The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016
Report from Committee
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (09:01): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr COLEMAN: I rise today to present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.
The capacity for a voter to clearly and simply express his or her preference is surely the most fundamental feature of any electoral system.
The overarching goal of any electoral system must be to ensure that it reflects the genuine will of the people.
The current voting system in the Senate falls well short of meeting this most fundamental goal.
This situation was reflected by the unanimous 2014 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in which representatives of the coalition, Labor Party and Greens all unanimously agreed that the system was in dire need of reform.
Under current arrangements in the Senate, a voter who marks '1' for a party in a box above the line has no control over where their preferences flow.
This is determined by the party and the arrangement that it has made with other parties as part of what is known as a group-voting ticket.
Group-voting tickets enable parties to trade their preferences to maximise their chances for election. But they take away power from the voter.
Moreover, group-voting tickets have been used to 'game' the electoral system.
At the 2013 federal election, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party candidate was elected to the Senate with a record low primary vote of just 0.51 per cent.
Through the use of group-voting tickets, no fewer than 20 microparties directed all of their preferences to that candidate, and he was elected despite receiving such a minute primary vote.
Group-voting tickets are available for electors to examine. But very few voters do so in practice. The arrangements are extremely complex and are often lodged at short notice before the election.
The central reform of this bill is that group-voting tickets will be abolished.
The committee and most submitters and witnesses to this inquiry fully support this proposal.
Under the proposed system, a vote above the line for a party will be a vote for candidates in that party only, according to the party's order of candidates below the line.
This means that voters themselves—rather than political operatives—will determine the manner in which their preferences are allocated.
If electors vote above the line, they themselves will be able to choose the order in which their votes are allocated. They will decide the order in which their preferences are allocated. Now, surely, that is an entirely appropriate and reasonable system to be adopted?
In May 2014, the committee unanimously proposed reform to Senate voting arrangements below the line. It proposed a system of what is known as 'partial optional preferential voting' below the line.
The committee believes that it is a shortcoming of this bill that it does not address below-the-line voting in a substantive fashion.
It does seem anomalous that the bill proposes partial optional preferential voting above the line but full preferential voting below the line.
The committee's view is that below-the-line voting should be addressed to ensure that voters can select candidates below the line in the order of their preference without having to fill in every single square below the line, as occurs at present.
Preferential voting below the line is most important to ensure that voting below the line is not the extraordinarily arduous process that it is currently. Of course, that acts as a disincentive for electors to vote below the line.
The committee recommends that for below-the-line voting a system of optional preferential voting be implemented, in which voters are instructed to market a minimum of 12 preferences to vote below the line.
A related savings provision for below-the-line votes would ensure that any ballot with at least six boxes in a sequential order starting at '1' would be considered formal.
With the addition of partial optional preferential voting below the line, the committee strongly supports this bill.
The abolition of group-voting tickets represents the most significant electoral reform in this country for some time. Voters will know exactly where their preferences are going.
I thank the committee for its work during this inquiry and I thank the secretariat, led by Mr Richard Grant, for its work also.
I would also like to thank the 107 people and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry and the witnesses who appeared at yesterday's hearing for their contributions.
With the proposed amendment, I commend the bill to the House.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces the legislative amendments required for the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity—expand debt recovery measure.
This measure contains two elements that intend to enact legislative amendments which strengthen our capacity to recover debt.
Firstly, the bill contains amendments to allow for the use of departure prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country (as currently the system applies to child support debtors).
Secondly, the bill also removes the current six-year limitation on the recovery of social welfare debt that would otherwise be non-recoverable, aligning the treatment of social welfare debt with the recovery arrangements in place for other Commonwealth agencies.
At the end of June 2015, there were over one million debts with a value of $3.04 billion. These debts have, sadly, increased by almost 10 per cent in value since June 2014.
Of this debt base, approximately $870 million worth of debt is held by around 270,000 former recipients of welfare who do not make sufficient or regular repayments.
Departure prohibition orders
The government considers it is not appropriate for an individual to travel overseas, when they have the means to fund that travel but have not set up any appropriate arrangement to repay their outstanding debt to the Commonwealth taxpayer.
This new legislation proposes that the secretary may make a departure prohibition order prohibiting a person from departing Australia for a foreign country if the person has one or more debts to the Commonwealth and there are no arrangements satisfactory to the secretary for one or more of the debts to be wholly repaid. This is consistent with the treatment of people who have child support debts.
The introduction of departure prohibition orders for people with child support debts commenced in 2001 to prevent a child support payer who had persistently failed to meet his or her child support commitments from leaving the country without either discharging all debts or making satisfactory arrangements to discharge them. The departure prohibition order system for child support mirrored the pre-existing system in place under the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
The effectiveness of departure prohibition orders in recovery of outstanding child support debts has been undeniable. Between 2005 and 2015 4,551 new departure prohibition orders were issued, resulting in the collection of $52 million in outstanding child support payments.
Notwithstanding the success of departure prohibition orders in the recovery of debts in other policy areas, the government is of course mindful of reasons why people may be required to travel overseas, and procedures will be put in place to allow for people subject to a departure prohibition order to travel overseas in specified circumstances.
Departure authorisation certificates may also be granted on humanitarian grounds or where the person's travel may be in Australia's best interests.
Limitation of recovery
The government also considers that, where there is a debt owed by a person to the Commonwealth, these debts should be recovered wherever possible, and should not be bound by arbitrary timelines.
The government is therefore introducing an amendment to allow for the pursuit and recovery of debts, similar to the recovery of taxation debts. This will increase the Department of Human Services's capacity to recover outstanding debts.
This measure requires us to remove the current limitation on the recovery of debt where recovery action has not been undertaken in the preceding six years.
Social welfare debtors generally have more than one debt. Given the resources social welfare recipients have to repay debts, debts are generally paid off one at a time over an extended period. It is possible in these circumstances for some of an individual's debts to reach the six-year limitation before recovery can be actioned.
As at the end of 2014-15 there were:
36,834 debts worth $131.20 million that will, effectively, reach their expiry date within one year (that is, indeed, before the legislation that we have before the House is passed). (Centrelink has not been able to touch these debts for six years and now will not be able to touch them before 30 June.)
54,200 debts worth $166.81 million have already reached their expiry date and so as the law presently stands they cannot be recovered by compulsory means, which might include withholdings, tax garnishee, garnishee of salary or civil action. Voluntary recoveries can still be accepted, but of course they will be minimal.
A further 4,595 debts worth $12.96 million were permanently written off over the 2014-15 financial year due to being statute barred (that is, they had passed the statute date).
The write-off process is not automatic. DHS periodically checks the statute of limitations date for outstanding debts and writes off debts that have passes the six-year limit in which no recovery action has been taken.
Individual debt to the Commonwealth forms an increasing assets base that poses significant financial costs on the community. These are financial resources that the government can use to support other priorities for the Australian community.
The Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity—expand debt recovery measure will also better enable the Department of Human Services to recover debts from current and ex-recipients of social security and family assistance payments.
The measures provide additional funds to expand Centrelink's debt recovery operations and capacity to utilise the full extent of powers contained within existing legislation for pursuing the recovery of debts. These include:
pursuing an additional 1,500 high-value debt cases relating to ex-recipients who have been identified as having the capacity to repay the debt;
increasing negotiated repayment arrangements with ex-recipients by 8,000 per month;
negotiating higher repayments from ex-recipients currently making debt repayments but identified as having capacity to pay more; and
targeting current recipients who are on a partial rate of payment due to employment income so they are in repayment arrangements suitable to their circumstances.
The government will continue to focus on protecting the integrity of the welfare system.
The Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity—expand debt recovery measure is estimated to achieve net underlying cash savings of $157.8 million over the forward estimates.
I am sure that these sensible measures will resonate with the taxpayers of Australia, who know that in everyday life they need to manage their household budget, including the repayment of civil debts.
This bill, in conjunction with the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016, provides a suite of measures that strengthens the government's ability to recover debts from former social welfare and family payment recipients.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces the legislative amendments required for the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure, described as:
Applying a General Interest Charge to the Debts of Ex-recipients of Social Security and Family Assistance Payments.
From an intended implementation date of 1 July 2016, the bill will provide for the application of a new annual interest charge to outstanding debts owed by former recipients of social welfare payments who have failed to enter into, or have not complied with, an acceptable repayment arrangement.
The interest charge will apply to social security, family assistance (including child care debts), paid parental leave debts and student assistance debts.
At the end of June 2015, there were over one million debts with a value of $3.04 billion. These debts have increased by 10 per cent in value since June 2014.
Of this total debt base, approximately $870 million is held by around 270,000 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular payments.
While the average value of social welfare debt per person is $2,357 and the average length of debt is just over three years, there are some serious circumstances that must be addressed which I will expand on shortly.
To understand how we have found ourselves in a situation with over $3 billion in social welfare debt, we must first understand how social security and family assistance debts are raised. A debt to the Commonwealth occurs where a welfare recipient receives an overpayment—a payment, in effect, to which they were not lawfully entitled.
There are several reasons for overpayments, including, firstly, that welfare recipients have not lodged a tax return. For instance, until a tax return is lodged, the entire FTB payment for an individual is raised as debt. This cohort of debtors represents 20 per cent of debts and 39 per cent of the value of debts.
A second phenomenon is advance payments. Former recipients received an advance payment, and before it could be recovered through withholdings, ceased to be a payment recipient. This cohort represents 15 per cent of debts and 1.5 per cent of the value of debts.
There is also the phenomenon of undeclared earnings and wrongly-declared earnings. There are former recipients who have, either accidentally or, on occasions, deliberately, failed to declare earnings or accurately declare earnings. This cohort represents 16 per cent of debts and 20 per cent of the value.
A fourth phenomenon is reconciliation. FTB and childcare assistance payments through the year are based on recipient income estimates, which are then reconciled at the end of the financial year. Debts are raised when a recipient has been overpaid due to underestimating their income. This is not a fraudulent activity in the main, but is often the alternative result of the fact that some families have inconsistent income, fringe benefits and other sources of tax offsets, including negative gearing, so that they can only finally determine their income at the end of financial year. This cohort represents 13 per cent of debts and 10 per cent of the debt value.
Importantly, current recipients of social welfare payments who also have a social security or family assistance debt have their welfare payments reduced until their debt is paid. The critical issue pertinent to this bill is that there is no similar arrangement in place to recover debts once a person no longer requires social welfare or family assistance payments.
As a result, not only is there insufficient incentive for former recipients who are no longer dependent on the welfare payment system to repay their debts the reality is that some proportion of ex-recipient debtors actively avoid repayment.
The application of an interest charge will provide a very significant incentive for the responsible self-management of debts and will encourage debtors to repay their debts in a timely manner where they have the financial capacity to do so.
Debtors who are no longer eligible to receive financial support through social welfare payments are more likely to have the financial capacity to make repayments than those in receipt of income support or family assistance.
The introduction of the interest charge will ensure that people who once received social welfare payments do not receive an unfair advantage by having received what has been until this point, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government, with no specified requirement for scheduled repayments.
The rate of the proposed interest charge (of approximately nine per cent) will be based on the 90-day bank accepted bill rate (of approximately two per cent) plus an additional seven per cent, as is routinely applied by the Australian Taxation Office under the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
To ensure all debtors are treated consistently and fairly, the interest charge will also apply to those receiving childcare assistance and/or paid parental leave payments (and no other social payment) yet with outstanding debts. These debtors are not subject to deductions from the payments, as would be the case if they were receiving general social security and student assistance payments, and these debtors should also be required to enter into an acceptable repayment arrangement to repay their debts, as will be the case with other debtors.
It is important to reiterate that the general interest charge will only apply to former recipients of social security and family assistance payments who have a debt to the Commonwealth, such that it is being applied to a person who has received a payment to which they are not entitled and who have not yet entered into, or who are not honouring, an acceptable repayment arrangement.
Debtors will receive a letter seeking repayment of the debt in full to avoid the application of the interest charge. Where the debtor cannot repay the debt in full, the letter will encourage the debtor to contact the Department of Human Services within 28 days to negotiate an acceptable repayment arrangement.
If no arrangement is made within 28 days, the interest charge will be applied to the full balance of the debt, accruing on a daily basis, until an acceptable debt repayment arrangement has been entered into. As soon as an acceptable debt repayment has been entered into, the interest charge will cease to be applied to the debt.
In cases of severe financial hardship, a debtor can still apply to the Department of Human Services for a review of their capacity to pay, and the debt may be waived or temporarily written off until the debtor's financial circumstances improve. Alternatively, a reduced rate of recovery may be applied. No interest charge would be applied for that period of time.
This bill is expected to achieve savings to the fiscal balance of $24.4 million over four years from 1 July 2016, with underlying cash savings of $416.5 million.
The bill levels the playing field to ensure that former welfare recipients with a debt to the Commonwealth are subject to the same requirement to repay the debt as is expected of current welfare and family payment recipients and indeed any other Australian with a lawful civil debt.
I look forward to the support of those opposite, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Registration of Deaths Abroad Amendment Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984.
The primary purpose of the bill is to correct an anomaly in the Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984. The correction will allow the Registrar of Deaths Abroad to register deaths in prescribed circumstances.
Under current arrangements, applicants can remain in a procedural 'limbo' as they negotiate with state or territory registrars to register an overseas death. By permitting the appointment of a federal Registrar of Deaths Abroad, this bill will simplify the registration of deaths abroad.
The bill will provide the Foreign Minister with the flexibility to appoint any state or territory registrar as the Registrar of Deaths Abroad.
The bill will also validate the prior appointment of the ACT Registrar-General as the Registrar of Deaths Abroad and any previous registrations of deaths under the act.
The amendments will allow the Registrar of Deaths Abroad to register deaths that could have been registered under the law of a state or territory, where the state or territory concerned has provided notice that it will not register a death.
In order to ensure that only the Registrar of Deaths Abroad can register deaths under the act, the bill removes any reference to 'registering officers' from the act.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Major Projects,Territories and Local Government) (09:25): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 will amend media control and ownership rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and establish new local television programming obligations for regional commercial broadcasters.
These reforms will allow media businesses to gain the scale necessary to compete in an increasingly fragmented and global media environment while ensuring that Australians continue to have access to a diversity of sources of news and information.
Much of the legislative framework governing the Australian media was developed in the analog era when the industry was dominated by the three established media platforms: commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers. This structure allowed the development of predictable numerical tests as a proxy for media diversity.
The modern media environment is significantly different, and some of these tests have lost their relevance. While traditional commercial television and radio platforms are still well-loved by Australians, they are not the only sources of video, audio and news content. Australians are increasingly using new sources of news and entertainment content, including subscription and online platforms, which are not subject to regulations restricting their investment decisions and operating structure.
Australia's domestic media businesses are placed at risk by their constrained ability to compete, and elements of the regulatory framework originally designed to protect media diversity are now impeding the capacity of local businesses to deal with the change underway in the industry and continue to provide quality professional journalism and reporting.
This bill seeks to repeal two control and ownership rules that no longer make sense in the digital media environment: the '75 per cent audience reach rule' and the 'two out of three cross-media control rule'. These rules are antiquated and do little to support media diversity. Their removal will allow regulated media companies to achieve greater scale in their operations and, subject to the general law, to structure their businesses to make the most of opportunities as they emerge.
The '75 per cent audience reach rule' prohibits a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, from controlling commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined reach exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. This rule effectively prevents any major commercial television network (Seven, Nine or Ten) from merging with or acquiring the regional television networks of Prime, WIN and Southern Cross, or vice-versa.
In the digital media environment, the '75 per cent audience reach rule' is irrelevant. Online platforms allow content to be accessed by viewers all over Australia and the world. In practical terms, the rule acts as a barrier to commercial television broadcasters competing with scale in this environment. This rule also does little to further media diversity.
Viewers in regional areas already receive the same number of commercial television services, and the same commercial television programming, as their metropolitan counterparts due to affiliation agreements, including many news services.
Two of the three metropolitan commercial networks now provide streamed versions of their services which are available in regional markets across Australia.
Any merger between metropolitan and regional commercial television broadcasters—should this occur—would generally involve the replacement of one television 'voice' with another, due to the fact that the metropolitan and regional networks generally operate in separate licence areas.
The 'two out of three rule' is also redundant. This rule prevents mergers or changes in control that involve more than two of the three regulated media platforms in any commercial radio licence area. Online media is no longer viewed as something distinct from the more traditional media platforms. Audiences in Australia and overseas now discover and access news from multiple sources across a range of media platforms, including online, social media, television, radio and newspapers. It is no longer appropriate that commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers be restricted by this rule when unregulated platforms are free to consolidate and adapt their businesses as much as they see fit, subject to wider considerations like competition rules.
Like the '75 per cent reach rule', the 'two out of three rule' is also not significantly contributing to media diversity. In most of the licence areas around Australia, the 'two out of three rule' is not in play as these licence areas do not include operations from all three regulated platforms: commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers. The removal of the rule would therefore have no bearing on cross-media ownership in these markets.
In around a third of the remaining areas, further media transactions of any sort will be prohibited because they are all at or below the 'diversity floor' of a minimum of four 'voices' under the five-four rule, which provides that at least five independent media groups must at all times be present in metropolitan commercial radio licence areas and four such groups in regional commercial radio licence areas.
Any consolidation that may arise from the removal of the rule would therefore be limited to the metropolitan and larger regional markets, where diversity issues are unlikely to arise given the greater numbers of media outlets in operation.
Together, the repeal of the '75 per cent reach rule' and 'two out of three rule' will reduce regulatory burden on the media industry, allow media businesses to operate more flexibly in the market and help ensure they can continue to provide high quality news and entertainment services to Australians.
The government has carefully listened to stakeholders and parliamentary colleagues who have expressed their concern that television sector consolidation could lead to reductions in local programming. This bill therefore includes a package of measures which will ensure the availability of local content in most regional areas and strengthen links between local content and the communities to which it is broadcast.
Communities in regional Australia have told the government how important it is to maintain locally relevant news and information in their area. Not only is local news and commentary valued, but local content also supports jobs and investment in regional communities where such programming is produced locally. While there are clear benefits associated with services that provide local television content, there are also significant costs and investment outlays associated with it, and market forces alone may not ensure that local content is provided at optimal levels.
Additionally, regional commercial broadcasters are under increasing pressure from new and emerging services, and from internet streaming of metropolitan broadcasts into regional areas. In the absence of regulation, the high costs of local content production and the structural changes underway in the media more broadly will create incentives for broadcasters to achieve efficiencies, placing pressure on the continued supply of local programming at current levels.
Currently, the Broadcasting Services Act requires regional commercial television licensees in certain types of markets to provide local content—termed material of local significance in the act—within specified areas. The framework for allocating commercial free-to-air television broadcasting licences divides Australia into various commercial television broadcasting licence areas that broadly reflect population distribution. Licence areas are then divided into local areas; however in some cases the local area is equal to the licence area.
Under the current arrangements, regional commercial television licensees in aggregated markets and Tasmania are required to provide approximately 120 points of material of local significance per week to local areas within the licence areas. Material of local significance is material that is broadcast to a local area and relates directly to either the local area or the licence area. The aggregated markets include the following licence areas: Northern New South Wales, Southern New South Wales, Regional Victoria and Regional Queensland.
Currently there are no local content obligations in non-aggregated markets which include Darwin, the major regional population centres in South Australia and Western Australia, and parts of Western New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.
The bill will extend and increase local content obligations for regional commercial television licensees. The new obligations will apply to regional commercial television broadcasting licences which, as a result of a change in control (called a 'trigger event'), become part of a group of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. The additional local content obligations will commence six months after the bill receives royal assent.
The requirement for the licensee to be part of a commercial television group that reaches over 75 per cent of the population ensures that the additional local content obligations are only 'triggered' after the licensee is in a position to benefit from the additional scale and efficiency that the media reforms will allow.
Under the Broadcasting Services Act, currently local-programming targets are expressed as 'points' where each minute of material of local significance is worth one point, and each minute of news that relates directly to the local area is worth two points.
Where a trigger event takes place the bill will:
increase local-programming requirements for regional commercial television licensees in aggregated markets and Tasmania that are subject to a trigger event by 30 points per week; and
introduce new local-programming requirements for regional commercial television licences in non-aggregated markets that are subject to a trigger event. These include smaller regional licence areas in Mildura and Griffith, where currently no local programming is provided, and regional licence areas in Darwin, Broken Hill, Spencer Gulf, Riverland, Mt Gambier, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie and South West and Great Southern Western Australia where some local programming is provided. The bill will require licensees to provide approximately 60 points of material of local significance per week to each local area, with a minimum of 45 points each week.
The additional local content obligations will take effect for each licensee six months after the trigger event. This will allow the licensee sufficient time to implement the necessary business and investment decisions in order to broadcast the required amount of local programming.
The additional obligations are aimed at ensuring that there is local content in nearly all regional licence areas following a change in control, including those where there is none currently. However, broadcasts to remote areas of Australia, predominantly in Western and Central Australia, will be exclude, given the large geography and lack of large population centres.
Licences allocated under sections 38A and 38B of the Broadcasting Services Act will also be excluded. These licences are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to existing licensees to ensure that regional audiences receive all three main television networks, where there are fewer than three broadcasters in the licence area. To place local-programming obligations on section 38A and 38B licences would represent an unrealistic financial burden on the original 'parent' broadcaster in each regional licence area.
