power only when the Independents who represented the bush saw the benefits of the National Broadband Network. And I know when Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott came to looking, in a dry, empirical way, at what the parties had to offer, what tipped it for those two Independents was the National Broadband Network. Why? Because the NBN, as planned by Labor, delivers for the bush.
Unfortunately, the bloke who missed out was the member for Warringah. He did not understand the NBN. He was proud of the fact that he was a Luddite when it came to technology. He was proud to say that yes, he still writes longhand—not necessarily with a nib or a paintbrush, but he was proud of the fact that he was not savvy. However, I think when he missed out on government because of the National Broadband Network it crystallised in his mind his concerns about the NBN. So, effectively, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, when the polls were looking very good for him, he said, 'Well, I have to do something to keep the bloke I deposed as leader happy and keep him inside the tent.' He had indicated that he wanted to leave parliament, which might have made the member for Warringah happy. Instead, he said, 'All right; you can be in charge of the communications portfolio.' And the member for Wentworth understood communications. He had invested in it, he saw the benefits that flowed from it, he understood the way of the world and where the world is heading when it comes to the digital revolution. He had been involved in communications back when he was at university.
So, the member for Warringah basically appointed the member for Wentworth to the role of sabotaging the NBN. We had all sorts of promises before the election and then, once Prime Minister Abbott was elected by the people of Australia, in that democratic process, we suddenly had a change in approach to the National Broadband Network. We ended up with something that is twice the price, has twice the rollout time and has half the speed, instead of taking Labor's approach of investing in fibre and getting it right with what would be the largest infrastructure rollout in the history of Australia that would particularly benefit the bush, would particularly benefit the Nationals heartland. Instead, we ended up with this sabotaged outfit.
When the communications minister as he then was, the member for Wentworth, said 'We are going to do a rigorous analysis; we'll get Infrastructure Australia to do an independent cost-benefit analysis', that was the promise he made to the Australian people. Instead, when he came to be in office, with some chance to actually have a say in the National Broadband Network, what did he do? He appointed a panel that was full of former Liberal Party staffers, Liberal Party advisers and other noted public critics of Labor's National Broadband Network. And we see that the cost models that the Vertigan panel relied on had been proven to be hopelessly wrong. As the government's second-rate NBN has blown out from the $41 billion assumed in December 2013—not that long ago—now nbn co's latest, August, corporate plan is assuming a cost of $56 billion. So, as I said, it is nearly twice the price.
The possibilities that are there in terms of improving productivity are incredible. I mention the bush particularly, not only in education, because the bush schools would get the benefits first and foremost, but also when it comes to agriculture. Some people like to say that Australia will become the food bowl of Asia as the Asian century rolls out and those populations that we are closest to become our future markets. I am a little more sceptical and think that we might become the delicatessen of Asia rather than the food bowl! But if you are a delicatessen it is all about having niche markets. Our farmers are the best in the world; there are maybe one or two countries that can compete with them when it comes to dry land agriculture and the like. But we still have to transport our food products to Asia, and we can only be that delicatessen if we have good communication opportunities. Rather than just growing stuff broadly, we have to be able to have some niche markets where people will pay top dollar for it. That is the reality of being so far from some markets. We are not a part of the European Union, where they can roll stuff out on trains. We are a long way from some of our Asian markets.
The NBN should bring great productivity gains for this nation. Instead, what have we seen? This second-rate NBN. Not only have the costs gone up from $29.5 billion to $56 billion but also they said they would have it rolled out to all homes in Australia by this year, 2016. What is the new time frame? They are now doubling that, up to 2020. They said that their cut-price, second-rate copper NBN would cost $600 per home. This cost has nearly tripled to $1,600 a home. They said it would only cost about $55 million to patch up the old copper network. This cost has blown out by more than 1,000 per cent. It is not a 10 per cent blow out or a 100 per cent blow out but a 1,000 per cent blow out, to more than $640 million dollars.
Prime Minister Turnbull said that 2.61 million homes would be connected to the pay TV cables by 2016. Now nbn co are forecasting they will connect only 10,000 homes by June 2016. Yet this was an infrastructure plan, a commitment and a promise that many people in my electorate relied on. I remember the candidates' debate in the 2013 election where the No. 1 issue for businesses in Moreton was access to the NBN. It was the No. 1 issue. It did not matter what the business was, they saw the opportunities—just like the communications minister did. I can understand the member for Warringah; I know he does not get technology. We saw that horrific interview with the hologram of Sonny Bill Williams. We still remember that.
But the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister, the former communications minister, does get the NBN. He does understand it. I can understand the member for Warringah being upset about how the NBN cost him the prime ministership. It was so close, but it just exceeded his grasp. And then, after that significant defeat, he did not even sit in office for two years and he never entered the gates of the Lodge as Prime Minister before he was knifed in the back in the middle of the night. Sadly, the NBN that this Prime Minister—the former communications spokesperson for the Liberal and National parties—is overseeing is a sham.
They said that this second-rate network that they promised to the Australian people would bring in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2016 and 2017. Now they are forecasting only $1.1 billion, so he has blown a $1.4 billion hole in nbn co's revenue line. Unbelievable. Yet today in question time he dared to mention the global financial crisis response that was rolled out by the Labor Party. With these sorts of projections and targets and the way that they hit them, it is unbelievable.
I lay a lot of blame on this panel that was appointed by the minister. The assumptions they made are unbelievable. They assumed, people watching this on the web, that the median household in Australia would require only 15 megabits per second by 2023. Already, 67 per cent of Australians on the NBN are ordering speeds higher than this. The Labor plan was to use fibre, to do it once and to do it right. The sabotage that has taken place, when it comes to Australia's biggest infrastructure program, is almost criminal.
Instead of rolling out a project that was in the nation's interest we had an ideological obsession by the member for Warringah. This was a program that was going to boost productivity and education. This was a program that was going to boost things for farmers, for manufacturers and for so many people in Australia. For the member for Warringah to co-opt the member for Wentworth, who understood the benefits that would flow and who was happy to invest in French fibre while, simultaneously, sabotaging Australian—
Mr Tudge: French fibre?
Mr PERRETT: Yes, he invested in French telecommunications companies that were relying on fibre. He was happy to do that. He saw the benefits that would flow, there: 'Work, save, invest in the Caymans.' But when it came to Australia's national interest he was not prepared to let Australia get the right thing. For him to be co-opted into this ideological sleight that was visited on the former Prime Minister is reprehensible. That takes a special type of flexibility to be able to sign up for such a sabotage job.
The bill is too heavily reliant on the recommendations coming out of the Vertigan panel. As I said, this group of former Liberal Party staffers, Liberal Party advisers and people who were always critical of the NBN was appointed by the member for Wentworth so that they would tell him exactly what he wanted to hear. I note that the industry response to this piece of legislation before the parliament has been scathing. They have pointed to the risk of consumer detriment from the proposed measures, which are, basically, about rolling back a number of competition reforms and consumer-friendly reforms.
Why shouldn't the Australian people know what is happening to their NBN? It is the biggest infrastructure investment ever made by Australia, leaving aside some of the things invested in during World War II, in terms of the military response. The Australian people deserve for the government to make this information available. We need to know simple information like the total capex, the total opex, the total revenue and the amount of interest that nbn co will pay. What has this government got to hide? Is it their shame? Is it their embarrassment?
The National Party, particularly, should be speaking up on this topic, because the NBN will have incredible benefits for the bush. That is where the productivity gains will come—not only in education establishments in the bush but also on our farms. The government needs to reconsider this attempt to hide their horrible NBN infrastructure from the Australian people. I believe that we can do better.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Ethiopia: Oromo People
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (21:00): On this Saturday, 5 March 2016, the Oromia Media Network Pacific—the OMNP—in conjunction with the Australian Oromo Community Association in Victoria has organised a celebration of the OMNP's second anniversary, which is commencing at 2 pm at the Flemington Primary School.
The OMNP is a not-for-profit and nonpartisan news organisation whose purpose is to produce firsthand citizen-driven reporting on Oromia, the largest and most populous state in Ethiopia. The anniversary will be marked by the visit of Oromia Media Network Director, Mr Jawar Mohammad, and Professor Mohammad Hassan of Georgia State University in Atlanta. This anniversary will also highlight an issue that I have raised in this House before: the ongoing persecution of the Oromo people in Ethiopia.
The Oromos are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. The population constitutes over 40 per cent of the 100 million people who live there. The Oromo people are an ancient people, with a rich culture and heritage. They have also been oppressed by consecutive Ethiopian governments and regimes for the last century.
The Oromos are protesting against the Addis Ababa Integrated Development Master Plan. This master plan is designed to expand the Ethiopian capital city of Addis Ababa. This will result effectively in the displacement of two million Oromo farmers from their ancestral lands, without any compensation. At present, half a million Oromos have already been displaced—evicted.
Local Oromo activist Toltu Tufa has said, 'The master plan is designed to be put into effect over a span of 25 years, with a final phase occurring in 2038. When it's fully complete it will incorporate 36 towns and 17 rural districts of the Oromia region into the Greater Addis Ababa territory. This includes towns like Finfinnee, Sululta, Dukem, Chancho, Adama, Ambo, Sabata, Mojo and other towns. It will encompass a total area estimated to be 1.1 million hectares.'
In response to the protest by the Oromos the Ethiopian government announced it would deploy a full military force against all protestors, labelling these protestors as 'terrorists'. Oromos have been protesting around the world, including in Melbourne, since April 2014, when the integrated development plan was revealed to the public. In Ethiopia, university students staged protest rallies and, in response, the Ethiopian government forces brutally killed over 70 students, injured hundreds and incarcerated thousands. This caused a flare-up of protests across Oromia.
On 12 November 2015 there was a resurgence of these protests after an incident around the land of a small-town public school in Oromia, which was being sold. The government killed elementary school students in that town and that provoked further national resistance and a movement that has shaken the country.
In response to that particular atrocity and the ongoing persecution of the Oromo people, on 21 January 2016 the European Parliament issued an urgent motion condemning:
… the recent use of violence by the security forces and the increased number of cases of human rights violations in Ethiopia. It calls for a credible, transparent and independent investigation into the killings of at least 140 protesters and into other alleged human rights violations in connection with the protest movement after the May 2015 federal elections in the country
The motion also:
… calls on the Ethiopian authorities to stop suppressing the free flow of information, to guarantee the rights of local civil society and media and to facilitate access throughout Ethiopia for independent journalists and human rights monitors. The EU, as the single largest donor, should ensure that EU development assistance is not contributing to human rights violations in Ethiopia
In addition, many Oromos in Australian are also lobbying our federal government to provide a stronger and more considered response to the immediate and escalating crisis in Ethiopia in light of the ongoing persecution.
I wish to thank some very important people: Sinke Wesho, Biftu Gutama, Toltu Tufa and Abdeta Hanna from the South Eastern Region Oromo Community for their continual advocacy and work in organising politicians' awareness of the ongoing persecution of the Oromo community and for keeping us informed about what is happening in Ethiopia. There are terrible things that are happening in this place; I owe it to this parliament to bring it to our attention. I condemn the Ethiopian government for the protests of these people and urge that they cease this ongoing persecution.
Environment
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (21:05): Tonight I would like to talk about the subject of carbon pollution and the importance of us reducing our emissions of carbon pollution.
When I say 'carbon pollution' I am not talking about CO2. I am not talking about the bubbles that we have in our champagne, and I am not talking about when we have a glass of sparkling mineral water—that carbon pollution. The carbon pollution I am referring to is real carbon pollution—the dust and the dirt in our atmosphere that comes from diesel emissions, from wood fires and from our roads. That is the real carbon pollution I am talking about.
There was a paper released in November 2013, entitled Summary for policy makers of the health-risk assessments of air pollution in Australia. It was by Associate Professor Geoff Morgan, Dr Richard Broome and Professor Bin Jalaludin. They concluded that particulate matter air pollution—real carbon pollution—in our major cities is costing us health-wise. From their calculations, in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—just four cities—the deaths in those four Australian cities from real carbon pollution particulate matter is 1,590 a year. That is more than the road toll.
In addition to those deaths, there were 2,070 cardiovascular hospital admissions. There were approximately 120 additional emergency department attendances for childhood asthma, a further 530 pneumonia and acute bronchitis hospital admissions for all ages and 1,130 respiratory admissions of children aged between zero and 14 years. Those are the current effects of real carbon pollution particulate matter in just four cities in Australia today.
We are training our guns on the wrong target. The benefit that we are getting from the Paris climate talks and our reductions of emissions of carbon dioxide is that, even if every single nation abides by its promise, between 2016 and 2030, we will get a reduction in temperatures by the year 2100 of 0.05 of one degree Celsius. That is one-twentieth of one degree. That is what spending billions and trillions of dollars will get us.
What could we get if instead we said the real problem of carbon pollution is particulate matter and we reduced that? The calculations have been done by the three learned professors. If we were able to get from where we are now, at around eight micrograms per cubic metre, to just six micrograms per cubic metre, we would save 540 people in this country every single year. Those are 540 fewer deaths. There would be 940 additional reductions in the annual admissions of people with cardiovascular disease in hospitals. There would be an additional reduction of 735 hospital admissions for people with bronchitis and a further 994 fewer hospital emergencies relating to respiratory diseases for kids.
We are aiming our guns at the wrong target. Aiming our guns at CO2 rather than particulate matter is a policy that is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Australians every single year. There are hundreds, if not thousands more hospital admissions. We need to rethink what we are doing. If I had my pick, I would much rather have several hundred Australians alive and many fewer hospitals admissions than I would a reduction of global temperatures of 0.05 at the end of the century. We need to do a rethink. By training our guns at the wrong target, we are costing Australian lives today. (Time expired)
Education Funding
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (21:10): Twenty-four thousand Newcastle children are halfway through term 1 of their schooling year. For some students it is their first year. They are finding their way through the alphabet and learning a lot more about the world around them. Others are 12 years into their formal education and finalising preparations for their HSC and the next stage of their life. It is incontestable that every single one of these 24,000 students and the 3.7 million children across Australia deserve to have a great education. All members in this Parliament would agree. What is contested, however, is how this commitment to a great education should be funded, despite the Liberals going to the last election on a so-called unity ticket with Labor when it came to school funding.
I remember the big signs outside election booths in my electorate that said, 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' We doubted the Liberal commitment to education at the time—and as it turns out, rightly so. Instead of honouring their pledge, the Liberal government walked away from Gonski and cut an additional $30 billion of funding from our schools—cuts that the new Prime Minister has confirmed in recent months. Cutting $30 billion from schools is the same as cutting one in seven teachers in our classrooms or the equivalent of stripping, on average, $3.2 million out of every school. In my electorate alone, it would mean more than $195 million being stripped from local school budgets.
The importance of the Gonski reforms has been reinforced with me when I have visited school communities across my electorate over the last 2½ years.
When I visited Kotara High School and New Lambton South Public School during Gonski Week celebrations last year, teachers, parents, members of the P&C and the support staff told me about the difference Gonski was having in their respective schools. Smaller class sizes meant more time with each student, ensuring no-one was falling behind. Intensive literacy and numeracy programs have had enormous benefits for students, helping them learn fundamental skills that in turn set them up for life.
Earlier this month I visited the Carrington Public School and Tighes Hill Public School gates at drop-off time to update parents on Labor's renewed commitment to needs based school funding. The message back to me was consistent and clear. Mums, dads, grandparents, carers, principals and educators all told me the same: 'We love Gonski and we need Gonski at our school.' My school communities understand clearly that properly funding our education system is not an expense but rather an investment in Australia's future.
Needs based school funding is the right model, and every student in every school deserves the support they need to reach their full potential. That is why a Labor government will implement and fund the Gonski reforms in full and on time. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' policy will see an additional investment of $37.3 billion in our education system over the next decade, including $4.5 billion for years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms.
There will be more individual attention to students through tailored learning programs, greater subject choice, extension classes and extra-curricular activities to ensure that every child is engaged at school. Funding will be based on individual need, which will give greater power and flexibility to schools to tailor programs for their individual students. Labor will invest in training teachers, improving initial teacher education, offering more support in the classroom, lifting the qualifications of STEM teachers and better supporting school principals.
And Labor will deliver more support for students with special learning needs, providing $320 million over three years in additional funding, more than reversing the Turnbull Liberal government's cuts to students with disability. It is the right of every Australian to access a quality education regardless of background, circumstance or location. It is the cornerstone of our social and democratic traditions and the key to our economic success. That is why Labor wants to build on Gonski, not destroy it. Labor introduced the Gonski reforms and we are committed to a sector-blind needs-based school funding system. We will fight the Liberal government's cuts every step of the way, because every child in every school deserves— (Time expired)
Brisbane Broncos
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (21:15): I rise tonight to speak about an event I attended on Saturday night. It was the season launch for 2016 for the Brisbane Broncos, my home team. It was a wonderful occasion. There were some 750 people. I want to place on the record my congratulations to Corey Parker and the team. It was a wonderful event. I look forward to it every year. What is probably not known about the Brisbane Broncos is that, apart from them being the premier Queensland team, they do incredible work in Brisbane and throughout the wider state of Queensland.
I want to speak of one of the programs the club runs, called Beyond the Broncos, which is an initiative between the Brisbane Broncos and the Australian federal government. It aims to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander year-10 to year-12 students at participating schools with the support they need to receive an education and complete secondary studies. An integral part of this program is the Indigenous program support officers, Merle Cashman, Jharal Yow Yeh and Brett Grienke. These support officers are each situated in a school, and in most cases more than one school, which they will attend and work closely with each individual student on a personal level, forming a bond and relationship that will see each student overcome barriers to attending school and completing their studies.
This is not only an invaluable program for students who are involved; but it also plays a larger part in providing role models for thousands of children across Australia. Another important aspect of this program is the personal development workshops which are conducted by the clubs player welfare and Indigenous program coordinator Jason Fiddes. Each participating school receives four workshops, and current players of the Brisbane Broncos are also used in these sessions. They inspire the students and use their experiences and journeys as an encouragement to students. With the help of corporate partners, Broncos support officers and staff working with the program, the Brisbane Broncos do all they can to help the students stay in school and complete their secondary studies.
The Brisbane Broncos are also involved in the Deadly Choices initiative, which is run by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health in South East Queensland and funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health. I want to place on the record tonight my absolute appreciation of the incredible work that is being done by Adrian Carson. I particularly want to thank him for his role in being active in improving Indigenous health. Deadly Choices is a campaign which aims to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make healthy choices for themselves and their families; to stop smoking, to eat good food and to exercise daily. Deadly Choices also encourages Indigenous people to access their local health service and complete a health check; not just to see the doctor when they are sick but to visit their health service and access support to prevent or better manage their chronic disease and remain healthy.
Another program is the Brisbane Broncos Game Development Department, which provides grassroots rugby league support throughout Queensland and northern NSW. The department is the largest game development operation in the National Rugby League, with seven staff working in the department. The Brisbane Broncos Rugby League Football Club have been committed to supporting rugby league at a junior and schoolboy level since its inception, visiting approximately 50,000 children and working with over 1,000 coaches annually. Those numbers are absolutely amazing when you think about it.
In an effort to give back, the Brisbane Broncos Charities Group was established to assist Queensland charities whose values are aligned with those of the Brisbane Broncos. This program is an ongoing program that is in its 10th year. There are currently 12 charities supported through financial, merchandise and ticket donations, player appearances and the allocation of one home game each to promote their charity.
It is clubs like the Broncos that should be heralded for their work. Not only do they provide entertainment and a great source of pride for their fans; but their incredible work through charity and volunteering is even more admirable.
I want to pay tribute to the club's leadership team in CEO Paul White—who gave an inspiring speech the other night; I wish him well in his health recovery—and coach Wayne Bennett, who has incredible respect from the players as well as pride in the players, providing generous philanthropic support. (Time expired)
Tropical Cyclone Winston
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (21:20): My Fijian heritage is something I am very proud of. My mother was born in Fiji. One of my brothers and my sister was born there. My father lived there for many years and I still have many relatives there. I was there in 2014—along with the member for Kingsford Smith, who is here in the chamber tonight also—as part of the international observer delegation where democracy was brought back to Fiji. I took my husband and my daughter there for the first time last year.
It is, therefore, with great sadness—and I know the House will share in this sadness—that we witnessed recently Cyclone Winston, the most severe cyclone to ever make landfall in Fiji and, as I understand it, the worst storm to hit the Southern Hemisphere overall.
As far as we know, 42 people have been confirmed dead, a number which is unfortunately expected to rise. Homes, food and crops have been destroyed, and a state of emergency has been declared. In the aftermath of this terrible disaster, up to 80 per cent of the country is without access to power.
Australia has been very generous, as it should be, with the provision of $5 million of aid and supply, with relief being delivered through the Red Cross and UNICEF, as well as Australian NGOs, including CARE and Save the Children. I note that HMAS Canberra has been deployed. I would like to thank all of those who serve and are assisting. The scale of the homelessness, of the farmers who have lost their livestock and their livelihoods, of the schools that have been destroyed and of the trauma being experienced by the children of Fiji is absolutely heartbreaking.
I heard, only recently, of the level of practical assistance that Australia is providing. Tonnes of soap is being airlifted through an aid agency with the message that it is now at the stage where the threat of disease is probably the worst factor. Local community groups around Sydney and, I know, around many other parts of Australia are doing their bit with fundraising drives and raising awareness. In the long term, with tourism being such a major source of revenue for Fiji's economy, I know the Fiji people will want us all to go back. Australians have long enjoyed a relationship with Fiji. It is a country of such great potential. Australia's ongoing relationship with Fiji needs to continue past this phase. I know that Australia will continue to be generous. We need to ensure that their institutions of government and civil society are made strong and that we do not forget, immediately, in the aftermath.
As I have noted in media reports, aid has begun trickling in. There are some 35,000 people still sheltering in evacuation centres. That is 35,000 out of a population of around 900,000—so you get some idea of the scale. International aid agencies said supplies were being delivered but the scale of the damage to infrastructure, particularly jetties and communications equipment is making it so difficult, particularly in reaching those most remote islands and communities. It is. Save the Children Fiji's chief executive reported that it is particularly important that children receive immediate care and support. One of the reports noted that, 'Koro Island, which lies in the Koro Sea between Fiji's two largest islands, was one of the worst hit' and that food and food security is at around five to 10 per cent in some of those main centres.
I also note that in providing Australia's assistance in many different ways, one of the best forms of assistance we can give is our access to knowledge and our human capital. Today, on the ground in Fiji, it is quite clear that there is a lack of labour or resources to appropriately deal with the aftermath. With hundreds of thousands of families without power, and electricity being the foundation for providing ongoing relief and assistance, more needs to be done.
I have been contacted by Professionals Australia, who have noted that there is great concern in Australia and a great desire to assist all of their connections with the Fijian community. As I understand it, a formal offer has been extended to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide assistance in Fiji where possible. But it is also my understanding that in order to provide assistance a written request is required from the Fijian prime minister's office. I look forward to receiving a positive response from the Prime Minister of Fiji, the honourable Frank Bainimarama, to allow skilled Australian electrical workers to provide assistance in this time of such great need.
Solomon Electorate: Defence White Paper
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (21:25): I take this opportunity to add to previous comments I have made in this House about the defence white paper and the enormous impact it will have on my electorate of Solomon, which takes in the cities of Darwin and Palmerston and has in it a number of key military facilities, including Robertson Barracks. It is an extremely pragmatic document that outlines, in detail, Australia's military and strategic requirements and which recalibrates northern Australia as the epicentre of regional engagement into the future. Throughout its epic sweep, however, it keeps a close eye on ensuring the delivery of value for money for taxpayers, its industry policy statement providing a plan for procurement and delivery that will deliver benefits for the next two decades.
During the MPI last week I itemised some of the spending in the Northern Territory that will follow on the back of this white paper. I will not repeat all of those here, but I will summarise it like this: it is $20 billion over the next 20 years. $20 billion being spent in the Northern Territory is just a phenomenal amount, and we are absolutely delighted. This has been extremely well received by industry groups in the Northern Territory, which already have a stake in the Commonwealth's investment in defence in Darwin, Palmerston and right across the Top End. The Northern Territory Master Builders Association's chief executive, David Malone, had this to say:
As we all know, Defence has also been an integral component of the Territory's economy for a very long time, and these new commitments flag that it is only going to have an even larger impact.
He went on to say:
For the construction sector, the white paper paints a compelling picture, one that will bring a smile to many businesses and the 12,000-plus workers who rely on the industry for a living … The white paper speaks of multiple projects over multiple years, across almost all facets of construction.
By way of background, last year, the MBA conducted a study of operational capacity in the Northern Territory, prompted primarily by the imminent conclusion of the INPEX LNG plant construction project that identified, as the report's title suggests, there was 'Capacity to spare'. David Malone went on to say:
Our study first flagged many of these opportunities last year, but confirmation means we are now going to see those plans turn into real investment dollars.
David was here with a number of local businesses a couple of weeks ago, showcasing the Territory's capability in this sector. I was pleased to be able to meet with them and to push their case because no-one knows the Territory better than the locals.
The chamber of commerce's Greg Bicknell said an investment of $8.2 billion in infrastructure in the coming decade will be a significant boost to the construction industry in the Territory and that flow-on effects will be felt in the wider community. In addition, he identified that the US force posture initiatives will be worth an estimated $2 billion to $3 billion over the same period.
The white paper announcement will breathe new confidence into the Northern Territory's economy, which has its foundations on the strength of the thousands of small to medium business, the majority of which are in Darwin and Palmerston. Many of those small businesses are run by mums and dads, with close connections to their communities, who have invested their lives into the Territory and who I come across, time and again, in my duties around Solomon. Their kids go to schools in the Territory, they buy homes in the Territory and their families come up to visit during the dry season to get away from the cold winter weather. These are the cornerstones of the Territory economy and I am extremely proud that they will benefit from the Commonwealth's investment from the white paper. The white paper will have spin-offs for these businesses, whether it be the owner of the local lunch bar in Winnellie, the engineering firm at East Arm, the painter in Parap or the sheet-metal operation in Berrimah.