To maximise the relevance of local content to served markets, this bill includes an incentive for local news to be filmed in the local area. To achieve this the bill introduces a new three-point category under the local-programming points system for licences affected by a trigger event. Under the revised points system, each minute of local news programming that depicts people, places or things in the relevant local area will be allocated three points. The local-programming points system will otherwise replicate the current material of local significance points system under the Broadcasting Services (Additional Television Licence Condition) Notice 2014.
The bill will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make a new local-programming determination which would identify the local areas for the purposes of the local-programming obligations. The delayed introduction of the additional local-programming obligations in the bill by six months will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority sufficient time to make the local-programming determination before the commencement of the new obligations.
The bill will require licensees to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with two reports detailing their compliance with the obligations from 12 months after their new obligation commences and another a year later.
In order to evaluate the extent to which the bill achieves its objectives, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will review the operation of the new local programming provisions within two years following the commencement of the additional obligations.
Prior to the commencement of schedules 1 and 2, it is the government's expectation that prospective changes to the law should not be relevant to the Australian Communications and Media Authority's consideration of any prior approval applications made under sections 67, 61AJ and 61AMC of the Broadcasting Services Act. The government considers that the Australian Communications and Media Authority would continue to consider applications for prior approval of temporary breaches of the control and ownership rules without reference to these proposed amendments—in other words, to consider such applications on the law as it stands at the time. This will avoid any party gaining a 'first mover advantage' in pursuing transactions that may be permitted only once schedules 1 or 2 have commenced.
The government is committed to reforming legislation in areas where archaic regulation is holding Australian businesses back. This bill is yet another step in removing restrictive and redundant regulation and ensuring that independent sources of news, current affairs and similar programming continue to be available to all Australians, particularly those in regional areas.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Reporting Date
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:42): On behalf of the Assistant Treasurer I move:
That the reporting date for the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the impairment of customer loans be extended to 20 May 2016.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ) (09:42): I have received advice from the Honourable Prime Minister that in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 he has nominated Mr Wood to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in place of Mr Tehan, whose position became vacant upon his appointment to the ministry.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:42): by leave—I move:
That in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Wood be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (09:43): The inevitability of growing older means that as we see our friends and parents ageing we wonder if the system is up to the demands that will be part of our collective future. In 2011 the Productivity Commission report on caring for older Australians identified some key weaknesses of the system. These were that the system is a little difficult to navigate, that choices are limited for consumer services and that there are inconsistencies or inequities in pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions. We have a great record for caring for the aged, and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016 is an extension of that ethic.
The policy changes that are introduced with the legislation are to address the reported weaknesses. Some were initiatives of the previous government, but we have developed those concepts in line with consultation processes, creating a system that is more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. In January this year the government created a more independent and robust approach to complaints by transferring responsibility for the Aged Care Complaints Scheme from the Department of Health to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. The My Aged Care gateway has been established to be the one identifiable place to go for information and support in order to access aged care. This is now assisting people to find their way through the aged-care system and, despite some initial difficulties, is now undertaking assessments for those people who need low-level care at home.
The government has worked hard to address inconsistencies and apparent cost inequalities in the system in terms of the prices to be paid and the consumer contribution. One of the main considerations is that competition rather than regulation will be a catalyst for increasing innovation as well as better-quality services that are both sustainable and efficient. Naturally the government will maintain a central role in setting policy and in ensuring safety and compliance in aged-care services. Our aged-care system is the envy of many other nations. We must retain that quality, service, affordability and accountability. We are a diverse population and living much longer, mostly because we have a healthier lifestyle but certainly because we have a great healthcare system. However, as an ageing population in which there is to be a shift in the demographic prevalence of our older Australians, we really must make sure that our aged-care services work well into the future. Older Australians want more choice and control over the care they receive. That demand will only increase.
The government's home-care reforms, announced in last year's budget, place a priority on ensuring choice and flexibility for older people. In addition, the reforms will strengthen the aged-care system to provide high-quality and more innovative services through increased competition. There is a staged reform process; all good things take time. After February 2017, someone qualifying for a home-care package after being assessed will be able to direct government funding to the provider of their choice. A very important change that will be available is that the consumer will have the flexibility to change their provider if they need or want to, and if they move to another area or state they can take their package with them. Importantly, once the changes are introduced, the aged-care provider will not have to apply for care packages from the government. In addition, there will be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care. This major policy change has received widespread support, and the implementation arrangements for these changes have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders, including the National Aged Care Alliance and groups representing consumers, carers and providers.
The second stage of home-care reform will further simplify the way services are delivered and funded and will commence from July 2018. After establishing the first stage, the government will, as has been clearly signalled, move to a single, integrated care-at-home package. Once again, the main theme is to enable greater choice for the consumer, exploring different funding and service delivery models, including activities that promote restorative care.
The integration of the Home Care Packages program and the Commonwealth Home Support program in the second stage will be informed by extensive consultations with stakeholders. This is an absolutely essential step. This was loudly demonstrated by many groups in Gilmore when the concept was first floated. There will be many individuals and groups, such as Meals on Wheels volunteers, who will need to be part of the build for stage 2. This bill implements stage 1 of the reforms and will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas. The first allows consumers to choose where to use the package with their provider of choice. Such a choice may also include the need for a provider to be culturally suitable. The package will be portable, including the utilisation of unspent funds, and approved providers will no longer have to apply through the Aged Care Approvals Round to receive home-care places. This reduction in red tape will also increase competition in the sector, allowing more consumer focused and innovative providers to expand their businesses to meet local demand and consumer expectations, including the needs of consumers with dementia and other special needs.
There will be a consistent national system for prioritising access to subsidised home care. Currently, waiting lists for packages are managed by individual providers. There can be significant variations in the waiting periods for such packages across Australia, with no systematic way of measuring or addressing that variation. Just recently a family came to me after four years of waiting for a package to be allocated to their older mum. They had a package before they moved to the local area. It took four years to get a new one. At the moment these packages are actually applied for and distributed by the providers. This change will make a difference to so many people.
Once these changes take effect, there will be a national system to manage eligible consumers' access to packages within My Aged Care. An effective national system is important to ensure that there is equitable access to care, as the total number of home care packages will continue to be capped in line with the aged-care planning ratio. A prioritisation process will take into account the relative needs and circumstances of consumers, determined by the comprehensive assessment undertaken by an aged care assessment team and the time that a person has been waiting for care. A consumer who has been assigned a package will be supported by the My Aged Care gateway with referrals to approved providers, but the consumer will be able to choose which provider delivers their care. There will be close monitoring of these new arrangements to ensure that all consumers, including people with special needs and those living in rural and regional areas, are able to access care in an equitable manner.
The final part of the proposed changes will mean that the red tape associated with providers being approved under the Aged Care Act 1997 will enable more providers to exist, giving a whole lot more choice. But they will still be required to show their suitability to become an approved provider. All approved providers will need to meet the home care standards and will be subject to independent quality reviews. The legislative criteria for assessing the suitability of a person to become an approved provider will be streamlined and made more contemporary.
Most of us would prefer to live our wise years in our own home—a location that is familiar and special. As I began my support for this bill, I also mentioned the aspect of caring for the aged that is so important to this government. Our older citizens need to be respected holistically. Getting great provider services is most definitely part of the responsibility we have, as is monitoring of the other aspects of being an older person.
Following the establishment of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, just this week Senator Brandis has released a report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which was commissioned by this government to conduct a scoping study of elder abuse in Australia. As a consequence of that report, the Attorney-General has now tasked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into laws and frameworks to safeguard older Australians from abuse. The government is, by such action, putting the respect and recognition of the human rights of the elderly fairly and squarely on the agenda for government attention.
Consumer choice is absolutely significant and essential as we go forward, but consumer protection is important, both socially and legally. There have been instances of potential elder abuse brought to my notice, and now we have the correct pathways to investigate how to improve the system and protect our elderly. Those abuses can range from physical abuse to legal abuse, where the power of attorney can be manipulated and older people, who are not aware of what is happening, can change their will. Different family members can change that. We need to have an avenue and a process where the rights of our older people, who may not be aware of those changes going on around them, are protected. Some of the cases that have been brought to my attention have already resulted in families becoming financially bereft and an older person not being in a position to go into care.
My government is taking the best, most appropriate and most relevant steps forward in these most important aspects of safeguarding and caring for older Australians. I am both proud and grateful to see these changes, for, after all, each of us is moving to that very same place, in our wise and mature years, as our senior friends and family. We all need to be respected and safe.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (09:53): Growing older is a certainty. It is a part of the natural course of life. However, it does not mean that we have to lose sight of who we are. Rather, as we mature, we truly begin to understand and recognise who we are. The definition of wisdom is the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise. Wisdom comes from experience, and experience comes with age. Older Australians have a wealth of experiences and skills. They have lived through experiences and situations that many of us cannot even imagine. This wisdom, this knowledge and this life experience should be both acknowledged and respected.
Over one million older Australians receive aged care services every year. By 2050, over 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged-care services.
The 2015 Intergenerational report shows that the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to more than double from 3.6 million people in 2014-15 to 8.9 million people by 2055. Furthermore, in my own electorate of Tangney more than nine per cent of the population is over 65 years old. This is a significant number of people within my electorate who would benefit from changes to the current aged-care health system.
It is obvious to see that there will be a huge increase in the number of older Australians in the coming years, with the passage of the baby boomers into the older ages. And thanks to better health and better health care they are keeping active, staying at home and living longer lives. They also differ significantly economically, socially and culturally from the previous generation. Expectations will increase, as older Australians want more choice and more flexibility in what services are available to them and also how they are delivered. They have a strong preference for continuing to live in their homes and communities for as long as possible. Older Australians also want to have a much greater role in decisions about their care, including what services are provided and by whom and when.
It also means that the demands on Australia's aged-care system are changing. As such it is important that the government recognises these changes, and shifts and does something about them. This bill actively allows us to do just that. We talk a lot about being innovative, agile and flexible. We talk a lot about giving Australians a fair go. Older Australians should and must be treated no differently. These are our true Aussie battlers. They have battled; they are the ones we look up to. They have been through the highs and the lows of life and come out the other side.
We recognise that older Australians are important, and now the coalition government recognises that we need an aged-care system that reflects this sentiment. Presently, most older Australians are limited for choice and flexibility when it comes to who delivers their care and services. The 2011 Productivity Commission Caring for older Australians report identified a number of key weaknesses of the system, including that it is difficult to navigate, services and consumer choice are limited and coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable.
We have already implemented a range of measures to address these weaknesses. Some were started by the previous government, but this government is going further. We always go further, moving the aged-care system more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendation. In January we transferred responsibility for the Aged Care Complaints scheme from the Department of Health to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, creating a more independent and robust approach to complaints.
The My Aged Care gateway is now supporting people to find their way through the aged-care system, and increasing its role as the one identifiable place to go for information and support to access aged care. This user-friendly site is giving older Australians all the information they require in one easy-to-navigate place, along with access and support to aged-care programs and services.
The Productivity Commission's report also stated that competition rather than extensive regulation is the key to delivering innovative, quality services and an efficient and sustainable system. Creating a competitive home care market will ensure that consumers have the ability to pick and choose their providers. It also means that older Australians will be able to choose providers based on their own specific and unique health requirements, as well as cultural or other personal factors.
The government already plays a crucial role in setting policy and ensuring safety and compliance in aged-care services. It will continue to be there to promote equity of access, support vulnerable consumers and a sustainable system. However, it must be acknowledged that market based solutions and consumer choice will increasingly be the driving force for quality, value and performance of services. As such, moving to a market based system, giving consumers choice and allowing providers to run their own services, is central to the government's plan for at home aged care now and in the future.
We live in a world where everything is at our fingertips. We are constantly bombarded with a plethora of options and choices for everything and anything. Everybody should be able to make choices. Everybody should be given the opportunity and have the ability to compare options and make informed decisions based on needs and requirements. We have all grown accustomed to this luxury and expect to have this ability wherever we go. Why should older Australians be treated any different?
In 2011 the Productivity Commission noted that:
Older Australians did not want to be passive recipients of services, dependent on funded providers.
Rather, they wanted to be independent and able to choose where they live, which provider they would use, the way in which services are delivered, and whether to purchase additional services and/or a higher standard of accommodation. There is strong empirical evidence that consumer choice improves wellbeing, including higher life satisfaction, greater life expectancy, independence and better continuity of care. Additionally, competition amongst providers in a system where consumers can exercise choice leads to a more dynamic system with enhanced incentives for greater efficiency, innovation and quality. A more flexible system would also enable providers to increase the range and scope of their services, freeing them from the current highly regulated, risk-averse regime.
In order to support and deliver more choice to older Australians, the government announced significant reforms to home care in the 2015-16 budget. The reforms support consumers to ensure they receive the services and support they need, while at the same time strengthening the aged care system, providing higher quality and more innovative services through increased competition. Changes build on the current consumer directed care approach in home care and will be introduced in two stages.
From February 2017 home care packages will follow the consumer, making it easier for consumers choose a home care provider, change providers, and also remove red tape for home care providers. This will give older Australians greater choice in deciding who provides their home care, all the while establishing a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care. The second stage will integrate the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single care at home program to further simplify the way that services are delivered and funded. This bill allows us to implement stage 1 of these reforms as well as amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas.
Firstly, funding for a home care package will now follow the consumer. This replaces the current system where home care packages are allocated to individual approved providers in respect of a particular location or region. It offers far more choice for the consumer in selecting their provider, as well as more flexibility to change their provider if they wish to do so. A consumer will be able to choose a provider that is suited to them. They will be able to find providers that tailor to their specific health needs, as well as other cultural or personal factors.
Home care packages will also be portable for older Australians. If they wish to move to a new location or change to another provider, the package as well as any unspent funds will move with the consumer to their new provider. This will give older Australians a new-found freedom. It will give them the ability to change providers as their health needs change and as their living arrangements change. Providers will also no longer have to apply for new home care places through the Aged Care Approvals Round, significantly reducing red tape for businesses. This will increase competition in the sector by allowing more consumer focused and innovative providers to expand their businesses to meet local demand and consumer expectations. This will include the needs of consumers with dementia and other special needs, making finding a home care provider for unique and special needs easier and simpler.
Secondly, there will be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to home care packages through My Aged Care—the government entry point/gateway to the aged care system. Currently waiting lists for packages are managed by the individual providers. This means that there can be significant variations in the waiting lists for packages across Australia. We want to create an aged care system which prioritises the needs and circumstances of consumers based on the importance and nature of their situation. Once this legislation goes through, the prioritisation process will take into account the relative needs and circumstances of consumers. It will be determined through their comprehensive assessment undertaken by an aged care assessment team, and the time that a person has been waiting for care.
And thirdly, there will be reduced red tape associated with providers who become approved under the Aged Care Act 1997. This will help encourage new providers to enter the home care market, supporting greater choice for consumers. All providers will still need to demonstrate their satiability to become an approved provider and meet quality standards but this process will become much more streamlined.
The coalition's plan to implement these measures clearly shows that the government understands and recognises the importance of older Australians. Considering the integral role that is played by older Australians in our society, I am reminded of the painter Rembrandt. Unlike other artists who treated and painted old age with curiosity or cruelty, Rembrandt always celebrated the effects of time. He painted old age with a certain dignity and nobility, approaching his subjects with kindness and compassion. Instead of making a mockery of age, Rembrandt recognised the character of elderly faces, embracing the marks of time as beautiful. What Rembrandt did with paint, so we are doing with this legislation. We are celebrating the achievements that come with age. We are honouring the years of work and dedication to this nation. We are approaching changes to aged care with kindness and compassion. Ronald Reagan once said:
Our country is great because it is built on principles of self-reliance … innovation and compassion for others.
This is the country that we, the coalition government, continue to build. Legislation such as this allows us to extend compassion where compassion is due, to bring innovation into areas where innovation is required, and to give choices and options to those who—well and truly—have earned it. We aim to create an aged-care system which respects older Australians, a system which gives them exactly what they want—self-reliance, independence and the ability to choose how they want their healthcare delivered, by whom and when. This bill ensures that the aged-care system improves the wellbeing of older Australians through targeted support, access to quality and information services.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:08): Labor has a very strong record when it comes to aged care. The legislation we are debating today is building on Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms that were introduced in the last parliament—reforms that really transform the way aged care works in Australia. This bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2015 is something that we on this side of the House will not be opposing, but it is really important to make a few points along the way.
The legislation we are debating comes from the 2015 budget, and it is the first part of a two-part process. This will change the way home care packages are allocated. Instead of being allocated to a provider, home care packages will actually be allocated to a person—a person who needs an aged-care package. It gives that person choice. The whole premise of the Living Longer Living Better package was that it was person-centred; it was about the person. By allowing the dollars for the package to go to the person, it gives them greater control over how that package is delivered. My only worries are that there probably has not been enough consultation around the change. I get a little bit concerned about the My Aged Care website and about it being the central entry point. There have been a few problems with that, and I think that the government needs to work a lot harder on fixing those problems.
The first stage of the change is addressed in this legislation we have before us. It will make sure that, no matter what happens, that home care package will follow the person—so that person, no matter where they are, no matter what they are doing, will be able to link into their package and purchase services where they are living. If a person moves from the Hunter to the Central Coast they will be able to purchase a package. There will be providers in areas, but that will not necessarily guarantee that a person who needs a package will be able to obtain one immediately, because those providers will have waiting lists of their own. And one of the big problems over the years, particularly in recent times, has been the waiting list and the waiting time—the time people are forced to wait before they can pick up a package.
Generally speaking, when a person needs an aged-care package, they need an aged-care package. There is great work that is done in both the Hunter and Central Coast. One of the most innovative programs that I have been associated with operates through the Hunter area health service: if an older person over the age of 70 presents at an accident and emergency department, there is a team there that assesses that person to determine whether or not they will need extra services, and whether they can go home and live independently and can care for themselves. If it is determined that a person needs extra services, then the nurse who is responsible for coordinating the package in that accident and emergency department will contact the relevant organisations, and the person will be linked in—from the hospital, not from the community. And they organise the ACAT assessment—and I think it is really important that I put on the record that part of the requirement for a package is that a person undergoes an ACAT assessment, where it is determined whether or not they need assistance, and what type of assistance they need, and then the package is built around them—and that is the person-centred part of the package. But now it is also ensuring that the person has choice.
There have been a few glitches with the changes that have taken place through the Living Longer Living Better reforms. A lot of those glitches relate to the fact that this government does not believe in talking to people. It is very focused on the, 'what I do, what I say,' approach to implementing any policy, and it has a pretty poor record in the area of caring for and providing services for older Australians. Look at its attack on the healthcare system. Look at the fact that it has put in place structures that will lead to a reduction in bulk billing. The removal of bulk-billing incentives from pathology and radiology services is something that will impact on older Australians.
It is sad that this government is also looking towards attacking people's pensions. It has introduced changes that have dramatically decreased the amount of money that old Australians are receiving, and that is really not good enough. I strongly support greater choice and putting that choice in the hands of the consumer. In saying that I emphasise that I have been visited by many of my constituents and their families who have wished to change providers and, due to the rigidity of the rules of the moment, have had difficulty with that. Improved choice is a very good part of this bill, and that has been strongly supported by COTA, the Council on the Ageing, an organisation that has advocated for older Australians for a very long time. COTA says this will lead to older Australians receiving better services, allowing them to remain in their homes longer.
Aged and Community Services Australia are a little more cautious. They believe that 'strong supports and safety nets' need to be maintained for disadvantaged older Australians. Unfortunately, that is something this government has not embraced. It does not understand that some people work very hard all their lives, contribute through taxes but at the end of the day do not have the same level of advantage that other Australians have. It is really important that the government does not forget those people—so a word of caution there.
This legislation also replaces regional ratios with a prioritisation process to take into account an individual's needs, circumstances and waiting time regardless of location. That worries me a little. I do not want to see fewer home care packages being made available in the area I represent, the Hunter. In the Shortland electorate 19.8 per cent of the population are 65 and older. I would hope that, because there is a greater proportion of older people in Shortland, more packages will be made available in our area. I would not like to see more packages being made available in the heart of Sydney because it is easier to deliver services there. Even in my local area I would not like to see packages being made available only in the population centres. The outlying areas in the Shortland electorate, such as Catherine Hill Bay and Nords Wharf, have traditionally had to fight harder for packages because care workers have to travel further. I know that some rural electorates require even greater travel than Shortland does, and I would hope that members of the Nationals in particular are arguing to make sure their constituents are properly taken care of.
The other aspect of the bill that I am concerned about is the length of time that people have to wait for assessments. We are constantly trying to speed up that process. A person who presents at an accident and emergency department and is taken into that stream is in an advantageous position because they can bypass some of the waiting time. On one occasion the family of a constituent contacted me because their mother needed to move to a higher level aged care package. By the time the assessment took place she was dead. So waiting times are something we need to be very concerned about.
I also need to put on record problems with Human Services. Since Human Services has been involved in the system there have been significant delays in reconciling accounts, with Medicare taking up to three months or more to pay for services. This is not a direct criticism of the Department of Human Services. I understand how short-staffed they are because their staff has been significantly cut. But I also understand the implication of this delay in reconciling accounts.