I will take this opportunity to remind the House that this commitment is in addition to the Commonwealth's promise to grow the Territory through its northern Australia investment strategy, which is also many billions of dollars. It will mean jobs and growth and people on the ground in the Northern Territory, and I will be working with the community, over coming months, to ensure they are aware of the coalition's commitment to the Territory. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21 : 30
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mrs Elliot to move:
That this House notes that:
(1) families in regional and rural Australia rely on penalty rates;
(2) the take home pay of families in regional and rural Australia would be severely impacted if penalty rates were cut;
(3) cutting penalty rates in regional and rural Australia would hurt workers such as nurses and health care workers, retail and hospitality workers, police, firefighters, ambulance officers, cleaners, services sector employees and tourism and transport industry employees;
(4) the Prime Minister and Government members have been placing enormous pressure on the Fair Work Commission to reduce penalty rates; and
(5) cutting penalty rates in regional and rural areas would also have a devastating flow on impact for regional economies.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Southcott ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Ovarian Cancer
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (10:30): As we are only too aware, the diagnosis of ovarian cancer is one of the crucial elements ensuring a woman's survival. In 2016, it is estimated that 1,480 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. This will represent 2.5 per cent of all new cancers in women diagnosed this year. It is also estimated that 1,040 women will die from ovarian cancer, which is just over five per cent of the total cancer deaths in women this year.
With ovarian cancer touching the lives of our families or someone we know, understanding the signs and symptoms is necessary, but it is difficult when sometimes the symptoms seem minor. And the women in our lives—the strong women; the fierce mothers, daughters, sisters and girlfriends—are sometimes so busy they do not find out until much later. This is why fundraising to help with public awareness campaigns and research into the causes and treatments of the disease are so important.
I have known women and family touched by ovarian cancer, and this is a cause that I am passionate about. On Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the Sunbury Afternoon Teal for Ovarian Cancer at Pitruzzello Estate. It was a great afternoon of food and drink, great local wines and fantastic entertainment. The Afternoon Teal was hosted by the local community fundraising group the Teal Magnolias, who had set themselves a fundraising target of $5,000. Through its raffles, auctions, ticketing and entertainment, the group smashed its fundraising goal for ovarian cancer and had raised nearly $7,000 as of Saturday night—and they are still counting.
The event is the result of the determination and perseverance of Melissa McDowell. Melissa organised the event through her family, friends and local community connections, and she was able to ensure that the Afternoon Teal was a success. Congratulations to you, Melissa, on not only reaching but smashing the fundraising goal for such a worthy cause. This is a classic example of one person's determination to make a difference.
Melissa thanked a lot of people on the day for their contributions, and I would like to thank them for their help in raising much-needed funds for research into the causes of and treatments for ovarian cancer. I would like to thank Meritor, who were the major sponsors of the event. The businesses and people who donated raffle prizes also deserve to be recognised as part of the key to the day's success, so I thank you for your contribution. I would like to thank local businesses like Country Style of Sunbury and Melton Guardian Pharmacy, as well as the individual people who, along with my office, sold raffle tickets in the community. I would like to thank the people who gave up their time and products on the day for various activities. I thank the MC, the entertainers, Patrick from Pass-the-Parcel, Joseph Chapman, Mykayla Wilde and the Divine Divas of Sunbury and the Sunbury Divas. The floral arrangements were also kindly donated by Maria from giftofflowers.com.au. Thank you to all the businesses who made sure that everyone's tummy was full, and thank you to everyone else who turned up throughout the day. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank all of the Teal Magnolias, including Melissa's broader family and her husband, Craig, for the work that they did in making sure that they benefited the community. They should be very proud of their success. (Time expired)
Forde Electorate
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (10:33): I think it is one of the privileges of being in this place that we get to stand here and share some of the stories of our electorates and some of the people who achieve significant milestones or achieve significant things in our community. It is in that vein that I would like to recognise this morning one of my residents, Minna Rossmann, who, last week, celebrated her 100th birthday. I am sure that many of us in this House have attended 100th birthday celebrations for our constituents. Minna celebrated her special milestone last week and, whilst I could not make the celebrations myself as I was here in Canberra, it was a pleasure to pass on my congratulations to her and her family.
Minna is a green thumb and a dedicated member of the Beenleigh Garden Club. She says her secret to a long and happy life is being a member of the garden club and being outdoors enjoying the fresh air.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who attended the Beenleigh PCYC's annual golf-day fundraiser on Friday. The proceeds from the 2015 golf day will be used to assist the branch in delivering the Two Tribes youth program, which is designed to assist refugee and asylum seeker kids and other foreign nationals transition to the Australian culture. Two Tribes has been a huge success. The generosity of those who took part in the golf day last year delivered two very successful programs that benefited 18 young people in our community. The proceeds from the 2016 charity golf day will also assist funding the 'Possibility' program, facilitated by Peter Speaight. The program has won several local government awards and has changed the lives of many disabled people within our community. It is an incredible community program that has changed so many lives for the better. It was a pleasure to be able to take part in the Beenleigh PCYC golf day on Friday and help fund both of these remarkable programs. I would like to thank all the sponsors and other participants, because, without their support and involvement, it would not have been the success that it was.
Finally, I would like to congratulate all involved with the Australian Budgerigar Society on their fabulous annual show on Sunday. The fantastic event was hosted, once again, at the Eagleby Community Hall. Well done to President Wayne Robinson, the organisers, the volunteers and all the award winners, and also to all the sponsors who were there to support the club again this year. It is a fantastic local community event and it was a great pleasure to be part of it. As the club continues to grow and succeed, it is another great local community group in our electorate.
Broadband
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:36): I rise today to further highlight some of the issues being experienced by my electorate following the commencement of the National Broadband Network rollout. Malcolm Turnbull calls this second-rate NBN the MTM, the multi-technology mix. A better name, however, is 'Malcolm Turnbull's Mess'. The rollout is in a perilous state, with many issues needing the government's urgent attention. When the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected in 2013, the entire Newcastle electorate was on the rollout map for Labor's super-fast, reliable, fibre-to-the-premises NBN rollout. Not long after, we were wiped off the map entirely before being re-added, suburb by suburb, mostly to the flawed fibre-to-the-node network. Whilst recognising that fibre to the home was the best technology and should be rolled out across the country, as Labor had planned, many pragmatic Novocastrians had at least thought that being on the rollout map to receive some sort of NBN would be a good thing. Speeds would not be the fastest available, but fibre to the node promised to be about three times as fast as their existing ADSL service when first connected.
Unfortunately, these pragmatic Novocastrians have been majorly let down by the Turnbull government's fibre-to-the-node rollout. Here is a typical example of what my constituents are experiencing. Simon from Merewether hooked up to the NBN just a few weeks ago, in early February. He used to get an average of about eight megabytes per second download speed on his old ADSL broadband service. The NBN was made available to his residence and he signed up to the fastest speed available as soon as he could, a 100-megabyte-per-second plan. What speed is he actually getting now on his NBN? When he is home from work and able to use the internet, after 4 pm, he now gets 1.5 to three megabytes per second, less than half the speed he used to get under his old ADSL. Then there are those who have chosen not to hook up to the NBN at all, having been put off by the shocking media reports of disconnections and slow speeds. The trouble for them is that they are getting disconnected from their service willy-nilly anyway. My office is receiving complaints every day from aggrieved residents, many elderly and heavily reliant on their home phones for emergency purposes, whose phone lines and broadband connections are being disconnected with no warning or notice. Many have been left without a service for up to three weeks. So not only is the NBN itself a massive failure; those trying to live their lives separate from Malcolm Turnbull's mess are nonetheless being taken out as collateral damage.
Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate NBN is an absolute mess. First Malcolm Turnbull doubled the cost from $29.5 billion to $56 billion; then he pushed the time frames to get the NBN to all Australians out. In media reports this morning, a leaked report shows that construction is well behind schedule and costs are spiralling upwards. It is not good enough and blame lays squarely at the feet of Malcolm Turnbull. (Time expired)
Trade with Indonesia
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:39): Today I want to talk about the ban in Indonesia on our mandarin citrus trade. The citrus industry is an important part of the Australian export economy and a huge driver of wealth and employment in my electorate of Flynn. The Australian citrus industry is the largest fresh fruit exporter in Australia, worth in excess of $200 million annually. Australia exported $15.5 million worth of citrus to Indonesia in 2014. Flynn is home to the largest section of the national citrus production—including the largest mandarin growers in the southern hemisphere, 2PH farms in Emerald, run by Craig and Bindi Pressler. Many growers in Flynn grow navel oranges and mandarins particularly for the Indonesian market. These producers are vital to their local economies, providing employment opportunities for both permanent and seasonal workers.
The Indonesian government has made trade decisions that impact quite severely on many of our citrus growers. Indonesian trade minister Thomas Lembong has placed a ban on the importation of Australian mandarins for a period from April until September 2016, rendering the Australian harvest irrelevant for this year. The Australian mandarin season lasts from April until August. Ironbark Citrus, near Mundubbera, operated by Allen and Susan Jenkin, produce high-quality mandarins, especially for the top-end Indonesian market. These changes threaten to decimate their business, a strong employer in the region. It is claimed by Mr Lembong that the move is to strengthen the domestic citrus industry—and you cannot blame him for that. While it is understandable for any country to want to promote their own industries, it is a shame to see a close neighbour and trade partner offer such protectionist and closed-market alternatives.
We have seen this approach before from Indonesia in the cattle industry, when the government tried to promote their own beef by cutting back the quota of live imports to Indonesia. This backfired on the Indonesian government when the people of Indonesia saw the cost of their beef products go through the roof. The government had to reverse that decision and then restart the importation of live cattle from northern Australia. You cannot stop and go on these matters; it takes a long time to grow a citrus tree suitable for a certain market—and it is the same with beef cattle at the weights.
This situation shows just how fickle the world of international trade can be and how our farmers bear the brunt. We hope that Austrade in Australia is able to negotiate a solution before 2016— (Time expired)
Corio Electorate: Geelong
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:42): Geelong has a rich and proud history—from its beginnings as a port servicing the gold rush, to the centre of a wool industry at the time when Australia rode on the back of the sheep, to more recent times with our role in manufacturing. Geelong's story tells a really significant part of Australia's story, and there are some buildings associated with that history which are very much still a part of Geelong—some of which are very much celebrated. The best example of that is the wool stores on the waterfront, which now house the headquarters of the main campus of Deakin University.
But, by and large, we do not celebrate our heritage in Geelong as well as other places do. Certainly we do not do it like Ballarat and Bendigo, for whom their heritage is an enormous source of tourist attraction and a big part of their economy. If we did it, we could do it so much better.
A perfect example of this is the question of refrigeration. James Harrison, who was the first editor of the Geelong Advertiser, is also the father of modern refrigeration. His spark of genius occurred when he realised that the cleaning agent he used on the type set for his newspaper left the type cold when it evaporated. That was the observation about the heat exchange associated with evaporation which gave rise to modern refrigeration. That spark of genius—which has changed so much in the world—occurred in Geelong. A little bit of snooping on the Geelong Advertiser website, and an inquiry to the Geelong Heritage Centre, yields the likely site of that being on the corner of Clare and Malop Street, where the Whyte, Just & Moore law firm now resides. Yet there is nothing around that indicating that such a significant moment in global manufacturing history, let alone our own, occurred at that place.
I believe that there should be a system of plaques which celebrate this history. In that regard I am reminded of the blue plaque system in London. This is the oldest heritage model of its kind in the world which celebrates London's past, its people, its architecture and its achievements, bringing it all together to be discovered in the present. This is done through the construction of plaques which are erected at the relevant location to commemorate events which occurred there. The English Heritage blue plaques commemorate and assist tourists and residents to identify and commemorate over 900 landmarks, such as historical events, significant buildings and locations where famous people lived. In Geelong, a similar system would be welcome to shed light on our incredible history. I call on the City of Greater Geelong to instigate such a model with a view to implementing our own system of heritage plaques.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Patawalonga Catchment
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (10:45): As a member of parliament, local issues are continually brought to my attention—some large, some small and some are rather concerning. I have been approached by a number of residents from Netley in my electorate of Hindmarsh who are fed up with the state of a nearby sediment basin located in the Patawalonga catchment on Brown Hill Creek adjacent to Watson Avenue, Netley. The sediment basin is causing real headaches for those living close by. Following heavy rainfall, large volumes of urban stormwater is captured in the basin, along with rubbish, pollutants and vegetation. The major concern is that, if the basin is not treated properly, large volumes of stagnant stormwater remain in the basin, together with the pollutants, which become rotten, causing odour issues. This greatly impacts residents in nearby houses, especially in the evening when they are trying to sleep.
I recently visited the site with Bob Owen, President of the Netley Residents Association, who sought my assistance as he was having little luck with the local state environment body, SA Water, council or the state government, which is ultimately responsible for the management of the basin. Bob is a terrific local resident who dedicates a lot of his time to a number of local community organisations, such as the Glenelg Brass Band, the Netley Residents Association and the Glenelg North Community Centre, as well as Neighbourhood Watch in Netley. He is also a true champion of our community. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise his commitment to helping his local area in so many ways. During my visit, it became very clear that the basin was simply not working as it was designed to and more work needs to be done. I also spoke with Mr Robin Burgess, whose property is directly opposite the basin. He is extremely unhappy about the smell. In addition to this, residents are concerned that the stagnant water can become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and, further, have concerns about their health as a result of the odour.
In a recent Messenger article, neighbour David Nussio raised concerns about his health. He said:
Just living here is unhealthy. There is an infestation of mosquitoes and the smell is that bad that you feel nauseous.
I understand Mr Nussio's concerns as the day I visited the strong odour definitely made you nauseous. Residents realise the benefits of the basin and its ability to capture pollutants. However, they are concerned that it is not being managed correctly and improvements need to be made. I believe strong action must be taken by the South Australian government and have written to the South Australian minister for the environment to make this issue one of his top priorities.
I would also like to quickly raise another issue I have been working on to achieve a better outcome for the people in Netley. Vegetation and grasses at the Watson Avenue and Beare Avenue Reserve have become overgrown, becoming attractive habitation for snakes and other pests. There is a playground nearby, which makes it very dangerous for young children and their families. Mr Peter Kinnane, a local resident in the area, contacted me to see if the reserve could be attended to and, following consultation and communications with SA Water, Adelaide Airport and the City of West Torrens, new fencing and ongoing management has been agreed. So I thank Peter and all the other stakeholders on this positive outcome.
Shortland Electorate
Ovarian Cancer
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:48): I, like yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Southcott, will not be contesting the next election. I made that announcement yesterday. What I would like to put on record here in the House is my thanks to the people of the Shortland electorate for giving me the privilege of being able to represent them in this parliament. I know that, like yourself, being elected as a member of parliament is one of the greatest honours that can be bestowed upon a person. I was only the 949th person to be elected to this parliament. That shows how few people are actually given the privilege to represent their communities. The people of Shortland are phenomenal. They are the reason that I have been involved in politics for a very long time. I have tried to make their lives better and deliver to the communities that I represent. I thought it was appropriate that I formally thank them today in this parliament because they have been such a motivating force. I think that, together, we have done lots of good things. We have built a strong community and will continue to do so right up until the election is called.
There are a couple of projects that I have been working hard on with people. One is the National Broadband Network, and the problems with the NBN, in the Shortland electorate. Hopefully, we can resolve those problems before the next election. But there is one way that people can bring about a resolution to that problem, and that is to vote for the Shorten Labor government at the next election. There is also the issue surrounding the Belmont Medicare office. The Howard government closed it, Labor opened it and now this government is seeking to close it again. I had overwhelming support from people this weekend when I was in the shopping centre outside the Medicare office. People were lining up to sign the petition. The closure is a very bad decision.
There is another issue I want to mention. We all know this is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. I was very disturbed and very upset this morning when I found out that Jill Emberson, who is the morning presenter on 1233 ABC Newcastle, has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It really brings home how common ovarian cancer is. The symptoms are very vague; the outcomes are very poor. I wish Jill all the best in her journey and in the battle that she will have with ovarian cancer.
Robertson Electorate: Police
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:51): I rise to support the outstanding work of the local police in my electorate, who serve and protect our community tirelessly and so well. It was only recently in this House that I was pleased to congratulate the many police officers who were honoured at the Brisbane Water Local Area Command medals and award ceremony held at the Laycock Street Theatre. These included Superintendent Daniel Sullivan, a fearless and committed leader who is dedicated to ensuring that the Central Coast is a safe place to live and work. Today I would like to again affirm these statements and thank every officer who serves our community so well on the Central Coast. I would like to give some examples. On the peninsula, Sergeant Bruce Coates is the most experienced officer on the coast, with 35 years on the beat. His colleagues include Sergeant Jessica Bradbury, a domestic violence leader who was recently recognised with an award for empowerment by the Central Coast women's business community. I am also advised that the latest figures from New South Wales police demonstrate that our local crime rates have dropped and prosecution success rates have increased. I thank our local command for their diligent efforts in keeping our streets safe.
However, not everyone seems to agree. Last week, an appalling statement was made by the Labor member for Gosford in the New South Wales parliament. In a private member's statement about the Woy Woy Peninsula, the member for Gosford made wild claims such as:
Time after time, police do not respond to reports of crime.
The statement claimed that residents are stressed and being forced to move suburbs because of a lack of police action. Officers are described as being rude and reluctant to do their job. I could go on, but I refuse to give this speech any more credibility by repeating any more of its outlandish statements. What is worse is that the same Labor member who criticises our police on the floor of parliament appears quite happy to promote herself alongside the president of the local chapter of the Mongols outlaw motorcycle gang in the latest edition of her taxpayer funded newsletter. This is a gang well known to police for its worldwide commitment to illegal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, assault and murder.
I must make it clear that there is no suggestion that the member for Gosford or anyone else pictured in this newsletter has any involvement in this notorious gang, but it does raise some serious questions—for instance, why is the member for Gosford promoting a member of an outlaw gang using parliamentary entitlements? I note that the Labor candidate for Robertson, Anne Charlton, and Labor senator Deborah O'Neill also both appear on the front page of this newsletter. What does this say about the Labor Party and its commitment to standing up for law and order on the Central Coast? I am really pleased that the state member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, has joined me in condemning the statement made in the New South Wales parliament, which is an outrageous slur on our incredible, local, hardworking police force. Today I call on the member for Gosford to withdraw her statement, and I also call on the Labor senator Deb O'Neill and Labor candidate for Robertson, Anne Charlton, to join me in condemning this statement, which is an appalling reflection on those who serve our community.
Bendigo Electorate: Macedon Ranges Sustainable Living Festival
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:55): On the weekend was the annual Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group's Sustainable Living Festival, held in Woodend. This year was a particularly special year, because it was also the launch of their new solar park, which they hope will be accompanied by a wind park in future years. The solar park turns an old timber mill—hence the name Woodend—into a community solar park. It is a community enterprise and has been made possible through a grant from the Victorian state government—$100,000 went to the local group to put the 30-kilowatt system onto the roof as well as to develop the technology that goes with the solar system.
What makes this project so unique is the fact that there needed to be changes to rules and regulations around solar and solar enterprises. The businesses that now occupy the mill site will technically become consumers—therefore customers—of the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group owned solar on the roof of the mill. It is not something that you could do in Victoria until this project came about. Through hard work between the local organisation and the state government, it is now possible. It is possible for community groups and organisations, like the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group, to install solar on their buildings and then sell that energy to their tenants through a commercial arrangement. That commercial arrangement will then generate extra income for the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group and the solar enterprise.
It makes sense that we are supporting more and more community groups—more and more communities—tap into solar. Woodend and the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group have a bold plan. They want to make the Macedon Ranges 100 per cent renewable using renewable energy, and it is possible. They have a plan and are working with local and state government to deliver that plan. Just like Newstead up the road, they are on the path to being 100 per cent sustainable.
That is the kind of innovation that we have in central Victoria. It is so disappointing that this government is falling behind and not supporting communities like Woodend, like Newstead—communities in Mount Alexander and the Macedon Ranges—to connect to solar. As is demonstrated by what happened on the weekend, it is more than just support through community grants that these communities need; there are also a lot of regulation and a lot of changes to adapt. If we are genuine about moving to a power-sharing grid, then we need to make these changes. Congratulations to the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group not just on a great festival but on this Australia-first community solar park.
Durack Electorate: Defence White Paper
Ms PRICE (Durack) (10:58): I am very pleased today to speak about the Turnbull government's defence white paper released last week. With a record year for jobs last year and the unveiling of the northern Australia white paper, the agricultural competitiveness white paper and the defence white paper, this is just another feather in the cap of this government, which is developing long-term planning for Australians' future. Led by the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne—and I would like to acknowledge that she is doing a terrific job in this very demanding role—the defence white paper is a blueprint to maintain Australia's great way of life.
The white paper is a comprehensive, responsible, long-term vision for Australia's defence. This government is ensuring that we have the armed forces we need to protect Australia and to secure our regional interests in the coming decades and beyond. The plans in the document have been cost assured and externally validated. The government will increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP within a decade to keep Australia safe and secure—very responsible. This government investment in the ADF will be profound, with a continuous naval shipbuilding program commencing with nine Future Frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels.
In my electorate of Durack, record funding will be provided with the Royal Australian Air Force's Curtin air base in Derby and Learmonth air base in Exmouth to be upgraded, allowing these facilities to host the new F35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft. These upgrades will require investments of around $190 million for RAAF Curtin by 2025 and around the same amount for RAAF Learmonth in the same time frame. The Harold E Holt communication facility in Exmouth will also be upgraded to support enhanced space, situational awareness and communication capability, as will the Yampi Sound Training Area to the tune of $60 million, with a further $20 million refurbishment between 2025 and 2035.
This is fantastic news for the communities of Derby and Exmouth, and the councils are understandably very pleased with the government's announcement of these investments. I would like to acknowledge the Shire of Derby President, Elsia Archer, the CEO, Stephen Gash, and also the Shire of Exmouth President, Turk Shales, and its CEO, Bill Price, all of whom are working very hard in their respective regions.
I will close by noting that Labor increased overall spending by over 50 per cent, to the tune of $147 billion, while last in office and left this government with a debt of around $310 billion, yet defence spending regrettably dropped to its lowest level since 1938. Thankfully, we are now on track. I commend the Turnbull government's defence white paper to the House.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Asbestos
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (the agency) revealed in recent reports that more than 64 building sites across Australia contain illegal asbestos;
(b) it is unclear how many building sites have asbestos that has not been detected; and
(c) the agency advised the Senate Economics References Committee, for its inquiry into non conforming building products, that building products containing asbestos are being imported to Australia, contrary to Australian law;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos related death and injury in the world; we know that 33,000 people have already lost their lives to asbestos; and
(b) around 700 Australians die each year from asbestos related diseases, and without proper management experts worry that tens of thousands of Australians could be diagnosed with asbestos related diseases in coming decades;
(3) condemns the Government's inaction and silence on the dangers of asbestos, despite warnings provided to the Senate Economics References Committee; and
(4) calls on the Government to give greater importance to stopping asbestos importers at the border and immediately increase the penalties for illegal asbestos contamination on Australian building sites.
Ms CHESTERS: The motion speaks very clearly for itself. It is basically calling on this government to do more to stop asbestos importers. Asbestos in this country has been banned. The importation of asbestos has been banned. Yet we are now seeing in our papers, in our local media and in reports from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency more and more reports that there is cheap Chinese imported asbestos in building products finding their way onto Australian building sites.
It is a pretty straightforward motion. It calls on the government to give greater importance to stopping asbestos importers and to immediately increase penalties for illegal asbestos contamination on Australian building sites, and it calls for greater resourcing. Yet nobody on the government side is speaking to this issue. Perhaps they do not care what is going on in Australian building workplaces. Perhaps they want to deny the fact that this issue is occurring. But these are the facts as they have been reported by the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. It was reported as recently as February this year, after an audit they did, that more than 50 building sites across the nation are suspected of having illegal asbestos contamination from China. This is not a union scare campaign; this is what the agency is saying. The agency's CEO has said that he is aware of 64 sites where asbestos-tainted concrete fibre sheeting is being used in construction. This is a case where in Australian workplaces and on Australian construction sites the contractors are going for cheap, imported products. State workplace safety authorities are monitoring 17 sites in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. It is an issue that is not specific to one state but across all states.
The problem is that the product coming in has been certified as asbestos-free but is not. This demonstrates that there is a lack of resources within Customs—now Australian Border Force—to properly policy this product coming in. The government has failed to resource properly in this space. This deadly substance is being shipped into this country illegally from places like China and it has been certified asbestos-free. It is a popular building product, and it is up to the government to stop this product coming in. Further, it is up to the government to make sure there are tough penalties in place for companies who import and use this product illegally.
As one advocate said, he is worried that this new wave of asbestos is going to create a new generation of victims, warning that Australia could end up as the waste dump for dodgy product from around the world. He acknowledges that Customs does not have enough resources or manpower to inspect everything coming in. Therefore, it lies with this government to do more. This government needs to do more to stop illegal dumping of dodgy product here in this country. We want to see a government that is proactive about antidumping—that is, by ensuring that any product coming from overseas is safe and can be used in Australian construction sites for building purposes. It is not just about today's construction workers and the fact that they have been exposed to asbestos and dodgy product. It is also about the tenants and future owners of these buildings and constructions, and what it could mean for them in the future.
Asbestos, sadly, is still an ongoing problem in this country. Yet, from this government we have continued silence. I stand here today to condemn the government's inaction and silence on dangerous asbestos despite the warnings that have been provided not just by the agency but by the Senate committee. I call upon the government to give greater importance to stopping asbestos importers in this country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Sukkar ) (11:06): I thank the member. Is there a seconder for the motion? I call the member for Werriwa.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:06): It is timely that the member for Bendigo brings this forward. We are hours from a Four Corners expose of the studied disregard by Rio Tinto of the lives, the health, the environment, the living standards of Brazilian villagers affected by one of their mining enterprises. Quite frankly, this industry has been characterised by a ruthless pursuit of profit at the total disregard for the workers. In 1929, of course, as Lang Hancock started to utilise the Wittenoom deposits, he famously said of the people who died that, 'You have to break a few eggs to make omelettes.' That is a kind of attitude that has characterised employers in this field. It is in an industry where, at one site in 1989, 500 people were assessed as dying from asbestosis. It was thought to have reached 2,000. It was the same industry where, in 2012, the High Court in this country found seven directors of James Hardie group had breached their duties by approving misleading statements released to the stock exchange. They were essentially about compensation.
On the national front, it is worth noting that different medical models point to peak deaths from mesothelioma between 2014 and 2021. It is happening now. The number of mesothelioma cases in the country is expected to reach 18,000, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I join with the member for Bendigo in expressing concern that this national health crisis was precipitated by employers who knew the whole time that they were killing workers, they were destroying them and their families' livelihoods and they were making sure that people would disappear from those families. It is, indeed, appalling that the government cannot even produce a few speakers to defend their total inaction in allowing the continued importation of this product into Australia. It is all right to talk about free trade agreements and how they are facilitating Chinese enterprise. However, to actually allow a number of producers to bring this product in at the grave danger not only to the workers but to consumers, innocent bystanders and neighbours is appalling. One must question the degree of disinterest by government members in such a serious problem.
It is timely, also, on the local front. I live in the Parramatta municipality. Within a kilometre of my home we recently had a situation where a white tip truck dumped a load on Boundary Road, Chester Hill, sometime between 2 am and 3 am last Thursday. One must say that, at two to three o'clock in the morning, this was deliberate, this was an attempt to avoid vigilance by the general public. It left a trail of building waste containing asbestos material approximately 50 metres long and three metres wide along Boundary Road. I join with the mayor of Parramatta in saying:
I want to be able to parade this person in court. I think the industry just has cowboys and they've got to be controlled.
When this person is found, I certainly hope that he is on the front page of the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald, and gets a lot of TV notoriety.
Further to this matter, the Senior Manager, Waste Compliance at the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority, Christopher McElwain, said: 'Big companies should be careful in selecting contractors to dispose of hazardous waste. They should only pay the contractors when the waste has been shown to be legally owned.'
It is not just the Parramatta municipality that has been characterised by heavy dumping in previous decades because of the close proximity, at Camellia, of the Wunderlich and James Hardie plants. We know that over many decades they hid this product throughout the municipality of Parramatta—and I put on record at this stage Matt Peacock's groundbreaking 2009 publication Killer company: James Hardie exposed, which partly went into those matters—but it is not only in Parramatta. In Liverpool, suspended Liberal Party councillor Peter Ristevski quite correctly is launching a campaign against the Liberal mayor, Nick Mannoun, and the chief executive officer, Carl Wulff, for their negligence in this matter. The Asbestos Diseases Foundation noted of Mr Mannoun and Liverpool council that they were 'in denial' and said, 'Council is treating this'—that is, the way in which they have allowed dumping, from municipal dumps into the wider society at other sites—'in a laissez-faire manner … they don't see it as a hazard.' The rest of society, I am afraid, understands that it is a hazard.
It is deplorable that near a Serbian social club and at other sites throughout the municipality council employees have been asked to dump these materials. The council, in turn, has not been forward in making sure, on behalf of these people, that a health test is undertaken. The resolution is necessary, it is overdue, and this is a serious national problem. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (11:11): Here we have a very important motion on asbestos, an incredibly dangerous and toxic material that has left thousands of people mortally injured and killed thousands—700 Australians are affected every year by asbestos and mesothelioma—and there is not one government member speaking on this motion. It is simply incredible that, with this massive threat, there is not a single government member to speak on this motion. The member for Bendigo should be congratulated for bringing it to the parliament, but you would think that this government could put up at least one speaker on this important subject.
Every year in my electorate of Wakefield the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia holds a memorial service. It is a touching service. We nearly always have bipartisan representation there, which is why today's no-show by the government is so depressing. We have seen in South Australia the incredible and terrible legacy of asbestos, and I pay tribute to Terry Miller OAM, who runs the Asbestos Victims Association and was on 7.30 on 14 February this year telling his story and reminding everybody about the dangers of this terrible product.
It is amazingly negligent of this government that we have example after example of asbestos being brought into this country. ABC News of 15 February 2016 had the headline 'Dozens of Australian building sites contaminated by illegal Chinese asbestos imports, authorities say'. The story talked about 17 sites in New South Wales, 13 in Queensland, eight in Victoria and 11 in South Australia, including two electrical substations in my state of South Australia. It will be members of the union that I am a member of, the CEPU, who will have to deal with that. Peter Tighe from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency has talked about the perils of young tradespeople, who are led to believe that all of the material they are working with is asbestos-free, finding out that they have been exposed to this terrible, dangerous and deadly product.
Another headline, from 11 September 2015, is: 'Asbestos found in imported children's crayons marked with Dora the Explorer and Peppa Pig'. Bizarrely, this article on the News website says:
The ACCC does not believe that traces of asbestos in crayons presents a safety risk to consumers because the asbestos is fixed within the crayon wax, which removes the risk of inhalation or ingestion.
That is incredible—in children's crayons; in cement products; in the brakes of thousands of Toyota motor vehicles. We have the situation where counterfeit brake parts laced with asbestos have been fitted to a fleet of potentially 400,000 HiLuxes and 100,000 HiAce delivery vans. And what do we get from this government? First of all, we get no speakers in this debate. It is a bit hard to have a debate when the government does not show up. It is an incredible and absolutely shameful display. But when the opposition is out there calling for Border Force—this newly named organisation, which was roaming around the streets of Melbourne checking people's driver's licences last year—it is allowing these imports of asbestos into the country.
We need a tougher approach on this matter. We need a serious government with a serious attitude towards this deadly product. The government has got to do better than not showing up and not dealing with it. Thousands of tradespeople rely on Border Force and rely on this government to adequately monitor the products that are coming in. It does not matter whether it is asbestos laced cement or aluminium cladding, which is a fire risk, or electrical cord, which is dangerous, Border Force and this government have got to start showing up and doing something about what is a serious problem.
Debate adjourned.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (11:16): I move:
That this House notes that:
(1) May is Crohn's and Colitis month, designated to raise awareness of these life long gastrointestinal disorders that commonly present themselves in children, adolescents and adults;
(2) the conditions, collectively known as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), are an emerging global disease, with Australia having one of the highest rates of prevalence in the world;
(3) IBD is a chronic and largely hidden disease affecting approximately 1 in 250 people aged 5 to 49 years nationally;
(4) more than 75,000 Australians live with these conditions, with numbers expected to increase to more than 100,000 by 2022;
(5) IBD cannot be cured as yet, but it can be managed effectively, especially with the use of medications to control the abnormal inflammatory response; and
(6) the Government has acknowledged the need to improve the quality and consistency of IBD care in Australia and has announced an historic $500,000 matched funding agreement to kick start the Crohn's & Colitis Australia programme.
I am proud to bring this motion to the House, and I thank the member for Macarthur for seconding the motion. One of the biggest lessons you can learn in life is never to assume. While on the outside it may seem that a person is healthy, this can be deceiving as to what is really going on with a personal situation. This is proven to be more than true in regard to those suffering from Crohn's disease. Many people would not be aware of, or understand, what Crohn's disease is. It is not spoken about much because, like many diseases affecting the intestines and bowels, it is seen as a 'toilet disease', but it is far more than a toilet disease.
With May being Crohn's and colitis month, this is an opportunity to raise awareness of these lifelong gastrointestinal disorders that commonly present themselves in children, adolescents and young adults. Crohn's disease and colitis are the major types of inflammatory bowel disease. The conditions of Crohn's and colitis are collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease, IBD. IBDs are long-term diseases that cause visible inflammation of the digestive tract, but each has its distinct pattern which can lead to different problems.
IBD is an emerging global disease, with Australia having one of the highest rates of prevalence in the world. IBD is a chronic and largely hidden disease affecting approximately one in 250 people aged from five to 49 years old nationally. This means a large part of our population are silently living with a chronic condition that is causing much internal suffering while on the outside they may appear normal. With more than 75,000 Australians living with IBD, numbers are expected to increase to more than 100,000 by 2022.
The main distinguishing features of Crohn's disease are the location and severity of the inflammation. The inflammation can involve any part of the digestive tract, though it most commonly affects the intestines. Unlike colitis, Crohn's disease affects all layers of the intestinal wall, not just the lining. The symptoms are largely unpredictable, with a significant variation in the pattern of symptoms experienced by individual patients. Generally, the symptoms of Crohn's and colitis are similar, including stomach pains, diarrhoea, sudden urgency to go to the toilet, tiredness, weight loss and loss of appetite. Some individuals experience fever, mouth ulcers, nausea, vomiting and swelling around the rectum, and other parts of the body may become affected too, causing rashes, joint pain and inflammation.
Inflammation is a normal part of the body's self-defence system. With Crohn's disease, it is believed that the immune system of certain individuals overreacts to environmental factors, attacking healthy tissue and causing inflammation and ulceration. There is no way of telling who will be affected, but those with a family history are more likely to develop Crohn's, and it is usually identified in younger people. The relapsing and chronic nature of the disorder has broader impacts on a person's emotional, physical and social wellbeing. While there is no cure for Crohn's disease, the disease can be managed through the use of medications to control the abnormal inflammation, which allows the intestinal tissue to heal and relieves the symptoms.
The particular plight of those suffering from Crohn's disease was brought to my attention recently when I was contacted by Mr Dieter Wolf, who spoke about the suffering of his daughter Amanda. Amanda has been dealing with Crohn's for most of her life. Amanda has endured so much pain since she was diagnosed over 22 years ago and has experienced several life-threatening attacks—the most recent being last June, when Amanda spent four weeks in an induced coma. Her plight is even more heartbreaking because Amanda is a mum, and her children have had to watch her battle this crippling disease.
Through Crohn’s and Colitis Australia, Amanda and Dieter have signed up for the Great Wall of China Challenge 2016, which will be held in October 2016. The 11-day trek will be CCA's biggest fundraiser, and its goal is to raise $50,000. Every dollar raised by participants will go to continue the work of the CCA in providing research grants, raising awareness and providing support programs. I wish Amanda and Dieter all the best with this amazing fundraising effort, and I commend Amanda for her tenacity in making a difference and creating awareness by her fundraising efforts to find a cure for this insidious disease.
Last December, the government announced an historic $500,000 matched-funding agreement to kick-start the CCA program. I do hope that those suffering will have some answers on how to deal with their disease and that one day it will be cured. I commend this motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Sukkar ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Matheson: I second the motion.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:22): I want to speak about Crohn's disease and put my support for this motion on the record. I thank the member for Dobell for bringing it before the House.
I emphasise that May is Crohn's and Colitis month and we, as a parliament, will need to raise and discuss this issue in May. Crohn's and colitis—or IBD and gastrointestinal diseases—cause a lot of pain and have enormous impact on people's lives. The member for Dobell went through a lot of the symptoms, treatments and impacts of Crohn's and colitis, but I think it is very important to recognise that this is a disease that impacts on a person's life every day.
In a previous life, I worked as a rehabilitation counsellor and had some clients who suffered from Crohn's disease. Not only did it impact on their general health and wellbeing but it also impacted on their ability to find and maintain suitable employment, because it is quite a debilitating disease. As the member for Dobell rightly pointed out, there is no cure for it. It can be controlled, but, even when it is being controlled, there are acute periods. It does not disappear; it is just managed. People with living with Crohn's and colitis take medication, modify their diet and look at the whole of their life to be able to live an effective life.
I would like to see more money put into research in relation to Crohn's. It is quite common and it has such an impact on a person's life. When you have inflammation of the bowel—actually, it is the intestinal system; it can be anywhere from the mouth to the anus—where it is in the digestive system can determine the impact and the severity of Crohn's disease.
People are usually diagnosed when they are under 30, and that correlates with a young woman I know. She went to school with my daughter. When she left school, she immediately travelled overseas and took a gap year in the UK. That gap year became two years. She worked there for a considerable amount of time, came back and then went back over to Ireland. She became very, very ill. She could not eat anything; she lost a phenomenal amount of weight. It was very difficult to find out exactly what was wrong. She came home, was unemployed for quite a period of time and moved back home with her parents. Eventually, she was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. She is living a relatively normal life, but she is not the young, healthy person that she was prior to the diagnosis. She looks great. People would not know, by simply looking at her, that she has Crohn's disease. But, like all of the 75,000 Australians who are living with the condition, it does have an enormous impact on her and on her life.
I would like to see us embrace this disease and work harder not only to manage it but also to find a cure. I think the way that that will be brought about is if governments invest more in research so that we can really make an impact on the lives of people living with Crohn's disease.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (11:27): I would like to start by thanking my good friend the member for Dobell for moving this important motion on Crohn's disease and colitis, which are chronic gastrointestinal disorders collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease. As the member for Dobell noted, Australia has one of the highest incidence rates of IBD in the world, with more than 75,000 Australians living with these conditions, and this number is expected to increase by 25 per cent within the next eight years.
Added to the increasing prevalence of IBD, the medical community are reporting that conditions are becoming more severe and more complex and are being diagnosed in more and more very young patients. Last year, Rebekah Wilson from Kentlyn in my electorate of Macarthur bravely made the decision to talk to a local newspaper, the Macarthur Chronicle, about the devastating impacts of contracting Crohn's disease at 19 years of age and her subsequent struggle to understand and control her condition.
Crohn's disease can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract from the mouth to the anus but most commonly affects the small intestine and/or the colon. There are many areas of healthy intestine between areas of diseased intestine. Within a diseased section, Crohn's disease can affect all layers of the intestinal wall—that is, not just the lining. This can lead to the development of complications that are specific to this condition, such as intestinal obstruction or narrowing of the intestinal wall, abscesses and swollen lumps or thickened skin occurring just outside the anus, abnormal channels connecting different loops of the intestine to itself or other body organs, and malabsorption and malnutrition. It is suspected in people who have been experiencing symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhoea and weight loss that have lasted for weeks or months.
Because there is no single test that can establish the diagnosis of Crohn's disease with certainty, and because Crohn's disease often mimics other conditions, it takes time and several investigations to arrive at the correct diagnosis. Bek explained to my office last week that when she was first diagnosed there was virtually no information, and even her GP was not entirely sure how to appropriately advise and properly treat her.
Bek described what she says was a three-year battle to come to terms with her chronic illness and the dramatic lifestyle changes she was forced to make. When IBD is not effectively managed or in remission, inflammation in the colon, rectum and gastrointestinal tract can become so severe that sufferers need to be hospitalised and may require surgery. Bek said that on one occasion when her bowels were inflamed during a particularly nasty disease flare she was forced to spend eight nights in hospital, but ended up discharging herself because there had been no improvement to her symptoms.
One of the most challenging aspects of IBD is the conditions are largely unpredictable with significant variation in the degree and pattern of symptoms affecting each patient. Treatment for IBD is mostly trial and error, and for Bek this means that at times all she can do is curl up in a ball and pray that the pain will pass. Here is Bek describing it in her own words how it feels to have Crohn's disease:
Anything I ate I was in a huge amount of pain in my stomach to the point where I basically stopped eating. I didn't want to go to sleep because I thought my body was failing me and I wasn't going to wake up.
According to Bek, in the years immediately following her diagnosis, the relapsing and chronic nature of her disorder drove her to the point where she all but gave up hope.
More recently, however, she's been part of a trial for a drug called Vedolizumab, which is designed to reduce inflammation by inhibiting the adhesion of T-lymphocytes to gastrointestinal tissues. This treatment requires Bek to have an intravenous infusion in hospital, and the induction regimen is followed by infusions every eight weeks. Reassuringly, Bek said that after 14 weeks she is starting to see results, but she is also about to get married and is looking to have children in the not too distant future and is concerned about the potential side effects. It is absolutely heartbreaking to think that someone like Bek, who is in the prime of her life and has so much to look forward to, is forced to take such risks in her search for a remedy for this awful condition.
That is why I commend this motion and the government's recognition that we need to improve the quality and consistency of IBD care in Australia by providing $500,000 in matched funding to kick-start a national awareness campaign for Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Month in May. We can all play a part in raising awareness and helping to find a cure for sufferers of IBD. There is lots and lots of information available on the Crohn's and Colitis Australia website about how to help, such as hosting an event, getting involved in sponsored fitness challenges or simply making a donation to find a cure.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:32): I have spoken on previous occasions about Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel diseases. I thank the member for bringing this forward. These diseases are characterised by chronic and recurrent inflammation of the small and large intestine and, believe it or not, affect over 30,000 Australians. It is a very debilitating disease and it has significant impacts on sufferers, particularly young people and children. Sadly, there is no cure and the only way to ease the effects of the disease is to have ongoing medical intervention and treatment, which only targets the symptoms. That is why the issue of research into this is absolutely vital. The more we can raise awareness of Crohn's disease the better it is in terms of attracting the necessary dollars required to undertake research in this space.
The impact of the disease on young people's lives is, quite frankly, crippling. Children affected by the disease regularly have large periods of time off school. The discomfort of the disease that they suffer is largely in the form of lethargy due to the lack of iron. I know this because my grandson, whom I have spoken about in this place on many occasions, is not only on the autism spectrum but, 18 months to two years ago, he was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. The effects on young Nathaniel, in year 8, really impact on his daily life. During recess at school, for instance, he will regularly take himself to the sick bay and will go to sleep because he is just so tired. He finds it difficult to participate in many of the events at school, particularly physical activities. Also, he finds it particularly hard to explain to other students what it is he suffers, because this is not something that you can easily talk about.
Parents of children suffering from Crohn's disease, including my daughter Elizabeth in this case, also find it pretty stressful in their daily lives because they have to manage the disease and they are constantly anticipating the next flare-up. Often parents have to leave their jobs or exhaust all their leave entitlements to cope with the sporadic nature of the symptoms of this disease.
I would like to take a little time to acknowledge the extremely hard work by dedicated people working in this space of research, particularly Dr Vincent Ho, Director of the GI Motility Disorders Unit at Western Sydney University, and his colleagues. I also acknowledge the Crohn's awareness Australia team. The committee is: Josie Furfaro, Sam Romeo, Angelo Romeo, Melina Gerace and Cathy Gullo. They do a heck of a lot of work in increasing the awareness of this disease out there in the community, particularly as it does affect so many. Regrettably, most of the people affected are very much silent sufferers.
I also acknowledge the dedication and commitment to raising awareness of Crohn's disease, especially, of the research unit at Western Sydney University. I acknowledge particularly the dean of the university's medical school, Professor Annemarie Hennessy, who has certainly been a stalwart supporter of research in this space.
The Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, a not-for-profit organisation located in Liverpool in south-western Sydney, is a unique collaboration between Western Sydney University, UNSW Australia and the South Western Sydney Local Health District. It also conducts research in this space. The institute's clinical trials group, housed at the Liverpool Hospital, involves a wide range of professionals and medical researchers from other supporting hospitals in conducting research on diseases affecting the community.
Last October, the institute held the latest of its forums on ongoing clinical trials in Crohn's disease. The forum brought together medical practitioners, researchers, parents and sufferers, as well as pharmaceutical companies helping to accelerate the development of new medicines and clinical procedures, to assist sufferers of Crohn's disease.
I congratulate the mover of this motion, and I thank all those who work in this space, who do well to ensure that the calls for research and assistance of people suffering with rare diseases such as Crohn's disease do not go unanswered.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:37): I am pleased follow the member for Fowler in this discussion. As the motion quite rightly points out, and as other speakers have pointed out, there are some 75,000 people across Australia currently who suffer from Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease of some sort or another. More concerning is the fact that, by the year 2022, that figure is projected to rise to some 100,000. I also note that there have been a couple of reports as to the cost of this disease to society. A PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that productivity losses alone are worth $380 million, and there is an additional $2.7 billion of costs to Australian society that arise from inflammatory bowel disease. I also note that a few years ago—I think it was in 2005—there was an Access Economics report which also put the direct cost at something like $500 million, at a time when it was only an estimated 60,000 Australians who suffered from the illness, but it also put the total costs, in one form or another, as perhaps running into the billions of dollars for Australian society as a whole.
I refer to the issue of cost for this reason. It is important to understand that this illness is costing Australia a considerable amount of funds, and that is why, in turn, it is important to look at what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of it or to better manage it, and that in turn would suggest that we need to not only spend more money in the direct service of health support systems but also into research.
I am particularly concerned that many of the sufferers of IBD are young people. In fact, it is sometimes in their teenage years that people are diagnosed with this illness. That, in turn, inhibits their ability to get a proper education. When you have this kind of illness, the chances are that either you absent yourself from school on many occasions because you feel embarrassed to go to school, it being one of those illnesses that is hard to manage, or you lose your ability to focus on your education, which, again, must inevitably have an impact on those young people. It is that loss that, to me, we should never forget. It means that young people with all sorts of potential perhaps never reach their potential because they simply cannot apply themselves to their education.
The costs that I refer to include lost earnings, absenteeism in the workplace, premature death, the loss of tax revenue to government as a result of people not being in work or not attending work as often as they might, and even the carer costs for people who need more intensive care as a result of these conditions. Of course, there are also the psychological costs, because there is no doubt that, when a person has a chronic disease of one kind or another, inevitably they need counselling and psychological treatment. It would be debilitating and demoralising, and, in the end, people become very desperate. So any kind of support we can give them is important. I note that, whilst there are some medications available, there is no cure for the illnesses. Two-thirds to three-quarters of Crohn's disease sufferers ultimately end up having some kind of surgery at some point in their lives. About one-third of ulcerative colitis patients also end up requiring surgery at some point in their lives.
Last year, there was an interim Australian standards quality of care program guideline released by Crohn's and Colitis Australia which puts together a framework for how we can better manage people who suffer from these illnesses. The framework talks about high-quality clinical care, locally delivered services, individually structured programs, improved patient support and education, better data collection and use, and nutrition and counselling advice. The bottom line is that we cannot cure these diseases, but at least we can offer a whole range of services which help patients better manage the conditions that they have. Among the health services that these people access are X-rays, pathology services, endoscopies, colonoscopies, ultrasound, diagnostic imaging and all of the medications that they need to take. The reality is that, in comparison with other illnesses, we do not spend anywhere near as much money on Crohn's and colitis illnesses as we should be spending. We need to spend it in direct support and in more research so that we can ultimately create a better quality of life for sufferers.
Debate adjourned.
Penalty Rates
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House acknowledges that penalty rates are relied upon by Australian workers and their families to cover everyday costs of living, no matter if they are full time, part time or casual, including workers such as:
(1) nurses;
(2) police, firefighters and ambulance officers;
(3) retail and hospitality workers;
(4) manufacturing industry employees;
(5) services sector employees; and
(6) tourism and transport industry employees.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:43): I am pleased to rise today to support the motion moved by the member for Wakefield regarding penalty rates and to stress the importance of penalty rates to families in my electorate of Lalor to make ends meet, week to week. Jobs, of course, are critical. Employment is obviously one of the most important issues as we prepare ourselves to go to a possible rush election. Thousands of people within the community of Lalor rely on penalty rates to put food on their table and petrol in their cars and pay for those excursions for their children. Penalty rates are not a luxury. In a discussion on penalty rates, lessening the importance of penalty rates to the hospitality sector is disingenuous. It is as plain as the nose on the Prime Minister's face that this would be the thin edge of the wedge and, before we knew it, 25 per cent of lots of workers' income would be gone. Once we accept that penalty rates are not important for one sector of our workforce, that will roll through to all other sectors of our workforce.
In the hospitality sector, it is extraordinary to think that we would say to these people, who work unsociable hours and give up time with their families to earn those extra dollars to see them through the week, that they should be targeted in this debate at all.
It is stunning, absolutely stunning, that members of the National Party are silent on this, because McKell Institute research shows clearly the impact it will have in regional Australia. It is extraordinary. Retail and hospitality workers in rural Australia would lose between $370 million and $1.55 billion each year, depending on the extent of the cut to penalty rates and the level of local ownership of retail stores. This means that the disposable income for spending in regional areas would be reduced by $174.6 million or $748.3 million a year. It defies logic that anyone would purport that taking money out of workers' pockets will not have an impact on the economy and will not have an impact on our micro-economies, like in my electorate of Lalor and in regional Australia.
It is astounding that today we have this private members' business here and the speakers from those opposite are so limited. On our side of the chamber, we are prepared to get up and speak on this every week because we are passionate about people's ability to earn a living. People should be fairly compensated for giving up time with their families, for working the hours that other people do not want to work. We note our Prime Minister's obsession with the notion that it is a 24/7 world these days. Well, lots of people are not showing up here today to talk about penalty rates, so it is clearly not a 24/7 world at all.
I want to mention too the increase in casualisation and insecure work, particularly in the electorate of Lalor, particularly in my community, where more and more young people are only finding casual work. They are sitting up until 12 and one in the morning to see if they are going to get the text to say they have work tomorrow. Removing penalty rates at this point in time, with increased casualisation, with insecure work, seems just to be an attack on low-income workers and an attack on young people that is completely and utterly unfair.
I know that I have spent a lot of time across the last 12 months with people in the electorate, particularly people in their 50s, who are finding themselves unemployed, and they are shocked to find that the only work that they seem to be able to find is casual work. I think it is fair to say there is a new empathy in the electorate of Lalor for young people. There are people aged 50-plus who are now in queues at Centrelink, who are going to MatchWorks or other JSAs, who are coming to tell me about the length of time and number of jobs they are applying for, and they have a new understanding of what is confronting our young people. I would suggest that those people will come out to defend penalty rates, and they will stand with the Labor Party to defend penalty rates because this is an attack on workers' rights and conditions and families' incomes.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (11:48): I note that the mover of the motion was not able to be in the chamber for this very, very important motion indeed. There are a couple of points that I think we need to clarify here because quite often, in these instances, those on the other side overegg the omelette, and they just reach a little bit too far.
I had the pleasure, a couple of weekends ago, of having graffiti left outside my office by members who obviously had a certain view about how important penalty rates are, and indeed I acknowledge that penalty rates are important. They left a little message on the footpath outside my office reminding me exactly of the fact that penalty rates are indeed important. Apparently, some of the people who they had coerced into this came across from your state, Deputy Speaker Sukkar. They were paid employees who came across to join those local people who thought this was an important issue.
There are a couple of things that we need to look at here. I think the facts need to be put on the table. As strange as it might seem to those opposite, government does not set penalty rates. Penalty rates are set by an organisation called the Fair Work Commission. They are not set by government.
If we look back through the history of the Fair Work Commission, it makes for interesting reading. The member for Lalor mentioned in her contribution the importance of penalty rates to the hospitality, retail and entertainment sector. She referred to the Productivity Commission's recommendations that, instead of a separate rate for Sunday and a separate rate for Saturday, there be a weekend rate. It is what the Productivity Commission has put forward. That is then a question for the Fair Work Commission to decide whether that is appropriate or whether that is going to allow more young people, particularly—and my concern is for—young people in regional areas of Australia to have an opportunity, for many, to have their first job. That is something that is important for the Fair Work Commission to consider.
Again, however, those on the other side often reach a little bit too far. They seem to be misrepresenting the recommendations that have been made by the Productivity Commission to the Fair Work Commission—not government—about the impact this will have on nurses and other things. And it is disingenuous. It is very interesting to look at some of the comments that have been made in recent times by those on the other side. And I will quote the shadow minister for employment, Mr Brendan O'Connor, who sits jointly on the Standing Committee on Education and Employment of which I am on. He makes many good contributions. He makes the point:
There are particular provisions in each award or agreement that I think should be reviewed and I'm not suggesting for a moment that there aren't provisions including penalty rates that shouldn't be looked at.