This has been told to me by aged-care providers who operate aged-care facilities. The delay and the communication with human services have been less than optimal. There are problems in that area. There are problems with the long waiting times. There are also problems with the fact that this system was supposed to make it simpler for older Australians but in some ways has actually been more complex. With constant errors and misinformation given to older Australians, it is really not good enough.
This government needs to step up to the mark and remember that services are services. They are services to vulnerable older Australians. They are services that they look to the government to deliver to them. This is not about the government; this is about people, and the people that use those packages rely on them being delivered. Those people that deliver the packages rely on receiving payment for delivery. The change to give more control to older people is good, but there are a few things this government needs to work on.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:23): I agree with the member who just spoke that the role of government is to care for the elderly and for those who are vulnerable, so I speak today to support the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. I commend it because I believe it does just that.
According to the 2015 intergenerational report, Australia's older generation is on track for unprecedented growth, with the number of people aged 65 and over predicted to reach 8.9 million, more than double the current population, by 2025. This is particularly pertinent in my electorate of Canning. To give you a sense of some of the demographics: as of September last year, 16.6 per cent of Canning residents were aged between 60 and 69, 15.2 per cent of Canning residents were aged 70 or above and 49.1 per cent of the Canning population was aged 50 or above. As you can see, the question of aged care into the future is a big one, and Canning will get a lot of benefit from this bill.
Understandably, this increase will put pressure on our aged-care system, so, in order to meet the demands of such significant growth, we need to start the reform process now. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do. These reforms will be delivered in two stages that will see the focus of home care shift from the provider to the consumer in order to create a more competitive, affordable and user-friendly aged-care system.
Australians place great value on their independence, so it is no surprise that many of us wish to maintain this as we grow older. While in some instances it is not always possible for older Australians to live fully independently, the government believes that individual freedoms should not be forfeited when you reach a certain age. I know a lot of elderly Australians have spent a lot of time throughout their lives making shrewd investments, saving money and preparing for their retirement. I think the family home represents this, so I understand that a lot of elderly Australians want to remain in their family home. I speak from personal experience; both grandparents on both sides of my family remained in their family homes almost to their final years, before they moved into aged care. They enjoyed the benefits of home care. I think they would have benefited from a more flexible approach to home care. If they were alive today, this bill would certainly resonate with them.
We also recognise that conversations about aged care can be difficult to have with loved ones, which is why we are taking the initiative to simplify the process for consumers, their families and providers. Stage 1 of the reforms contained in this bill is set to commence in February 2017 and will allow funding for a home-care package to follow the consumer rather than be allocated to the provider. This builds upon the change introduced in July last year that saw all home-care packages delivered on a consumer directed care basis, allowing consumers and providers to work together to determine the most appropriate type and level of home care.
Consumer directed care also ensures greater transparency of the aged-care process by introducing individualised budgets and regular income and expenditure statements so that consumers are kept aware of how resources are being used. But, while consumer directed care is a progressive step in the right direction, further reform is necessary to bolster the aged-care system. By allocating the funding to the consumer rather than the provider, consumers will have the ability to choose the provider best suited to their needs. A central tenet of coalition philosophy is the choice of the individual to make their own decisions, whether it be through freedom of association or how they spend their money, which is what we are talking about here with particular reference to aged care.
Importantly, a redirection of funding in this manner will also enable consumers to change their provider if they are reallocating or if they feel their needs would be best met elsewhere. In the past, anyone wishing to change their home-care provider might have experienced disruption in their care either through a lengthy transition process or through lower level interim services. They also might have been discouraged from moving to another provider by the fact that unspent funds allocated to the approved provider for a particular consumer's care can be retained by that provider when the consumer no longer receives home care from them. This is not good enough. We understand that circumstances change and care should not be compromised because of this. People, particularly at a fragile time in their lives, should still be afforded choice without punitive financial consequences.
It is important to note that the changes proposed in this legislation are not driven by a government agenda. I note that the opposition broadly supports the passage of this bill. In fact, in its 2011 report the Productivity Commission found that government involvement in aged care is justifiable because of the inequitable access to services for vulnerable consumers and the provision of information.
The coalition government is committed to reforming the aged-care sector in so much as facilitating its transition to consumer driven, market based care models that are vital to the industry's sustainability. In facilitating this transition, the government is employing a bottom-up approach by consulting key industry stakeholders such as providers, consumers and department officials. The key belief underpinning this reform—that competition is essential to consumer driven care—is a sentiment thus echoed by key industry bodies:
The National Aged Care Alliance lamented the lack of consumer choice in both its 2012 and 2015 blueprints for aged care reform; and the Aged Care Sector Committee, established to guide the government with ongoing reform, notes choice, support, innovation, affordability and sustainability as its guiding principles.
While the government is focused on streamlining the aged-care process for consumers, we are also focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on providers already operating within the industry as well as those looking to enter. The first step in this direction is to abolish the aged care approvals round or ACAR. ACAR is a competitive process through which prospective and current providers are required to submit detailed proposals of their care models and capabilities in order to be allocated federally funded home-care places or capital grants. This process places an extremely high and unnecessary administrative burden on providers, who are required to submit applications focused in part on key personnel and individual performance indicators rather than the organisation's overall capacity to deliver quality consumer outcomes in aged care in line with the legislation.
If I may digress, I know that the ACAR has proved to be a significant hurdle for Canning residential aged-care providers in the past due to the regional nature by which places are allocated. For example, residential care providers in Pinjarra, located approximately an hour and 10 minutes south of the Perth CBD, have been grouped together with larger metropolitan providers to compete for places under the ACAR process. When we consider the fact that last year only 6,045 home care places were available for allocation in the 2015 ACAR, despite the 126,826 applications received by the department, it is little wonder that providers who find themselves at a disadvantage by distance are struggling to compete.
As such, I am glad to see that the government is moving on from this antiquated system. We are the government that removes red tape, not enhances it. That is not to say that providers, particularly smaller providers in rural and remote areas, have not expressed concern about the challenges associated with transitioning to market driven care—such as comparatively less marketing capability and increased costs of service provision.
There are providers within my electorate that would likely fall within this category, and so I am pleased that the government engaged stakeholders on this very issue, some of whom have noted that smaller providers should be able to better position themselves as providers of choice in their local communities by drawing upon existing local knowledge and relationships. It is perhaps also worth noting here that not-for-profits currently control much of the home-care market, overseeing 82 per cent of allocated places.
The second stage of the reforms contained in this bill is the integration of the home care packages program and the Commonwealth home support program into a single, streamlined home-care program as of July 2018. These two initiatives are already simplified versions of a range of home-care options, and thus this phase is a continuation of broader industry reform.
The government understands that these changes may overwhelm consumers who are not entirely confident in their own ability and knowledge to access the best information on aged or home care. The My Aged Care portal, a one-stop-shop that facilitates access to the most up-to-date information and services, will thus create this opportunity for consumers to better understand the process.
We also recognise that providers, such as those who have provided their feedback on these changes through Aged Care Services Australia, will also have some reservations about transitioning to a market driven aged-care sector. That is why the government has established a new Home Care Reforms Advisory Group, which will continue to provide advice to the Minister for Aged Care and the department about implementation, communication and monitoring issues for stage 1 as well as areas of stage 2.
I note the department has also been engaging with stakeholders since these changes were announced in the 2015 budget, and I am pleased hear that this active engagement will continue in 2016 and beyond. This legislation is good coalition government policy: it is consumer focused, market driven and represents innovative reform with a look to sustainability and affordability. At the height of it is the recognition of the dignity of the individual, particularly for those in their elderly years. It respects freedom of choice. It respects the fact that people have invested in their retirement, particularly in the family home, and would thus like to age accordingly in their home without disruption to their daily patterns of life.
Backed by a range of stakeholders, the legislative changes included in this bill lay down a clear path of reform that will provide far-reaching benefits for consumers and providers across Australia, including those in Canning. With this in mind, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:36): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. There is no doubt that Australia has an ageing population and, with advances in medical technologies, together with education about disease prevention and control, it is leading to us living longer lives.
I find in my own electorate that I am sending out more and more 90th and 100th birthday certificates—and even older—to my constituents. However, an ageing population creates challenges in how we best cater for the needs of our elderly community members—there is no-one-size-fits-all solution. We need a modern, adaptable and sustainable aged-care system so we can best help older people maximise their participation in society for longer.
This bill creates the framework for a more flexible, consumer driven aged-care system that will support older people to stay living at home much longer. It puts in place the first stage of the home care reforms that were announced by the government in the 2015-16 budget. These changes are about cutting red tape and giving consumers more choice and control over their aged care.
There are a number of areas where this funding is going to work. I refer to four of those areas. Firstly, funding for home care packages will actually follow the consumer, replacing the current system where home care places are allocated to individual approved providers to deliver service in particular locations or regions. This will give people more choice in selecting their provider and the flexibility to change their provider if they are not happy with the service or if they want to move house, for example. It also gives them the opportunity, should family members offer to support them, to relocate somewhere else. It allows them to be able to have the flexibility of being able to find another closer facility to meet their needs and to be able to maintain that connection with their family.
Secondly, the providers will no longer have to apply for new home care places through the aged care approvals round, significantly reducing red tape and regulations for businesses. Having worked with the Mossman District Nursing Home committee as they completed several ACAR applications, I know how much of a burden it is for any small community organisation in following these guidelines.
Thirdly, there will be a streamlined process for organisations seeking to become approved providers, encouraging new providers to enter the home care market while ensuring the same high standards are met.
Lastly, there will be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to home care packages through My Aged Care, the government entry point or gateway to the new aged-care system.
In its 2011 inquiry, the Productivity Commission found that the aged-care system was prone to high levels of regulation, lack of timely access to care and very limited consumer choice. The changes being put forward through this bill will address this, with the Productivity Commission making the following points:
… consumer choice improves wellbeing, including higher life satisfaction, greater life expectancy, independence and better continuity of care. In addition, competition amongst providers in a system where consumers can exercise choice leads to a more dynamic system, with enhanced incentives for greater efficiency, innovation and quality. A more flexible system would also enable providers to increase the range and scope of their services, freeing them from the current highly regulated, risk-averse regime.
The total number of home care packages is continuing to increase each year so there is an opportunity for all providers to continue to operate in the market. The challenge is for them to understand their clients' needs and deliver services that tick those boxes.
There was an earlier bill that went through the House and was passed recently which I want to touch on now as it has specific relevance for my electorate. The Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015 came as a result of a 2013 election commitment to review the administration of aged-care places in a bid to slash red tape in the sector. It makes the business of delivering aged care easier for service providers, and gets rid of unnecessary administrative processes so that service providers can get on with doing what they do best—focusing on delivering high quality care services.
Firstly, approved providers will find it much easier to transfer their places to another approved provider without having to seek approval from the department. The current process will be replaced with a simple notice of transfer.
Secondly, the bill reduces red tape by reducing the number of times that approved providers must apply to extend the period of provisional allocation. This was a major problem in my area. The department accepts that it takes providers, on average, four years to get a bed in place and operational and that 80 per cent are operational within six years. Under the changes, approved providers are now automatically given four years with the possibility of two 12-month extensions. Further extensions can be provided under exceptional circumstances. But, importantly, it means that providers have to explain to the department what the hold-ups are. These places are not just sitting in limbo.
As we see these changes continue to progress through this place, they are very much to the benefit of our community and, of course, to the client, which is very important. We had a situation in Far North Queensland over the past couple of years with aged-care places management being an ongoing and complex issue. There were numerous local media stories blaming hospitals for ambulance ramping and a claim that aged-care patients were taking up too many much-needed beds at Cairns Base Hospital because of a shortage of residential and home care places.
It was very, very difficult to get an accurate state of play as to how many beds and packages we actually were short. As a result, I asked then Minister Fifield for an audit of aged-care places in Far North Queensland that had been previously allocated but had not yet become available. As at 30 June last year, there were 386 provisionally allocated residential care places, of which over 80 were six years old or older. It concerned me that those places had been allowed to stagnate, given the demand in our region.
I recall one very sad case where a husband and wife had been separated because there were not beds available. The wife was living in residential care in Cairns, and her husband was placed in residential care in Herberton, on the Atherton Tableland, because they were not able to be placed together. In a regional area with no public transport and at that age, when they were requiring high care, it was impossible for one partner to travel the 1½ hours necessary to see the other. Sadly, by the time we managed to get it resolved, the husband had passed away. Actually we had got him a place in Cairns, and in the process of the transfer he passed away. Fortunately, with this new legislation, there will be greater accountability as to why beds have not come online. If an approved provider after four, five or six years decides not to proceed with these beds, they can be easily transferred to another operator who may be in a better position to act swiftly.
With a meaningful focus on aged care, we are now starting to see some remarkable developments in Far North Queensland. In the 2015 Aged Care Approvals Round, we will benefit from around 416 new residential aged-care places and around 109 new home care packages. In the second half of 2015, two facilities, with 338 additional places, became available, and a further 30 beds are due online in the first part of 2016.
There was a great community atmosphere at the opening of the Bupa Cairns aged-care facility in September, which brought 144 beds online, including 36 that are dedicated for dementia patients. Already, the facility has 102 residents, and it is a beautiful set-up. Anybody interested in finding out about a place there should get in touch with Bupa in Cairns, because there is still potential there for them to be able to take additional people.
One that has been very close to my heart is in Mossman. The Mossman and Port Douglas nursing care committee have been working for many years. The Douglas Shire Council have been working closely with them. They have paved the way for construction of stage 1 of the Mossman and District Aged Care precinct in Johnston Road. This is an incredible outcome, a result of over 20 years of advocacy by the Mossman District Nursing Home Committee, the council and, recently, The Salvation Army Aged Care Plus, who have come on board and will build and operate this facility. My congratulations to the founding and executive members, Marj Norris, Shirley Vico and Joan Gray. The trio were recognised as Douglas Shire Council's 2016 Citizens of the Year, and rightfully so. They have done an absolutely fantastic job over the last 20 years. We have gone from this being just a dream to something that will be a reality in the very near future. The preliminary approvals, which have just been given, include a development permit for the 42-bed aged-care facility and a preliminary approval for the balance portion of the land and reconfiguration of one lot into two lots to facilitate stage 1 of the precinct. Stage 2 is earmarked for a retirement facility that features an activities building, a community wellness centre, approximately 60 private suites and a low-care and independent living precinct over the balance of that land. It is certainly an exciting time. The Salvation Army Aged Care Plus is now free to start building this vital community asset.
Up in the Torres Strait, the Star of the Sea Elders Village is another example where flexibility is really going to make a huge difference. This is a facility that over the years had deteriorated to a point where it was in appalling condition a couple of years ago. I had been very strongly advocating to have it refurbished. It is the only facility of its kind in the world, focusing on Torres Strait people and their needs. As a result of that advocacy, I managed to get the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Aged Care Master Plan developed. Through that, it was fantastic to get a $19 million injection into a long-overdue refurbishment plan and redesign and a further $5.8 million for construction of new staff facilities. It has worked out very well. Sue Boisen from Blue Care tells me that the project is progressing exceptionally well and they are now applying for development approval for the refurbishment and the new staff accommodation in the near future. It was fantastic to see that come to fruition.
At the end of the day, we have got some big changes coming through in the aged-care sector, with more to come. But we are absolutely committed to the consultative approach with the sector, because their input is critical in program design and implementation. Since the budget, we have worked closely with stakeholders, and we will continue to do so through 2016, with an increasing focus on communication and transition activities to support consumers, carers, providers, ACATs, health professionals and other stakeholders. I am also very happy to hear that our new Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, my good friend Ken Wyatt, will be visiting Cairns later this month to hold an aged-care roundtable. I am looking forward to bringing together stakeholders from around the region. We will certainly be having some robust conversations about future changes in this sector. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (10:51): I rise to speak today on the Aged Care Legislation (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016, which will bring flexibility and a more consumer-driven aged-care system for older Australians. With the number of people aged 65 and over projected to more than double, from 3.6 million in 2014-15 to 8.9 million by 2055, the need for a robust aged-care system is evident. My electorate of Hinkler has an older than average population. There are 32,953, or 32.97 per cent, of my constituents who are over the age of 65. Older Australians want to stay in their homes as long as possible before going into care. Sixty-eight per cent of Australians aged 65 years and over currently live at home without accessing government subsidised aged-care services. Twenty-five per cent of elderly people living at home receive some government subsidised aged-care services. By 2050, over 3½ million Australians are expected to use aged-care services.
The 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry found that older Australians do not want to be passive recipients of services dependent on providers. They want to be independent, able to choose where they live, which provider they would use and the way in which services are delivered.
The inquiry also found that consumer choice improves wellbeing, including higher life satisfaction, greater life expectancy, independence and better continuity of care. Moving to a market based system, which gives consumers real choice, is central to the coalition government's plan.
This legislation will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas. Firstly, funding for a home care package will follow the consumer, replacing the current system where home care places are allocated to individual approved providers in a particular location or region. This will provide more choice for the consumer in selecting their provider as well as more flexibility to change their provider if they want to do so. Providers will no longer have to apply for new home care places, through the aged care approvals round, significantly reducing red tape for businesses.
Secondly, there will be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to home care packages through My Aged Care—the government entry point or gateway to the aged care system. The prioritisation process will take into account the needs and circumstances of consumers determined through the comprehensive assessment undertaken by the aged care assessment team and the time that a person has been waiting for care.
Thirdly, there will be reduced red tape associated with providers who become approved under the Aged Care Act 1997. This will encourage new providers to enter the home care market, supporting greater choice for consumers. All providers will still need to demonstrate their suitability to become an approved provider and meet quality standards.
There is no doubt that reforms in the aged care system are needed. People want more choice and they want more flexibility. I have heard firsthand accounts from constituents about their frustrations in trying to navigate the aged care system. A gentleman contacted my office to raise his concerns about the current funding arrangements and he posed this question: 'Why can't a carer who has extensive experience in handling people's finances or business affairs be given direct access to the funds when there is no need for a care provider to be involved?'
Kevin Woods' life was changed in a matter of seconds when his wife, Wendy, suffered a severe stroke in February 2010. He went from working full-time to becoming a full-time carer looking after his wife and helping with her recovery. It is a 24-hour seven-days-a-week job. I take my hat off to Mr Woods and others in his situation who take on the sometimes difficult task of caring for a loved one with limited resources.
Mr Woods' wife is eligible for 12 hours support per week in their home. Over the past six years Mr Woods has had to jump through hoops and fight tooth and nail to get additional support and care items for his wife. Mrs Woods needed a replacement second skin sleeve for her arm so Mr Woods approached their service provider and was told there were not any funds available. Mrs Woods needed a brace for her leg to help her walk. They, again, approached their provider and, again, were told there were not any funds available. In March 2014, Mr Woods was told by an occupational therapist that his wife should be showered in a wheelchair for her safety. Again, he went to their service provider and was told that there were no funds available.
After three weeks of phone calls and negotiations the service provider finally agreed to pay for their chair. To use Mr Woods' own words, there were 'nearly three weeks to get it organised, a lot of stress and three days delivery'. Why should it be this hard for someone to get equipment or aids that are clearly needed and, in this instance, deemed necessary by the consumer?
Once again, to quote Mr Woods, 'This is a woman who has lost the use of her right arm, can only walk under supervision with the assistance of a walking stick and a brace on her right leg and foot. She can understand what you are saying but cannot communicate her thoughts. She needs assistance from her supposed carers but is being blocked at every turn at the local level of an organisation supposed to be dedicated to supporting their clients.'
Mr Woods believes that capable carers could put the allowances to much better use by employing people to do many more hours per week in regular organised support and carrying out other work around the home. He believes that if he were managing the funds, directly, from the government he could access twice the number of hours per month at half the cost to the government.
I am pleased to see that under the proposed legislation the individual will get to decide which provider they want to deliver the services and then the government pays the provider on their behalf. The funding will follow the consumer, giving them greater choice to choose a provider that is suited to them and to direct the funding to that provider. A home care package will be portable for the consumer if they wish to move location or change to another provider. The package, including any unspent funds, will move with the consumer to their new provider. Currently, any unspent funds remain with the provider, which can be a significant financial disincentive for the consumer to change providers.
Consumers will be able to access information about their home care service providers, through the My Aged Care website, by contacting the My Aged Care contact centre and from the My Aged Care Regional Assessment Services and ACATs. Providers will be able to display relevant information on the My Aged Care service finder to enable consumers to choose their preferred provider. This will help ensure that special needs groups, including people with dementia, will have access to providers who cater to their specific needs. My Aged Care will be able to support consumers to choose a provider through a match-and-refer service—although it is important to note that the consumer will make the final decision about their preferred provider. Some consumers may require additional assistance to make an informed decision about their choice. A range of supports will be available to consumers depending on their circumstances, including the Translating and Interpreting Service and advocacy services through the National Aged Care Advocacy Program.
With this legislation—for the first time—there will be a consistent national system for prioritising access to subsidised home care. This will allow a more equitable and flexible distribution of packages to consumers, based on individual needs and circumstances, regardless of where they live. The Aged Care Legislation (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill is an important step in reforming aged care in Australia to give older Australians more choice and flexibility. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Disability Services) (10:58): It is almost 14 years since the Howard government released the landmark Intergenerational report. It was the first report of its kind and the first time the Australian government budget process was forced to look across the generations and identify the challenges that lie ahead. One of the biggest challenges all levels of government and the wider community were forced to think about then, as now, was how we are going to house, service and care for our ageing population.