That was on 23 January 2015 in an interview he did with the ABC. Also, I will quote the shadow Assistant Treasurer. I know that we often get many opportunities to quote the shadow Assistant Treasurer. Being a doctor of economics, he often make some very good points. He also made a good point on 23 January 2015. When asked if there was any room for restructuring penalty rates, the shadow Assistant Treasurer's response was: 'I'm always up for an evidence-based discussion.' And so it should be.
We understand that during the Leader of the Opposition's time as head of the Australian Workers' Union, he sold away the penalty rates of those poorest employers—the cleaners, in this case, at a business called Cleanevent—and pocketed $2 million in lieu of wages for the union that he was representing. Mr Deputy Speaker, judge them by what they do not by what they say in relation to penalty rates.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:53): I am delighted to join with my Labor colleagues today in highlighting the importance of penalty rates to the lives of 4.5 million workers who rely on them to pay the bills and raise their children. Penalty rates have been an important feature of the Australian industrial relations system for more than 100 years. In 1909, penalty rates were first awarded to workers as compensation for being made to work at inconvenient times and to act as a deterrent against long or abnormal hours being used by employers. These reasons for the original awarding still stand true today. It is fair that workers who give up their Saturday, Sunday or public holidays to work, usually to deliver services others can enjoy, are awarded compensation. It is also fair that workers who work through the night are adequately compensated for the sacrifice that they and their families make.
The flawed argument that penalty rates are redundant because Australia now operates in a 24/7 cycle is not backed up by the facts. Look at the big banks, the stock market, financial institutions, schools, courts and, indeed, parliaments. They are not open on weekends. About 70 per cent of the workforce does not work on the weekends or evenings. That number has been steady since the 1990s.
Penalty rates form a critical part of the income of many workers, including nurses and emergency services personnel; retail and hospitality workers; manufacturing industry employees; and service sector, tourism and transport industry employees. Many mums and dads give up weekends, Christmas and every other major public holiday with their families to work night shifts or long and unsociable hours just so they can support their families, pay for their kids' sport or save for a brief holiday. For some, it is how they pay the mortgage and put dinner on the table. Students often rely on penalty rates to help them get through university—to pay for textbooks, fees, petrol for their cars or weekly transport tickets. When it comes to low-paid jobs in retail, hospitality and the service sector, which often require work at odd hours, penalty rates can increase incomes to levels that allow single parents or parents working second jobs to pay the bills and raise their kids.
Beyond the potential income loss to individual workers, we know there would be major secondary impacts for local economies if workers' disposable incomes were reduced. This is particularly relevant for rural and regional areas, like my electorate of Newcastle. Research by the McKell Institute has estimated that regional New South Wales would take an economic hit of up to $315 million every year if penalty rates were scrapped. More worrying for small businesses in regional Australia would be the loss of $11 million in disposable income that would normally be spent in their local shops and on services.
While some members opposite insist that the government does not really have a plan to cut penalty rates, every time the issue is raised we have government MPs lining up to bag penalty rates with false arguments about the need to abolish them—like the member for Mayo, who said:
We cannot go on in a society where we are charging people on a day which is a normal operating day, double what you would on any other.
and the member for Mitchell, who said:
I mean, the Sunday rate comes from an era when Sunday trading was unusual. Today it's the busiest time of the week and it does affect many small enterprises.
Of course, Sundays are not like Mondays; they are not an ordinary operating day. If they were, the electorate offices of the members for Mayo and Mitchell would be open for business on Sundays too. The interesting thing is that voters in key coalition seats actually agree with Labor that penalty rates should stay the same or, in fact, increase. A ReachTEL poll found that in Dickson, the seat held by Minister Dutton, 78 per cent thought penalty rates should stay the same or increase. In the Deputy Prime Minister's seat of New England, 70 per cent do not want change.
Weekend work is taxing on relationships and health. Weekend pay should reflect that. Australia is facing the lowest wage growth in 25 years, yet Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers are talking about cutting the income of low-paid workers. Labor will fight the Turnbull government every step of the way to protect decent working conditions that 4.5 million Australians rely on to pay their bills and raise their children. Rather than a race to the bottom on wages, Labor believes the government should invest in the high-skilled, high-wage, decent jobs of the future. (Time expired)
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:58): While our Prime Minister speaks ebulliently about the excitement of the seven-day-a-week economy, he is much quieter when it comes to the sort of society it implies and its consequences for the 4½ million Australians who rely on penalty rates, and, indeed, for all of us—how we relate to one another and the sort of society we wish to live in. This is a telling omission that goes to the very heart of this debate—or, having heard what we have heard from government members, what passes for debate in this place and around it.
In the Scullin electorate many people rely on penalty rates to pay their bills, their mortgage or their the rent and to feed their families. Younger constituents, who are studying at university or TAFE, often tell me that because of the scheduling of their classes the only time they can work is weekends. While that means they have to sacrifice significant time with their families and friends, the little bit extra from penalty rates ensures that they can buy their textbooks, pay their rent and keep their mobile phone service running. The same goes for mothers and fathers forced to sacrifice weekend activities with kids because they are paid that little bit extra on a Sunday, which pays for schooling, food and birthday presents. Nurses, doctors, the police, the fire service and paramedics simply cannot take days off. They are needed 24 hours, seven days a week. The idea that we would rip money from their pockets because the government does not think Sundays are important anymore is unfathomable to Labor members. It is often only a small amount of extra income for their time, but for the many people in the communities I represent it is often the difference between getting a bill paid on time or receiving an overdue notice and a penalty.
So it should be surprising that this government is reviewing the very thing that is supporting struggling everyday Australians at a time of record low wages growth, so far from the wages explosion used to justify the productivity inquiry that brought this issue before the parliament—an inquiry that the Prime Minister does not seem keen to talk about, despite saying that lowering penalty rates was somehow inevitable, and when the Prime Minister agreed that, because of the seven-day economy, penalty rates were now an anachronism. Again, this is not in the context of runaway wages growth—quite the contrary. The minimum wage is falling today as a proportion of the average wage income. Inequality is growing, as is insecurity in the workplace.
In this context, penalty rates really matter. The Prime Minister's assertions are simply not backed by the evidence. The overwhelming majority of Australians still work regular Monday to Friday work weeks, as the member for Newcastle pointed out. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, nearly 40 per cent of workers receiving weekend penalty rates rely on them to meet ordinary household expenses, and more than half of those work for penalty rates on Sundays. Mortgage debt is at an all-time high in Australia today, so many people are forced through circumstance to work unsocial hours, at the expense of the rest of their lives, to simply keep their homes.
The harmful effects on people are clear, but this also leads to broader negative economic impacts. In very simple terms, if we pay people less to do their jobs, people have less disposable income and less money to spend. It also means that less money is being raised in both direct and indirect tax, leaving the government with less income in their coffers. Let's also be clear about this: there is no empirical evidence that lower wage rates equal more employment. This shibboleth has to be put to bed. Even the Productivity Commission, in the report used by government members to justify their ideological attack on working people, notes this fact—an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless.
This is one of the reasons why the Australian people and the Australian Labor Party emphatically reject our new Prime Minister's vision for Australian workplaces as places where people work harder and longer for less. The Labor Party is standing up with working people and for them to protect weekends and public holidays because we want to protect living standards, broadly defined. It is about supporting decent wages, for sure, but also a social compact around how we live. We believe that, if you work on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday while everyone else is enjoying their weekends, their time off, you deserve appropriate remuneration.
What we have seen elsewhere in workplaces like 7-Eleven in recent times is another example of the exploitation of workers in Australia. These are not isolated incidents; they are instructive of what can happen where there are imbalances of power between workers and employers. The abolition or the paring back of penalty rates will not provide higher employment, greater productivity and more services or help people make ends meet. When the facts are presented away from the Prime Minister's cheap sophistry, the case for changing our penalty rates regime is exposed as just another coalition attack on rights at work and, indeed, on the Australian social compact. It must be rejected emphatically in this place, as it has been in the community.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:03): I congratulate the member for bringing this to the parliament. It is a very important issue and one that impacts on the lives of the people I represent in this parliament. It is no surprise that 97 per cent of Australians think that the weekend is an important part of family time. Most of us have that weekend. In 2012, the ABS found that 68.9 per cent of Australians in work worked Monday to Friday, and that is not falling over time. In 1997, 69.7 per cent worked Monday to Friday and in 2006 it was 69.8 per cent—higher than in 1997. So around 70 per cent of Australians work Monday to Friday, and that is a pretty stable number, so it is no surprise that the majority of Australians want Sunday penalty rates to stay the same or increase.
A ReachTEL poll last December found that in Warringa, the seat of the former Prime Minister, 51 per cent wanted Sunday rates to stay the same and 13.7 per cent wanted them increased. In New England, the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister, 55 per cent of them wanted them to stay the same and 15.4 per cent wanted them increased. I would like to see them represent their constituents in this parliament. In the seat of Dickson, 60 per cent wanted Sunday penalty rates to stay the same and 18.7 per cent wanted them to be increased. I hope the members of the government are listening to the people who elect them. I hope they are going to do their jobs of representing their communities and put an end to any proposal to reduce penalty rates.
Australians support penalty rates because we understand the sacrifices people make to work on weekends, late hours and on public holidays. If you work Monday to Friday, you do not have to explain to your kids that, yet again, you cannot come to their weekend cricket match. If you work Monday to Friday, you do not need to watch your kids open their Christmas presents on the screen of your iPhone. If you work Monday to Friday, you can catch up with friends and family for Sunday brunch at a local cafe. You can catch up with friends over a meal cooked and served by people who do not get the chance to catch up with their friends on the weekend, because they are working. When we need to take a child to hospital at 10 pm, we can, because of the nurses and other staff of that hospital who are not at home to read to their own children at bedtime—something that my daughter-in-law has experienced, on many occasions, as a nurse.
Penalty rates compensate people for time lost with family and friends; for the lost chance to take part in community activities. The time lost working unsociable hours is a real and ongoing issue. But penalty rates also compensate people for the financial costs of working outside the usual hours that 70 per cent of people work. Try getting child care on a Sunday for the same price as on a Monday. Try getting to work on public transport as quickly on a Sunday as on a Tuesday. Try getting home from work without a car an hour after the last bus. Cuts to penalty rates will shift the financial cost of unsociable hours onto workers. Cuts to penalty rates will rip money out of the pockets of family budgets.
Last week, debating this motion, the member for Fowler referred to a study by the McKell Institute on the effects of cuts to penalty rates to retail workers in New South Wales. Retail workers in rural areas would see their penalty rates cut by 4.6 per cent to 16.5 per cent. Cuts to penalty rates will hurt businesses as well, because the McKell Institute found that pay cuts equal up to $111 million not being spent in those rural and regional towns. Penalty rates make it possible for many Australians to make ends meet. Penalty rates mean that they do not carry the costs of working unsociable hours themselves and are fairly compensated for the sacrifice of time with friends and family. Labor understands this and—with our friends and colleagues in the union movement—will always defend penalty rates for Australian workers. I call on those on the other side of the House to support their constituents and support the workers of Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Tibetan Plateau
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (12:09): I move the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Tibetan Plateau is:
(i) the largest source of freshwater beyond the Arctic and Antarctic;
(ii) a major driver of the global climate;
(iii) the source of most of Asia's major rivers; and
(iv) an area of great significance to the global environment; and
(b) traditional nomadic herding has provided Tibetans with resilient livelihoods and ensured the health of Tibetan grasslands, including maintaining biodiversity and soil carbon;
(2) expresses concern that:
(a) Tibetan nomads are leaving the grasslands and that their displacement will have harmful impacts on their livelihood and culture as well as on Tibet's fragile environment; and
(b) construction of large dams and water diversion projects in the headwater regions will impact the environment and the livelihood of millions of people in the region;
(3) notes China's many positive steps towards addressing the challenges of climate change, including reducing dependence on coal; and
(4) calls for acknowledgement of the:
(a) important role Tibetan nomads play in ensuring the health of Tibetan grasslands; and
(b) importance of Tibetans having a say over decisions that affect their land and livelihoods.
As the chair of the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, I am delighted to welcome a delegation of our Tibetan friends led by the Australian Tibet Council. Over the next two days, they will present a very strong case to the parliament and the government: firstly, that Tibet is central to many of the great challenges of our time, from climate change to inequity and to food and water security; secondly, that Australia and the international community cannot afford to ignore what is happening in Tibet and, in part, to the Tibetan Plateau environment; and, thirdly, that the Tibetan people must be part of the solution in addressing the environmental crisis that is unfolding in Tibet.
As the largest source of fresh water beyond the Arctic and the Antarctic, and the source of most of Asia's major rivers, what happens in the Tibetan Plateau has far-reaching ramifications for the region and the world at large. According to Tibet - an environmental challenge, released ahead of the UN climate summit last year, China has been building dams of a staggering scale at an extraordinary rate. By 2000, China had built 22,104 large dams. By 2010, it had installed 220 gigawatts of hydropower—nearly 60 times the generating capacity of the Snowy Mountains scheme. With the middle and lower courses of its rivers already heavily dammed, the only way for China to reach target capacity is to begin heavily damming the rivers in Tibet. As with large hydropower projects the world over, local communities bear the brunt of these controversial projects and reap few, if any, of the benefits. The Chinese government has an even more controversial plan for Tibetan rivers. The next stage of China's south-north water diversion project, while still on the drawing board, will divert water from the upper reaches of the Yangtze to the Yellow River, defying the country's physical geography. These proposed plans pose questions of water sovereignty, the likes of which the world has never seen before. By controlling the Tibetan Plateau, China has control of Asia's water tap and seems ready to use that power with little regard for the needs of its neighbours. Just as Australia pays close attention to China's activities in the South China Sea, we should also be aware of the developments on the rivers that originate from Tibet and flow into many Asian countries.
Today, I would also like to draw attention to another misguided policy of the Chinese government in Tibet: the forced removal of Tibetan nomads from their grasslands. Only a few years ago, Chinese authorities had reportedly moved over two million Tibetans from their homes on grasslands to newly constructed settlements, profoundly altering Tibet's social and economic fabric. The policy is as self-defeating as it is unjust. Stripped of the livelihoods that have sustained them for thousands of years, a once proud and resilient people now face a very uncertain future. While carried out on the grounds of environmental protection, the controversial policy has further compromised the ecological balance of the Tibetan Plateau. The Chinese government has tried to obscure the effects of its relocation policies by heavily restricting access to media and refusing to allow independent fact-finding missions.
At a meeting with the Chinese ambassador in Canberra two years ago, I asked him about the worsening human rights conditions in Tibet. The ambassador extended an invitation to me and Australian parliamentarians to visit Tibet in order to form well-informed opinions. The Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet quickly put out a request to the Chinese embassy to facilitate a trip to Tibet. Two years on, we are still waiting for a response. In another example, just last week the Chinese authorities announced that the Tibet Autonomous Region will be completely closed to foreign tourists until the end of March, with all foreigners being asked to leave. This annual sealing of Tibet takes place ahead of the Tibetan national uprising day on 10 March.
Our Tibetan friends visiting parliament this week will be asking MPs and senators to call on the Chinese government to end the forced removal of Tibetan nomads and allow former nomads who wish to return to their traditional rangelands to do so, to ensure Tibetans are given a greater say in the decisions that affect their land and livelihoods. I support their call and urge my fellow parliamentarians to join me in supporting the Tibetans' plea to help save their fragile land and their unique way of life.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr John Cobb ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Hutchinson: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (12:14): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his motion. As a member of the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the importance of preserving the health of this globally significant water source, the Tibetan Plateau.
Situated between the two emerging regional and global powers, China and India, Tibet has traditionally acted as a peaceful buffer. Tibet is the source of Asia's major rivers, upon which an estimated 1.4 billion people across 11 large downstream nations depend. The Tibetan Plateau, the world's largest and highest, has a significant impact on the region's climate. The plateau is known as the 'the third pole', but Tibet's glaciers are melting, with dire implications for global climate change. Known in China as 'the western treasure house', Tibet is rich in 132 different mineral resources which are presently being exploited by a resource-hungry China. Unfortunately, the benefits are not flowing to Tibetans, whose traditional livelihoods have been taken from them and whose civil liberties have been suppressed and abused.
Historically, the Tibetan Plateau has served as an important refuge from Chinese control for that country's nomadic herdsman. It has provided these indigenous people with a livelihood, allowed them to maintain their traditional culture and, in turn, these nomadic people have been central in maintaining the health of the plateau grasslands. I often meet with representatives of the Australia Tibet Council here in Canberra and with the Tibet Action Group for WA when back home. I note that these groups are often prominent in the increasingly frequent climate change rallies being held around our nation. The lack of sustainable and transboundary water management, the overextraction of minerals and the forced resettlement of more than two million nomadic Tibetans from grasslands are already having a significant impact on the environment and on local communities and their culture.
Australia is home to close to 2,000 Tibetans, many of whom are former political prisoners from Tibet and have moved here as part of the government's humanitarian program. Though their number may be relatively small, they are active in highlighting the cultural, environmental and geostrategic significance of the Tibetan region.
In the lead up to the UN climate summit late last year, the Australia Tibet Council released its report Tibet—an environmental challenge, which highlights the cultural and geostrategic significance of Tibet to Asia and offers tangible solutions and recommendations to address the serious environmental threats that will have significant global and regional implications. The report observes that a peaceful resolution to the Tibetan situation is essential to address concerns around food and water security and acting on climate change.
The human rights situation in Tibet remains dire. Amnesty International's latest report The state of the world's human rights, released last week, noted the UN Committee against Torture's regret that previous recommendations had not been implemented by China, with ethnic Tibetans continuing to face severe discrimination, restrictions on their rights to freedoms of religious belief, expression, association and peaceful assembly, and reports of excessive force used by police during protests.
The Chinese government maintains controls over Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and a number of Tibetan monks, writers, protesters and activists have been detained, with charges and location of their detention unknown. Human Rights Watch reported earlier this month that Chinese authorities have indefinitely extended an intensive surveillance program in villages across Tibet, reflecting the authority's fear, and consequently suppression, of criticism and dissent. In September the Chinese government denounced the 'middle-way' approach advocated for by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in a white paper issued to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, vowing to fight against separatism.
I would like to particularly acknowledge the tireless work of Kyinzom Dhongdue, campaigns manager for the Australia Tibet Council, in keeping this issue in the public domain. She is a candidate in the Tibetan elections this year. This is the first time there has been a seat in the Tibetan parliament in exile for a representative from the Tibetan communities in Australia, New Zealand and East Asia. Kyinzom would be a fantastic parliamentarian and she has my full support.
As the member for Leichhardt has already done, I encourage everyone in this place to join us at 4 pm this Tuesday for the Tibet Advocacy Day reception in 1R1 where you will meet Tibetan delegates who will share their personal stories about the issues facing Tibet. If you are unable to make it, I encourage you arrange a time to meet with them.
As we witness greater international cooperation to achieve the recently agreed sustainable development goals and to address climate change, all nations, including Australia, should be concerned about the situation in Tibet and must work towards finding a peaceful resolution of the Tibetan situation. I call on the government to continue to advocate for improved human rights, including the release of the more than 2,000 political prisoners, and to continue to seek access for Australian parliamentarians to Tibet.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:19): It is shocking to hear from the member for Leichhardt about the lock-out of the whole international community from a country of seven million people. The Tibetan Plateau in particular is one of the most important regions of the world—it contains the third-largest amount of ice after the two poles. Indeed, it is sometimes called 'the third pole' and, of course, it is known to most people around the world as 'the roof of the world'. The plateau is one of the most inhospitable places on earth. It has an average of 4½ thousand metres in height and, bordered by the Himalayas in the south, it is the highest plateau on this planet. The Tibetan Plateau is the world's largest plateau—it is larger than Western Europe. In winter its north-eastern corner can dip to minus 40 degrees and what little precipitation the plateau receives mostly comes in the form of hail, not rain. Parts of the plateau have grassland that has only been enough to support nomadic tribes, not settled crop-growing peoples.
The plateau plays an important role in regulating global temperature. The massive ice loss it has experienced in recent years as a result of climate change will have outsized influence on the planet. Indeed, over the last century the Tibetan Plateau has seen its temperature rise faster than the global average. The main reason for this is that ice reflects heat back into space and if there is a lot of ice then more heat is reflected, making the planet cooler. When there is less ice, less heat is reflected. This means that, in a global warming environment, the lessening amount of ice on the plateau will actually speed up the warming.
That the ice is melting on the plateau is of significant concern. Over 3½ thousand glaciers coming down from the plateau are retreating faster than elsewhere. These glaciers feed the rivers in Asia, including the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Mekong and the Ganges, that feed billions of people. About two billion people—one-third of the planet's population—depend on the rivers fed by the ice of the Tibetan Plateau. That this ice is disappearing speaks to a really significant problem, as some of the world's key rivers are in danger and a few decades hence of drying out. I will repeat that: this is happening with the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Mekong and the Ganges rivers. More importantly, warmer temperatures and overgrazing are destroying the grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau step. This is forcing nomads off the land and into permanent government shelters, with the Chinese government finding it difficult to provide people with even menial work.
As the population booms, China is damming the rivers. It is damming the Mekong, which has spread protests into Vietnam. Now it is threatening to dam rivers to India, a country that already has significant water needs, and there is some conflict between China and India. It is not just China—India and Nepal and Bhutan have plans to dam the water and create hydro-electric plants. Environmentalists are warning of the potential for significant damage to the planet in the Himalayas from these plans. There are also geopolitical considerations. China is on the Tibetan Plateau, where it has most of its strategic rocket force, and it is the ultimate controller of the water of 40 per cent of the world's population. There are fears that, whereas land once plagued China-India relations, control of water could now create tension.
I do echo the member for Fremantle's remarks that the 2,000 Tibetans who live in Australia are excellent citizens. Most of them have had terrible experiences as political prisoners in China. I also echo her views that Kyinzom, their representative, will make a fantastic representative in the Tibetan parliament in exile. But the people of Asia have increasing energy, water and food needs—needs that have to be fulfilled for the decades to come—and they are taken for granted by most of the population, but Asia will be relying on this Tibetan Plateau. It is very important that significant and lasting damage not be caused by policies of the Chinese government, which has control of that area, despite the requests of the local Tibetan people and His Holiness the Dalai Lama for autonomy within a Chinese federation.
I conclude by saying that I was shocked on the weekend to see in Fairfax Media a picture of a former foreign minister of Australia with a sacred Tibetan painting given to him by another country. It is disgraceful—imagine someone taking, or being given, an icon or stolen art from the Second World War! It is an outrage to all people who respect other people's religion and other people's traditions, including the 3,000-year-old Tibetan people.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:24): I applaud the persistence of the member for Leichhardt, who has been an advocate on this matter inside his party room and inside the parliament for many years. Whilst I am handing out praise, I cannot move beyond the member for Griffith, who has indicated that she will do everything in her power to ensure that this parliament, the 44th Parliament, has an opportunity to vote on the question of marriage equality.
It is good that this bill is before the House. I remember when I introduced a bill into the 43rd Parliament; it was received by a very passionate debate but, unfortunately, the bill did not succeed. In fact, it fell some 33 votes short of the majority that was needed in the House of Representatives to pass into law, only receiving 42 votes back then. But we know that the matter has moved on.
I moved that bill in the last parliament, my first parliament, because, although I had not put it at the top of my in-tray when campaigning for my first term as a member of parliament, I turned my mind to the issues and to the values that drove me to come here: principally, the values of equality and dignity—that is, treating all persons equally—and I could not find a good argument against the cause of marriage equality. However, when I listened to all of the arguments that were put up against changing the Marriage Act to recognise the marriage of same-sex couples, it became very obvious to me very quickly that the arguments against marriage equality were not against marriage itself; they were against the relationship. And it was on that point that I had to differ.
So I am pleased that this parliament is having the opportunity to debate the motion, and I sincerely hope that the matter gets brought before the House. I remember that, when I spoke in this chamber at the conclusion of the debate on my bill, the then member for Wentworth, the now Prime Minister, gave an impassioned speech—one almost identical to the speech that I myself had given three months earlier—and said that, had he been given a free vote, he would have voted in favour of it. Well, if only the member for Wentworth were in a position to change that! He is only the Prime Minister of Australia! If only he were in a position to change this issue!
Instead we have this proposition that, sometime in the life of the next parliament, we are going to have a referendum on the matter. I am not opposed to referendums, but we do have to wonder why this matter is proposed to be put to a referendum, given that it is our job, as parliamentarians, to vote on matters that are put before us, and we have a matter put before us.
We are told that the cost of that referendum is going to be $160 million—only for it to have a non-binding outcome. We know that there are 72 per cent of Australians of voting age who already support the proposition, and yet we are asked to spend $160 million on a non-binding question, which will then have to come back before the 45th Parliament.
When you look at the reasons for it being put to a referendum, we know the answer to that: it was to get the former Prime Minister out of a fix that he had in his party room. He had a difficulty in his own party room, so the bolthole that he proposed, to get out of that political problem, was to have a $160-million referendum—to get himself out of the difficulties he was having in his own party room.
I actually trust the capacity of the Australian people to engage in a spirited debate on difficult questions. But I have to say that I have been concerned when I have read, over the last month, about propositions from the Australian Christian Lobby. I know that they do not represent all churches and all people of faith, but they are an authoritative voice and they are seriously representing the idea that we are going to have to suspend our antidiscrimination laws so that they can put their case about why gay marriage should not exist.
I would say that there are arguably bigger questions. In this parliament, we have made decisions to send troops to war. There have been decisions made—or there have been attempts to make decisions—to undermine the Medicare Safety Net. A better question to put before the people would be on Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. Those are the things we should be talking about.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12 : 30 to 15 : 59
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (15:59): I rise today to talk about a fantastic local event that took place in my electorate last Saturday, the Far North Coast Rural Fire Service medals presentation. It was a great event, held at the Ocean Shores Country Club at Ocean Shores. We presented a whole series of different medals to members of the Rural Fire Service. There were two national medals and 26 long-service medals. It was remarkable to present such an array of medals to some wonderful people. In total, there were 27 recipients, who were presented with 28 medals and had a combined total of 601 years of service, which I think is remarkable. Indeed, a number of those recipients had more than 40 years service each. Congratulations to them. I made the point at the time of thanking all those people for their dedication, commitment and service to our local community, and also their families for allowing them to volunteer and keep us all safe. As a former police officer, I was very fortunate to work with many different emergency services personnel. I know how dedicated and committed they are in volunteering their time to keep us all safe. It was a great event. It was wonderful to be able to speak to so many volunteers and recipients of medals, to hear some of their life stories and to hear about how much time and commitment they put into our local community. I say thank you to all of them. We appreciate their great efforts.
Canning Electorate: Working Holiday-makers
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:01): I rise to speak on behalf of the fruit growers and orchardists within the elected of Canning—in particular, the Hills Orchard Improvement Group and their spokesman, Brett DelSimone, who are concerned that the tax revenue increases will negatively impact growers and their families in their area of Canning. Backpackers generate $3.5 billion every year for the Australian economy. Over 40,000 backpackers work on Australian farms each year. Without them, the agricultural industry would face labour shortages. Backpacker numbers are already in decline. If we disincentivise them further, they may look to other countries for work, which will leave fewer workers on Australian farms. Local businesses are also affected, as these working holiday-makers spend their earnings within the economies of their residence.
Capogreco Farms in Hamel, Canning are a fine example of a business who rely upon backpacker labour. They hire 60 backpackers, who, for four months of the year, process and box 70 tonnes of melons a day. Dane and Bruno, the managers of the farm, are critical of the proposed 32.5 per cent backpacker tax that is due to take effect in July this year. Their international workers live on the property, buy all their food from the local township and cook in their dorms. I am, therefore, heartened by the government's willingness to discuss policy changes in this area and to protect Australian businesses.
Shortland Electorate: School Leaders
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:02): On Friday, the state member for Charlestown and I held an afternoon tea to recognise the high school leaders in our area. It was a very inspiring event. Not only did we present them with a certificate, have a little chat with them and share afternoon tea; we went around the room and each of those students told us why they were school leaders and what they thought the important attributes of being a school leader were. The No. 1 attribute was that they saw being part of a team as being very important. They also saw that leadership was not about telling people what to do but about leading from behind, as I think it was put to us. On top of that, these leaders shared with us the goals that they want to achieve in the year. One of those goals was promoting democracy and inclusion within the schools in which they are leaders. I know that the future of Shortland is in good hands with fine leaders like these.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (16:04): I rise today to praise Yeppoon teenager Ellie Kendall, who I met recently during a visit she made to Parliament House in Canberra. Ellie, a year 12 student from St Ursula's College in Yeppoon, was named the Capricornia winner of the ABC Heywire competition for young regional Australians aged from 16 to 22. Winners from all over Australia assembled in Parliament House for a Heywire youth ideas summit.
ABC Heywire is a prestigious competition where young people from around the country write a story about real life in a regional area. The winners' stories are recorded for broadcast on ABC radio, and the winners attend a youth summit inside Parliament House.
Ellie's story was about the experience of Cyclone Marcia in her home town of Yeppoon in February last year. Cyclone Marcia was a dreadful event that hit Yeppoon and the surrounding districts, including Byfield, as a vicious category 5 cyclone. It destroyed many homes and businesses in the town.
Ellie is an amazing young person and it was a thrill to meet her at Parliament House. She is an inspiration to other young people from Capricornia.
During a morning tea reception for Heywire winners, Ellie was fortunate to meet federal agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce. I was delighted to sit with Ellie at a Heywire dinner for national winners at the Australian museum in Canberra.
Indi Electorate: Yea
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:06): Colleagues, today I would like to talk to you about the Yea Toil Art Stronger Communities round 1 project. It is based in the town of Yea, in my electorate of Indi, and it is flush with federal funding for a project to improve access to this popular amenity block in the town. So congratulations to the Yea community on receiving just over $18,000 under round 1 of the federal government's Stronger Communities Program. This funding will go towards the Yea Toil Art refurbishment project.
Murrindindi Shire Council is providing $35,000 towards the project. So thanks particularly to the Murrindindi Shire Council's CEO, Margaret Abbey, and Manager, Community Services, Naomi McNamara, for their efforts in the process to help me determine round 1 projects.
Some years ago the Yea community created a mural on the outside of the central toilet block for the Toil Art initiative. These toilets have become a landmark facility. However, the disability toilets are only accessible by women, as the entry is through the female toilets. This access issue was highlighted as a priority by the Murrindindi access and inclusion advisory group. Thanks to them for all their work. And now, thanks to the Stronger Communities program funding, this issue will be resolved. So locals with mobility issues will be able to get out and connect with their community, and more tourists will be able to stop and use the toilets and visit local shops to boost the Yea economy. Thank you, everybody.
Paterson Electorate: Local Government
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (16:07): With the redistribution that has just been handed down by the Australian Electoral Commission, it is with a great deal of sadness that I say goodbye to my constituents in the LGAs of Dungog, Great Lakes, the northern parts of Maitland and Port Stephens. It has been an honour to serve you, on and off since 1996.
The new areas that I inherit are going back to the future, where I gained most of the whole of the Maitland LGA and parts of the Cessnock LGA. I look forward to connecting, engaging and meeting with those constituents and listening to their concerns so that I can represent them in this parliament.
There are many issues, of course, that I am not aware of, because I have not represented those people before, particularly those in the Cessnock LGA. But, as we work together and find out the issues that are really burning for them, I will seek to represent those people here on the floor of this parliament to the best of my ability.
Over the years, the redistributions have been very unkind in Paterson, it having lost the Gloucester LGA, and the saddest part is: the people who you really connect to and make strong and lasting friendships with, you are no longer able to represent; yet you still maintain the friendships. I would like to thank them for their support, which has been there through thick and thin—through the tough challenges—and together, in the past, we have delivered many, many projects for the region. I now hand these areas over to the member for Lyne.
Rare Disease Day 2016
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:09): Today is international Rare Disease Day. In its ninth year, the theme and focus for 2016 is: 'Patient voice'—recognising the crucial role that patients play in voicing their needs and in instigating change that improves their lives and the lives of their families and carers. While rare diseases affect a considerable proportion of the population in aggregate, with nearly 7,000 rare diseases identified, it remains a relatively unknown health issue.
Last Wednesday, I had the pleasure of attending a barbecue hosted by Rare Voices Australia, where Professor Ravi Savarirayan of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, an international expert on rare genetic conditions, emphasised that rare diseases are in fact not all that rare. Conservative estimates indicate that six to eight per cent of Australians are affected by a rare disease. We heard from Samantha Prior, as well as Samantha Cosgrove and Tracey Nelson, the mothers of 'cowboys', Beau and Kalten, who have the ultrarare genetic condition Morquio A. It is clear that medical advances are assisting to improve their children's futures.
While 80 per cent of rare diseases are genetic, the diagnosis of a rare disease is often delayed due to the complex nature of these rare diseases. As I have said in this place before, this should be a public health policy priority at both national and international levels. Building and improving access and the sharing of resources will encourage the development of policies, service planning, clinical guidelines and research, which will in turn improve diagnosis, appropriate care and treatment for thousands of Australians. I thank Rare Voices Australia for the important work they do and urge all members to show their support for people impacted by rare diseases.
Moore Electorate: HBF Arena, Joondalup
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:10): Over the next 18 months, there will be a major $20 million upgrade to the sporting facilities at HBF Arena, Joondalup. The overall redevelopment includes construction of new clubrooms and administration facilities for the West Perth Football Club, as well as additional indoor courts and supporting infrastructure that will house the Wanneroo Basketball Association and additional courts for the Joondalup Netball Association. The addition of playing services for the Joondalup Brothers Rugby Union Club were completed recently. The City of Joondalup is contributing a total of $4 million towards the project, in addition to the $16 million of funding committed by the WA state government. The sporting clubs which will directly benefit from the state-of-the-art upgrade have significant local membership bases in an area with a rapidly growing young demographic.
The West Perth Football Club was established in 1885 and is one of the largest clubs in the Western Australian football league. The club relocated to the arena in Joondalup in 1994 from Leederville Oval, where I attended my first footy game as a child in 1985 upon migrating to Australia. The club has outgrown its current facilities at the arena and this project will provide an AFL centre of excellence in the northern corridor, as well as a viable venue for AFL preseason and practice matches.
Broadband
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:12): I rise to speak about a concern that many local constituents raise with me all the time, and that is this government's very slow rollout of the NBN, particularly in regional and rural areas like mine, the electorate of Richmond. Today we have seen yet another leaked document from nbn co. which has revealed that the Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN is hopelessly delayed and over budget. This really reflects the concerns that I hear all the time from residents. They are very disappointed in this fact. The internal nbn co. documents today revealed that nbn co. has met than less than a third of its internal rollout targets for the government's second-rate copper NBN. These delays are due mostly to problems with connecting mains power to the large street-side copper cabinets. These problems are all of the Prime Minister's making. You will be aware, of course, that fibre to the premises, which was our policy, is a passive network and does not require mains power.
This really is just another example of the Prime Minister and this government's poor judgement. They should be quite embarrassed and ashamed about the situation with the NBN. The NBN was supposed to reach every home in three years. That was the promise. They have more than doubled the time frame. Today we see that the government will not even meet their revised target of 2020. Also, this project was supposed to cost $29.5 billion and it has nearly doubled to a cost of $56 billion. This government's second-rate NBN is a complete and utter failure.
Banks Electorate: Football
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:13): I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the football community within the Banks electorate. We are fortunate to have both the St George Football Association and the Bankstown District Amateur Football Association active in my area. As the largest sport played by the residents of my area, football is indeed a very important part of our community. Recently, through the Stronger Communities Program, the St George Football Association was successful in its application for defibrillators to be placed at fields within the Banks electorate. Defibrillators can be used in situations of cardiac arrest and are a very important piece of medical equipment. Through the Stronger Communities program, funding was also approved for a defibrillator at Playford Park in Padstow. That was also good news.
I would like to thank Sok Mallios, the president of the St George Football Association, along with Matt Rippon, the general manager of the Bankstown District Amateur Football Association, for all their great work. It was great to meet with the Revesby Rovers recently and to hear about their issues and the success of their club in recent years. To the football community in the Banks electorate: thank you.
Dowling, Mr Bob
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:15): At its best, politics is about community service—and few do it better than Bob Dowling, the worthy recipient of the Lion Frank Brown Memorial Award for Community Service to the Tuggeranong Valley for 2016, awarded by the Lions Club of Canberra Kambah. The award takes its name from Frank Brown, an icon of the Canberra community. Frank's sudden death last year from motor neurone disease was a sad day for Canberra, and we remain indebted for his contribution. Through Bob Dowling's lifelong contribution to Canberra, it is clear that Frank's spirit of community service lives on.
When Bob found out that the Malkara School for students with a significant intellectual disability was in need of a school bus, he coordinated a fundraiser to help the school with its purchase. Bob established the Royals Rugby Union Club's foundation for the development of junior players and coordinated fundraising to assist injured players and players from disadvantaged backgrounds. Bob has supported Marist College with fundraising events; St Thomas the Apostle Primary School with coordinating its very famous school fete; the Marymead fete, another famous fete, with its chocolate wheel fundraiser; and the people of Canberra in recovering after the devastation of the 2003 bushfires. I congratulate Bob Dowling as the recipient of the 2016 Lion Frank Brown Memorial Award for Community Service to the Tuggeranong Valley. I can think of nobody more deserving of such an honour.
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:17): In the Great Hall on 16 November 2009, the then Prime Minister and opposition leader gave an apology to all the children who had been sexually and physically abused in institutions. Today, six years later, Cardinal Pell has given evidence in Rome to the royal commission into child sex abuse. We are looking for justice for victims, and I know they are watching and listening to me now talking about what Cardinal Pell said to the royal commission today.
The first recommendation of the commission was:
A process for redress must provide equal access and equal treatment for survivors—regardless of the location, operator, type, continued existence or assets of the institution in which they were abused
Cardinal Pell today said:
I would like to see a national system of redress which could be accessed by the churches and one in which the culpable parties would contribute to the payment of whatever the findings were … It would clearly show that such payments are not dependent on the decisions of the Catholic Church … No matter how fair and independent an agency funded by the church might be, there's always the danger that it will be found to be subservient.
Redress for all is how it should be.
Ovarian Cancer
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:18): Today is the last day of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. It has been a month in which the parliament has concentrated to some degree on ovarian cancer. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made excellent contributions to the debate, and the member for Canberra is an ovarian cancer ambassador. This morning I learned that the daytime presenter on the ABC in Newcastle, Jill Emberson, has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She is currently on leave seeking treatment.
Over the next month I will be holding some ovarian cancer 'morning teals'. On 9 March, I will be holding a morning teal at Gwandalan Bowling Club, who have committed to making ovarian cancer the cause that they will fundraise for this year, so I wanted to put on record my thanks to the Gwandalan Bowling Club. It is a fine contribution they are making.
On 23 March I will be holding an ovarian cancer morning teal at Valentine Bowling Club. Once again, that will be a very special event. We will combine it with a fashion parade and a sale of Carolyn Bear's jewellery. It will be a great chance for people to come along and learn about ovarian cancer.
Taxation
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:20): Like Labor's failed mining tax and carbon tax, Labor's abolition of negative gearing on all existing residential property and massive hike in capital gains tax are more policy on the run. These are reckless and ill-considered changes which will have a very detrimental impact on the price of what is ordinarily our most precious asset. Taking one-third of buyers, the investors, from the market will drive down prices for established homes. In Corangamite I have spoken to a number of local real estate agents who shake their heads in disbelief and say this would be a disaster for the residential property market. According to Henry Ergas in today's Australian, in a column entitled 'Labor must stop denying negative gearing truth', the ALP will engineer a weaker housing market as well as increase the burden on tenants. The Property Council of Australia says: 'The changes Labor is proposing won't just hurt mum and dad investors but also risks hurting one of the few industries, the property industry, that is helping our economy grow. We support tax reform, but reform needs to be used to drive economic growth. Changes to negative gearing will do the opposite.'
In Corangamite there are 7,280 people who negatively gear. This is policy on the run. If implemented, it will damage the value of all existing homes.
Indi Electorate: Mobile Phone Services
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:22): On 20 December 2015 a large fire broke out near Barnawartha and spread through the Indigo and Chiltern valleys, burning four homes, over 7,000 hectares, 500 livestock and 30 outbuildings. The local CFA and community responded extraordinarily well, but many of the communities affected by these fires were not able to send and receive text messages, check their fire ready apps for notification, or coordinate their responses with their neighbours because (1) they do not have internet, (2) they do not have reliable mobile coverage, and (3) ageing landline infrastructure often results in intermittent service.
I commend Mr Troy Williams of Chiltern, who led a petition for better mobile phone and internet services and collected over 132 signatures in the week following the fires. I am delighted to bring this petition to the House. I make my commitment to present it today.
To the Indigo and Chiltern valleys, along with other mobile phone black spot locations in the Indigo shire, I have made a commitment to bring this issue to the government and have it included in round 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. I also acknowledge the presence of the mayor and the CEO of Indigo shire, who are with me today, and I call on the government and the telcos to release the guidelines for round 2 so that we actually know what we are talking about. I call on them to make emergency response and safety two considerations in these guidelines, so that our community without services becomes an absolute priority.
Melanoma
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (16:23): I rise today to talk about Orange farmer Wayne Petrie. Wayne is both an Orange farmer and a member of the Square Meaters Cattle Association. Last week at the Royal Canberra Show Mr Petrie donated a 483-kilogram yearling Square Meater steer of magnificent proportions who goes by the name of Max. All proceeds from the sale were to be donated to the Melanoma Institute of Australia. It was hoped that the steer would attract a maximum price of $5,000—around $10 a kilogram.
Last week Senator Fiona Nash and I met with Wayne—and with Max, who was looking in great trim—on the lawns of Parliament House. With the media there, and with the House in the background, Max will certainly be there for everyone to see for the rest of his life. He was looking in fine form. It was great to hear that Max sold for more than expected and went for over $6,000. We are lucky to have people in Calare like Wayne who are generous, community-minded people. Let this act of generosity remind those of us who are farmers about the risk of melanoma. Farmers consider themselves tough people of the land, but melanoma does not discriminate. It is great to see Australian farmers developing their own cattle breeds, and on behalf of us all I wish Wayne and his team the best for a successful auction and congratulate them.
Euthanasia
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:25): Today I was pleased to join with colleagues in the all-party group for dying with dignity—my colleagues Alannah MacTiernan, the member for Perth; Andrew Leigh, the member for Fraser; Senator Richard Di Natale; Senator Nova Peris; and Senator Katy Gallagher—to advocate for legislation to restore powers to the territories to make laws on the subject of dying with dignity. It is outrageous that the federal parliament two decades ago passed legislation to prevent voluntary euthanasia even being discussed in the territory parliaments. In addition to restoring to the territorian parliaments the capacity to legislate as their communities would wish, we see this legislation—which will be subject to a conscience vote—as an indicator of how this parliament will vote on federal dying with dignity laws.
The parliamentary group has been inspired to continue the advocacy on this issue by the example of the indefatigable and courageous Peter Short, who campaigned for the right to die with dignity until shortly before his death from cancer. Peter had been illegally provided with the means to end his life if he so chose, but in the end he did not need to resort to those means. However, he stated that it brought him enormous comfort to know that if the pain became too great in his final days he could choose the timing of his death. It is long past time that we accorded to terminally ill Australians dignity and choice in the manner and timing of their death.
Macquarie Electorate: Shine Community Choir
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (16:26): Shine Community Choir from Springwood in the Blue Mountains will be travelling to New York in April for the opportunity of a lifetime. The choir have been invited to perform at the prestigious Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York by Distinguished Concerts International New York and will be official ambassadors for the Blue Mountains. As a testament to the power of social media, the choir were invited after being discovered by the New York organisation on YouTube. Shine choir members will join other choirs from around the world to perform music by Sydney Guillaume, a Haitian-born composer and conductor. I congratulate the choirmaster and director, Nicole Giezekamp-Bakija, and all 25 choir members for the dedication, commitment and community spirit that led to the invitation.
Nicole, who has references from Dame Joan Sutherland and the Juilliard School of music in New York, formed the choir in 2012. The choir began singing at nursing homes in the Blue Mountains and at Blackheath Choir Festival. The invitation to perform in New York is an amazing opportunity for our talented local choir. The Australian consul general, Nick Minchin, will also be attending the performance in New York. I was pleased to attend an event on the steps of the Sydney Opera House recently in anticipation of the trip, and it was a pleasure to chat with Ms Giezekamp-Bakija and the choir members. If you would like to help raise funds for the choir to travel to the US, please visit their GoFundMe page: 'Shine Community Choir New York trip'. I wish them every success.
Soldier On
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:28): Last Friday I joined the Prime Minister, the defence minister, assistant defence ministers, the shadow assistant defence minister—my colleague David Feeney—the British high commissioner and a range of Canberrans, as well as people from all over Australia, for the official launch of a new annex of Soldier On's Robert Poate Reintegration and Recovery Centre in Crace. Soldier On has gone from very humble beginnings: from supporting 200 wounded soldiers a year to now providing a range of services to 500 wounded warriors a month thanks to the vision of John and Danielle Bale, and the financial and in-kind support of small and large businesses and organisations and thousands of Australians, including thousands of Canberrans. From those very humble beginnings Soldier On now has centres across the nation.
It was a privilege to be at the launch of the new annex of the Robert Poate Reintegration and Recovery Centre. The recovery centre is named after Canberran Private Robert Poate, who was killed on tour in Afghanistan in 2012. According to Janny and Hugh Poate—it was wonderful to see them at the launch—it is a great honour that the centre, which provides a critically important service to the wounded soldiers, is named for their son. I congratulate and thank Soldier On for their extraordinary work.
Murray Electorate: Rushworth War Memorial
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:30): In March 2017, I will have the great privilege of unveiling a new memorial at Rushworth honouring two local World War I heroes. Funding to help with the construction was provided by the Commonwealth. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these extraordinary men a year in advance. The first is Lieutenant Frank McNamara, Victoria Cross winner. While serving with No. 1 Squadron—the forerunner to our Australian Air Force—Frank McNamara, then 23 and a teacher in civilian life, landed his aircraft behind Turkish lines to rescue Captain DW Rutherford, who had been forced to land following engine failure. Under heavy fire and himself severely wounded, McNamara assisted in holding off Turkish cavalry and managed to save his comrade by taking off, once more, and flying back to the aerodrome. For his heroic efforts, he was awarded a Victoria Cross, the only one awarded to the Australian Flying Corps in World War I.
The second individual is Sir George Jones. He was drafted as a military cadet at the age of 17. He first went to Gallipoli with the 9th Light Horse before transferring to the Camel Corps and, finally, to the Australian Flying Corps. In April 1919, Jones was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, having been credited with bringing down seven enemy aircraft on the Western Front. Regarded as 'a most daring and gallant leader in aerial fighting', Jones rose from trooper to captain in just three years. I pay my respects to these men who were pioneers of the great Australian Air Force, showing enormous courage and selflessness. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Belmont Medicare Office
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:31): I thought I would bring the House up to date with my campaign for keeping the Belmont Medicare office open. The House may remember that the Howard government closed the Belmont Medicare office, Labor reopened the medical office in Belmont and—surprise, surprise—the Liberal Party is back in power and they are set to close the Belmont Medicare office.
Last Saturday morning, I spent three hours outside Belmont Medicare office. Yes, it was closed, whereas previously it had been open on a Saturday morning. I had people lining up to sign the petition. It was further exacerbated by the fact that the Baird government had closed the motor registry office in the area. People could see and were saying to me that one thing you know is that a Liberal government takes away services. They were lining up to try and vote this government out. They are very upset that they are going to lose their Medicare office. They feel that the government is showing absolutely no respect for them.
Over the coming weeks, we will be getting more signatures on that petition. There will be many events where people can come along and show their displeasure at the fact that this government is trying to rip the Medicare office out of Belmont. (Time expired)
Lyons Electorate: Sassafras Heritage Farming Weekend and Koonya Garlic Festival
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:33): There were two wonderful events that I attended on the weekend. On Friday afternoon, an event that went over the weekend was the Sassafras Heritage Farming Weekend of the Historical Machinery Club, a festival on the red soil in one of the most beautiful parts of our north-west Tasmania. I would like to thank David and Gloria Perry, and Tony and Tanya Perry, for making me feel so welcome this first time I had been to that event. There was heritage equipment from all around the state, and to all those exhibitors who had military and farming equipment and bullocks, it was a wonderful celebration of who we are and where we have come from.
On the Saturday morning, I attended—again, for the first time—the Koonya Garlic Festival. This is something I would encourage anybody who is visiting my state to take advantage of at this time of the year. James Parker, Carey Badcoe, the vice-president, and the committee are to be congratulated. This is truly a wonderful event that will grow and grow. I am told reliably by the Tasman Council, one of the sponsors—other sponsors are Bendigo Bank and NRM South—that they had over 2,000 people attend. I had the pleasure of meeting our own Tino Carnevale, from Gardening Australia, but also Angus Stewart, who came down from your state, Deputy Speaker, to judge the championship garlic. (Time expired)
Indi Electorate: Renewable Energy
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:34): I would like to extend my congratulations and ongoing support for the amazing work being done by the community group in my electorate called Totally Renewable Yackandandah. TRY is an incorporated association formed as a direct result of a community energy forum held by the Indigo Shire Council in March 2014. The goal of TRY is to have 100 per cent of Yackandandah's electricity supply sourced from renewable energy by 2022. The team is working tirelessly with residents and businesses to achieve this target. To date, Yackandandah has 30.7 per cent of its roofs installed with solar PV panels, compared with a national average of 14 per cent. In recent years, several projects such as stand-alone power systems at Yackandandah Men's Shed and the PV installation powering by the Yackandandah Community Development Company, the community centre and the local hospital have raised the profile. Congratulations to TRY on their important work and the community attitudes towards a 100 per cent renewable energy target for Yackandandah. This recently released survey was done in conjunction with the Charles Sturt University. I offer particular congratulations to Matthew Charles-Jones, the inaugural President of TRY; Matt Grogan, the current President of TRY, and Annette Nuck, who is the CEO of Yackandandah Health, which recently installed 348 solar panels on their roofs. It is going to save them over $1 million in the near future. Well done, TRY!
Dawson Electorate: Roads
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (16:36): In 2011, I led a convoy of Liberal-National politicians, including former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, along the 1,700-kilometre length of the Bruce Highway as part of my 'Fix the Bruce' campaign. As a result, the Liberal-National government made the largest commitment to the Bruce Highway in our nation's history. A key component of that $6.7 billion commitment was the replacement of the Haughton River Bridge with $485 million of federal funding. North Queensland has voted the Haughton River Bridge as the most urgent problem to be fixed on the 400-kilometre stretch of the section between Mackay and Townsville. The narrow crossing of the Haughton has no side rails and is treacherous to cross when it is raining or when a truck is coming the other way—even more so when both happen at the same time. This critical safety upgrade, as well as the many jobs it will bring to North Queensland, has currently stalled, with the state Labor government paralysed like a rabbit in the headlights. Labor's Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has refused to fast-track the long and drawn-out planning and design process, continuing to put lives at risk and delaying vital job creation. That is why I have circulated the petition in the Burdekin, calling on the Premier to 'pull the finger out' before someone else gets killed and to let those jobs come to North Queensland, where they are so desperately needed.
Australian Public Service
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:37): Last week, in the course of the parliamentary sittings, I had the opportunity to wander down to the front lawns of Parliament House and meet with a range of workers. They were employees of the CSIRO, their supporters and the trade union, which does a wonderful job in representing their interests—the Community and Public Sector Union. I was there to show my support, along with a large number of Labor colleagues, for the work that they do—work that is under threat. This government has engaged in some serious attacks on science and serious attacks on the Public Service. It is so important in this place that we reverse both of those attacks. In talking to those CSIRO scientists, I wanted to deliver them two messages. The first is that I understand how important their climate science work is to how we live today and how we may adapt in the future. It is a matter of importance not only to me but to those who come after us—I see some children here in the gallery in the Federation Chamber. The second is that the attack goes beyond the particular nature of these people's work. It goes to the nature of public service in this country. What we have seen from this government, first under Prime Minister Abbott and now Prime Minister Turnbull, is contempt, compounded by neglect and cuts to the Public Service. This is something that must be reversed—in Canberra, in Melbourne and in Hobart, in the CSIRO and elsewhere. This government stands condemned for its attack on climate science and on those who perform the work generally.