Clearly, the best outcome for most people is to grow old in their own home, in the neighbourhood that they know and within easy reach of their family, friends and community centred support networks that have developed around them over the years.
Independence is something we all value; and key to supporting people to stay in their homes when they become elderly and frail are services—such as those provided by our volunteers and community organisations like Meals on Wheels and some of our local church groups. In the Ryan electorate we are fortunate to have some of the best community-spirited volunteers who work for Meals on Wheels, including the Western Suburbs, Kenmore, Ashgrove and Mitchelton organisations. However, sometimes our older, sicker and frail family and friends need a level of care that can only be delivered in aged-care facilities or a nursing home. In the federal electorate of Ryan, for example, 13 nursing homes and care facilities are now home to some of our senior citizens—part of a fabulous generation who helped make our local community the wonderful place that it is today.
While our aged-care system is world class, more Australians are living longer as a result of better health and better care. The government recognises that we need to make some fundamental changes now to ensure that the system is more sustainable and affordable in the future. The coalition has already implemented a range of measures to address weaknesses in the current aged-care system, including some that were started by the previous government, but we now need to move to a system that is more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. That is why the government announced significant reforms to aged care in last year's budget: to support older people to remain living at home.
I welcome the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016, which gives effect to the first stage of the home care reforms. I congratulate and thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. As I said before, the best outcome for most Australians is for them to grow old in their homes and their own neighbourhoods. Moving to a market-based system, giving consumers more choice and allowing providers to run their own services is central to the government's plan for the future. Tomorrow's aged-care system must be agile, innovative and creative. In harnessing the combined strengths of small business, industry, public and not-for-profit care providers, Australia's aged-care sector will deliver a sliding scale of efficient, high-quality services that will meet increasingly diverse levels of care, demand and affordability.
This bill will provide consumers with more choice and control over their aged-care services and will reduce red tape and regulation for providers. Most home care providers are small businesses or not-for-profit organisations, so they will welcome the reduction in red tape. From February 2017 home care packages will be assigned to assessed consumers, who will be able to direct government funding to the provider of their choice. Consumers will have the flexibility to change their provider if they want to; or, if they move to another district or even another state, they can take their package with them. The changes also establish a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care through the My Aged Care gateway.
I note that the government's policy changes have received widespread support and the implementation arrangements for these changes were developed in close consultation with key stakeholders, including the National Aged Care Alliance and groups representing consumers, carers and providers.
It was about five years ago that the Productivity Commission identified a number of key weaknesses in our aged-care system, including that it was difficult to navigate, services and consumer choice are limited, and coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions were inconsistent or inequitable. This was an enormous call to action for government, and I congratulate this government for doing more than just studying a problem. Doing nothing should never have been an option—especially when you consider that government has known that the ratio of old to young in our society was growing rapidly since the first Intergenerational report in 2002. As John Stuart Mill best put it in his 1859 essay 'On liberty':
A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.
Unlike Labor, the coalition recognise that, if we ignore moderate changes now, longstanding issues and concerns will grow into even bigger problems. The decisions will get harder and the solutions will slip beyond our reach. About five cent of people who live in the electorate of Ryan have at least 75 years of life experience behind them, and the other 95 per cent of my electorate are already marching slowly, year by year, on their own journeys toward their senior years. Today, that life journey is expected to go well beyond their 75th birthday. The latest Intergenerational report, for example, found that life expectancy was currently 91.5 for men and 93.6 for women—and this will increase to 95.1 years for men and 96.6 years for women in 2054-55. In less than 40 years about five per cent of Australia's population—nearly two million Australians—will be aged 85 and over.
People are living longer as a result of better health and better health care, and the demands on Australia's aged care system are changing. Older Australians want more choice and more control over the care they receive, and this demand will only increase as the baby boomers and future generations require aged care services. The changes proposed in this bill are an important step in reforming the home care system so that older Australians have more choice and flexibility to receive care and services at home. At the same time, these reforms will strengthen the aged-care system to provide high quality and more innovative services through increased competition.
As most people with a background in business know, increased competition also helps drive down price. The changes also lay the platform for future aged-care reforms, which will be informed by and developed with the Aged Care Sector Committee roadmap for reform. Whether it is an older friend who might need care in the near future or a family member who is getting older, having conversations about aged care can be difficult for most Australians. The sooner more Australians start talking about getting older—and, importantly, planning for it—the better the outcome for them, their families and their friends. The most important thing older people and their families can do is to learn about the choices available, so they can plan and make the right decision for them.
Moving to a market-based system gives consumers more choice and allows providers to run their own services. This is central to the government's plan for the future. This bill will enable the aged-care sector to provide more choice. These changes will provide consumers with more choice and more control over their aged-care services. It will deliver a national system for prioritising access to care and a new funding model that will actually follow the consumer. Importantly, it will also reduce red tape for care providers.
I commend this bill to the House.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (11:08): The aged-care system in Australia is a world-class system. It is well respected, with high-quality services that work to meet the needs of a very diverse population. It is the envy of much of the world. However, as people are living longer thanks to better health and better health care, the demands on Australia's aged-care system are becoming greater.
Older Australians want more choice and control over the care they receive—something that meets their needs. This includes the around 12,000 residents of Forrest in my electorate who are over 70 years of age. This demand will only increase as the boomers and future generations require aged-care services. The demand for care will rapidly grow in the near future because of two major drivers: the rapid increase in the proportion of the population who are aged, and the exponential increase in demand for services by the aged population.
The increase in demand for services is an issue that all levels of government have struggled to come to grips with. In my parents day, when you got old and you perhaps had arthritic pain, it was to be endured. Today, those creaky joints are often replaced, and the expectation for such procedures and more advanced procedures is growing.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016 will create the legislative framework for a more flexible, consumer driven aged-care system that will support older people to remain living at home. The greater percentage of people want to live at home until they simply cannot. This bill will give effect to the first stage of the home-care reforms announced in the 2015-16 federal budget, amending the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to give effect to the first stage of the home-care reforms announced at that time.
These changes will provide consumers with more choice and control over their aged-care services and, importantly, will reduce red tape and regulation for aged-care providers—something you hear about when you walk through their doors. The changes will also lay the platform for future aged-care reforms, which will be guided by the Aged Care Sector Committee road map for reform, which was jointly developed with the sector. The government has a strong track record when it comes to aged care. The changes announced in the budget will build on our successful record and set the platform for future reform.
The 2011 Productivity Commission's report Caring for older Australians identified a number of key weaknesses in the system, including that it is difficult to navigate, that services and consumer choice are limited, and that coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable. The government have implemented a range of measures to address these weaknesses. Some were started by the previous government but this government have landed those changes and are going further—moving the system more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations.
The reforms will be implemented in two stages. In the first stage, commencing February 2017, funding for a home-care package will follow the consumer. This will enable the consumer to choose a provider that is suited to them and to direct the funding to that provider—the choice is in their hands. The consumer will also be able to change their provider if they wish, including if they move to another area to live. Once these changes come into effect, providers will no longer have to apply for home-care places through the Aged Care Approvals Round, significantly reducing the red tape burden for businesses. The changes will also establish a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care.
Building on this first stage, the government has also indicated it will move to a single, integrated care-at-home program. This is a major policy change which has received widespread support, and the implementation arrangements for these changes have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders, including the National Aged Care Alliance and groups representing consumers, carers and providers.
The second stage will build on these changes by integrating the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single care-at-home program—further simplifying the way that services are delivered and funded. The government intends to introduce the new integrated program from July 2018.
In January this year, the government transferred responsibility for the aged-care complaints scheme from the Department of Health to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, creating a more independent and robust approach to complaints. The My Aged Care gateway is now supporting people to find their way through the aged-care system. In spite of some initial difficulties, it is now undertaking assessments for those people who need low-level care at home. It is increasing its role as the one identifiable place to go for information and support to access aged care.
There has been significant work done to address inconsistency and inequity in the pricing and consumer contributions to the cost of their care. The Productivity Commission's report also stated that competition rather than extensive regulation is the key to delivering innovative quality services and an efficient and sustainable system. The government maintains a crucial role in setting policy and in ensuring safety and compliance in aged-care services. It will be there to promote equity of access, provide support for vulnerable consumers and address market failures. But is has to be acknowledged that market-based solutions and consumer choice will increasingly be driven by and the driving force for quality, value and performance of services. Moving to a market-based system, giving consumers choice and allowing providers to run their own services is central to the government's plan for the future.
I want to talk about Capecare, one of the leading providers of care and accommodation services for seniors in the south west, located in Busselton, right on the shores of Geographe Bay. Capecare's board has always been very proactive. John Reid, the chair of the board has always been a hardworking passionate advocate and is an a persistent and effective leader who has a very clear commercial focus on Capecare as a business while never forgetting that he is there for the people he is seeking to provide services for—our very respected and valued senior citizens.
The facility and services have consistently evolved to meet the changing needs of their clients and the Busselton-Dunsborough seniors community. One thing that attracts people to Capecare is their multilevel service approach, with just one organisation that can manage the individual changing needs of their clients as they move through their lives, starting with completely independent living through to complete nursing home and dementia care for both high- and low-care residents. This gives the people who live at Capecare incredible confidence and comfort—knowing that, no matter what their aged-care needs are or may become in their lives.
Capecare has an innovative and proactive approach to providing for those needs. Care can be provided in their nursing home or hostel environments with 24-hour care, and people can have domestic assistance, therapy and activities included. For people who wish to remain living independently at home, Capecare offers in-home services as well as day respite. Capecare was founded by Jack and Maud Ray over 50 years ago. A new hostel wing was completed last year, with 54 new rooms. It is now the largest regionally based independent aged-care provider in Western Australia, employs over 200 staff and stays very closely connected to the local community, which is particularly important in aged care, through its more than 125 volunteers. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:17): I am very pleased to sum up the debate on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. The government announced significant reforms to aged care in the 2015-16 budget to support older people to remain living at home. This bill gives effect to the first stage of the home care reforms. From February 2017, home care packages will be assigned to assessed consumers, who will be able to direct government funding to the provider of their choice. Even more importantly, they will have flexibility to change their provider if they want to or, if they move to another area or state, they can take their package with them. The changes will also establish a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care through the My Aged Care gateway.
Building on this first stage, the government has also clearly signalled its intention to move to a single, integrated care at home program. The second stage of home care reform will further simplify the way that services are delivered and funded, and will commence from July 2018. These changes will provide consumers with more choice and control over their aged-care services and will reduce red tape and regulation for providers. At the same time, the reforms will strengthen the aged-care system to provide high-quality and more innovative services through increased competition. This major policy change has received widespread support and the implementation arrangements for these changes have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders, including the National Aged Care Alliance and groups representing consumers, carers and providers.
I thank all honourable members for their contributions to debate on this bill, for the interesting and passionate stories that they have told about the aged-care facilities in their electorates, the people they know and the understandings they have about the system and their broad support for the changes we are making—all with the individual firmly at the centre.
Moving to a market-based system, giving consumers choice and allowing providers to run their own services is central to the government's plan for the future. In its 2011 inquiry, the Productivity Commission identified a number of key weaknesses of the system, including that it is difficult to navigate and services and consumer choice are limited. The government has implemented a range of measures to address these weaknesses. Some were started by the previous government, but this government has landed those changes and we are going further—moving the system more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations.
As people are living longer thanks to better health and better health care, the demands on Australia's aged-care system are changing. Older Australians want more choice and control over the care they receive. This demand will only increase as the 'boomers' and future generations require aged-care services. Government is developing an aged-care system that can respond to this demand for the current and future generations of older Australians. 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
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:21): In rising to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016, I move:
That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to make Australia’s capital gains tax regime fairer and more sustainable.'
Labor supports the measures in this bill, in the same spirit with which we supported the initial suite of legislative changes in the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, passed by this parliament with bipartisan support last May.
This bill goes to the particular issue of capital gains taxation, providing the same protection against retrospectivity as for assets held by Norfolk Islanders, as was put in place when the capital gains tax was introduced in Australia in 1985. This is, indeed, an exciting time to be talking about capital gains tax. It is interesting, however, to note that the government has not shown the same passion and interest in economic reform for the mainland of Australia that it has shown for Norfolk Island. The Prime Minister, this week, ruled out changes to the capital gains tax discount, choosing the sort of scare campaign that he promised he would not engage in over a sensible economic conversation with the Australian people.
The government's own financial systems inquiry describes the combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax discount as a major tax distortion. We saw, in his last speech to the parliament, the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, saying that negative gearing should be restricted to new-built homes. We have had former Liberal Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett saying that Labor's reforms in this space were sensible policy and urging his own side of politics not to engage in the sort of fearmongering that Australians were promised had been removed when Tony Abbott was deposed from the prime ministership.
These unfair and unsustainable tax concessions are among the fastest-growing tax concessions in the budget, and they are contributing to house prices massively outstripping wages growth. On the latest figures, wage growth is running at around two per cent—an 18-year low. It has been nearly two decades since wages grew this slowly, and yet, in recent years, we have house prices growing at around 10 per cent a year, so you can understand why young Australians are frustrated when they see house prices growing five times as fast as pay packets. Young couples in my electorate come to me and say, 'The deposit always seems to be slipping out of our grasp. We just can't get a foothold in the housing market.'
Over the last generation, the chances of young Australians owning their own home has halved. The home ownership rate for 25- to 34-year-olds was around six in 10 in the early 1980s. Today, it is around three in 10. But you do not hear the Prime Minister and the Treasurer talking about how tough it is for young Australians to buy their first home; instead, you hear them busy defending the rights of those who are tax deducting their 10th home. They will have you believe that it is teachers, nurses, police and cleaners who are the principal beneficiaries of negative gearing but, in fact, the average tax benefits to surgeons and anaesthetists are multiples of what they are for teachers and cleaners. It might be true that there are more teachers than anaesthetists in Australia. If you add up anything that teachers have—
Mr Simpkins: This is a free-ranging debate, isn't it!
Dr LEIGH: It is the value of a second reading amendment, remember! If you total anything going to teachers, it probably outweighs what goes to the few thousand surgeons in Australia. But these are benefits which go, disproportionately, to the top of the distribution—70 per cent of capital gains tax subsidies go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Our plan improves the budget bottom line by around $32 billion over the decade. It gives investors certainty by guaranteeing that existing investors will not be affected and provides the scope for us to begin to restore some of the savage cuts to schools and hospitals that have occurred under this government.
By stating that investments made before 1 July 2017 will be treated under the existing rules, we ensure that there is no retrospectivity. That is what this bill does, in the case of capital gains tax arrangements for Norfolk Island residents, and it is, in general, a good tax principle.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Member for Fraser, can I just explain to the House and to the people listening to your presentation that this bill is an act to amend the law relating to taxation and for related purposes, so the member for Fraser is quite within his rights to range fairly widely on taxation matters.
Mr Simpkins: I was not doing a point of order. I was just saying that it was wide.
Dr LEIGH: Thank you for your wise guidance, Deputy Speaker. Labor's policy ensures that, for investments other than in new housing stock, the capital gains tax discount is reduced. Deductions will still apply for investment streams so that investment deductions can be made against investment income.
We are still failing to get from this government the sorts of assurances that they are providing to the people of Norfolk Island. They are saying to the people of Norfolk Island that capital gains tax will not be applied retrospectively, but they are failing to say to the Australian people that their mooted changes on negative gearing will not be applied retrospectively. Having dealt properly with the issue of capital gains tax for Norfolk Island residents, it is important that other Australians be given that assurance from this government—that any changes to negative gearing will not be retrospective. We waited in question time, yesterday, for such an assurance from the Prime Minister and it never came. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing.
Bringing Norfolk Islanders into the mainland tax system is an important reform and a progressive reform at that. I acknowledge the work of the bipartisan committee which recommended this change. But it is important that, as Norfolk Islanders are brought into Medicare, the Medicare system remains strong. It is important that, as public servants work on the island in order to expand access to Medicare, we have a government that respects the hard work of public servants.
Norfolk Islanders will have access to the age pension as a result of the package that passed this parliament last year and it is vital that that the pension is protected against cuts from this ideological government. It is absolutely vital that Norfolk Islanders are protected against the cuts to the social safety net that are still on the table—that $80 billion ripped from health and education now looks to be increased by further cuts. My colleague the member for Jagajaga has been a fierce defender of Australia's social safety net, not just for mainlanders but now for Norfolk Islanders as well. Norfolk Island is, for the purpose of service provision, a part of New South Wales so that means that cuts to schools funding in New South Wales will affect Norfolk Island as well. Needs based school funding is vital for Australians and vital for Norfolk Islanders.
The changes in this bill are welcome changes. They are absolutely sensible ones. But we on this side of the House cannot help noting the irony of proposing capital gains tax changes that ensure that Norfolk Islanders are not given retrospective treatment while failing to give other Australians the assurance that they will not suffer retrospective changes under this government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Clare: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment has been seconded. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (11:31): I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016. It is always nice to have the opportunity to speak on matters to do with Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island is a place that I have had a long-term interest in. I had the opportunity to visit there in 1979 when I was still in high school and since then on several occasions in the last few years as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee for the National Capital and External Territories.
I am very pleased to be part of a government that has seen what action needs to be done. It is nice to have bipartisan support for these measures that we have seen come through in previous legislation with regard to changing the governance arrangements on Norfolk Island. It was important that those changes took place. I thank the previous minister, Minister Briggs, for his determination to get the best possible outcomes for the people of Norfolk Island—all the people on Norfolk Island, not just the elites. It is good that as a government we progressed these bills that needed to pass to be able to provide the best possible deal for Norfolk Islanders.
The island itself is a spectacular place in Australia; there is no doubt about it. It is a very nice place to visit if you are lucky enough to have been there. The scenery is wonderful and the people are very friendly. It also plays an interesting part in Australian history. It was in 1788, not long after the First Fleet landed in Sydney, that the colonists went out to Norfolk Island as well. Since then, Norfolk Island has been firmly within this nation's area. It has been part of Australia.
As the chair of the Joint Standing Committee for the National Capital and External Territories, I know and my committee has known that all Australians should have access to a reasonable level of service and amenities despite being in a remote location such as Norfolk Island. The committee, during this parliament, has looked closely at the situation for this part of Australia and made a number of recommendations. The recommendations were all adopted by the government. Clearly the services, infrastructure and welfare arrangements were not of a reasonable standard on Norfolk Island. Such arrangements on mainland Australia are financed through the tax system. It was certainly clear that a better future for Norfolk Islanders would be provided through changed governance arrangements together with the implementation of the Australian tax and welfare system.
It is true to anyone who visits Norfolk Island that the roads and other infrastructure are not in good shape. The hospital reminds me of regional base hospitals in country towns in the 1960s and 1970s, and the financial system for those health services is just not up to the job. For those who have been able to afford to, islanders have often travelled to Australia for medical treatment. Through the overall changes the government is progressing, the health system on Norfolk Island will soon be improved with a better delivery of health and aged care services.
This bill is one of a number of bills that have been designed to amend the income tax laws to implement overall improvements to the way in which Norfolk Island is transitioning into Australian tax laws. Certainly we as a committee were mindful of the need to ensure that radical and traumatic change was not part of what needed to be done. This bill will actually provide a full capital gains tax exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents.
There is no doubt that many on Norfolk Island have struggled in the years since self-government began in 1979. An independent health system was simply not up to the task. The economy has continued to struggle in the face of inconsistent tourism revenues and overall economic problems. Consistent with the committee's report, in May 2015 the parliament passed the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015. That bill made the changes required to commence the integration of Norfolk Island into the Australian tax and social welfare systems including Newstart and other pensions but also enabled access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
All income will be considered within the mainstream taxation system. The multiple part-time jobs that are so often the means by which islanders derive their income and sustain themselves will be part of the system but all will at last be underpinned by social security system and government provided services that will, through the Australian government programs, help to rejuvenate infrastructure in Norfolk Island facilities.
I recall from our inquiry into the governance and economic situation and the future for Norfolk Island in 2014 there were a number of people that spoke to us about the impact of the implementation of the Australian tax system on Norfolk Island. This bill does relate to those sorts of concerns and it is good that, through this bill, the same exemptions for the introduction of capital gains tax that were offered on the mainland in 1985 will also be provided for those on Norfolk Island.
Since the committee's report, the administrator, the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, and Commonwealth officials have been working with constructive locals and with the Norfolk Island Advisory Council to work out how the plans to apply the tax and welfare system will translate to the way things have been done in the past. This legislation is required because things are different on Norfolk, and they have been done differently there over time. The point was made that there was a lack of formal documentation regarding the sale of assets and a local way that assets have been inherited, so Commonwealth law must take that into account, and that would make the application of the capital gains tax more difficult. I am pleased that the minister has understood these differences and has provided this bill to address those concerns and the realities of Norfolk Island. The passage of this bill will, therefore, provide a full capital gains tax exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents before the announcement to that effect on 24 October 2015.
Everything about the process that has been followed, and the action taken by this parliament and the Australian government, has been focused on what will be in the best interests of the individuals on Norfolk Island. There is no magic involved and there are no silver bullets to fix the economy on the island. The Australian government has been determined to ensure a reasonable quality of life is available to everyone on Norfolk Island. I know that some people on Norfolk Island have been opposed to the change in governance arrangements and also opposed to the implementation of the Australian tax system but, for the vast majority of Norfolk Islanders, these changes are necessary, highly beneficial and desired.
I am pleased that the legislative changes for Norfolk Island have bipartisan support, as did the work of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. This bill properly acknowledges the circumstances of Norfolk Island and I am pleased to endorse it to the House, as I endorse all the steps that the government has taken to advance the welfare of the people of Norfolk Island as Australians.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:39): I am pleased to speak today on the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016. This legislation is part of a much broader package of reforms for Norfolk Island. These reforms came about following the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories' report into the current situation on Norfolk Island and build on many reports over decades on the situation on Norfolk Island.
The committee, of which I am a member, produced the report 'Same country: different world—the future of Norfolk Island', which looks at the island's prospects for economic development in the wake of falling tourism figures, a budget deficit and other ongoing financial concerns. The committee recommended that, as soon as practicable, the Commonwealth government repeal the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and establish an interim administration to assist the transition to a local government-type body, determined in line with the community's needs and aspirations. The first tranche of legislations to enact these reforms was the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which passed parliament in May 2015 with bipartisan support. This legislation brought Norfolk Island tax residents into the mainstream Australian tax system, giving residents access to social security payments, health services such as Medicare and other government programs that are available to mainland residents.
This bill we are debating today makes a relatively small change in the scheme of these reforms, but it is an important one because it amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to give capital gains tax-exempt status to assets held prior to 24 October 2015. This is akin to the pre-capital-gains-tax-exempt status applied to assets purchased before 20 September 1985, when capital gains tax was introduced into the Australian income tax system. This small amendment remedies concerns raised by Norfolk Island residents about the tax treatment of capital gains in the original legislation bringing the island into Australia's tax regime. This eliminates retrospectivity and makes the system fairer.
This is an important point, because it demonstrates that the government and the opposition are listening to the concerns of Norfolk Islanders and are responding accordingly. This change will not apply to assets held by Norfolk Island residents that would not have been exempt from capital gains tax before Norfolk Island was fully brought into the Australian income tax system. Assets acquired by Norfolk Island residents on or after 24 October 2015 will be subject to the normal operation of the capital gains tax rules from 1 July 2016.
In bringing Norfolk Island tax residents into the Australian income tax system, Labor supports giving clear tax guidance and certainty to investors. These changes will provide certainty on capital gains tax without retrospectively affecting investment decisions made under the previous Norfolk Island tax regime.
The amendment in the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016 gives further certainty and clarity to Norfolk Islander tax residents as they become part of the Australian tax system on 1 July 2016.
I am not going to speak for long on this legislation—we have another piece of legislation enacting further reforms that we will debate in coming days, and I will speak in greater detail on that. But I do want to make this point—I want to say to the people of Norfolk: we are listening to your concerns, we are responding accordingly and I think this bill is evidence of that. Just yesterday I met with the minister to discuss the reforms and I raised a number of other concerns with him—concerns that had been brought to my attention by residents of Norfolk. I will continue to make these representations. I am looking forward to speaking in more detail on the next suite of legislation to enact these important reforms in the very near future.
In closing today, I want to take the opportunity to thank the minister. I know that there was some concern when we had a change of minister that the reforms would lose momentum, but that has not been the case. I thank the minister for continuing these vitally important reforms in this area for the wellbeing of Norfolk Islanders, for their human rights. I especially want to thank the minister for having an open door policy with me when it comes to discussing these reforms and making representations on behalf of Norfolk Islanders.
Finally, I would like to put on the record my very great appreciation to the five members of the Norfolk Island Advisory Council, who have been overseeing the reform transition on the island. My sincerest thanks go to Duncan Evans; to Eve Semple; to Melissa Ward, who is the chair; to PJ Wilson and to Wally Beadman. They have a role that has not always been easy, but they have done it with great integrity and have carried it out in a way that has earned them great respect both on Norfolk Island and here in Canberra. Thank you to those members of that advisory council for the great work they have done on the transition to reform. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:44): I am delighted to sum up the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016 and I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill amends various taxation laws to provide a full capital gains tax exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents to assist the Norfolk Island community in transitioning to Australia's mainstream taxation system. This exemption is part of a broader reform package which delivers on the government's election commitment to introduce taxation, social security and healthcare arrangements on Norfolk Island effective from 1 July 2016.
On 14 May 2015 the parliament passed the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015, ending decades of uncertainty for the residents of Norfolk Island. The Australian government will integrate Norfolk Island with mainland social security systems, including access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Immigration, customs and quarantine services will also be included from 1 July 2016. Further consultation with the community raised concerns about the potential retrospective taxation of capital gains. Through this consultation it was also revealed that a historical lack of formal documentation for asset sales as well as cultural practices relating to inheritance assets are likely to inhibit the legislated application of CGT in some instances. In order to address these concerns, this bill will provide a full CGT exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents prior to 24 October 2015, the date the exemption was announced. The CGT exemption demonstrates the government's commitment to actively and regularly engage with the Norfolk Island community to ensure all residents have significant input into their future governance, including through the Norfolk Island Advisory Council.
The broader reform package addresses longstanding issues facing Norfolk Island, which were explored in a royal commission, numerous reports, 12 parliamentary inquiries and submissions over a 30-year period. The government is putting in place the necessary structural reforms to improve service delivery and boost economic growth while preserving the island's culture and local representation through concessions such as the CGT exemption in this bill. The exemption will apply to those assets that were exempt from CGT before Norfolk Island was fully brought within Australia's income tax system. Similarly to the treatment of assets when CGT was first introduced in Australia in 1985, these assets will continue to be exempt until a CGT event happens—for example, when the asset is sold or disposed of.
Again, I am pleased to present this summation of the bill on behalf of the minister. Can I say, as one of the members in this place who has visited Norfolk Island—it was in my capacity as shadow minister for justice and customs a very long time ago—you cannot visit the island and not to be charmed by its people, its history and its prospects for the future. There is much warmth for the people of Norfolk Island felt by the members of the Australian parliament today. I commend the bill to be House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:49): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:49): I move:
That consideration of government business order of the day No. 3, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, be postponed until a later hour.
Question agreed to.
Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Aged Care) (11:50): I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Ms LEY: I am pleased to speak on the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 on behalf of the minister. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill, in a technical sense, will merge the corporate services functions of the Federal Court of Australia with those of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and bring the courts together as a single administrative entity.
But in doing this, the bill will set the scene for achieving a vital public policy outcome: placing the courts on a sustainable funding footing over the longer term, leaving them far better placed to deliver services to litigants. This is because savings arising from the efficiencies will be reinvested in the courts. This is an important point. These are not savings to be extracted and returned to government. Savings will be retained by the courts to benefit the courts.
As the bill solely deals with the administration of the courts, it will have no impact on the judicial and functional independence of each court. The bill maintains and supports the separate standing of each of the courts concerned.
The imperative to merge corporate services
The merger of the courts' corporate services was central to the package of measures announced by the government as part of its 2015-16 budget Streamlining and Improving the Sustainability of Courts.
The pressing need for efficiencies forecast from the merger is manifest. The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, in particular, are facing significant budgetary pressures and ongoing deficits. The serious financial circumstances of the family courts triggered the need for the government to consider and implement this reform.
The community understands the fundamental importance of the courts' independence and impartiality to ensure integrity and transparency in the judicial system. However, the community also demands the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' funds, particularly in the current tight fiscal environment. All arms of government are currently expected to operate within these constraints.
Constitutional protections, of course, are in place for the courts to preserve the separation of powers and ensure their independence. Appropriately, however, the executive government and the parliament retain oversight of the courts' operating budgets.
At the time of the budget, the family courts were projecting over $44 million in operating losses over the forward estimates. The government could not allow these losses to continue unabated.
Without the merger implemented by the bill, other, more drastic measures would need to be explored to allow budgets to be met. This would only be a last resort, as access to the courts is a fundamental tenet upon which our justice system is based. The government was keen to ensure budget rectitude did not result in front-line court services being cut, as this would undermine access to justice for the committee.
The performance, funding and operation of the courts has been considered in many reviews and reports. These provided a strong evidence base for the government's decision.
The 2012 Skehill Strategic review of small and medium agencies in the Attorney-General's portfolio considered there was merit in the idea of amalgamating the corporate services functions of the federal courts.
Most recently, amalgamation was recommended by the 2014 National Commission of Audit report, Towards responsible government, and the 2014 KPMG review into the performance and funding of the federal courts.
The KPMG review also highlighted the necessity to address the unsustainable financial position of the federal courts as it found that the courts were on track for a deficit of almost $75 million by 2017-18.
Further independent analysis conducted by Ernst & Young in 2015 identified potential savings and efficiencies to be gained from a merger model.
Merging the courts' corporate functions is projected to deliver efficiencies to the courts of $9.4 million over the six financial years to 2020-21 and result in ongoing annual efficiencies of $5.4 million from this time.
In turn, this will create potential for further organisational agility through economies of scale and improvements in the long-term financial sustainability of the courts.
Importantly, the savings and ongoing efficiencies generated are to be reinvested into the federal courts to support the delivery of their core business of providing justice for Australian litigants.
Corporate services efficiency
Currently, the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court maintain separate corporate administrative structures to the Federal Court. More effective and efficient services will be delivered through the sharing of financial, human resources, information technology, property and operational corporate services.
There is increasing recognition that, although courts are specialised institutions, they have resemblances with other large public organisations with many staff and large systems.
Therefore, courts' administration can similarly benefit from increased collaboration, organisational streamlining and centralised corporate services, within appropriate frameworks.
With ever-growing caseloads and the current tight fiscal environment facing all arms of government, more efficient administration provides scope to relieve some administrative burden on our federal courts.
This is consistent with government's commitment to reduce inefficiencies in public administration by removing unnecessary duplication.
Staff of the single administrative entity will have new opportunities to share their knowledge and expertise with a larger group of colleagues.
Working groups consisting of key corporate services representatives from each court have already been established, collaborating to complete essential implementation planning for a 1 July 2016 commencement.
Merged model and maintaining courts' independence
The bill is directed to the organisation and administration of the courts. It, of course, maintains the protection of the judicial and functional independence of the courts in accordance with the Constitution, while promoting their effective management.
Access to justice for court users will not be impacted. Each court will maintain its separate and distinct judiciary, with no changes made to the courts' jurisdiction. Therefore, there will be no loss of family law or general federal law experience across the courts.
The bill consists of a carefully designed governance structure to preserve the autonomy of the heads of jurisdiction in relation to their own courts. Heads of jurisdiction will retain responsibility for managing the administrative affairs of their respective courts (excluding corporate services).
The separate and independent standing of each court will be further supported through replacing the position of joint Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court with separate CEOs for each court. This will ensure each head of jurisdiction has a dedicated CEO to assist in managing the administrative affairs of their respective court.
To facilitate this amalgamation, the courts will be designated as a single entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (the finance law) and a single statutory agency under the Public Service Act 1999 from 1 July 2016.
The bill will place control of corporate services in the hands of the Federal Court CEO. The Federal Court CEO will also hold the roles of accountable authority under the finance law and agency head under the Public Service Act.
This does not mean that the Federal Court will be 'taking over' the running of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. Each court will remain independent in their core functions and will not be subject to the control of another court.
The Federal Court CEO's pivotal role in delivering shared corporate services is key to generating the expected savings from the amalgamation. Mr Warwick Soden OAM, renowned for his sound financial management, will continue in the role.
Mechanisms exist in the bill to ensure consultation between the Federal Court CEO and heads of jurisdiction and the other CEOs for decisions relating to corporate services matters.
The bill contains provisions to ensure the Federal Court CEO makes relevant delegations to the Family Court CEO and the Federal Circuit Court CEO, in relation to the administrative affairs of their respective courts. The Federal Court CEO will be under a general statutory duty to ensure the other two CEOs have the necessary powers and functions to fulfil their roles.
Further detail in relation to these matters will be set out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the courts.
The bill also contains provisions to safeguard the allocated budget of each court with the single administrative entity.
Merging the courts into a single administrative entity with shared corporate service is not a novel idea. In many ways, it is consistent with the historical running of courts administration by the Attorney-General's Department prior to the courts becoming self-administering in the latter part of the last century. This is still the approach taken in many state jurisdictions.
There is an important difference: the corporate services to be provided to the courts are to be provided by a court and not a government department. It is entirely consistent with the government's view that the courts, as an entity, are self-administering within the legislative and budgetary obligations placed on government entities.
Key features of the bill
Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill will facilitate the establishment of the single administrative entity under the finance law through amendments relating to the Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to support the merger. It provides for the courts to become a single entity under the finance law and a single statutory agency under the Public Service Act.
Powers and functions relevant to the finance law and the Public Service Act, including appointment powers, are centralised in Schedule 1. These powers are given to the Federal Court CEO, with delegations to be given to the other CEOs in relation to the administrative affairs of their respective courts. The position of the Federal Court CEO will be retitled.
The bill clearly delineates what is within corporate services and these items are excluded from the administrative affairs of the courts. Corporate services are defined as including communications, finance, human resources, information technology, library services, procurement and contract management, property, risk oversight and management, and statistics. Critical security functions will remain within the administrative affairs of the courts.
Schedule 2 and 3 of the bill contain amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, respectively, to support the changes, including defining corporate services and repealing provisions that will be centralised in the Federal Court act.
A separate position of Federal Circuit Court CEO will be established and the position of Family Court CEO retitled, to effect the separation of this role into a CEO for both courts. Each CEO will also hold the position of Principal Registrar, with the combined Family Court CEO and Principal Registrar role to take effect from 1 January 2018.
Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Native Title Act 1993 to reflect the amalgamation and update references to position titles.
Schedule 5 of the bill consists of consequential and other amendments to a number of acts to change and update relevant titles and references.
Schedule 6 of the bill provides for transitional arrangements to ensure the courts can continue their administrative and corporate services functions without disruption at the date of the merger. There is also a rule-making power to respond to further areas where clarity in transitional arrangements is required.
Conclusion
The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill signals a significant reform in the approach taken to the management and administration of Australia's federal courts.
The merger will facilitate not only short term savings but also substantial scope for longer term efficiencies, all to be reinvested in the courts to ensure their financial viability. The bill implicitly upholds the key features underlying our federal courts system, such as independence and impartiality.
As a linchpin to ensuring the financial sustainability of the federal courts into the future, the merger will enable the courts to continue to deliver core judicial services to litigants without compromising access to justice.
Once again, I thank the Minister for Justice in this place and the Attorney-General in the other place. I present the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and the explanatory memorandum.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:59): The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 makes some machinery changes to the administration of the federal courts. It implements the merger of certain back-office corporate services functions of our three federal courts—the Federal Court, the Family court and the Federal Circuit Court.
The merger of these functions, including finance, human resources, information technology and property administration is claimed to save some $9.4 million over the six financial years to 2020-21. It is expected that it will save a further $5.4 million annually in the years beyond.
This savings measure was announced by the government in last year's budget, and the bill was introduced into the Senate and has now come to the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasise, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the bill will not alter the independence of the three courts. This bill merges only very limited corporate functions. The substantive operations of the three courts remain distinct. The jurisdictions remain distinct. The courts will remain of course separate entities under their respective establishing acts. They will continue to be governed by their respective heads of jurisdiction. This is appropriate. Each court has its own distinct jurisdiction and each has developed distinct expertise and practices to deal with the unique challenges of each jurisdiction. The bill will not affect this.
I want to note the concerns raised by the Family Court in the formal submission that was made by that court to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into this bill. I understand from the committee's report that, although the committee appreciated the concerns that were raised by the Family Court in its formal submission, the committee determined not to adopt these suggestions that were put forward by the court.
The administration of the courts is a sensitive business and it is ultimately a matter for the government to ensure that the various needs of the federal courts are all accommodated. I am advised that the government is working with the Family Court to resolve its concerns through administrative rather than legislative arrangements and I note that much of the detail of the merger of corporate services will be worked out in a memorandum of understanding between the courts. The committee has recommended that the final arrangements arrived at in this matter be reviewed by the government in the new future, and Labor would strongly endorse that recommendation.
It is of course important that, as I said earlier in my remarks, the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court all maintain the independence that is an integral part of their roles and any change, including changes to the administrative arrangements, which is what this bill is directed at, must be implemented in a manner that does not prejudice that independence and that does not alter the very important independence that is part of the role of the courts of each of these three courts.
While we will certainly keep a watchful eye on the implementation of this back office merger, Labor does support this bill. Where possible, we support removing duplication of back office functions so that funding can be best directed towards dealing with the core business of the courts and with meeting the needs of Australians who find themselves before those courts.
I can say more generally that Labor supports the merging of back office functions across government departments and agencies where that merger can take place without a compromise of the delivery of services by those government departments and agencies. It is obviously the case that it is going to be possible in some circumstances for government departments to share premises where premises have been leased or built by the Commonwealth. It is obviously also going to be the case that there is potential for the sharing of information technology systems between government agencies and departments. That is particularly so for smaller agencies that may not have the resources to develop and build facilities or information technology systems by themselves. Very often, there are considerable economies to be achieved by smaller agencies sharing facilities, information technology systems and support staff in some cases. That is an efficient use of Commonwealth resources.
The courts ought not to be an exception to that principle. Shared back office services can, in appropriate cases, without compromise to the fulfilment of the function of the particular agencies or departments, be a useful thing to do. The courts should not be an exception to that principle and they are not being an exception to that principle, because what this bill is dealing is a merger of back office systems.
That said, no-one should be under any illusions that the measures in this bill will, on their own, address the crisis now faced by our federal courts. Clearly, there are very significant problems with our federal courts which demand the Attorney-General's attention and action. Comparatively minor changes to back office administrative arrangements will not suffice. The measures in this bill are certainly not a substitute for the government taking action on the range of problems that this government's failure to properly resource the courts is causing.
It is not just Labor that is drawing attention to this. The heads of jurisdiction have repeatedly warned the government, publicly through the Senate estimates process and through their annual reports, of the consequences of the government failing to properly resource their courts. Most recently, in the annual report of the High Court of Australia, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Robert French AC, drew attention to the potential problems for the High Court of failing to properly resource that court.
The situation is most dire in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, a situation that the government has inexplicably decided to make even worse by failing to appoint judges to vacancies as they arise in a timely fashion. This is a completely unforgivable failing on the part of the government because judicial vacancies are almost always known well in advance. That does not apply in the regrettable incidence of a judge falling ill or, worse, dying in office; but most judicial vacancies do not occur for those reasons. Rather, they occur in the ordinary course of planned retirements, either when judges reach the statutory retiring age or when, as a matter of planned retirement, they leave office. In either case, either the judge reaching statutory retirement age or the judge deciding that she or he will leave office, the Attorney-General is always aware well in advance that that vacancy is about to occur.
Leaving a fully funded judicial position vacant is unforgivable. It produces no savings for the Commonwealth. Failing to fill a judicial vacancy that has arisen as a result of retirement produces no alteration to the fiscal situation. All it means is that the court services, which need to be provided to our community, are simply not provided. That is why we have had complaints from Newcastle, Wollongong, Brisbane and other places in Australia where this government has simply done nothing to fill either a judicial vacancy or multiple judicial vacancies which have arisen. I will come back to this.
While I am speaking on court administration, I cannot let the opportunity pass to note that this government has failed to provide appropriate physical accommodation to a Federal Circuit Court judge who has now been appointed full-time to serve the Rockhampton registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This is not the creation of a new judicial position on the Federal Circuit Court. Rather, it is a reallocation of personnel on the Federal Circuit Court so that Rockhampton will, hereafter, have a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge. That is a commendable step; but this government, in the typical fashion of this Attorney-General, has failed to properly complete that appointment by making sure that there will be somewhere for this newly appointed Federal Circuit Court judge to serve the Rockhampton Registry full-time—that she will have somewhere to sit.
I was reminded of this yesterday because in this House the member for Capricornia, speaking on the appropriations bill, was quite happy to boast about what she described as 'her announcement with the Attorney-General' of this full-time Federal Circuit Court judge for Rockhampton. What she failed to do was to explain in any way what it is that this government is going to do to provide actual physical accommodation. By that, I mean a courtroom and an office in which this Federal Circuit Court judge is going to be able to work.
This is not something which is being raised for the first time by me here. It is something that the Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, made clear from the outset when this appointment was first announced, back in December, saying that the Commonwealth government had completely failed to raise with the Queensland government how, if this is what the Commonwealth was proposing, there was to be a sharing of resources or access to state facilities. It has of course been the case that the Queensland government and the Queensland court system have very generously made available, in the past, space in state court facilities in Rockhampton for a visiting Federal Circuit Court judge to sit, in the one week in eight or one week in 10 that had been the circuit arrangements previously. The Queensland government has made it very clear that this situation will not be able to be extended to a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge sitting all the time in Rockhampton, because there simply is not space in the Rockhampton court facilities for that to occur.