Dobell Electorate: Mr Jordan Garner
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:39): It is always rewarding as a member to share with the House the achievements of people in Dobell, and none more so than the young people who are excelling in their chosen field. Jordan Garner, who has already achieved a long list of accomplishments in golf at only 16 years of age, is one such young person. Recently I presented Jordan with a cheque for $500 from the Australian Sports Commission's Local Sporting Champions grants to contribute to the cost of his participation in the Australian all-schools golf championship. In March Jordan will be representing Australia in the 10th Faldo Series Asia Grand Final in Shenzhen, China.
Jordan is exceptionally gifted and is passionate about his sport. He is dedicated and committed to pushing himself to be the best he can be. Consistently maintaining an attitude of positivity, Jordan believes in the value of learning from his mistakes and failures, learning how to deal with losses and using such experiences as a platform to better himself. He has committed his life to sport, training for 40 hours every week as well as attending school, and also attending the gym three to four days each week. He has played competitively since he was seven years old and his goals include attending college in the USA and turning professional by the age of 22. I wish Jordan every success in his golfing career and, especially, success in the tournament in China.
Gift of Life's DonateLife Walk
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:41): Last Wednesday, on a stunning Canberra summer's morning, I joined with over 5,500 Canberrans to take part in the Gift of Life's DonateLife walk. There were students from St Clare's College, students from Merici College and students from Marist College, as well as lots of people with dogs and people from a range of government agencies. As always, Canberrans turned out in full force to support this walk, which raises awareness of organ and tissue donation and of the need to have the conversation with your family.
If you want to donate life, if you want to donate your organs and tissues, then please have the conversation with your family. It is vitally important.
This year we celebrated our 10th walk and, as a former member of the Gift of Life board, I remember spending many an evening and many a weekend wandering round and round tables stuffing show bags, getting drink bottles, collecting T-shirts, and basically running around like a chook with my head off, preparing for those walks over the years. I remember the walk started very modestly in its first year, and it has gone from strength to strength thanks to the commitment of Canberrans young and old, and of the canine variety, to organ and tissue donation and to raising awareness of this vitally important need to donate life.
Petrie Electorate: Australian Citizenship Ceremonies
Private Member's Bill: Desecration of the Australian Flag
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:42): Last Thursday I had the opportunity to attend a citizenship ceremony within the Moreton Bay Regional Council's Redcliffe Cultural Centre, where over 100 people chose to become Australian citizens. It was wonderful to see people from all around the globe—people from England and parts of the former USSR and the Philippines—who have made the commitment to become Australian citizens and who want to embrace our wonderful way of life. We know—and we would all agree in this place—that we live in the greatest country in the world, and we want to make sure that we continue to accept people from right around the world who want to call Australia home.
I also want to congratulate Brian de Leeuw, who lives at Woody Point in my electorate and has also just become an Australian citizen. Brian—who was down here today with his wife, Penny, and their children, Jacob and Alia—was born in New Zealand and has lived in this country for about 15 years now but has decided to become a citizen. He has a wonderful work ethic, and I want to welcome him as our latest Australian citizen.
On a different note, I note that the federal member for Dawson, George Christensen, introduced a private member's bill to the Australian parliament to make desecrating the Australian flag unlawful. I also note that the member for Throsby supported that in the House of Representatives today.
I think that the bill is a great idea because three of my four grandparents fought under that flag in World War II, and we want to make sure that it is upheld.
McMillan Electorate: Agricultural Shows
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:44): I stand today to speak in praise of our agricultural shows, especially those around my area—from the Wonthaggi and district summer agricultural show to the Foster and District Agricultural Show, which we attended on the weekend, to next Saturday's Warragul and West Gippsland Agricultural Show. President Bruce Pratt and Tonnie Schipper have been contributors for so many years, as have Peter and Dennis at the Foster show, whom we met with, as have Wayne Loughnan and his wife, Rosemary Loughnan, who are president and show secretary at Wonthaggi.
More importantly, each one of these shows is different. Hundreds and hundreds of people attended the Foster show the other day. Of course, my wife, Bronwyn, and I were drawn towards the dogs, especially the sheepdog trials. We had explained to us the intricacies of what the dogs were doing, how they were going about their job, the way they were bred, their attributes and attitudes and their different levels of aggression. Overall, these shows play a really important role within the communities that they serve. They reflect what was, and still is, the agricultural base of my electorate. We will be right behind anything that can be done to enhance the opportunities to foster these agricultural shows and all of the parts that they play.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Price ) (16:45): The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Safeguarding Democracy Report
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:46): Last week, this parliament was the site for the launch of an important and also very challenging report, Safeguarding democracy, prepared by a very important community organisation, the Human Rights Law Centre. This report, which I have had the opportunity to consider over the past week, presents some challenges that demand deep consideration in this place and in the community. They also require, in my view, a substantial response from politicians—government, opposition and other parties—but also from our parties. Last Monday, I had the privilege of being able to discuss the report and the concerns it raises with representatives of the civil society groups which lent their support to it. I note that a wide variety of groups, not just the Human Rights Law Centre, came together, representing diverse aspects of our vibrant civil society in Australia but with a shared series of concerns about the state of rights in Australia and the state of our democracy more generally. It was pleasing for me to see such diverse groups, like the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, coming together to tell one story about a series of concerns which affect all of their organisations individually but, more profoundly, shape the workings of our democracy in this place and in the community.
It is very important that we are now talking in this parliament, particularly from the Labor side, about economic inequality and its consequences—its consequences for individuals and for economic growth more broadly—but we cannot dismiss from this consideration political inequality, which should also be firmly on our radar, not least because there is clearly a relationship between these two phenomena. We do face, in my view, a vicious cycle. If we do not attend to our democratic deficit, we are unlikely to bridge the economic divide between haves and have-nots. We are aware, as I speak now, that participation in most forms of formal political involvement are dropping off in Australia, whether it is enrolment to vote, voting or, as most of us are probably aware, participation in political parties, which is also in decline. This is a phenomenon that is occurring right across the developed world, not just in Australia. We are seeing the rise of a new populism. This is bad news for rights and, I think, bad news for economic prospects as well. This report highlights the fragile nature of our democratic foundations in Australia, while acknowledging that Australians have done a pretty good job of preserving rights across the board. We have many proud firsts in Australia's democratic evolution, and these successes, while they should be celebrated, we should not regard as some sort of fail-safe insurance against some of the significant threats to rights.
In looking to this—in looking beyond government itself—I ask myself this: whatever happened to the big society? As the current government prepared for the last election, we heard much about a revitalised civil society from former Minister Andrews, but, over the last 2½ years, this notion of a big society has shrunk dramatically to just a commitment to small government and a civil society which has been under attack through cuts but also through some directives of this government of an administrative nature and through the making of laws. These are matters which this report effectively highlights.
I will touch on a couple of matters of the report in particular shortly, but I would first make some general remarks. I think it is important to say that I do not agree with all the criticisms contained within the report. I believe that some criticisms of particular legislative provisions are overstated, and perhaps some are also misconceived. But I do not think this really is the point of the document. What is clear is that preserving a robust democracy is about more than just the express effects of individual laws on individuals. We must also have regard to what can be the chilling effect of policies and of the tenor of debate in this place and beyond it. How politics and government are practised clearly matters. People are looking to all of us in this place for leadership in the wider sense, and inclusive leadership.
So I turn to the report's consideration of how the institutional framework of rights has been treated. In this regard, it is important to touch upon, in the first instance, the attacks by senior members of this government on the Australian Human Rights Commission and in particular its president, Professor Triggs. This no doubt has significantly impacted on our capacity to maintain a proper dialogue about the preservation of rights and a proper exchange between executive government and those who should, from time to time, be critical of its decisions.
We have seen this echoed in a lack of respect, as I see it, for the courts and for due legal process. I have been personally concerned, and I note the concerns raised in this report, about the manner in which litigants and their representatives have been described by senior ministers of this government, simply for pursuing their rights under law to advance either their interests or, in many cases, the interests of others—the interests of those unable to bring those matters before the courts. As someone who was a lawyer in a former life, I do find this concerning. A fundamental foundation of a democratic society must give citizens the ability to challenge government decisions. To see senior members of a government not simply debate the substance of matters which have been brought before the courts but seek to raise issue with the motivations of those seeking to hold the government to account is disturbing and impacts, in my view, significantly on the health of our democracy, which goes again to these questions of tone—of whether we choose to encourage a vibrant democracy or seek to discourage those who raise questions.
This goes to the other significant limb of the report, which goes to advocacy. I note in The Sydney Morning Herald, in the aftermath of this report being handed down, comments by the Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre, Mr Hugh de Kretser, who said:
Governments—
and he was referring not just to the federal government but to a range of state governments, I should point out—
are using a range of funding levers to make it harder for community organisations to speak out, to advocate on behalf of the groups they represent (and) the natural environment and that's bad for the health of our democracy
I agree, and we see in respect of community legal centres a very dramatic illustration of how important it is that community organisations be supported not simply to maintain casework but also to deal with systemic problems our society faces. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that advocacy is a separate remit from casework. We see that in the very important work that so many community legal centres have done in highlighting violence against women and demonstrating that this is not a matter of individual circumstances but a sad phenomenon built on gender inequality. It is that sort of advocacy that governments need to pressure them to make good decisions for wider wellbeing.
I note that there is a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, which touches on similar matters. There will be a report in due course around that, but it is concerning to see that advocacy has not always been regarded as an important thing to be valued in civil society but has been seen as something to be suspicious of. I say briefly: what a contrast the record of this government has been to that of the former government, which put in place a range of mechanisms to ensure a robust civil society—in particular when it came to its support for social services agencies, where explicit provision was made to enable agencies to speak out, even if it were against policies of that government.
A particularly pointed question on the issue of advocacy is how we treat whistleblowers. This is a matter that is highlighted at some length in the report of the Human Rights Law Centre. One thing that I think needs to be given very serious consideration by anyone who is serious about public administration is to think about not just about offering protection for whistleblowers but also giving some thought to incentives, knowing what we know about how whistleblowers are treated. I think of the recent example of those former Save the Children workers and the consequences that their lives have suffered because of their courage in speaking out on matters that they believes to be important.
This document provides us with some signs of hope. Decisions of recent state governments, like that in Victoria that by Daniel Andrews and that in Queensland by Annastacia Palaszczuk, have reversed previous attacks on rights, particularly in going to the right of assembly. This could and should be a foundation for all of us in this place to think about our shared interest in the state of our democracy, recognising that we will not always agree on how that democracy should be constructed. On the need to maintain not simply robust debate in this place but a robust and well-supported civil society that holds us all to account, if we do not pay closer attention to the state of our democracy, as this report demands, our jobs will become much more difficult and the challenge of sharing a vision of the future will become under threat.
Second Sydney Airport
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (16:56): I rise to speak on Labor's deception regarding the Western Sydney airport. I wish to speak particularly with regard to the duplicitous behaviour from the Labor candidate in Macquarie regarding Labor's stance and position on the airport. Contrary to this, my position has been consistent and well known. I have made my position clear previously and on many occasions, but for those who may have missed it, I will state it again.
While I have serious concerns about the flight paths and some aspects of the EIS, I am in support of an airport in Western Sydney. This will bring much needed economic and employment benefits to greater Western Sydney and, particularly, to the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury regions. Indeed, many of the business community, the chambers of commerce and also industry leaders in the tourism sector are very passionate about the potential growth and prosperity that a Western Sydney airport can bring to our region. Economic modelling indicates that, by the time the airport is fully operational, there will be some 35,000 new jobs around the airport. This is significant for the generations to follow.
I have been fighting, and will continue to fight, for my community and for the generations to come to ensure the protection of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Also, I will fight to ensure that an alternative location can be found to the current proposed flight paths over Blaxland. I have included these points in the submission following the release of the EIS. Additionally, I am seeking a no-impact statement on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This is important not just for tourism but also for our environment.
The Labor spokeswoman in Macquarie has failed to tell the people of Macquarie that Labor's policy is for an airport. Yes, this is the case. I refer to Labor's National Platform document. The difference is that I have been up-front and honest with the community about our position and the coalition's commitment to the airport. The Labor spokeswoman speaks publicly against an airport, but I have been told privately by many that she is for an airport but has simply said that she needs to toe the local Labor policy line. After all, there is an election this year. But for my part, I have made representations directly to the decision makers. I have written to, and met with on more than one occasion, the former Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the honourable Warren Truss. I will be meeting with the new minister very shortly. I have met with the department of infrastructure and also with Airservices Australia. I have talked at length with them about the challenges and the perceptions and the issues that are very important to my community.
I and the coalition government are committed to having a rail-ready airport. Mr Shorten, indeed, has said this himself, and he has said that it is critical that a rail link to Badgerys Creek is fast tracked—which says to me that he and the Labor Party support an airport.
I have brought the deputy mayor and other members of the Blue Mountains council here to Canberra to meet with former minister Truss to have their concerns directly heard, and I have met with the mayor and provided access to the Minister for the Environment's office and have offered the same and other meetings to him as well.
I have spoken directly with the Prime Minister and raised not only my concerns but also the concerns of my local community. I hosted Paul Fletcher, the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, in the electorate and invited representatives from the Blue Mountains City Council to meet with Minister Fletcher. I have also spoken directly with Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, specifically about the environmental concerns, the importance of adequate and appropriate biobanking, and about a number of species that are on the site of the proposed airport and how we can respond in the future to ensure that those species continue to be part of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor.
Earlier this month, I held several meetings with a number of environmental groups, including the conservation society, and the outgoing chair and members of the Advisory Committee of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, to meet with a senior adviser of Minister Hunt to facilitate their direct access to the minister and, indeed, to the decision makers.
I have met and spoken directly, again, with Airservices Australia. Following the first public information session in the lower Blue Mountains, in Blaxland, in October last year, I advocated for a second session, which was held at Glenbrook, and I thank the department for conducting those information sessions. I was present at both sessions to hear from people—and many people had deep concerns. There are some people in the community who do not want an airport, but there are many more who do want an airport but want to make sure that we get the best outcome for future generations while also protecting our environment and ensuring that we mitigate potential noise impacts—indeed, if we can move those flight paths, reducing or removing those noise impacts.
I am concerned, and many in the community are also concerned, about the ratepayer-funded campaign currently taking place against the airport, with the council having consultants calling for nominations for a reference group and other social media and printed materials. It is a valid question to ask: is this ratepayers' money being manoeuvred from vital services to the community for a political campaign?
Additionally, I have been contacted anonymously by staff at council. In fact, I have a copy of a letter which they wrote to Warren Truss regarding their concerns. These are council staff. They cc'ed that letter to me. They raised their concern about their time being diverted towards this airport campaign and about their staff being used, as the letter states: 'as political operatives'. The letter goes on to say: 'We have never experienced such manipulation and cynicism as this cheap attempt to politicise staff.' The writers indicate that, if there are some who are interested to fight in such a way against the airport—and of course we all know that, as federal, state and local representatives, we have a responsibility to communicate and make representations on behalf of the community—there is no problem with that. People are free to do so—providing they use their own resources and money. They are very concerned about the resources of council being used in this way.
Can I say again: I am consistent in my stance regarding the airport. I will fight for my community and ensure the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is protected; I will fight for an alternative flight path location. Additionally, I am seeking a no-impact statement on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. But I also stand here on behalf of those tourism operators and those small, medium and large businesses from the chambers of commerce across the Blue Mountains that are saying to me they want to see this airport happen. They are supportive of it. They want to see the growth in opportunities that it will bring for them, for their business and for our region, and they want to see greater Western Sydney become an employment hub for future generations to come.
Veterans
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (17:05): In the last week, around my electorate and other parts of Sydney, I have seen some rather large billboards being placed up, and these remind us of the significant problem that we have in our nation of the suicide rates of our returned servicemen. The facts which they quote are that since 1999, while we have had 46 Australian soldiers tragically killed on active service, in the same period of time we have had 239 returned soldiers take their own lives. In that period, we have lost five times as many servicemen on home soil as we have lost on the battlefield. So it is no wonder that so many of our returned services groups were so outraged earlier this year when retired former General Morrison, in his Australian of the Year acceptance speech, placed a higher prior on lobbying for the republican movement and ethnic and gender diversity than he did on this alarming epidemic rate of suicide of troops formerly under his command.
These billboards were installed by a charity called Walking Wounded, and on their website they state:
Walking Wounded … has been established to assist in the psychological rehabilitation and recovery of returned Australian soldiers who are experiencing hardships after their time in service. Our primary objective is to intervene and prevent the concerning incidences of suicide in the young veteran community through counselling and other support. We show them that there is 'life after the Army'.
I am not a psychologist, but I would suggest the reason we are seeing this significant rate of increased suicide amongst our ex-military personnel, which we have not seen in the past, is that in previous wars—in World War I and World War II—it was effectively all in. Everybody would have known somebody that fought in the war, and when the soldiers returned they would have easily conversed and interacted with other returned soldiers. But today we only have a small fraction of our population that we call on to fight our wars. While we are enjoying a party lifestyle of cafes, restaurants, bars and going out, we are completely isolated from the hardships that our soldiers are undergoing as we call on them to kill in our name. When the soldiers return, it is clear that we simply do not have enough detraining to equip those soldiers for normal civilian life.
There was a recent article on the ABC website where they asked the question about the returned soldiers, and they said, 'If I'm not a soldier, who am I?' They quoted a returned serviceman who said—and I quote his exact words:
What I did over there—
talking about Iraq and Afghanistan—
mattered … I had a prominent job, I enjoyed what I did. When I came home all that went away. I didn't really have any self worth anymore.
Another said:
I did become just another number. You lose a sense of purpose, your identity.
The American author David Swanson has talked about this, because they are having exactly the same problem in the USA. He said:
You can't kill and face death and return unchanged to a world in which you are expected to refrain from … violence and relax.
That brings me to the Veterans Motorcycle Club, formerly the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club, which has operated from premises in my electorate at Menai for a number of years.
The Veterans Motorcycle Club play a very important role in providing a support network to ensure that our at-risk ex-servicemen are in regular contact with other ex-servicemen who understand what they have been through and what they are experiencing and help them work through their mental health issues. But I am sad to report to the House that they are being evicted from the premises that they are currently in—they have been there for over a decade—which are owned by Ausgrid, Australia's largest electricity supplier, a company that has over $3 billion in revenue. It is evicting them. They have been given a notice that they need to quit the premises. Unbelievably, they have been asked to quit the premises on 30 April, just a few days after Anzac Day.
I understand that companies like Ausgrid need to try to make every dollar that they possibly can. I understand that they are trying to fatten up their profits for a public sale for the New South Wales state government. But they also have a social responsibility. Ausgrid, in their statement of business ethics, even talk about 'a commitment to conducting business according to the highest ethical standards', and they talk about treating all people with respect, dignity, fairness and equity and being socially responsible. It is not socially responsible to ask a group of ex-servicemen to quit the premises that they are in a few days after Anzac Day.
I spent some time on the weekend talking to these ex-soldiers. They told me firsthand that the club had saved their lives. They told me that, if it were not for the club, they would not be alive today. They told me stories about the difficulty that they have fitting back into society after coming back from fighting on our behalf. I spoke to their wives, and they told me that when their husbands are at that club they know their husbands are safe. I heard from one: 'The only place he ever gets to sleep soundly, after returning from Afghanistan, is in the premises of that club.'
If Ausgrid really need these premises, they should simply give these guys time to try to locate alternate premises, assist them with their move and be that good corporate citizen that many of these large companies talk about being. We owe it to our ex-servicemen. We need to stand with them. We seriously have a problem, not only here in Australia but in many of the Western democracies today. We see a similar pattern in the UK. We see a similar pattern in the USA. There is an epidemic of suicide amongst our ex-servicemen.
If we are going to spend billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars, which we do to protect our troops and our servicemen when they are in the field, we need to do everything we can by investing to protect them when they return home. We need to have programs in place so that, when they leave the military services, there are programs equipped to get them back, fit them into society and get them into important jobs. Perhaps those programs need to start even before we send them off into conflict.
It is very easy to look at the veterans motorcycle gang and see them with what we call 'bikie patches' and think these people are outlawed, but they are not. They are people who we in our society owe an obligation to because of what they have done for our nation. I call on Ausgrid—the board and the chairman—to do the right thing by ex-military personnel, even if it costs a few dollars. That is what the corporate responsibility of our large companies should be. They could not do anything better than to help the Veterans Motorcycle Club.
Beazley, Ms Betty
Mr GRAY (Brand) (17:15): I speak today in eulogy of Betty Beazley. Betty was born on 21 March 1921 in Fremantle, Western Australia, married in February of 1948 at Christ Church, Claremont, Western Australia, and died in September of last year, at Nedlands. Betty Judge, wife of Kim Edward Beazley, mother of Kim Christian Beazley was a great Australian woman.
Betty Judge was born in East Fremantle, a community not free from the Great Depression until well after the Second World War. She was the daughter of a World War One widow, Vera Judge. Like thousands of Western Australian women, Vera lost her husband, Tom, whose service in Egypt with the 10th Light Horse left him so ill that, following his repatriation to Perth, he died, leaving Vera and her daughter, Betty, alone. Betty was then aged 12 months. Vera and Betty were sustained by a war pension, the Legacy organisation and a strong family. Betty's cousin Morris was like a brother to her. But, as for nearly half of the airmen who flew over Europe in the Second World War, he and his flight crew were killed on a mission over France. Having been so affected by war loss, throughout her adult years Betty spent Anzac Day in reflective solitude while her husband attended to the noisy public honouring required of a member of federal parliament.
Betty was an athlete. She won a scholarship to Perth Modern School, where she later became the youngest sports mistress and, with the help of Legacy, became the first woman in Western Australia to get a Diploma in Physical Education. Betty intended to teach and she won a scholarship for a diploma at Melbourne University.
Betty's relationship with Kim started when he was teaching at Midland School and she was studying at the University of Western Australia. It was a relationship based on a shared view of the world. Kim remarked in his autobiography that Betty 'always wanted to work for the underdog, and that seemed to fit in well with the Labor Party'.
Strong Christian values characterised her world view. Her life was celebrated in September last year in the church where she married. The Beazley grandchildren all knew the towering contribution to public life of both Kims; however, humility, modesty and self-awareness meant nanna's story remained unknown until she opened up to her grandchildren quite late in life. Hannah remembered her dad mentioning that nanna was a great runner. So she and Jessica grilled her on her athletic career. Hannah remembers sitting enthralled as Betty finally told them about her athletic life. Betty began competing in 1939 in a wide variety of events, including sprints and hurdles, but she excelled in the 440-yard and 880-yard events. On 2 March 1940 the Perth Sunday Times reported, 'Betty judge breaks world record', stating, 'the most outstanding performance of the day was that of Betty Judge, who followed up her record-breaking 440 yards last week by winning the Women's 880 Yards State Championship in 2 minutes 24.7 seconds, which broke the State record by 3.8 seconds, the Australian record by a half a second and the world record by a ninth of a second'. The paper reported, 'This excellent performance must place Miss Judge amongst the world's best women distance runners.' On 15 February 1941 the Mirror reported, 'World record time: Betty Judge's fast 300', declaring, 'World's record for women's 300 yards race was bettered today at Leederville Oval when Betty Judge covered the distance in 39.8 seconds.' Again, on 8 February 1947 the Perth Daily News reported, 'Girl beats own 880 record … Miss Betty Judge brilliantly lowered by half a second her own state and Australian 880 yards record at today's athletics at Leederville Oval.' Competing during wartime entailed haphazard training and irregular competition. Add the years in Melbourne at university, and her achievements were extraordinary for a woman of her generation.
Hannah remembers her grandmother speaking with pride of coaching Shirley Strickland, who went on to set world records and win seven Olympic medals. Betty took as much joy in Shirley's achievements as she did in her own. Betty looked after her family as a single parent, said her son Kim, while having the multiple tasks of looking out for her husband's back in the electorate, the party, and, more generally, in the pursuit of his political aspirations.
Kim remembered Betty's protective instinct and generosity of love. There was always room at the Beazley table for one more. She would give comfort and hospitality to students of the Colombo Plan, young waifs, Aboriginal people, those in need of love and a good meal.
One of the earliest memories of Kim Jr was of his mother's work in Fremantle Labor Women. He was frequently called upon to pick up Elsie Curtin from her residence in Cottesloe as his mother assembled branch members for regular meetings. Later, Betty was a powerhouse of Cottesloe Labor as membership officer. She thought nothing of doorknocking in that wealthy district. She believed that behind every door in Cottesloe was a family aching to join Labor. She doorknocked the very same streets that John Curtin had walked.
Betty's energy was boundless. She would literally run errands. Kim Sr would implore, 'Stop running, Betty, for goodness sake!' Betty could run like the wind. We learned at the celebration of her life in September that she would not walk, even around her home—she ran. Kim Jr told us how as a girl Betty would run from her home in East Fremantle to Cottesloe, saving the train fair for pocket money.
The 1940s, fifties and sixties were turbulent years for Labor and the Beazleys. Labor before Whitlam was not for the fainthearted, and life as a mother in the family of a federal MP was demanding. MPs' travel rights were restricted to two monthly return trips from Canberra. In 1950 a flight to Canberra took two days on a DC-3. Although travel was limited, Betty did manage to get to Canberra to enjoy dancing at the 50th Anniversary of the Commonwealth of Australia Ball in Kings Hall, Parliament House in 1951. Chifley was absent and, as the clock neared midnight, Prime Minister Menzies strode to the rostrum, called for silence and announced that Ben Chifley, the former Prime Minister, had died of a heart attack.
By then life in federal parliament had become more bitter and personal, causing Betty and Kim Sr to question the value of parliamentary life. Betty would listen to parliamentary broadcasts, offering critical analysis of her husband's speeches, cautioning him against political bitterness.
Not long after the family was formed, Betty featured in the newspapers with the headline 'Polio victim had met Queen'. The Hobart Mercury reported on 2 March 1954: 'Mrs Betty Beazley, wife of Kim Beazley MHR, contracted polio on February 20. She is now in isolation at her home in Claremont … her condition is said to be improving. Her son, who had been stricken with polio earlier, is now at home also. Mrs Beazley had shaken hands with the Queen at the opening of the federal parliament on February 15.' We can only imagine the concern that this caused Buckingham Palace. The family received a long and thoughtful letter from Sir Donald Bradman offering advice and lessons from him and Lady Bradman, who had also nursed a polio-stricken son. Kim Sr was in Canberra for much of Kim Jr's battle with polio. After Kim's polio, Merrilyn, who was six, contracted double pneumonia. Betty had her hands full.