The Queensland Law Society, like me, welcomed the appointment of a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge in Rockhampton but made the point—and I am quoting here from a report in The Guardian of 3 February—that Rockhampton's:
… existing court infrastructure … is stretched to breaking point.
The Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, has said that there needed to be an upgrade of state facilities if it was suggested by the Commonwealth that there is to be a continuation of shared arrangements. All that is actually happening is that the Liberal National Party is playing politics with our courts and judges. As Ms D'Ath said—and I quote from the same Guardian article:
The LNP should not play politics with our courts and judges. I urge them not to play politics with the people of Rockhampton.
I join with the Queensland Attorney-General in saying that this is not a matter to be politicised. It is not a matter that is owned by the member for Capricornia, that she gets to go out and announce—not even waiting for the Attorney-General, as would be the ordinary course for every judicial appointment, but rather rushing out to announce as if she were somehow deserving of credit for the appointment of a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge in Queensland. It is a very empty gesture indeed if the Commonwealth has announced this appointment but has reached no proper arrangement, contractual or otherwise, with the state of Queensland over the sharing of court facilities in Queensland. It is an appointment that will end up perhaps with this Federal Circuit Court judge sitting on the street, because, without facilities, the court actually will not be able to perform the function that it should be performing for the people of Rockhampton.
This is something that the federal Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has completely failed to resolve. I call on him now, as I have called on him previously, to resolve this situation, to treat the Queensland government with some respect and to try actually either answering correspondence from the state Attorney-General or perhaps picking up the phone to speak to her. That might be a good start. But it is symptomatic of the way in which the government have treated most matters to do with courts administration that they have rushed to make an announcement about a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge sitting in Rockhampton but done nothing about providing appropriate facilities for that judge to sit in.
I return to the subject matter of this measure in the bill. The smooth and steady administration of the courts is usually taken for granted as a basic function of government, but not a week now goes by when I have not been contacted by one community or another deeply concerned about the future of vital court services in their region. Uncertainty abounds. The closure of entire registries has been mooted, perhaps most incredibly the closure of the registry in Parramatta, an eventuality which should be completely unthinkable. Hardly a week goes by when we do not hear a coalition member of this House from Western Sydney talking about the huge expansion of population and the need for additional facilities in Western Sydney. The idea that the Parramatta registry might be closed is truly unthinkable, but so too is the failure of this government to fill judicial vacancies in Wollongong, in Newcastle, in Brisbane and in other places around Australia. There is no excuse for this. This is not talking about whether or not additional judicial positions should be found; this is talking about the failure of the government to actually fill vacancies of fully funded judicial positions.
What is worse, the management of tight court resources has been made harder by the multiple rounds of cuts that this government has inflicted on the legal assistance sector. These cuts started as soon as this government came to office in 2013. They have continued ever since, so that legal assistance services, including legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and the family violence prevention legal services—also part of the legal assistance sector—have all had to cut back on the front-line services that they are able to provide to communities across Australia.
The legal assistance services which this government has cut are not some luxury which can be reined in during hard times. They are actually integral to the smooth functioning of our courts. They are a basic community service. They are basic to access to justice. It is shameful the way this government has not once, not twice but three times cut legal assistance funding across the country. The timely provision of proper legal services can often avoid a matter going to court in the first place, and, if it must go to court, legal assistance will ensure that the matter proceeds as smoothly as possible, not clogging up the courts unnecessarily.
This is something that the Productivity Commission—in an excellent report delivered in 2014 on the legal assistance sector, commissioned by Labor in government—made clear that the provision of legal assistance funding is something that benefits the community in multiple ways. Not only is there, generally, a benefit to the community from the avoidance of a dispute or from the settling of a dispute but also when disputes continue there is a benefit to the community in that court services can be provided more cheaply and efficiently if litigants in courts are represented.
Cuts to legal assistance lead to an increase in the number of cases in which litigants are unrepresented. As judges repeatedly say, and comment on in the annual reports of their courts, unrepresented litigants place a burden on judges, they place a burden on staff and they place a burden on court resources. Generally, cases where litigants are unrepresented take longer. Not only do they take longer to get to court, not only will the interlocutory processes in that case take longer and place a greater burden on the judge, because she or he is going to have to guide the unrepresented litigant—it is part of the duty of the judge to do so and judges take that duty exceptionally seriously—but also they will have to guide the unrepresented litigant through the thickets of the law in order to make sure that proper access to justice is provided to that unrepresented litigant. They take longer to resolve at the interlocutory level and cases with unrepresented litigants in them take longer to resolve at the trial level.
This government has, clearly, not properly considered what the impact was going to be on the court system as a whole by the cuts that they have inflicted on the legal assistance sector. These are cuts to the state and territory legal aid commissions, in terms of the Commonwealth's contribution to them, cuts to the community legal centres—the 130-odd community legal centres across the country that have historically received funding from the Commonwealth—and cuts to the other two parts of the legal assistance sector. I speak, there, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services.
I will pause on the second of those to note that this Commonwealth government, absurdly, transferred the family responsibility for the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, mistakenly not understanding the excellent role that is played by the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services.
They were established by the Howard government, some 17 years ago, to deal with the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services regularly experience a conflict of interest in duty in acting for both perpetrators of family violence and victims and survivors of family violence. They cannot act for both and, in order to deal with that conflict problem, the Howard government—and I applaud this action—quite rightly set-up an alternative source of legal advice for, almost always, women in Indigenous communities and, very often, in remote Indigenous communities, to receive appropriate legal advice.
The idea that this particular form of legal assistance—the legal practices that are the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services—should have been swept up into the Office of Indigenous Affairs was simply wrong. I am hoping that the day will come when those Family Violence Prevention Legal Services are, again, transferred back to the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department, appropriately, as part of the legal assistance sector as a whole.
The government must act to ensure that not just the legal assistance sector but the courts themselves are put on a stable financial footing into the future. I call on the Commonwealth Attorney-General to release the KPMG report, which he commissioned, into the funding of the federal courts in 2014 and explain to the courts, the legal profession and the Australian community how he intends to make sure that our courts are properly resourced into the future. This is, after all, one of the most basic responsibilities of the office of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. And, regrettably, it is a responsibility which this Commonwealth Attorney-General and this government are conspicuously failing to meet.
Debate adjourned.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:27): By leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for North Sydney making a statement immediately and that the member speak without limitation of time.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for North Sydney, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (12:28): Mr Speaker, it is a humbling experience to rise in this place for the first time as the representative of the people of North Sydney. I do so knowing it is an extraordinary privilege to be given the trust of your community to serve in the Australian parliament. I will return that faith by playing my part in building a more prosperous, fairer and sustainable Australia.
I arrive in this parliament as the 10th member for North Sydney. I follow in the paths of merchants, mayors, war heroes, grocers and even a journalist. It is also one of the many electorates Billy Hughes served. I think he represented as many seats in this place as he did political parties, although I note, of course, never the Country Party. As he famously said, 'I have to draw the line somewhere.'
His predecessor, Sir Granville Ryrie, was a hero of both the Boer and First World Wars. On his return from World War I, it has been reported that over 200,000 Sydney-siders lined Circular Quay to welcome Sir Granville home. Thinking of that adulation somewhat overshadows the three people who waved farewell from their balcony as I departed Canberra for the first time. I was momentarily chuffed until I realised that they had confused me for someone else.
For the 19 years before my election, North Sydney was represented by my friend Joe Hockey. I pay tribute to his contribution to this parliament and the North Sydney community. Joe strode the national stage as an advocate for good Liberal government while at all times firmly rooted in the community that he loved. Few people have a heart as big as Joe's, and his family can be proud of his achievements and those yet to come as he continues his service to Australia.
I am privileged to represent a part of Sydney which combines incredible natural and man-made beauty with vibrant and diverse communities. North Sydney is bounded by harbours and rivers. It has a ringside seat overlooking what is indisputably the world's greatest city. For many thousands of years it was home to the Cammeraygal people and to the west the Wallumettagal people. They shared a saltwater culture and the harbour and its headlands bore enormous spiritual significance. White settlement was to have devastating consequences for those original inhabitants and today their culture is to be glimpsed in rock carvings and middens that survive on the foreshores and in our bushland. These are part of the shared heritage of Sydney's Aboriginal community.
The development of northern Sydney began slowly, hindered by its separation from the centre of the city by our great harbour. Transport has always been the key to its development—its great enabler. And it was the need for a harbour crossing that united early residents. Like many of Sydney's infrastructure projects, it took 50 years of agitation for that goal to be realised. Bradfield's vision was extraordinary and the great engineering feat of the Sydney Harbour Bridge remains a source of awe and inspiration.
Today North Sydney is one of the most densely populated electorates. It is home to two of Sydney's largest commercial centres—North Sydney and Chatswood—and its people reflect the diversity of modern Australia. Despite the pressures of urban development, it remains a place of great beauty. The foreshores of Sydney and Middle Harbour and the Lane Cove River are fringed by park and bushland. Its built heritage can be seen across the electorate, most famously in the 19th century homes of Hunters Hill, in federation suburbs like Willoughby and in the architecture of Burley Griffin in Castlecrag. And from various perspectives, Chatswood seems to emerge like a modern glittering citadel from an ancient forest.
It is therefore not surprising that residents have a long history of activism in defence of our local environment and our heritage. Across the electorate residents have always fought to protect the character of our area. For example, the women who led their famous 'battle for Kelly's Bush' in Hunters Hill established a precedent for protecting our built and natural environment that resonated across Sydney.
Following similar campaigns, one of the great legacies of the Howard government was the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which saved prime defence land from sale and redevelopment. I was proud to have had some small involvement in the trust's creation. I am even more excited to have been able to help secure more funding to support the transformation of the old submarine base, HMAS Platypus on Neutral Bay, into new parkland and openly accessible foreshore. Protecting the heritage of our suburbs, our harbour environment and bushland has always been a passion for me. It will remain so as a member of this parliament.
I am very conscious that my election to this parliament represents the first time an openly gay man or woman has entered the House of Representatives. I am proud to do so as a member of the Liberal Party. I am of course not the first in this parliament, and I pay tribute to those who have forged a path in the Senate before me. Some have said to me that this is not an issue I need reflect upon, particularly on an occasion such as this. Surely a person's sexuality is irrelevant in this day and age, they have said. We do live at a time and in a world where we can be proud of how far we have progressed in breaking down centuries of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. This weekend, hundreds of thousands—gay and straight—will join together to recognise diversity, acceptance and respect at the Sydney Mardi Gras. They will do so peacefully and in a spirit of celebration. It is emblematic of the change that has occurred and, in many respects, it is no surprise and so very Australian.
While we have made great strides, discrimination remains and too many people are prepared to peddle prejudice. Our laws still deny access to marriage, our society's ultimate expression of love and commitment. Young gay men and women are more likely to suffer depression and other mental health issues. They are more likely to be bullied at school. More are likely to attempt to take their own lives and, tragically, some will succeed. Coming out remains hard for many people—and believe me, I know what that is like. And while people feel the need to suppress their identity they will live in a life of fear and trepidation. They are denied the opportunity to love and be loved, to be full and flourishing members of our community, and to simply be themselves.
We will not have reached the end of the journey until no person feels compelled to live a life that is not their own and until we recognise that a person's sexuality is not a choice or a preference; it is as innate as the colour of their skin. We should regard intolerance in the same way modern Australia regards discrimination based on sex or race—no more and no less. But I hope that my election to this place will, in a small way, send a message of hope: that your sexuality should not and need not be a barrier, that you can be gay and even be a member of the Australian Parliament.
While, as a liberal, I believe that we have responsibility for our own destiny, we are undoubtedly shaped by our own life experience, the influence of men and women who inspire us and perhaps most importantly, the influence of our families. My own family history represents something of our migrant mix—of German, Scottish and Irish stock—and of the hard pioneering ethic that helped create modern Australia.
My grandfather, Ossie Zimmerman, was born in the Gold Coast hinterland at the turn of the 19th century. His early years were hard beyond measure. He left school at the age of 12 and as a teenager he survived by working in the timber industry, on dairy farms, clearing land and as a drover. He proudly would recount his involvement in one of Australia's last great transcontinental musters—moving 15,000 head of cattle from Lawn Hill Station in the Gulf Country to Muswellbrook in New South Wales. Like so many of his generation he was determined to provide a better future for his children. Supporting their education, at school and university, was his driving motivation and in this he succeeded.
My grandmother, Ivy Lamb, was a war widow, and she raised three incredible daughters largely on her own in Brisbane. I am thrilled that my aunt, Desley Clark, and my cousin, Jayne Keogh, are here from Brisbane in the gallery today. My grandmother was passionate about politics and was one of that generation who joined the Liberal Party in response to the election of the Whitlam government. Perhaps more than anyone she stoked my interest in politics. I still remember her waking me late at night as a nine-year-old to excitedly tell me that Mr Fraser had been convincingly returned at the 1977 election.
My own father was a teacher, initially at small country schools across Queensland. He finally settled in Warwick, where he met my mother, who was visiting on a Presbyterian church picnic. My parents, Roy and Brenda Zimmerman, moved to Sydney following my father's appointment as head of the junior school at Newington College. They were to remain there for three decades.
For most of my childhood, I watched my father and mother nurture and care for students at the school as if they were part of our own extended family. In my mind, dad was something of a Mr Chips.
I will never forget being approached by a stranger, as I stood at a polling booth, who asked me if I was Roy Zimmerman's son. When I told him I was but that dad had passed away from cancer some years ago, he became emotional. He told me that he had entered school as a troubled child with little love from his own parents and that my dad had turned his life around; in fact, probably saved his life.
That commitment of my parents had a profound influence on me. It demonstrated the positive impact we can all have on the lives of others. I see in my sister, as she and her husband Greg raise their own children, Mackenzie and Zachary, the same nurturing hand passed from one generation to the next.
I hope that in this parliament, I can play my own role in securing a bright future for Mackenzie and Zachary and all their generation. It is the legacy we leave for future Australians that is the most important measure of our success in this place.
Politics has always been my passion, inspired both by my belief and commitment to the ideals of liberalism and the enduring value of community service.
It began as a year 10 student when, much to the bemusement of my parents, I chose to do my school work experience in the office of the then Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Nick Greiner.
I may have been tasked with little more than newspaper clippings and Nick may have called me Troy for the two weeks I was there, but it did not stop me recognising that I was seeing a Premier in the making. His reforming zeal and mantra of providing government that was warm, dry and green is one that I share.
My values and motivation for joining the Liberal Party are founded firmly in the great traditions of liberalism. For me, liberalism, which places the individual and his or her freedoms at the heart of all we do, has been the great force in human progress.
It is a view of the world that recognises that no one person, no group of people and no government should ever seek to tame the passions, ideals, beliefs and aspirations of another.
The strength of human kind is found in allowing people to make their own way, explore their own ideas and to question and challenge the orthodoxy of others.
From that foundation comes my support for what I believe are the essential tenets of good governance: our liberal democracy, respect for the right of individuals to lead their own lives, free enterprise and the rule of law equally applied but with the protection of the individual at its core.
Our goal should be to provide equality of opportunity rather than equality of disappointment.
As a liberal, I regard economic freedoms as the inseparable twin of personal liberty.
There are some who will stridently argue for the liberal economic reforms yet would have the government meddle in personal morality. Similarly, parties of the left are vocal in their support of personal freedoms but will be the first to argue for state intervention in the operation of our economy. There is an inconsistency in either approach which to me seems obvious and wrong.
We are a democracy, a nation, born of the ballot box. It is perhaps for this reason that Australia does not have or need a bill of rights.
Our liberty was not won through violence and civil strife, which is so often the motivation for nations to adopt constitutional guarantees. However, that does make our obligations as parliamentarians even greater.
It falls to us in the main and not the courts to protect those rights and institutions that are an essential part of our liberal society. Doing so, often requires courage and determination. We live in an era when the demands of the media and the community often tempt us to knee-jerk decision making. It is hard to convince voters that inaction is occasionally better than action.
At times, it would do us well to draw breath and properly consider whether new legislation or policy enhances or erodes freedoms, protections and our understanding of individual responsibility that have so often been so hard fought for.
I am by nature an optimistic and I am positive about the future of our great country. Australians are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities within our region and globally.
This century, more than ever before, will be one in which human capital determines the success or failure of competing economies.
Our excellent education system, our diversity, our inventiveness and our can-do culture will all serve Australia well.
Success will, however, not happen unless we are willing to put in place the foundations for that future and address the challenges that, if unattended, will diminish our prospects.
For me, the great challenges for this parliament are how we maintain growth and improve economic productivity to ensure that we can preserve the living standards that set us apart from most of the world.
We face the challenge of reforming the tax system to ensure that it remains internationally competitive in a global economy where capital and, increasingly, labour are so mobile.
At the same time, governments will face the pressure of responding to community expectations for even better services in sectors like health and education at a time when costs are outpacing revenue.
All of these issues require long-range planning yet democracy, perhaps by its nature, has a tendency to promote short-term decision making.
A structural issue we face in our federal system of governance is three-year parliamentary terms. This fact is widely accepted and understood.
The normal cycle means perhaps two years of governance before the third becomes consumed with the posturing that is part of every election year.
It is worth reflecting that that can mean that 33 years out of every century are potentially lost to good governance. It is for this reason that I believe it is time we moved to four-year parliamentary terms. It should be done and it should be done soon.
I come to this parliament representing an electorate that is a microcosm of modern Australia, its challenges and its opportunities.
North Sydney residents are educated, tech savvy and entrepreneurial. It is home to many businesses that will play a growing role in our future economy, particularly in the service and innovation sectors. It is these sectors, along with agriculture, tourism and education, that will help provide our future prosperity.
Our innovation sectors offer the potential for Australia to be at the cutting edge of high-value industries and products that will support growth and employment for coming generations. My electorate is well placed to capitalise on these opportunities. Already the North Sydney CBD is fast becoming a centre for IT firms and industry. As one CEO put it to me: it is set to become Sydney's 'silicon alley'.
St Leonards, home to the Royal North Shore Hospital and so many other health institutions, has even greater potential as a centre for medical innovation and research.
A priority for me will be to work with all three levels of government to promote our part of Sydney as a centre for innovation and ensure our businesses—large and small—can take advantage of the doors being opened by growth in the Asia-Pacific.
North Sydney faces the growing pains experienced by all our major cities—straining transport networks, planning that is often poorly integrated and the challenge of maintaining services for an expanding and changing population.
Our cities are now the drivers of our economy, and their contribution to our prosperity will only continue to grow. We also know that inadequate infrastructure and the cost of congestion are major drags on productivity.
It is impossible to manage the needs of our national economy and improve productivity without a federal interest in our cities, and I am pleased that this is a focus for our government. The Commonwealth already financially supports major transport infrastructure projects. This role should grow, as there is no greater threat to the productivity and liveability of our cities than gridlock.
I am particularly pleased that the Turnbull government has adopted a mode-neutral view of the type of transport projects that will be funded. There is no logic to the federal government supporting urban roads but not urban public transport. We need both, but in many cases public transport is best placed to do the heavy lifting.
North Sydney residents, who are the second highest users of public transport in Australia, will be a major beneficiary of the Sydney Metro project, which will provide a second harbour rail crossing through the heart of my electorate. Projects like this are significant, but, as the potential for further asset leasing and sales declines, the federal government's support will be increasingly important. It should do so, but in a way that drives reform in how transport is funded and provided across Australia.
The Commonwealth should expect states to implement value capture funding as a part of major new projects. Such an approach is not new—indeed, the Sydney Harbour Bridge itself was partially funded from a betterment tax—but it is essential if we are to have the resources to meet future infrastructure demands.
Similarly, we know that many of our government-run public transport systems could possibly better—and certainly more efficiently—provide the same service levels through greater private sector involvement. This should be an expectation of the federal government in return for its financial support.
My electorate also represents the success of multicultural Australia, which is surely one of Australia's greatest achievements. No other nation on earth has so harmoniously welcomed migrants from every corner of the planet. A non-discriminatory immigration program that meets both our economic needs and our humanitarian obligations has been the foundation of our ethnically-diverse and largely tolerant community.
North Sydney reflects the diversity of modern Australia. Over 19,000 residents claim Chinese heritage, and we are also home to large communities from Korea, Japan, India and Malaysia. We are the richer for it, and it makes us exceptionally well placed to take advantage of the expanding economic opportunities in Asia.
North Sydney is also home to perhaps the largest community of Australians of Armenian heritage, and they have a special place in our community. The Armenians are a people who have suffered great historical injustices. They are one of the few people against whom genocide has been attempted, and the awful legacy of those events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire is deeply felt in their community today.
We know such horrific events are best healed through reconciliation, recognition and atonement. I hope that we will see a day when Turkey—indeed, the global community through the United Nations—properly recognises the Armenian genocide. Only then will the stain of that dark chapter start to be removed for a people who live in its wake.
My arrival in this House has been on the shoulders of others. First and foremost, I want to thank the residents of North Sydney for giving me this incredible honour. On the night of the by-election I said that I would work hard for each and every resident, whether they voted for me or not, and I hope that I can fulfil that commitment.
I have thanked my family already but do so again, as their love and particularly their patience over the last few months mean so much.
I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the staff of the parliament for the assistance I have received since my election—although, perhaps, not the office, unless it comes with a six-year term! To all my new colleagues in this place: thank you for making me so welcome. I am proud to be a part of a party room that brings together such diverse and deep experience. It is truly representative of our great country.
I want to thank the branches of the Liberal Party in North Sydney both for selecting me as their candidate and for working so hard during the by-election. Led so ably by our conference president Rob Orrell, the campaign was joined by over 800 volunteers. To every one of them: I am so very, very grateful.
I particularly acknowledge my dearest friends who have been part of this journey—some for 30 years. This is a bit like one of those Oscar moments, where the music may come on, but I do want to thank Chris Muir, Don Harwin, Michael Photios, Catherine Cusack, Marise Payne, Gladys Berejiklian, Matt Kean, Andrew Kirk, Tanya Baini, James Wallace, Heitor da Silva, my best friend over all of those years, Shayne Mallard, from the other side of the world, Frederic Delsol, Matias Coronel, and all those who have been such incredible mentors: Jillian Skinner, Bruce Baird, Robert Hill, Chris Puplick and my good friend, the late Virginia Chadwick.
Finally, I pay tribute to you, Prime Minister. Your support during the by-election was magnificent. The people of North Sydney embraced your vision for our nation, as I am sure that all Australians will do at the next general election. There has never been a more exciting time to be the member for North Sydney!
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (12:52): While members are congratulating the member for North Sydney, I acknowledge the presence of the President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Mr Don Harwin, in the distinguished visitors gallery here on the floor of the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (12:54): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that members have been nominated to be members of certain committees.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade and Investment) (12:54): by leave—I move:
That:
(1)Mr Tehan be discharged from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings;
(2)Mr Pitt be discharged from the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts;
(3)Mr C. A. Laundy be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services;
(4)Ms F. M. Scott be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Economics;
(5)Mr Coleman be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters;
(6)Mr Pitt and Mrs Prentice be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade;
(7)Mr Taylor be discharged from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities;
(8)Mr Taylor, Mr C. A. Laundy and Mrs Prentice be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that Mr Robert be appointed a member of the committee;
(9)Mr Taylor be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:55): I am pleased to have the opportunity, once again, to rise in this place and talk about the administration of our federal courts. In the electorate of Parramatta, it is a particularly important issue. We have an incredibly beautiful legal precinct, built since I became the member for Parramatta—so it is in the last decade at least. It is an incredible facility that holds up to 12 courts. On a Monday a couple of weeks ago, four of those courts were sitting, not because there was not enough work but because there were not enough judges to staff those courts.
We have backlogs, particularly in Family Court matters, that are seeing families on custody disputes being told they will have to wait three years to have their matter heard. Interim hearings are taking 18 months, at the least. So we have families, barristers and judges under incredible stress, because families are suffering in the way that only families can when one parent is denied access to a child for that length of time. You can imagine what it is like to be the parent of a six-month-old child, knowing that your custody matter will not be able to be determined for at least three years, when your child is 3½ years old. It is just not good enough. It really is not okay.
I am very pleased to be able to get up today and once again speak on this matter. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is actually an important bill. It merges the corporate functions of the three federal courts—the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court—to make efficiencies behind the scenes. It does not merge the functions of the three courts. The three courts remain separate and their current management systems remain in place, but the administrative functions, including finance, human resources, information technology and property administration—things that are absolutely back-end administrative support for these three courts—are merged, with an estimated saving of $9.4 million over the six financial years up to 2020-21.
In federal budgets, $9.4 million is not a large amount, but $9.4 million is a large amount of money, and it is worth making these administrative changes to save that amount of money. It is well and truly worth doing that, but I would question what the cost to families and the community is, over a six-year period, of delays of up to three years in having a property or custody matter heard. I would question whether this government even knows what the economic costs are, let alone the social costs to families that are unable to make decisions about their work life, that are constantly under stress and that are unable to settle with their child into the new family arrangements, or to barristers who are feeling the pressure and judges who are taking sick leave. We have one judge in Parramatta who is on sick leave for six months, leading up to his retirement. We hear stories from barristers that the judges are under incredible strain.
I wonder whether this government has considered what the economic cost is to our community of these kinds of delays, let alone the social costs. I really would urge the government to think very clearly and very hard about whether or not this is actually good enough. I know that the Parramatta court is not the only one with these circumstances. Colleagues of mine from Newcastle and Wollongong have made similar speeches to this House about their delays. My concern today is about the completely unreasonable strain that families are carrying because our courts simply do not have the resources they need to deal with the matters before them.
Our courts are chronically under-resourced. Since the election of the coalition government in 2013, the number of judges sitting at the Parramatta registry of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has decreased from eight to five. Families are now waiting one to three years to have final orders, leaving lawyers encouraging mediation to solve most disputes. That is a good thing, but, where mediation cannot solve an issue, 18 months to three years is far too long for a matter involving property, let alone a matter involving a child.
The delay is due to judges leaving the court, essentially, and not being replaced. In 2014, we saw a judge move from Parramatta to Melbourne, so we lost one. We had another judge who took 560 days to be replaced, and we have another one now on sick leave who is due to retire in six months time and is not expected to be back before the courts before his retirement. That leaves us in a situation where, on a Monday a few weeks ago, we had four judges hearing matters in 12 courts, and one of those judges in the Family Court was handling 600 matters. He had 600 matters on his list. Judges usually handle around 300, which still sounds like a lot to me, as a layperson, but he is handling 600. We are hearing from barristers of judges effectively showing their stress levels in the courts themselves, which does not provide the kind of settling relationship with the families that we need in our family courts.
In November 2014, the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, John Pascoe, said:
The Attorney-General is aware of the pending retirements and of the court's heavy workload. I have indicated to the Attorney the pressure that is currently faced in particular registries such as Parramatta.
Then, in December last year, Chief Judge Pascoe said he was considering moving the judges who sit in Parramatta and the Wollongong courts to Sydney due to insufficient resources, despite Parramatta being one of the busiest courts in the country. So we have now the idea of closing the Parramatta registry being floated. The very idea that you would close a major part of your court infrastructure in the geographic heart of Sydney because the government has not appointed enough judges is quite extraordinary. The idea that the pressure in the court system would be so great that that idea would be even floated astonishes me. It astonishes me.
We have, as I said, a phenomenal legal precinct built within the last decade. It has a capacity to grow. It has a capacity to serve our community. We are going to see the population of Western Sydney double in the next 20 years. I would argue that we are going to see the population of Parramatta double in the next 10 to 15, given the amount of work that urban growth is doing with high-rise residential at the moment. We are not a declining community; we are a community that is growing, and we are a community where the need is only going to grow. And here we have the idea of the registry being closed because of insufficient resources seriously being floated.
Again I would ask the government, particularly the Attorney-General, to reflect on this. This is something that impacts on a large number of families in a way that nothing else does. At a time when the things that you thought were secure are falling apart or you are trying to re-establish your life, when you are struggling and arguing over custody of your child—and there is nothing more important than that—to be told that the wait could be three years is just not okay. I have seen parents who are not in that situation moved to tears by the idea that they might have been—that they might have actually been denied access to their six-month-old until that six-month-old was three or might lose contact with their 10-year-old and not meet them again until they are in puberty. This is not okay.
The level of strain and tension that is caused in these families that cannot find a resolution is beyond belief. The spirals of mental health that we see parents go into when they cannot find a way out, when there is no solution to something that is so profoundly important in their lives—the most important thing—are something that the government should reflect on. I have heard lawyers tell me how worried they are about the mental health of their clients over this, and I know that members opposite would understand this because we all have people who come to our offices who are in situations that they cannot resolve. We all see those spirals. We see the beginning of it. We see them becoming increasingly litigious. We see them give up their jobs to be full-time litigants. We see them bit by bit lose their connections with community as they become angrier and angrier and more obsessed with one element of their life. It is not okay. That is what I say to the Attorney-General: it is not okay.
In Senate estimates in early February, the Attorney-General said he was aware of the delays in the Family Court and said:
I wish I had more judges.
Well, so do we. So do we in Parramatta. He has appointed six new ones since then. He has done that. He has appointed six more, and I congratulate him for that because these delays are all over the country. But he placed them in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide registries. We did not get an extra one in Parramatta. Even with a judge retiring in six months on sick leave, we can see no improvement in our current circumstances and only increasing delays as that backlog continues to grow.
At the very least, I would urge the Attorney-General to make sure that he is ready to appoint when that judge does retire. He knows when he is going to retire. He knows the date. We cannot wait 560 days this time like we did last time. You do not leave families waiting that long. You do not leave them in those kinds of circumstances. And you do not leave judges in those kinds of circumstances either. You do not leave people who are handling incredibly complex and sensitive matters and who need their full capacity to do so in circumstances where they are handling double workloads under this level of stress. You do not do that to employees. You do not do that to judges. You do not do it to people who need their full capacity in place. And that is what is happening in the courts of Parramatta.
The judges will not be speaking out about this. They are doing what they do, although I have heard of occasions where they have lost it in the court and literally said: 'What do you expect me to do? I've got 600 cases.' That is not what you expect of a judge, particularly if you are standing there waiting for the judge to help you resolve one of the most important issues of your life.
Unfortunately, after those six judges were appointed, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General's office commented that the Parramatta and Sydney courts are now at 'their full complement of judges'. I beg to differ. If this current level is the full complement of judges then it is not enough. It is not enough. It is not okay.
The Attorney-General received a KPMG report before the 2014 budget, which he has refused to make public. It reportedly warned of severe under-resourcing of the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court—a $75 million funding black hole. I urge the Attorney-General to release that report and have a real conversation with our judges, the people who represent families in distress and advocacy bodies who represent those families about how we can ensure that our Family Court system is able to deal with the matters it has before it in a timely way. If there is change needed then make a change. If there are new ways of doing things and new ways of keeping people out of courts then do that.
Alongside the lack of appointment of judges we have also seen cuts to the legal aid services in the community that actually help people keep out of court. In my community we have the Macquarie Legal Centre. It is a fantastic centre. We have seen funding on again and off again. It is likely that there will be a 30 per cent cut coming next year. These are services that over time have built expertise, relationships and networks in the community. They assist people to make decisions early on, when their problems emerge, so they do not go down a protracted legal pathway. They are incredibly important resources, which the government have cut. In fact, they have cut those legal services three times since they have come to government. Again there is a lack of logic here: on the one hand they do not appoint enough judges but on the other hand they cut the services that help keep people out of court. It beggars belief.
Parramatta has lots of courts but no judges. Rockhampton is blessed in that it has one more judge than it has courts. A full-time Federal Court judge was appointed to Rockhampton but they have no court to sit in. We have a spare one in Parramatta—in fact, we have eight spare in Parramatta at the moment; they are fantastic courts—not that I want to take a judge from Rockhampton; I do not. I seriously urge the Attorney-General to have a look at what he is doing and perhaps plan a little further ahead than he is now. If he is going to appoint a judge, he should make sure that they have a court to sit in. If there is a great need somewhere else, he should make sure that those matters can be heard in a timely way.
I will finish by thanking the government for this bill, as far as it goes. It does make some machinery changes that will improve the efficiency in the back end of our courts, and that is always a good thing. It is always good to make sure that money is not wasted if there is a more effective way to do it. I urge the government seriously to look at the economic and social costs to families and ultimately our community of substantial delays of up to three years on things like property and custody matters. As I have said probably 20 times in this speech so far, it really is not okay that families are waiting that long for a resolution to disputes about the most important thing in their life, which is their child.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I call the member for Moreton.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:10): Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, thank you for giving me the call. I know it is sometimes difficult for you to do so, so I appreciate it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): It was a pleasure.
Mr PERRETT: I rise to speak on the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill at one level is quite simple in that it merges the corporate functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. I say up-front that the Labor Party are broadly supportive of this legislation. I will give a little bit of background. The Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear family law cases. As the shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Attorney-General I have a particular focus on family law. It was my area of law before coming into parliament. Since receiving this responsibility from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General I have consulted right across Australia with family lawyers, I have employed a family law barrister and I have had a lot of consultation on family law—from Cairns to Townsville, Brisbane, Toowoomba, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and even Perth.
The consultation with family lawyers and legal aid, who deal with the consequences of the breakdown of relationships, was certainly heartening and disturbing. It is always difficult when love turns to hate. I think 91 per cent of the filings in the Federal Circuit Court last year were for family law proceedings. I should point out up-front that, when relationships end or disintegrate, many people sort out their own lives outside of the court process or just need the arrangements they have come to signed off. Unfortunately, there will always be some relationships that require legal intervention. Seventy per cent of people who have contact with the family law legal process do not go to a trial but, unfortunately, some do.
The Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court hear complex family law cases, often involving family violence, abuse, mental health issues or drug addiction. On this day I would like to particularly acknowledge the judges and the staff who deal with the people presenting this information. It is often difficult information. Unfortunately, people can misrepresent facts. Often in these proceedings people are unrepresented and that creates additional stress where judges are trying to be supportive but obviously also need to be able to test the evidence. They need to be able to test what people are saying. Unbelievably—and it is hard to accept—sometimes people lie in these circumstances. People lie because when love has turned to hate they do not always act logically.
Sadly, there has been lately some strong and consistent criticism about the state of the Family Court in Australia. That criticism has been sustained for quite a while. From Launceston to Cairns family lawyers are speaking up and writing to the shadow Attorney-General and to me. They are writing to the Attorney-General because of the same concern, which is that delays are increasing. I note that the member for Parramatta and the member for Isaacs touched on this in their earlier presentations. People are waiting, in some cases, up to three years before they can get in front of a judge—three years.
There is no doubt that families are suffering because of these delays. When I say 'families', it can be the children especially, because the family law has a particular focus on children, but it is also the mum and the dad. All can suffer because of the uncertainty and the delay. A child living with parental conflict already has a tough cross to carry, but if they have to wait another year it would seem a lifetime for that child. If the conflict is continuing, and in some cases escalating, because of the delay, over a period of years that can literally be the child's whole life. Their childhood is locked into a set of circumstances where there is no certainty and the uncertainty creates extra damage, as I said, not just to children but to mothers and to fathers.
These delays have been made intolerably worse by the Attorney-General's tardiness when it comes to replacing judges in the family courts. The coalition have been in office for 910 days. It does seem a lot longer, but it is 910 days. Yet it took Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General, 560 days to replace a judge of the Family Court in Sydney. It has taken him 375 days to replace Justice Bell in the Brisbane registry, with the replacement judge still not yet sworn in—although I do wish her well. Across the country there have been Federal Circuit Court judges retiring and long delays in their replacements being appointed. I should just point out that this is not due to dollar issues. These positions are funded and budgeted for, and there is no saving for the government by not replacing the judges when they are going to retire. Remember: in the Family Court, we knew for about 40 years that Justice Bell was going to retire. There is a set time, so it is not as if it was suddenly sprung on him that Justice Bell was going to retire.
Delays in replacing retiring judges have caused huge backlogs of work that these registries will never recover from. If a judge gets sick, it is not as if their docket is taken care of. These delays are creating backlogs of misery and bottlenecks of heartache where families suffer because of the Attorney-General's tardiness. The former Federal Circuit Court judge Giles Coakes delayed his retirement for six months so that there would be no delay, yet still there was no replacement ready when he left mid last year. Judge Coakes reportedly 'accused the government of neglect for failing to appoint family law judges in a timely manner' and said that 'the delay in appointing judges had caused court lists to blow out and children had been put at risk'. I repeat that: children had been put at risk. Judge Coakes went on to say:
These (cases involve) … dysfunctional parents because of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence in all its forms and mental illness … That represents a real danger to the children. Until a case can be heard and finalised by a judge, those risks … are continuing.
The Attorney-General finally appointed replacements for two judges in the Family Court and two judges in the Federal Circuit Court last week. Only now will this take those courts to a full complement of judges. However, the damage caused by the delay has already been done.
It is not as if the Attorney-General was busy with his Arts portfolio. That was stripped from him by Prime Minister Turnbull because of incompetence in that portfolio. He had time to focus on being Attorney-General. These delays are unforgivable. These are courts that are already under enormous pressure due to the nature of the cases that come before them, because people are often motivated by, perhaps, less than pure reasons when it comes to children and former partners. They can make all sorts of accusations, and it can be very difficult for judges to extract what is in the best interests of the child, what is truthful and how society will be better for their decision. A lot of faith is put in the reports prepared by the people that prepare the reports. It is not exactly a lucrative area of work, yet these reports about children are relied on as if they had been written in stone and brought down from Mount Sinai. So, if the Family Court report writer does not get it right, there can be incredible consequences for children. The Children's Commissioner, Megan Mitchell, was just this week reported as questioning whether the family courts can properly deal with the damage family violence does to children who are the subject of contested parenting applications.
So I would ask the Attorney-General, when it comes to dealing with the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, to do some broader consultation—to talk to the lawyers that work in this area. That is obviously very important. Family law lawyers are a very special breed of lawyer, I would suggest. It is a particular calling. So consultation with them is important, but so is consultation with the women's legal services, the people that provide advice about domestic violence, and the men's groups who are involved in this process as well. I am not sure that that consultation occurred with the Attorney-General's latest effort, which is the binding financial agreements. I am not sure if there was a lot of consultation with the women's legal services throughout Australia. That is not what I am hearing at all. So I am hoping the Attorney-General can do his job and focus on family law, because so much damage has been done by the delays.
As I said, I recognise that he appointed six more judges recently, and I particularly praise the Attorney-General for the fact that some of them had family law experience, but obviously I could then spend another couple of hours talking about the consequences of the legal aid cuts and the uncertainty out there in the community legal centres, where people are waiting for cuts of up to 30 per cent to be rolled out—people that want to feed their children, pay their mortgage and all those things that lawyers need to do. Some of them will take their experience, leave the community legal centres and find work elsewhere, and that will be a great shame, because it is not exactly well-remunerated legal work, but it keeps society humming along. That is not just me, a bleeding heart leftie, saying that. The Productivity Commission actually said this. They said we needed to pump more money into the legal aid system. The Productivity Commission, not exactly a bastion of left-wing ideals, are saying there should be more money pumped into it.
The bill before the chamber will merge the corporate functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court in order to make savings through efficiencies, a measure that was announced in the 2015 budget. The three courts will share their corporate services. The CEO of the Federal Court will have responsibility for managing these shared resources. There has been consultation with the shadow Attorney-General, and I would commend those who are doing the merger on the consultation with unions and with those who will have to work under the new regime. Obviously all change is stressful, but the people merging these corporate services have done a good job. I would commend them for that. I am sure those reporting to the Attorney-General will report back that I do have something nice to say about some parts of the process.
This measure was first announced in the 2015 budget, as I said. Labor supports efforts to streamline corporate functions of the three federal courts. Although there is some concern from the Family Court as to how this measure will be implemented in a practical sense, but I am hopeful that will be sorted out. It will achieve some modest savings—it will not go anywhere near resolving the problems facing the courts at the moment—but Labor supports this measure as it is a start. They say that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, so I am hoping that the Attorney-General does not rest too long after taking that first step. I wish him well with this piece of legislation.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (08:54): I rise to speak in respect of the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 because, of course, the significant under-resourcing of the family law courts, by which I mean the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, is a problem for access to justice generally but is specifically a problem for people for whom family violence is an issue.
Last year, in October, the Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO of the Family Court of Australia gave a well-received paper called 'The Family Courts and family violence.'In that paper, she indicated that family violence is a feature in about 41 per cent of the matters filed in the family courts. In noting that, the Chief Justice went on to identify 16 different, separate and discrete complexities facing those courts in responding to family law matters in which family violence was a feature. I think it is important to remember that as the workloads have grown, in terms of the number of cases for the family courts, so has the complexity. So not only have you seen increasing numbers but also you have seen a qualitatively more complex case load, and therefore a heavier workload.
In her speech, the Chief Justice spoke quite bluntly about funding and resourcing for the courts. She said it was very pleasing to see that the federal government had announced a $100 million package aimed at addressing family violence. But while acknowledging that, she said:
… I cannot but be concerned that the crucial role of the courts (and the corresponding necessity of resourcing them properly) has not to date been recognised as part of addressing family violence.
She went on to quote approvingly Fiona McCormack, the CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria and her colleague Prue Cameron, who had written in an opinion piece in the wake of the government's Women's Safety Package announcement as follows:
… this funding, welcome as it is, will not come close to filling the significant budgetary shortfall across the family violence system which has left specialist women and children’s services, legal services and the court system struggling to meet the demand which is growing exponentially.
The Family Court Chief Justice went on to make a number of significant comments. At this point, it is important to recall that there had been tens of millions of dollars worth cuts to legal services, both community legal centres and legal aid commissions, by this government that have yet to be rectified, cuts that we have observed and that we made very clear in our International Women's Day package last year that we will seek to redress. We have $50 million for funding for community legal centres and legal aid commissions, including funding for Aboriginal and Torres Islander legal services, because we understand that access to justice is important, particularly in a situation where people are escaping family violence.