But Kim junior recalled his mother as never frivolous—always serious and with good humour. Guests in her home felt that they were part of her family. She was also proud of her children—of their academic prowess and their strength. David needed a protective mother, and she supported him as he passed the Postmaster-General's entrance exam. This was the life of a girl whose world view was shaped by the Great Depression and of a woman shaped by World War II. Betty did belong to a great Australian generation. This was a proud Australian woman with high standards, accepting people for themselves. 'Wear life like a loose robe,' she said, and she did.
The grandchildren reported that Nanna's presence always made life better—sunnier, healthier, happier and stronger—while Pop, Kim Sr, tried to improve their minds. Anton said Betty loved, nurtured and restored them. Strong Christian values characterised her world view. Betty enjoyed the beach, Tai Chi, afternoon tea with grandchildren and family meals. Her patience knew no bounds. She understood the joy of life, love, children, kindness and the moral responsibility to make the world a better place.
Betty died in peace and requested happiness and humour at the celebration of her life, which was held in the church where she had married, a perfect cycle of life embodying lived values. At that celebration son Kim thanked the staff at Riversea nursing home. It was not a formality; it was what Betty would have expected. Kim was brought up properly and he knew to thank those whose care had helped his mother through her most frail years. Kim talked to Betty on most days following her arrival at Riversea. She had cared for others most of her life and now she was in care.
Kim remembered Betty as a woman of humour with a sunny disposition—loving, outgoing, effervescent, gregarious, enjoying life and people, never frivolous. Kim reflected that Betty's life was not passive. It was a constant tending. Betty was a giver and a gracious receiver of love. Granddaughter Hannah gave loving tribute to Betty's kindness and life-affirming positivity. Simply and powerfully, she was a pure soul, dispensing joy and friendship in equal measure. Love held together Betty's family. Hannah said: 'Our nanna's joy of life, despite many hardships, was remarkable. She drew great happiness from the lives of her children, her grandchildren and, later, her great-grandchildren Tom, Jacob, Liam, David and Aurelia.' 'It is a sadness of mine,' said Hannah, 'that she will not be here to meet my baby, currently kicking away inside of me, but I know she will bless this bub from heaven.' 'In this world,' said Hannah, 'kindness is so under-rated, but, in nanna's world, kindness was everything. She was kind to every person, every living creature. She was kind to the very end, and her faithful life was rewarded with a peaceful death.'
Employment
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:25): It is pretty shocking when a campaign is started because a person is sacked for being an Australian. That has become a campaign, and many workers are now saying that has been their circumstance and their experience. It is not just our shipbuilders, our seafarers, our young hospitality workers or people who work in tourism or in food processing; it is also our cleaners. What I want to highlight today is how many Australians who are simply being sacked for being an Australian, the diverse range of industries in which they work and how their wages and conditions are being undercut.
It is not a straight-up, straight-down 'You have an accent; you don't; you're sacked.' It is the nature of how contracting industries work; it is the nature of how our visa system works; it is the nature of how key manufacturing contracts are going overseas and it is the nature of how our local seafarers are losing jobs to overseas labour.
The first case is Victor. Today the campaign 'I stand with Victor' started. He is a cleaner who works at Melbourne Airport. He has worked at Melbourne Airport for 15 years. He is an Australian. He does not work directly for Melbourne Airport; they outsourced the contract many years ago. He works for their current contractor, Assetlink. Prior to that, he worked for the cleaning contractor ISS. Victor found out last week that the new cleaning contractor, IKON—the third in four years—was not going to offer him and 20 other employees a job. Victor is one of the nicest, most hardworking and humble guys you will ever meet. He came to this country as a refugee, and he is so proud to be an Australian. He does not mind that he works in cleaning. He has worked hard to support his family, and his children have gone on to university and have great careers. But here he is in his middle age, he has not minded working in cleaning, he has worked hard and he is now being dumped by IKON.
Technically, under the law, there is nothing that we can do to ensure that Victor keeps his job. It is a situation of a change of contract. But who is IKON cleaning for, and why would they not want to pick up a cleaner who has 15 years' experience at Melbourne Airport, who knows the place inside-out and back-to-front and who has never once received a warning or a show cause about his performance?
IKON is a cleaning company based in Melbourne that is known for using subcontractors. Rather than employing their own cleaners, they use subcontractors who have a range of international students working for them. There have been cases of underpayments in relation to the subcontractors that IKON uses. A number of these cases are being investigated. It sounds very similar to the cases of 7-Eleven workers and some of the cleaners at Myer and Crown casino, with principal contractors subcontracting out to international students, who may not know what their rights are, who are being forced to get ABNs and then have their wages undercut.
Victor is an Australian who has, quite possibly, lost his job to an international student who may not be paid the right wages and conditions. It is up to the client, Melbourne Airport, to step in. I call on Melbourne Airport to step in, acknowledge Victor's hard work and make sure that he gets a start with a new contractor.
We then have our shipbuilders and seafarers, who again this week have their jobs embassy out the front of this building. They are people who have lost their jobs under this government's watch. This government has not taken the case of our seafarers seriously. We are one of the only OECD countries that does not have its own domestic shipping industry. We have outsourced it to overseas labour. We hear case after case of Australian workers being told: 'You're sacked. You'll be replaced by a foreign crew.' Some of these crews are being paid as little as $2 a day. Because of the recent campaigns around this issue, one of the ships now pays its workforce $2 an hour. They have gone from $2 a day to $2 an hour. It is impossible to say to these workers, 'You've simply priced yourself out of a job.' There is no way any Australian can live in this country on $2 a day. We as a country need to stand up and say that these people are in Australian jobs and therefore should be paid Australian wages. They are, after all, doing shipping on our coastal waters. They are transporting from Brisbane to Gladstone. They are transporting from Portland to other parts of Australia. These are jobs that, like our roads, should be cast as Australian jobs and therefore paid Australian wages.
Sitting next to me on chamber duty is the member for Gellibrand, who under this government has time and again seen defence contracts lost because the government have dragged their feet on signing them. Hundreds of workers in Melbourne have lost their jobs. Shipyards have closed. For the government to release a big, fancy, new defence white paper but not make a commitment to those workers in Victoria is disappointing; not to make a commitment on subs is disappointing. More Australian jobs are at risk of being lost if that contract, as the former Prime Minister wishes, goes to Japan. It will be more jobs lost and more Australians being sacked.
Then we have what is happening in our tourism industry and our meatworks industry, where overseas backpackers—people who are here on 417 visas or 462 visas—are taking the jobs of local young people. The meatworks industry argue that young Australians do not want to work in meatworks. That is not true at DON-KRC in my electorate, where I have had countless young people say that they did not get their summer job this year at DON-KRC, affectionately known in Castlemaine as 'the Baco'. They lost their jobs to backpackers. Why? The collective agreement at the site, at the time, was that casual workers were paid $5 an hour more than people who worked for a subcontractor on the award. So the company turned round and said to the casual workers, 'You have a choice: either you work for the subcontractor and take a $5 pay cut or we will use subcontractors.' The company said that they would save $4 an hour, the worker would lose $5 an hour, and the extra dollar would go to the subcontractor. That is what is happening in some of Australia's workplaces: more Australians sacked because of the use of backpackers, via a subcontractor, in some of our biggest meat- and food-processing industries. It is also happening in tourism. In cities like Cairns and Townsville, where there is no shortage of young people looking for work, they are missing out on jobs in their local cafes and bars to people who are here on temporary backpacker visas.
Yes, we want people to come here for a cultural exchange. Yes, we want people to enjoy and spend their dollars here in Australia. But we need to question a visa system that allows a large number of backpackers to come here basically to be a cheaper labour source and take the jobs of Australians. That is what is happening at DON-KRC, that is what is happening in parts of tourism, and that is what this government is not doing enough to stop. There has been no proposal by this government to really tackle the issue of international worker exploitation that is going on in our workplaces.
This government has dragged its feet on any significant reforms to ensure that locals get offered local jobs first. This government does not even want to acknowledge that there is a problem in the contracting industry when a cleaner like Victor can be sacked and replaced with a subcontracted international student who is being paid less. This government has not even gone downstairs and spoken to the workers on the lawns in front of Parliament House—the seafarers and the shipbuilders who have lost their jobs on this government's watch. This government does not have a jobs plan. They have a lot of fancy papers, they have a lot of rhetoric and they have a lot of lecturing in question time, but they are not standing up for Australian workers. It is a pretty sad day when you have to stand here and say that you hear too often, 'I was sacked for being an Australian.' That is not xenophobia; that is the reality, because this government is not doing enough to stand up for Australian workers.
Barker Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr PASIN (Barker) (17:36): Madam Deputy Speaker Price, I should begin by congratulating you on your appointment to the Speaker's panel. We share the odd conversation in the House of Representatives, and I have been waiting for the day that I get the call from you. I must say it is a good day. I also introduce to the Federation Chamber a close friend and colleague who is with us this afternoon. He is perhaps the reason why I was a little late. He is the member for Mount Gambier, Troy Bell—a good friend and colleague who is in the House this day and over the coming days to pursue the interests of the good people of Mount Gambier and regional South Australia.
In the time I have this evening, I am going to reflect on some of my achievements in this place since September 2013 as a member of the coalition government that has delivered good government to Australia over that period. When I was elected, I committed to the people of Barker that I would work with them and alongside them to build a better Barker. I am pleased to say that, in all the things that we have done, I am confident that we are building a stronger, better, more resilient Barker. That is in the face of a one-in-100-year drought that we are experiencing at present and have experienced over the course of the last two seasons.
Since my election, I have delivered improvements in infrastructure across the electorate. As part of the then Abbott government, I committed to building the roads of the 21st century, as you did, Madam Deputy Speaker—a commitment that I continue to deliver on today. Needless to say, roads are the arteries of rural and regional Australia. They facilitate the flows of commerce and people across the vast geography of our nation. Both during the campaign and since coming to office in 2013, I have come to have an appreciation of the network across my electorate. Indeed, I travel some 100,000 kilometres a year, so, in a sense, I have a direct personal interest in the quality and safety of that interconnected road network. It is imperative to ensure better safety as well as better economic and social outcomes for my constituents. Driven by that understanding of the importance of these thoroughfares for communities across Barker, I am pleased to say that since my election in 2013 we have invested, as a government, a little over $73 million in the road network in Barker. Be it the Penola and Wireless roads intersection—which my friend and colleague the member for Mount Gambier knows well, and which he also knows is currently under construction—or the Penola bypass or upgrades to the Stuart Highway, these are roads that are improving infrastructure and productivity across the region.
I have also fought hard for infrastructure improvements through the National Stronger Regions Fund. This is a fund aimed squarely at areas of disadvantage to grow the strength and capacity of not just regional centres but of our nation in general. I thought I would take the opportunity to highlight the success we have had with respect to that program. Since my election, we have seen over $14 million invested into major projects, whether it be councils or non-incorporated associations, through the National Stronger Regions Fund. First, Naracoorte and Lucindale made a successful application for the construction of an access service road in the vicinity of Naracoorte—namely, a roundabout at $635,000. We also had Tailem Bend, an investment of $7.5 million in a motorsport park which will, effectively, bring motorsport to its zenith at Tailem Bend. It will be transformative for not only Tailem Bend but wider South Australia. The Bedford group was successful in attracting $562,000 for an additional processing plant in their facility at Mount Gambier. The Bedford group, and Bedford industries in Mt Gambier, provides employment opportunities for those with a disability. As someone who has a family member that suffers from a disability, it was particularly rewarding to attend that facility and announce funding which would provide for 18 full-time-equivalent positions for people with a disability and three supervisor positions. The Mid Murray Council was successful in attracting close to three-quarters of a million dollars for funding for the Mid Murray Maritime River Trail, which will provide the capacity for paddle-steamers to travel from Mannum to Morgan and return, and there is an opportunity down the track to work closely with the Rural City of Murray Bridge to enable them to progress downriver.
Regarding the Rural City of Murray Bridge, there is a $1.7 million commitment to turn a particular portion of that city into a regional cultural hub. It will transform the presentation of the inner CBD of Murray Bridge, and I know the community of Murray Bridge, the local council and the proponent are very excited. They made that application in the hope that they would be successful, but, in all honesty, I think they were quite surprised that the application met with approval. Those are sometimes the sweetest wins—the ones that you perhaps do not expect.
While I am talking about wins that you sometimes do not expect, the community of the Riverland, and Berri Barmera Council in particular, have been running campaigns consistently for 20 years for a sports precinct in Berri—an indoor basketball stadium. When I rang the mayor and told him he had been successful in the most recent round—round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund—he was almost moved to tears, as were many of the users of the current, clapped-out facilities. That is a $3.5 million investment which has, quite frankly, re-energised the community in the Riverland. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Price, because you, unfortunately, have to listen to me during question time, that community has experienced some very tough times as a result of the millennium drought. These are communities that have lived through zero or very low water allocations. These are communities that have seen farmers having to walk away from land they have invested in heavily, or land that their parents or grandparents established as part of the original irrigation schemes. To be able to come into those communities, partner with those communities and say to those communities, 'We want to invest in your community,' and develop capital—particularly in the form of social capital—to ensure there is resilience and sustainability for those communities is, quite frankly, one of the highest privileges in this place.
Talking about achievements—and I will have more to say and more opportunities to speak in this place over the course of the next few months, I hope—I want to point out one issue, and that is mobile black spot telephony. Round 1 of that program, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was a $100 million dollar allocation. Round 2, which is currently open, is a $60 million allocation. Sadly, the people of South Australia were dudded through round 1. We had a state government who have now admitted that they did not appreciate the significance of making a co-contribution. Unlike the Western Australian government, unlike the New South Wales government, unlike the Victorian government, unlike the good government of Queensland, the South Australian state government failed to make a contribution to this scheme. The net effect, of course, was that of the close to 500 towers that were allocated for upgrade, South Australian received a meagre 11. Of those, I received—that is, the people of Barker received—two. Barker is the size of Croatia. It is not nearly the size of Durack, Madam Deputy Speaker Price, but it is a large tract of land. Quite frankly, of the allocation, to receive two of 500 was unsatisfactory. That is why I am working with the member for Grey, who also has a specific interest in this as well, to ensure that what we end up with, as a result of round 2, a significant investment by the South Australian state government which results in a disproportionate number of sites in South Australia.
I am hoping to meet with the minister with responsibility in South Australia, Minister Maher. He has been a bit reluctant. We are hoping we will be able to encourage him to make a co-contribution. If he does not, he will fail the people of South Australia just like the state government did in round 1.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (17:46): I was preselected to run for Labor in the federal seat of Fremantle while I was still working for the United Nations overseas. One of the main motivations for coming back to Australia to stand for parliament was to help to improve asylum seekers policy that had for so long been misused by the government of Prime Minister John Howard for cynical political purposes.
On my first day back to Australia on 20 June 2007, I gave a speech in the Fremantle Town Hall to mark World Refugee Day. I had worked a lot with refugees during my time with the UN, especially in Kosovo and Gaza. I had seen Kosovars streaming back from neighbouring countries to their burnt-out homes in Kosovo to live in tents in the middle of the harshest winter on record. I worked with Palestinian refugees in the Middle East who had been forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967 and who were living in appallingly dire conditions for decades in the hope that they would one day return to their homes.
Most refugees are currently living in neighbouring countries. Why? For some it is because they do not have the resources to go any further. But, mostly, it is because they want to go home as soon as circumstances will allow. Far from the cynical reasoning of many in the West that asylum seekers are people who are really just seeking a better life, my own UN experiences told me that people do not leave or stay away from their homes where they were born and grew up, where they have their own culture, food and language, where their loved ones are, without very good reason. It is only when circumstances are so hopeless in their home country, or in the place they have fled to, that people will look further afield for safety.
The former President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga said:
No one leaves their home willingly or gladly. When people leave en masse the place of their birth, the place where they live it means there is something very deeply wrong with the circumstances in that country and we should never take lightly these flights of refugees fleeing across borders. They are a sign, they are a symptom, they are proof that something is very wrong somewhere on the international scene. When the moment comes to leave your home, it is a painful moment.
… … …
It can be a costly choice. Three weeks and three days after my family left the shores of Latvia, my little sister died. We buried her by the roadside, we were never able to return or put a flower on her grave.
And I like to think that I stand here today as a survivor who speaks for all those who died by the roadside, some buried by their families and others not and for all those millions across the world today who do not have a voice who cannot be heard but they are also human beings, they also suffer, they also have their hopes, their dreams and their aspirations. Most of all they dream of a normal life.
It seems that in the last decade and a half, we as a nation have forgotten the lessons of World War II—the direct connection with suffering that led Australia to be the sixth signatory to The Refugee Convention that brought it into force.
Most of the world's 60 million refugees are being hosted in poor neighbouring countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and increasingly in Europe. Lebanon, a small country of four million people, is hosting more than two million Syrian refugees—half of its population again. It would be the equivalent of 12 million people turning up on Australia's doorstep. Against such numbers, our commitment of some 13,000 humanitarian places is not nearly as generous as our political leaders would have the community believe. Of the additional 12,000 Syrian refugees that Australia is supposed to be taking, only 26 have arrived in Australia so far. This is pitiful.
Even worse is the deliberate policy of cruelty that defines our offshore detention system, together with the mantra that no-one who arrives by boat will ever be resettled in Australia. What a mockery this makes of our commitments to the UN refugee convention, which is very clear in saying that asylum seekers must not be punished for the manner of their arrival. What a mockery it makes of our commitment to the international rule of law, which we are fond of quoting at the Chinese when it comes to their island-building activities in the South China Sea. What a mockery it makes of our claim to be a good international citizen and respecter of human rights and therefore entitled to a seat at the UN Human Rights Council. It is telling that in his first speech in the role the current UN Human Rights High Commissioner, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, made a specific reference to Australia as follows:
Australia's policy of off-shore processing for asylum seekers arriving by sea, and its interception and turning back of vessels, is leading to a chain of human rights violations, including arbitrary detention and possible torture following return to home countries. It could also lead to the resettlement of migrants in countries that are not adequately equipped. …
… … …
… Human rights are not reserved for citizens only, or for people with visas. They are the inalienable rights of every individual, regardless of his or her location and migration status.
In an article titled 'Eroding human rights in Australian foreign policy, one asylum seeker at a time', Human Rights Watch Deputy Asia Director, Phil Robertson, recently wrote:
Australia is rarely pushing for rights-respecting solutions these days – and more than that, is too often part of the problem. Politicians trapped in the refugee policy dialogue in Canberra frequently fail to recognise that Australia’s boat push-back policies, and offshoring asylum seekers into abusive conditions of detention in Nauru and on Manus Island, are seen as a green-light by Asian governments to do the same: …
… … …
By soliciting governments to help stop boats, Australia also ends up looking the other way on other rights abuses. By cooperating with Australia to take back boats of their nationals, both Sri Lanka and Vietnam know they could count on Australia not to publicly raise concerns about the rights abuses that drove those people into the boats in the first place. …
… … …
Meanwhile, Cambodia is laughing all the way to the bank with at least $55m of Australia’s taxpayer dollars for taking just five refugees so far from Nauru. All this for a deal that the UN high commissioner for refugees termed “a worrying departure from international norms” of refugee protection.
In the time I have been in parliament Australia's position has become demonstrably worse and far more hypocritical. Whereas Prime Minister Howard made little attempt to hide the cruel nature of his policies and, rather, sought to demonise asylum seekers as queue jumpers, people who would throw their own children overboard and potential terrorists, the present generation of politicians on both sides use the cloak of humanitarian language to justify the policies, with the appalling exceptions of the former immigration minister, who, among other things, wrongfully accused Save the Children staff on Nauru of coaching asylum seekers to fabricate abuse stories, and the present minister, who, without foundation, recently suggested that refugees on Nauru may self-harm or harm their children in order to get to Australia. But, for the most part, they claim, we are saving people from drowning at sea and we are stopping the evil people smugglers. Isn't it extraordinary that the government denounces evil people smugglers while at the same time paying them to take people in the other direction? This is a crime under both domestic and international law.
In relation to saving people from drowning at sea, it is firstly nonsense to say that you are going to punish one group of people who have already arrived by boat in order to deter another potential group of people from getting on a boat. Would it not be far more constructive to create the conditions in origin and transit countries that would mean people do not need to get on boats in the first place? This is what a genuine regional protection framework is about.
Secondly, how do you deter people who have no other option? Those who come to Australia by boat could not get here in any authorised way. If you are Afghani or Rohingya you stand almost no chance of being granted a visa by Australia if you apply for one or of being resettled to Australia through UNHCR, even if you are proved to be a refugee. You could wait in the so-called queue for 100 years and still not be allowed to come. Many of these people, knowing the risks of boat travel, will still take this chance of getting to Australia by the only means open to them, because they are escaping the unsafe conditions at home and the unsafe conditions in transit countries, where they have no right to work and no access to health or education services and where they could be sent home any time.
Thirdly, is there no limit to the cruelty to be imposed on people in the name of deterrence? It seems that not even proven murder, suicide and widespread raping and attacking of asylum seekers and refugees is sufficient to cause a change in policy or to implement something as basic and essential to good governance as independent oversight. In his new book, The Shock of Recognition, Barry Jones describes the situation of refugees detained without evidence or right of appeal, being 'nameless, faceless and without an identity', as 'straight from the world of Kafka'. The government denies any responsibility for what happens in PNG and on Nauru while simultaneously building the detention centres, hiring and paying the detention centre operators and managing everything that goes on in those places.
Last year, the government made amendments to the Migration Act that were, unfortunately, supported by the Labor opposition, in which it retrospectively absolved itself of responsibility for everything that has happened on Manus and Nauru since August 2012. The High Court recently upheld that law as constitutional. Why? It is not because the government is really behaving in a decent manner despite all evidence to the contrary; it is because there are virtually no human rights protections in the Australian Constitution and the parliament has the power to make laws on any matter, no matter how draconian. This is why many people have been calling for a bill of rights or a human rights act, Australia being the only Western democracy without one. Of course, regardless of the domestic legal position, under international law Australia cannot contract out its legal responsibilities and remains responsible for the plight of people it sends to Manus and Nauru.
I would like to conclude with some words from my famous constituent Tim Winton's extraordinary Palm Sunday speech last year:
… we live now as hostages to our lowest fears.
… … …
To those who say this matter is resolved, I say no … A settlement built on suffering will never be settled. An economy built on cruelty is a swindle. A sense of comfort built upon the crushed spirits of children is but a delusion that feeds ghosts and unleashes fresh terrors.
… … …
We're losing our way. We have hardened our hearts. I fear we have devalued the currency of mercy. Children have asked for bread and we gave them stones. So turn back. I beg you. For the children's sake. For the sake of this nation's spirit. Raise us back up to our best selves. Turn back while there's still time.
Homeownership
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:56): I congratulate the member for Fremantle on an excellent speech in a 20-minute grievance debate that she managed to deliver eloquently in 10. Congratulations.
I want to turn to a more domestic concern for many Australians, and that is the issue of homeownership, which has been thrust into the limelight by debate around negative gearing. Every nation should encourage the major political parties to debate changes to existing tax systems. Most of us would also understand that there are no simple solutions, that there is no low-hanging fruit anymore as far as tax reform goes and that every step is a difficult and challenging step, both technically and from the point of view of selling those changes to the people. But I think there was a real sense of undue haste from the opposition when the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced changes to negative gearing. It did shock everyone, I think, when that announcement came. While it suddenly meant that the opposition had some realistic tax propositions on the table, the effort to release that policy when they thought the timing was right politically has now been exposed as probably being a world of pain for the opposition, as they endeavour to defend what I think is quite a coarse policy which will have far more losers than winners.
It is probably worth starting, though, with a bit of Australian history. As a nation of settlers, we found distant plains and plenty of land, something that our forefathers in Europe did not necessarily enjoy, and the sense of homeownership was really pre-eminent and central to being Australians. Even to this day, there is a high level of homeownership and extraordinary effort to go into quite a lot of leverage in order to do so. You could say that, on an OECD comparison, we are extraordinarily focused on owning our own homes. This raises the second issue: as a nation, where do we invest our surpluses? As you know, right across the investment horizon, you have the option of putting your money into a business, putting your money into the share market and buying a range of financial products, or, of course, putting your money, as another form of saving, into property—or, obviously, you can be engaged in consumption. I think the job of the government is to have a relatively flat horizon that does not pick winners or unnecessarily distort investment choices into particular sectors, but, over time, politically in Australia we have been very favourable towards investment in property and residential property in general. That, combined with a new phenomenon, which is the lack of release of satisfactory amounts of land around the fringes of our extremely dispersed and sparsely populated cities, means that we have had extraordinarily high property prices compared to income. This has occurred because of the lack of release of peripheral land, a failure to move into high-rise for a range of reasons, our absolute love of having our own plot of dirt, and political encouragement to invest in property.
What does that all mean? It means that, if we are going to be transitioning Australia's economy, we will need to think very hard about whether we want to continue to encourage the investment. I will be a little generalist by saying that, if we are going to invest in GDP-growing and growth sectors, we need Australians to be more sophisticated about their investments. We need Australians to be saying, 'I want to put my money and my capital behind businesses having a go at growing the economy.' We need to look with equanimity across property, business and the share market, but at the moment that is not happening. We want Australians to be saying, 'I want to have a go and take a risk. I want to have a look at higher returns, and that might mean some risk.' Those risks of putting money where we are going to have a go and grow our GDP are actually what moves us, among a pack of wealthy nations, from the middle to the front.
Everyone buying property does not do that. Everyone buying property parks their resources and we simply move along an escalator and sell, take the dividend and, basically, pass it on to our children or consume it. If we are going to build the economy, we need investment in those high-growth sectors that have a much more significant return that value-add to our commodities or create something that other people want. At the moment that is true—people want to invest in our property, and we are managing international demand for that. But we have foreign capital that wants to come in and invest in our industry, and if we wish to expropriate that completely we can have foreign entities running most of Australia's economy. Of course, Australians do not want that—so one of the first steps that we have to address is the still tax-favoured status of significant investment in property.
Before this sounds too controversial and I get figuratively stoned in this chamber, I encourage every Australian to invest in property—absolutely—but we need to be looking at the more sophisticated investors who are putting huge amounts of money into property and ask ourselves a very simple question: is that in the nation's public interest? Once they own 10 properties, would I rather see a sophisticated investor feeling like they can be treated equally if they go and invest in a start-up, or invest in existing industry to make it larger, or invest in some part of the share market that is going to grow our economy? I think the answer is yes. To get those sophisticated investors who have this range of options, we need to be encouraging that where possible.
What we do not want to be doing is the opposite. That seems to be Labor's approach—to basically take two-thirds of the property market and say you cannot negatively gear in it, because that will create massive distortions, some of which I want to address today. The case for Labor's ending of negative gearing to existing residential property is quite simple: they want to make it easier for first home owners in particular to be able to get their foothold in the property market. I need to dispel this right from the start: whether or not this makes much difference to residential property prices, any change has a winner and a loser. Let's not forget that. But, secondly, and with the greatest of respect, when first home owners go out to buy a property they are not looking at the price of the home. They have gone to a bank and have been financed, and then they go out and shop to within their limit. They buy the property that the bank allows them to buy. First home owners are way more worried about accruing a deposit, because they want to get into the market now, not in two years time, when it is too late. For them, having a first home owners' grant that contributes to their deposit and gets them into the market two years earlier, while they already have an income, is a far more profitable idea than some very vague promise that property prices might fall by a few per cent. Those that are way more sensitive to the value of their existing properties are home sellers—they are way more concerned about the value of their property. First home buyers just know that it is incredibly expensive. From where they are sitting in their first few years of work, they cannot possibly imagine owning that much money and they just want to get their foothold in a place that they can own. The rest of it takes care of itself over a long-term loan period with their financier.
Those who worry about prices are the sellers. They are the retirees who know they need to sell for a certain price to be able to pay out their loan; to be able to move from Sydney, where they are living, to near their children in Brisbane, where they want to retire; and to have enough money to get into their aged-care facility. These people are exquisitely sensitive to selling price. Saying, 'Property prices will all go down by about five per cent, making it a little easier,' can have a crushing impact on a retiring couple who are hoping to move into an aged-care facility and fund a bond. These sorts of elements are critical for them because they do not have many options to change their income settings over a life cycle. So these impacts are far worse. I talk about there being equal numbers of winners and losers—the losers are hurt so much more.
In talking about this notion of a new or an existing property, to say that we will exclude existing properties is like saying that the minute you drive a car out of the car yard its value plummets because you can no longer negatively gear once you have put the keys in the ignition and driven it out of the driveway. This will have extraordinary distortions that are incredibly hard to model. These changes have been made before in Australia and have been made occasionally around the world, and the results are mixed. Paradoxically, in Australia we saw rent increases in, I think, Sydney and Perth. It is very, very hard to explain, but let me start by saying that, if you limit investors, who are about one-third of the market, and tell them they can only move into the 10 per cent of new dwellings that are on sale at any one time, because the rest of the properties on sale are existing, what you will have is a crush for inner-city apartments. There is no doubt about that. Surpluses will be captured by inner-city developers who will be faced with wonderful demand from investors who will say, 'The only way I can get a tax deduction is by buying one of those up there.' That has its problems because people will pay much larger sums for far less in apartments, and they are trapped in that position then because they cannot negative gear it to the next buyer. The next buyer is the one who will not come along, because that is now an asset that they do not want to buy, so you are left holding that stock for a long time.
Anyone who is a grandfathered investor—and that seems like a nice political solution; you do not offended anyone right now—will never sell their properties. They will sit on them forever. Why would they sell them? So suddenly you have all of those investors saying, 'There's no point in buying anything else because anything else I have will cost me tens of thousands of dollars in non-recognised deductions.' These distortions are yet to be fully understood.
There are those who wish to get onto greenfield estates. Most of us that I recognise, apart from the Deputy Speaker, live in outer metropolitan major cities, and you know that release of land out there is in many ways significantly rationed. We do not have enough opportunities to release land to meet that demand for new housing. So, whether you are buying or selling, whether it is new or existing, and whether you are hoping to get rent or not, there are massive concerns if you slice out one part of property and make it ineligible for negative gearing. I urge the opposition to reconsider or they will be in a world of pain over the next few months. And I urge the coalition to do something far more sensitive and sensible to look after homeowners and investors.
National Student Travel Concession Card
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (18:06): Tonight I would like to talk about the need for a national student travel concession card. It is an issue that is dear to the heart of the young people living in my electorate of Indi, particularly the young people who are caught in the cross-border anomaly of wanting to study interstate. Let me outline what the procedure is. We have a national issue here that works to the disadvantage of not only young people but all people who want to study. It is particularly relevant in my electorate, but right across Australia are people who live in one area and study in another. Let me explain what happens now. Travel concession cards are issued by the tertiary institution in which a student is enrolled and they are only applicable for travel within the state or territory of that institution. For example, a student from Indi in north-east Victoria who enrols to study in Albury across the border, or Canberra or Sydney, for example, cannot get a concession on public transport travel to and from their home town.
There has been a whole lot of work done on this in the past, but it seems to have gone off the agenda, so my call tonight is that we seriously need to put the need for a national student travel concession card back on the national agenda. There has been recognition in the past that student income support has been inadequate to cover the costs of all the things that students need: accommodation, food, bills and transport. There was a Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry into student income support in 2005. There was also an interjurisdictional working group established in October 2011 to examine reciprocal recognition of student concessions between states. However, there was no evidence of any meeting actually taking place. There is a perception that, while people can talk about this, the idea of a national student concession card is a good idea, but it is a practical nightmare because it requires all states and territories to sign up and agree to standardise their concessions.
Surely we are mature enough as a nation on this particular issue—and with all the discussion about Federation—that we could work together to do something which would make such a big difference to the lives of so many students. It appears that the challenge of achieving recognition of concession cards across jurisdictions may be perceived to be too hard, but I believe this is a perception. In reality, there are so many areas where we work across states and we have national regulations, so I know that we could absolutely do it, but it would require political will. As a really good example, in 2009 the Commonwealth government supported senior cards and pension cards and made the national partnership agreement to compensate the different states for any loss of income. They recognised senior cards, pension cards and travel concessions across jurisdictions, so we have a model for pension cards and senior cards that works. Why couldn't we apply this to student cards?
This issue has particularly come to my mind now because students in my community are going back to study. We have had O-week, and students are now getting underway with their pathways to their careers. Money is always short; students are all looking for part-time jobs. Many of my local community from Wodonga and Wangaratta have come up here to Canberra to study, and they find that, once the ANU or the University of Canberra issues concession cards, these are not valid in Victoria. What makes that so hard? Surely we just have to agree to get that happening.
I went to the Library—that fantastic research facility we have here—and said, 'Can you give me some background on what's going on here,' and they said, 'Yeah, it often comes up, but we've never been able to get any movement on it.' What I have discovered is that it is not just student concession cards that are the issue. International students, depending on their visa, have particular issues. Different states and different visas have different rules about whether or not international students can get concession cards. There are absolutely no concession cards at all for travel for any part-time students. Frequently, they are the most needy, because they are the ones that are trying to juggle study with work with family life. Every single dollar is so important, but part-time students cannot get concession travel anywhere in Australia. Clearly, that is a huge gap.
The other area is postgraduate travel concession. All the states and territories except for my state of Victoria provide transport concession cards to postgrad students, but in Victoria we do not. Undergraduates can get student concession cards within the state but not postgraduates—what an anomaly. Why not? Particularly now in Victoria, we have the Melbourne Model of study where all students have to do two sections; they do their undergraduate general degree, and then they go and do their master's degree where they specialise. There is such a pathway, and students go on to do their postgrad—that is actually all part of the whole degree process—but they cannot get student concessions. It is really causing so much angst in the families of the people that I represent.
So what I wanted to do tonight was put this on the agenda. I want you to know that this is a significant grievance right across Australia, particularly for our students who want to go interstate to study, including those students who live in Albury-Wodonga and have to cross the border to study. It is just ludicrous. It is not that it is hard; I think it just takes political will. The sad thing is that we just do not have enough representation in this parliament of those young people. There are so few young people here in the parliament who can actually stand up and have their voices heard. It relies on us, their representatives, to come forward and make the case. To the young people of my electorate, and to all the people studying right across Australia, I just want to say to you that we do understand and are really prepared to make the case that it needs to be addressed.
In finishing my comments tonight, I want to say to the department of education and to the minister responsible: whatever did happen to that interjurisdictional working group formed in October 2011? The ACTU were going to do some research. Did they ever meet? I suspect not. I suspect it got put into the too-hard basket and was not addressed. I would like to acknowledge the work of James Griffiths in the Library. Thank you for all that work you did in the background. Thank you to Ellyn Martin, Pam Turnbull and Leah Nankervis for making me aware of this problem and helping me with the research for today. It is on the agenda. We have a lot of work to do before we get the political will we know is needed to get the change we need, but we have begun.
Illicit Drugs
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (18:14): Today, there were some pretty frightening statistics published by the Medical Journal of Australia online. That is in regard to ice usage through our community. In the past five years, since 2009-10, ice usage has almost tripled amongst 15- to 54-year-olds. The statistics have been collated from national hospital admissions, which show 160,000 people being treated and now classified as ice dependent. They also show that 268,000 people per year are now being further treated for this disease. These are frightening numbers.
It is larger than the figure that even the national task force estimated in December last year when they said there were around 200,000 regular users. When you look at that—268,000 people being treated for this drug—that does not account for people using ice within their communities or in their homes. When you look at what that means for ice, this number is even larger for people who are in contact with ice or who live in households where somebody is using ice.
The use and possession arrests from last year are, sadly, up too. Last year, I quoted the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research trends that showed around 25 per cent increase in arrests year on year. The latest data shows that the two-year trend between October 2014 and September 2015 has seen a jump of 74.5 per cent. The Penrith local government area has also seen an increase in the arrest rate, which is 50 per cent higher than that of the entire New South Wales' average.
The point I make is that we are dealing with quite a large issue that is hurting a lot of people. The collateral effect on others is also quite intense. The collateral effect is made all too clear by the statement of an unnamed health professional I saw today in TheCourier Mail, which says: 'When you can't sleep and come down, the psychosis kicks in.' That is when ice becomes a community issue.
I would like to remind the House of the words of New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. He said this is an issue we as a community 'cannot arrest our way out of'. This is, certainly, an issue that requires a whole-of-government approach. Sadly, there is a lot of stigma about this issue and it is one of those that, by applying stigma to people and thinking we can just arrest our way out of this, is not going to help the terrible challenge that we have of ice in our communities.
Also one of the very worrying statistics is the growth of ice usage in people aged 15 to 24, which suggests that this issue is, really, not going away. But the figures published today do not tell the whole story either. When you speak to Jane Gold at the Penrith Women's Health Centre, or Michelle Ellery from the Queen of Hearts foundation who works with people who have been victims of abuse, or Dr Maria Nittis from the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, they tell you that ice related violence is on the rise. Sadly, there seems to be evidence to backup those observations. The instance at the Nepean Hospital, in January, with a local police officer is one that highlights that. According to the BOCSAR statistics for the 12 months from September 2015, the Penrith local government area recorded the second highest number of domestic violence related assaults in New South Wales, a total of 1,027.
Ever so sadly, this insidious drug is targeting our children as well. Last year, I held a community forum exactly on this issue. One group, the Nepean Child Protection Community Service, reported that a staggering 90 per cent of inquiries they receive have an ice component to them. In that environment, users are becoming younger and younger. In fact, Matt Noffs of the Ted Noffs Foundation said they are now seeing users as young as 13. With all of this there is more and more complexity. With the stigma attached to methamphetamine use, there are now real concerns that some of these figures I quoted today might be underestimating the issue with people hiding their addictions.
As a government we are working to try to tackle this issue on several fronts. I applaud the government for having a go because this really is a very big challenge. We are spending $1 million with Crime Stoppers to 'dob in a dealer' on their steps. It is a good step and I commend the Minister for Justice for a worthy measure. But, as I said, this requires a whole-of-government approach, and there is certainly a health aspect to battling crime; it is not just a justice measure. But in stopping the demand of crime, in stopping the demand of this drug, for people to have the ability to say 'no' and to have the ability to turn this drug down, is a very, very difficult thing.
I would like to commend the work of Dr Karen Fisher from the Nepean Clinical School of addiction medicine at Nepean Hospital. This is what Dr Fisher is experiencing. First of all, they are finding that ice is not like cannabis, heroin or alcohol. With those drugs, generally people will be taking them on a daily basis before they seek treatment. You only need to take ice once or twice a week for your life to be thrown into complete chaos. Dr Fisher tells me that the fact that people cannot get off the drug, even though they use it once or twice, or even three times a week, means that we need to rethink our whole treatment strategy. This is a drug that has very different effects than what we have previously seen from other drug usage. She goes on to say that ice uses tend to also relapse faster than those addicted to other substances and to other drugs that their centre treats. Perhaps most alarmingly, ice is now accounting for between a quarter to a third of people that they treat at her clinic. It is a growing and it is outstripping many of the traditional illicit drugs like cannabis. Add to that the quote I read earlier that: 'It's when you cannot sleep, it's when you come down that the psychosis kicks in,' and you get an idea of how difficult treating people with addictions to ice really can be.
Dr Karen Fisher is looking for new ways to deal with this increasing problem. One of those is more specialist attention and early on. At present, a person on ice is most likely to be presented to the hospital's emergency department. Some may be moved due to the psychosis elements of the comedown from the drug into a mental health clinic. While these measures are good in the short term, they do not necessarily allow the individual to be treated appropriately for the use of the drug they have been using. While this procedure recognises the addiction as a medical one, you must ask whether emergencies are the proper department for people coming down from the effects of drugs.
The current system is potentially dangerous because of people's unpredictability and their taking of genuine emergency bed space. Dr Karen Fisher's solution is a dedicated bed attached to emergency run by the school of addiction medicine. At present, they are in a separate building at the opposite end of the hospital. I wholeheartedly support Dr Karen Fisher in this approach. The aim is to get to people who are using ice early in the process and to not necessarily have to rely on referrals. Dedicated beds would see those on ice given direct contact with treatment providers to allow them to sleep off the effects in a safe environment. To enable this, the hospital has to navigate a number of challenges, not at least the current design of the building and a space where this could potentially be created.
However, with the problem on the rise and current treatments challenging to meet the challenge of this drug, I commend Dr Fisher, Gael Rao and the team for their willingness to look at new treatment solutions. If we are truly going to beat ice, we need to recognise that using some textbook solution is not going to be the way we go. As a government, we need to support many initiatives, as diverse as they may be. In the words of Andrew Scipione, who I quoted earlier, this is not something we can arrest our way out of. It is a health issue, and it is one that the whole community must work together on.
Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:24): By now, my parliamentary colleagues would have heard me speaking about my constituents' frustrations when it comes to the NBN. They would have heard me talking about it—and they would have heard me shouting about it in question time—many, many times. They will know that Canberrans, especially those in the very south of my electorate in Tuggeranong, are incredibly frustrated. They are incredibly frustrated because not only do they not have access to the NBN but they are not even on the map. These Canberrans—particularly those in the southern part of my electorate—are not even on the NBN rollout map.
When the latest rollout map was released, the residents of Tuggeranong, like millions of other Australians, eagerly typed their addresses into the website, and they were absolutely appalled to see that they were not there. And there was no indication of when the NBN would come to them—nothing; just one big blank space. There were lots of nice dots everywhere else in Australia, but just one big blank space for the southern part of my electorate.
The reason this is so frustrating is that parts of my electorate of Canberra have the lowest rating for availability and quality of broadband in the country—the lowest in the country! We are talking it being on a par with regional and remote Australia. We are talking lowest in terms of accessibility, availability and quality of broadband in the country, and here we are in the nation's capital. You drive down the road 10 or 15 kilometres and you have the lowest broadband in the country in terms of availability and quality—10 or 15 kilometres down the road from the nation's Parliament House. It is absolutely outrageous!
Under Labor, every home in the ACT would have had access to Labor's world-class fibre-to-the-premises NBN, but under this government the residents of Tuggeranong are stuck with terrible internet access—and no idea of if or when they will get access to the Prime Minister's second-rate fibre-to-the node version of the NBN.
The residents of Tuggeranong are fed up. Just wait until you hear these quotes. As I said, do not take it from me. The residents of Tuggeranong are absolutely fed up, and the letters that they send me each day about the experiences—or the lack of experiences—they are having, in terms of connectivity, are breathtaking, considering that we are talking 10 or 15 kilometres down the road from Parliament House in the nation's capital.
These are some of the letters I have received in recent months. Geoff says: 'We cannot even get ADSL2 service, although we are paying for a higher-end service. If we are serious about becoming a clever and innovative country, it starts with having top-end infrastructure. Don't cut us short.'
Rebecca says: 'I am so tired of living in a fantastic area that has broadband far, far worse than I got while living in Brisbane 10 years ago.' Ten years ago! She continues: 'Some nights my broadband is so slow I can't download text emails.' We are talking 10 or 15 kilometres from Parliament House. Rebecca continues: 'How is this acceptable in 2015? I am about to commence university studies online and I will need to be able to view or listen to lectures and download/upload large files. Please make this possible!'
Roger wrote: 'It's a situation verging on the tragic.' And it is. 'Only fast internet will allow us to compete on an equal footing with countries like South Korea. The NBN has the potential to transform our economy, to create new jobs and businesses and cut urban congestion and pollution. But it's still off in cloud-cuckoo-land for many. Along with thousands of other people in the ACT, I'm starting to wonder if I will ever see higher-speed internet. Contacts in Melbourne are already on the NBN and think my speed is a joke.' And it is a joke. Roger went on: 'Canberra should be a high priority because of our government and tertiary education sectors.'
And it is not just our government and tertiary education sectors. We are home to the nation's cultural institutions. We are home to embassies from all over the world. We are home to the CSIRO and major scientific institutions. And what have we got here? We have got internet speeds where this woman, Rebecca, cannot even download a text email. As Roger says, the government is still off in cloud-cuckoo-land when it comes to the NBN and the connectivity of the nation's capital.
Mary wrote: 'It is very sad for a country like Australia to not be more advanced in our technologies. To think that parts of our capital city do not have access to the NBN is so backward.'
Glen said: 'Under the original NBN rollout plan, my suburb was to get NBN in May 2013.' May 2013—we are not even on the map! He continued: 'Still waiting for an acceptable alternative, with nothing on the horizon to give hope. Is it time to move to the Northside?'
Glen is not alone. On more than one occasion, Canberrans have told me that they are considering moving house, and even moving out of town, because their current internet access is so bad, and under this government they have no idea if or when it will improve—no idea. There is just one big blank space—that is the southern part of the electorate of Canberra when it comes to the NBN rollout map. There is no certainty whatsoever. And they cannot wait forever.
Faced with this understandable frustration in my community, last year I started a petition on behalf of Canberrans who wanted to know when they would be on the map. And last December I presented a petition, signed by 774 Canberrans and more have signed since, calling for the minister to take action. When presenting the petition, I asked of the minister: 'Please prioritise Canberra's NBN rollout. Our situation is bleak, as you have heard. It is dire, and we are being left behind.' My colleagues may have heard me speak about this petition in the House of Representatives last week. I was lamenting the fact that more than two months had passed and I was yet to receive a response from the minister.
Well perhaps I was speaking too soon, or someone from his office was actually listening because that very afternoon, last Thursday, the long awaited response arrived. And what a disappointment it was. The minister's response stretches over three pages but does not tell me a thing. In his response, the minister states that in 2013 the then Department of Communications completed a broadband quality and availability project, which was an analysis of the broadband quality and availability across the country. The minister acknowledges that this survey found parts of the Tuggeranong Valley 'had lower ratings for broadband quality and availability' and were 'considered underserved.' No kidding, Minister!
The minister proudly states that 'the coalition government is prioritising underserved homes and business in the NBN rollout' and that 'by 2017-18 more than 65 per cent of these underserved homes and business will be able to order a service on the NBN.' But not the residents of Tuggeranong. That 65 per cent does not include the electorate of Canberra and those parts of Tuggeranong. The Prime Minister promised that those areas with the worst internet access would be prioritised in this rollout, but when it comes to our nation's capital he has abandoned that promise. Canberrans are rightly furious. I know they are not alone. As communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull bad 2½ years to do one job and what do we have to show for it? We have missed targets, cost blowouts, and broken promises. As of February 19, nbn co completed 29,000 of its fibre-to-the-node projects, less than a third of its target of 94,000 premises.
Back when he was the shadow minister for communications, The Prime Minister went to an election promising an NBN that he could roll out faster and cheaper. Today's leaked report shows the scheme is not cheaper, and it is not coming anytime soon. And it ain't certainly coming any time soon to the southern part of my electorate. The whole point of the coalition's severely compromised NBN scheme was to take design shortcuts and hope it makes the rollout process faster. Cut corners, get there sooner was the strategy. That was their plan. And today, we find that it is these very shortcuts that are causing so much of the problem. They ditched fibre to the premises in favour of the fibre to the node alternative. The report shows that the bottlenecks and the delays being felt by so many disappointed families and businesses are due to that foolish miscalculation. The Prime Minister cut corners thinking he was cutting costs. Instead we have a project delivering a sub-par, second-rate service and it can barely even manage to do that.
The Prime Minister promised us that the whole country would have access to the NBN in 2016. Barely more than one in eight Australians has access to their Indian today . Mismanagement is too kind word for this. The only thing that is slower than the Prime Minister's rollout of the NBN is the speed of his NBN's connection itself. The few people who have had fibre-to-the-node rolled out to their homes are finding their internet speeds falling much further behind. We always knew the Liberal's NBN was going to be second-rate. They promised a second-rate service, and boy, are they delivering one. Tuggeranong is not even on the rollout map. (Time expired)
Page Electorate: Roads
Mr HOGAN (Page) (18:34): In my first speech in this chamber just over two years ago, I spoke about the remarkable resilience of the Kyogle community, a community that is so proudly self-reliant that in the late 60s when they wanted a new road through to Brisbane that they could not get government funding for, they simply cleared the land and built it themselves on voluntary labour.
It is called 'Lions Road' because the local Lions Club were the force behind it. I could mention many individuals who were involved, but I just want to touch on a few of them. Jack Hurley was a great community contributor and was very much behind it, as was Alan Brown. Very sadly, Alan passed away just last Friday. He was also a foundation member of the Kyogle Lions Club. That club is over 60 years old, and John Shirley is now the only remaining foundation member still alive at that club. Murphy Standfield donated what was the biggest tractor in the area at the time—his D8 Caterpillar tractor—and he supervised the actual construction of the road. Mel Hogan and Athel Matheson donated tractors and did a lot of work as well, as, indeed, did all the members of the Lions Club at that time.
They would go out there on weekends because, obviously, they all had jobs or businesses. This was voluntary, so they did it on weekends when they were not working in their business or in their job. Often, the whole family would go. Women would prepare meals and children would play with the other kids who were up there with their families. It was dangerous work—it goes through a mountain range. There were lots of creeks, streams and rivers. They built many bridges. As I said, it was over a mountain range, but no-one was seriously injured.
This stretch of road has a special place within the community. Last month, I was privileged to continue this story by announcing that, under the government's Bridges Renewal Program, we would give them money to replace seven of the ageing wooden bridges along the Lions Road. It is a great Kyogle story. It is a great tradition. That road will always live in the hearts of everyone in the region, and it was great to be part of that last month.
The federal government have almost tripled the money that we give to fix and maintain local roads in the Roads to Recovery Program. The Lismore City Council has received around $700,000 to $800,000 per year, usually from the federal government, for this program. We have increased that this year and next year to over $2 million. I would like to mention some of the works that are happening in our community as a result of this program. Work has already happened to widen and improve Magellan Street between Brewster and Cathcart Streets, with a second coat of final seal expected to be completed in March. Two sections of Kyogle Road near Casino Street are also awaiting their final coat of seal; that will be in September. Work on Brewster Street between Ewing and Magellan Streets is almost complete as well. The widening of Zadoc Street from Dawson to Keen Streets was mostly finished last month and will finish soon and a further $500,000 will be used to widen and improve Hunter Street between Uralba and Orion Streets, with work scheduled to start in April. Also around this time there will be a widening and reconstruction of Wyrallah Road between Ballina Road and Leslie Lane. Similar work on Wyrallah Road near Skyline Road will commence later this year. This is all thanks to the tripling of the money from the federal government to the local council.
As I said earlier, the federal government is giving local councils triple what they normally get in Roads to Recovery funding, and this year the Richmond Valley Council will get $2 million to fix local roads. The decisions on which roads to fix is for the council, but, in the Richmond Valley Council, the roads that are scheduled to be repaired in Casino are: Laburnum Avenue, Farley Street and Simpsons Parade. There are also the Old Tenterfield and Wyan Roads, the Mongogarie Road near Leeville and the Main Camp Road at Main Camp. More than 20 sections of urban and rural roads will also be resealed in North Casino: Charolais Avenue, Horrie Drive, Jersey Drive, Stockman Close, Brumby Place, Hereford Drive, Angus Place, Brahman Way, Te Arowa Drive and Scotts Road. You will probably recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, given it is the beef capital of Australia, a lot of the streets are named after cattle breeds.
In Casino, sections of Rayner Street, Hotham Street and Ellangowan Road will also be resealed. Sections of Lagoon Road and Peersons Quarry Road in Coraki will also be resealed, as well as Broadwater Bridge Road in Broadwater, Gap Road at The Gap, Swan Bay Road-New Italy Road in New Italy, Leeville Station Road in Leeville and Tatham-Greenridge Road in Greenridge.
We will also be giving more money this year in Roads to Recovery funding to the Kyogle Council. They will receive over $2 million this year to fix local roads—triple what they normally get. That means the council will be fixing the following roads: Gradys Creek Road, 3.17 kilometres from the intersection of Summerland Way to 4.5 kilometres from the intersection of Summerland Way near The Risk; Ettrick Road, 2.1 kilometres from the intersection of Afterlee Road to 2.5 kilometres from the intersection with Afterlee Road; Ettrick Road from the intersection of Afterlee road; Kyogle Road, from Fawcetts Plain Road to Fawcetts Plain Road near Lillian Rock, will be redone; the Lynchs Creek Road up to the Summerland Way near Lynchs Creek will also be improved; as well as Anzac Drive near Geneva, west of Norton Street. Again, those are all great local infrastructure projects to improve local roads in our region.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:41
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Visa: Subclass 600 and 679
(Question No. 2132)
Mr Zappia asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 02 February 2016:
In 2014-15, how many applications were refused for the
(a) Visitor visa (subclass 600), and
(b) Sponsored Family Visitor visa (subclass 679).
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
In 2014-15, there were 115,744 visa applications refused for the Visitor visa (subclass 600).
In March 2013, the Sponsored Family Visitor visa (subclass 679) was repealed and incorporated into the Visitor visa (subclass 600) as a distinct stream, as part of the Government's Visa Simplification and Deregulation project. In 2014-15, there were 9067 visa applications refused for the Visitor visa (subclass 600) - Sponsored Family stream.