It is not just the Chief Justice of the Family Court who has been so blunt, frankly, in her comments about the under-resourcing of the courts. The Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court—it is important to remember that an unwilling majority of family law matters are filed in the Federal Circuit Court—has become increasingly open in his criticism of this government's failure to properly resource the family court system, especially including his own federal circuit courts. He received Australia Day honours this year and he used the opportunity of having been given the Australia Day honours to highlight the issues in family court resourcing. In an interview with the ABC at the time, he actually called for more resources in regional Australia, where some families are waiting years—where you have a critical family law matter underway, and you might also have state court matters, DVO orders and child protection matters underway at the same time—for a final court hearing to settle disputes such as dividing property and parenting orders. He said:
If we really want to look after the children of Australia, we have to put resources into dealing with issues such as family violence which have a long-term effect on children as they grow.
He was very clear in his criticism of this government's failure to adequately resource. He drew out the example of Wollongong, where the wait for a final hearing for a family law matter in the Federal Circuit Court was now more than three years. Of course, the benchmark required of the courts is that 90 per cent of hearings be finalised within 12 months. They are nowhere near that even now. If you look at the annual reports, you will see that the most recent one indicated that only 73 per cent of matters were being determined within that time and therefore the benchmark is not being met. That is directly a consequence of this government's failure to properly fund the family law courts. It is a direct consequence of the scandalous under-resourcing of the courts and the consequence of that is long waits for people with family law matters that are complex, in a situation where we know that 41 per cent of these family law matters have family violence as a feature. It is a disgrace, and it is something that this government ought seriously to attend to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Australian Labor Party: 20th Anniversary of the Class of 1996
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:29): Twenty years ago today was a very notable day in the life of our nation—not because it was the member for Grayndler's 33rd birthday or the member for Gorton's 34th birthday and certainly not because it was my 18th. But I did pre-enrol that year to vote in the 1996 election so that I could vote for Labor and Paul Keating. We did not get the result that we wanted. We got an awful result in 1996 and we lost many great people, including, temporarily, the member for Lilley.
That election, more than anything, really did hit the pause button on a remarkable period of achievement and progress. Perhaps the only silver lining from that election was that first elected that day were some terrific colleagues, including the member for Jagajaga, the member for Hunter, the member for Wills and the member for Grayndler and, in the other place later that year, Senator Conroy. I want to pay tribute to them and their substantial impact on that period. As they gathered last night they had much to celebrate and reflect on.
The world has changed since 1996 and we have changed with it. Our task in Labor is not to retrace the steps of our heroes but to walk forward and further in the same direction. We seek new policy solutions to new dilemmas. But the reforming spirit of that government of 1983 to 1996 lives on in all of us and especially in the class of 1996. I congratulate them on their 20 years of service and, while the member for Wills is retiring, I look forward to working with the others for 20 more years.
Groom Electorate: Defence White Paper
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:31): I rise today to talk about the local gains for our defence forces in the seat of Groom. Last week we saw in the defence white paper a spending increase of some $30 billion. A significant part of that was sent to very important Army bases in my electorate. The Army training centre facilities at Swartz Barracks in Oakey have had an allocation to support the new CH-47F Chinook helicopters and also the MRH-90 troop lift helicopters. That represents an investment of around $30 million over the next decade and a further $300 million in the decade following that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like I, know how important that is to our region and how delighted the community of Oakey and in fact the whole community of Groom were to see that money allocated. As well as Swartz Barracks, we will see an upgrading of facilities at Borneo Barracks at Cabarlah—a very important area in terms of Army intelligence. This represents an investment of around $100 million in the decade to come and about $30 million in the decade after. This shows the coalition's true commitment not only to defence but also to defence in regional areas.
Brisbane City Council
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:33): On 19 March there will be local government elections throughout Brisbane, and I rise to speak particularly about the Brisbane City Council election and some concerns I have—as written about in the Brisbane City Times—about the Brisbane City Council's deal to sell parkland to a significant LNP donor off the books. I see reported today that Lord Mayor Quirk has received nine vehicles from the person who is actually going to sign up for this deal. Labor's mayoral candidate, Rod Harding, is investigating this, because there are lots of questions about this land deal. Obviously I do not have a problem if land is bought on the market, but this was a special deal that was done where there was an exemption from a state act requiring a public tender or to go to auction. So there are certainly significant questions to be answered by Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, especially when he has LNP candidates and campaign workers driving around in vehicles provided by this business.
It is on the record that 'donations search revealed links between businessman and LNP'. If you look at the Electoral Commission of Queensland website you see that East Coast Car Rentals donated $47,300 to the Liberal National Party during the 2014-15 financial year. (Time expired)
Macquarie Electorate: Defence White Paper
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:34): The release of the 2016 Defence white paper which sets out the coalition government's comprehensive and responsible long-term plan to ensure Australia's national security. The defence white paper will benefit directly and significantly RAAF Base Richmond, in the electorate of Macquarie, with an investment of $300 million to $400 million from 2021-26 for its redevelopment. This investment shows that this government has confidence in RAAF Base Richmond's future by investing in their future infrastructure needs—a stark difference to Labor in their six years while in government. I have been a strong advocate for RAAF Base Richmond, which I have supported and will continue to support as a facility integral to Australia's defence operations.
The white paper is the culmination of detailed analysis of our strategic environment, Defence's priorities and objectives and the capabilities required to achieve these outcomes. The coalition government is increasing defence spending by $29.9 billion over the next decade to deliver the strategies and plans set out in the 2016 white paper. This white paper is an investment in Australia's defence forces and an investment in Australia's defence industry. This white paper will deliver Australian jobs through guaranteeing construction work, through industry projects and through procurement. This is all great news for businesses and communities in Macquarie, who will benefit from this investment. The people of Macquarie can be confident in the coalition government's commitment.
Canberra Electorate: 20th Anniversary of the Howard Government
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:36): The 20th anniversary of the election of the Howard government is a dark day for Canberra. Upon its election, the Howard government took an axe to our nation's capital—it took an axe to our city. It sacked 15,000 public servants here in Canberra—and I was one of them—and 30,000 nationally. This had a devastating effect on the Canberra region. House prices plummeted, people left town, businesses and non-business bankruptcies skyrocketed and local shops closed down. Canberra went into an economic slump that took us five years to shake off. This economic slump was felt right throughout the region—in Queanbeyan, in Yass and down at the South Coast.
We remember 1996. We remember the contempt and disdain shown by the Howard government towards the Public Service, our servants of democracy and our nation's capital. We remember the devastation that was rort on this city. We are seeing it again with this Abbott-Turnbull government. The government has axed 8½ thousand Public Service jobs. It has axed scientists. It has axed funding to our cultural institutions. It is the same old form that we saw in the Howard government. For Canberra, 1996 was a very bad year. It was a very dark time. We saw people leave town. We saw jobs being cut. We saw the whole region being affected. Twenty years on, we have nothing to celebrate from the Howard government. (Time expired)
Gayle-Weiling, Ms Jaide
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:37): I rise today to talk about an incredible young person in my electorate of Macarthur who, just one year after undergoing spinal surgery, has earned the title of Australian inline skating champion. Jaide Gayle-Weiling of Harrington Park was diagnosed with sudden onset idiopathic scoliosis at the age of 13. Jaide, who was named Australian champion in the 100 metres, 500 metres and 3,000 metres races for girls under-17, had a condition which caused severe curvature of her spine.
Specialist Dr Andrew Cree, from The Children's Hospital at Westmead, advised that, if left untreated, the condition would eventually kill her. Jaide underwent a six-hour operation where two 50-centimetre-long titanium rods were inserted and clamped to her spine with 18 screws. The operation is considered so dangerous that each patient risks paralysis or even death. Despite Jaide's operation being a success, she still had to spend a week in intensive care, had to learn to walk again and was forced to undergo intensive recuperation and physiotherapy programs. Remarkably, within three months of the operation, Jaide was skating again.
One year on from her life-threating spinal surgery, and at the young age of 14, Jaide has earned the title of Australian inline skating champion. What a remarkable achievement. Jaide is an inspiration and a credit to her community. Her ability to overcome adversity and achieve great results in a short period of time is a lesson to us all. Jaide will be travelling to New Zealand over Easter to represent Australia at the Oceania Inline Speed Championships. I am sure that everyone listening to proceedings in the House is extremely proud that Jaide is representing our country, and I wish her all the very best for the future.
Member for Wills
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:39): Today, I clock up 20 years in this House. It is a great honour to serve here. In the age of the 24/7 media cycle, and a cultural tendency to chew politicians up and spit them out, it is a remarkable honour to serve for 20 years.
I could not have done it without support. I want to thank the voters of Wills who have stuck with me in good times and in bad. I want to thank my partner, Kerry, my children, Ben and Naomi, my father, Allan, and other family members. I want to thank my office staff: Mimi Tamburrino, Tim Hamilton, Mark O'Brien, Julie Ryan, Cate Hall, Nosrat Hosseini and many others who have served over the past two decades.
I want to thank the Labor Party members and volunteers in Wills—families like the Hosseinis and Quaidas, Angelo Koutouleas, Oscar and Alan Yildiz, Gino Iannazzo, Vic Guarino and so many others. I want to thank people from the trade union movement: Ged Kearney and Dave Oliver from the ACTU, Ben Davis and his team at the AWU, Tony Sheldon and his team at the TWU, Glenn Thompson and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, Earl Setches at the Plumbing Trades Employees Union, Dave Noonan at the CFMEU, people at the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and many more.
I want to thank some business leaders, too, for their support and encouragement: Dick Smith, Graham Turner and Geoff Harris from Flight Centre, Robert Rio from Rio Industrial Group and Hugh Middendorp from Middendorp Electrical, amongst others. To all of you: thank you for the chance to do this.
Dobell Electorate: Marine Rescue Norah Head
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (13:40): Late last year I was honoured to attend Marine Rescue Norah Head to present a 15-year Service Medal to Bill Hignett, Coxwain Certificate to Fiona Perram, and a Marine Rescue Leading Crew Certificate to Peter Langdon.
Bill has had a long and distinguished history of service to the public. He joined the army at the age of 17, served as a paramedic from 1974 and, in 1987, he was awarded honorary life membership in the order of St John Ambulance. He has been captain and president of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. He joined Marine Rescue New South Wales at Norah Head in 2013. He is a rated radio operator and is completing his watch officer rating. He is the Norah Head fundraising officer and communication centre manager. The recognition of his service is certainly well deserved.
Fiona Perram received a Coxswain Certificate. She is the first-ever female coxswain of the Norah Head unit—quite an achievement. She has spent much of her life on boats, both in Australia and abroad, and is thoroughly enjoying being a skipper with Marine Rescue.
Congratulations to Bill, Fiona and Peter on their fantastic accomplishments with Marine Rescue. Their contribution, and those of their fellow volunteers at Norah Head, is helping our boating community stay safe on the water this summer. Congratulations to all our Marine Rescue people throughout Dobell and the Central Coast of New South Wales for the great work they do in keeping our waterways safe.
Dodson, Mr Pat
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:42): I just want to say how completely proud and pleased I am that Pat Dodson is joining the Labor team at the next election. Pat is a truly extraordinary guy. He has been a force in the Kimberley for the last 30 years and, indeed, for at least the last 20 years, has been a major voice in the Aboriginal community within Australia.
I had the great pleasure to work with Pat very closely for, at least, a decade with regard to native title issues around the Broome area. I was very pleased to be able to work with him towards getting a fantastic settlement for the native title holders. I think it is fantastic to see the work that Pat and others have been doing with that land, ensuring that, in a very practical way, they are developing economic sustainability for their community and really building resilience.
I want to particularly say how proud I am that Pat is part of this 'empowering communities' move that is going on with Aboriginal leadership across Australia. They are showing us that we can do this very differently. I profoundly believe that Pat Dodson coming into parliament will make a real change and that we have a very real prospect, now, of turning around the fate of Aboriginal communities in Australia. (Time expired)
Bass Electorate: 2016 Junior Track Cycling Nationals
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:44): As patron of cycling in Tasmania, I had the privilege last Friday afternoon to present medals at the 2016 Junior Track Nationals in Launceston. It was fantastic to see Australia's first indoor velodrome still being used for national competition. While the Tasmanian team just missed out on the medals, many competitors achieved top tens and personal bests. I join my friend Collin Burns, the executive officer of Cycling Tasmania, in congratulating everyone who helped put this event together—in particular, Peter Tomlinson, and his professional crew of commissaries, including Noel Pearce, Graeme Cure, Val James, Kevin Jamieson, Chris Cutting and Ian Loft.
John Nicholson did the timing with his wonderful assistants Rochelle Wright and Jenny Bailey. I thank the championship coordinator, Michael Stylianou, and his gate staff: Tom Graesser, Gary Woodfall, Greg O'Rourke and masters legend Michael Bailey. Hamish McGovern and his staff at SafeTas did the first aid. The commentator was Rod Bracken. Our awesome photographer and media liaison officers were Annette Duffy, Greg Banks and all the Silverdome staff. Robyn Bailey and Karen De Bruyn were on the tunnel and Allan Knight warmly welcomed everyone each day. The awesome medal assistants were Zoe Wright, Murray Culling, Tom Stylianou and Jak Oxford.
I also thank the Cycling Tasmania team manager, Ron Bryan and his staff: Janelle Smith, Jamie Perry, Amanda Lewis and Shellie Wakefield as well as Max Stevens and Lyriane Beuzeville from Cycling Australia. I also acknowledge our generous sponsors: St. Lukes Health, the City of Launceston and the Hodgman state government.
Australian Labor Party
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): Like my classmate from 2013, the member for Rankin, I rise today to celebrate the 20 years of service from the members for Wills, Jagajaga, Grayndler, Hunter and Senator Conroy in the other place. I want to speak of the contribution, knowledge and wisdom that they have shared with those of us who have joined this parliament so recently. I want to say that their experience in this team is what has driven this opposition to bring to bear such power in this place in this term of parliament.
We stand here as an opposition with 50 policies in the field ready for a Shorten-led government to win an election compared to a government that has no tax policy, that is saying no to everything that is put in front of it. With a Prime Minister who is going to walk through that door for question time, the only space the government has to go back to is the 2014 budget. On this side of the House, we have a proud team with wisdom who knows what the Australian public needs. We have a team prepared to work for the Australian people. On that side of House, we have a government going to bring back the diabolical, the cruel unfair measures of the 2014 budget because what they want to do is support the wealthy at the expense of the low- and middle-income earners in this country. I cannot wait to walk through that door with a Shorten-led Labor government.
Capricornia Electorate: Defence
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:47): I am pleased to inform the House that Central Queenslanders will benefit from a plan to spend $190 million on defence infrastructure in the Rockhampton-Livingstone regions in the coming years. The announcement stems from the Turnbull Liberal-Nationals government's white paper for defence.
The funding will upgrade the Shoalwater Bay training area, which is already considered one of the best sites for international military exercises in the Pacific. This facility is located just north of Rockhampton adjoining the Livingstone Shire. Shoalwater Bay will be upgraded to support a range of new land combat and amphibious warfare capabilities over the next decade to 2025-26, representing an investment of up to $150 million. An additional investment of around $40 million is planned for the decade between 2025-26 and 2035-36. New facilities at Shoalwater Bay will support the introduction of new armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance unmanned aircraft in the early 2020s.
In the meantime, I am continuing talks with both the defence minister and assistant minister on a proposal to relocate a contingent of military warfare vehicles at Shoalwater Bay permanently. If it occurs, this would allow military families to be based in Rockhampton, which would help to diversify the city's workforce and would be good for business and schools.
Jagajaga Electorate
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:48): Twenty years ago today I was elected as the member for Jagajaga. No matter what any of us do in public life, our first duty is to our constituents. It was and is an incredible honour to be Jagajaga's local voice in the national parliament. Our community has worked together to make our part of Melbourne a better place to live. One of the first campaigns I ran was the fight to save the Austin Hospital from Jeff Kennett's efforts to privatise it. Today, the Austin Hospital is still in public hands. It has been redeveloped and expanded by a Labor government and it is now a core part of the largest medical, precinct in Australia and I will do anything to protect this hospital.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme that I helped to create will start transforming the lives of people in my community from July this year. In my first speech, I spoke about citizenship. I said:
It means being able to share in the life of the community. It means enjoying a certain level of security. It means belonging.
I am proud to belong to the Jagajaga community. I want to thank you, the people that I represent, for working with me all these years and I look forward to working with you in the years ahead.
Meningococcal B
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:50): I seek leave to table a petition for consideration by the House. I note the petition was certified at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Petitions as being in accordance with the relevant standing orders. The petition calls on the government to include the meningococcal B vaccine on the national immunisation program for children. This position is the result of the near tragic experience of the Parkyn family of Cooltong, a small settlement north of Renmark in my electorate of Barker.
Jazmyn Parkyn, the daughter of Aaron and Sarah Parkyn, exhibited flu-like symptoms on 25 August 2015, which prompted Sarah Parkyn to present Jazmyn to a local GP. Thankfully, two small spots were located during that examination, which prompted an admission to hospital. As the disease spread, Jazmyn was airlifted by med staff from Renmark to Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital—a trip that would ultimately save her life.
Given the similarities between flu-like symptoms and those of meningococcal b, there is a strong case for the vaccine for the meningococcal b to be placed on the national immunisation register, a fact made plain by Jazmyn's near fatal experience. The next Jazmyn may not be so lucky. I commend the Parkyn family and their supporters for pursuing their concerns via this petition. It is an absolute privilege to be able to table it in the House today.
Employment
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:51): Twenty years ago today I was extended to the great privilege of representing the wonderful people of Hunter and I thank them for that honour. Hunter Region is a better, wealthier place and has better infrastructure than it did 20 years ago. Its economy is stronger and more diverse. Unemployment, while rising again unfortunately, is much lower than it was.
But to my frustration, some things have not changed. Chief amongst them is youth and intergenerational unemployment. Amongst the unemployed at those who are effectively born never to work. We cannot fully achieve social cohesion, keep crime rates low or maximise the strength of our economy while ever people are born to be idle. The intervention has to begin in the earliest years and, amongst other things, that means properly resourcing our schools through the Gonski reforms. We have another big challenge ahead; the money we secure for our coal has fallen dramatically, and thousands are losing their jobs. Many are, or will be, 50 years of age or older and, having spent most of their lives in the coalmining industry, hold skills that are not easily transferrable to other vocations.
So we need a plan. First, to establish the case for government intervention; second, to produce a strategy for even greater economic diversity and jobs pathways for those affected by the mining downturn; and third, to develop a robust funding submission for government funding support. Along with my commitment to stronger and better health and education systems, these are my key priorities in this election year. I want to close by thanking my wife, my family and all those who have supported me and, of course, to express my appreciation for the many friendships I have made here.
Ovarian Cancer
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:53): I rise to advise the House about an ovarian cancer fundraiser that was held last Friday, the Ovarian Cancer Cockteal Party, which was organised by Ali Burton from radio station Mix 104.9, who is the Northern Territory ambassador for ovarian cancer. There were 150 or so women and a few men who attended the function, which was about raising awareness and money for this very important cause.
One of the highlights of the evening was hearing from Charlene Ericson, an ovarian cancer survivor who has written a book entitled Battle scars in which she outlines her journey through her ovarian cancer disease and the treatments and things that she had. It was very brave of Charlene to talk about what she had gone through, but we are really pleased that she is still here to tell the story. My gratitude goes to Ali—who, as I said, is the ambassador—but also to Mix 104.9, a local radio station that did enormous work in providing sponsorship and getting people to go along. It is organisations like that that get the message out about ovarian cancer, and it is a very important message.
Supertrawler: Geelong Star
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:54): I take this opportunity to again speak about the ongoing travesty that is occurring in Australia's fisheries and marine environment with the introduction of the foreign supertrawler Geelong Star.
It was only three weeks ago that I spoke about the seven protected albatrosses that were killed in its nets. This vessel has now killed more than nine dolphins, 12 seals and 10 albatrosses, and it has now caught a highly protected whale shark in its gigantic and destructive nets. Whale sharks are gentle giants. As the largest fish in the sea they can reach 12 metres in length and 20 tonnes in weight, and they are protected by law. These protected species, along with other game fish like marlin and the small pelagic fish they rely on for food, form the basis of valuable tourism industries that support thousands of jobs in regional communities up and down the Australian seaboard. Yet they are being destroyed by the controversial foreign factory trawler Geelong Star, which employs fewer staff than the average McDonald's restaurant and sends the vast majority of its profits offshore. To date the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has withheld information from the public regarding the lifting of this highly protected whale shark onto the back deck of the supertrawler. It begs the question: do the government and ACMA believe that highly protected whale sharks are another unavoidable and acceptable bycatch of our fisheries?
The negative impacts of this supertrawler on Australia's unique marine life, fisheries and coastal communities far outweigh any perceived benefits, and I call on the government to listen to the Australian public and intervene to protect these values by permanently banning all supertrawlers from our small pelagic fishery.
Grey Electorate: Woomera and Cultana
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:56): Like many South Australians, I welcome the government's white paper on defence. As a South Australian I took particular note of the commitment to enable the shipbuilding industry, the extent of which will unfold in coming months. But, particularly, I might say, there was special relevance for my electorate in the reinvestment plans in Woomera and the Cultana training facility.
Woomera was once a town of over 6,000 people when our American friends were there. The school has capacity for 1,450 students and it has slipped a bit since then, but this will breathe new life into Woomera—one of the most fascinating towns in Australia with one of the most fascinating histories. The $550 million that is planned to be spent there will enable the testing of the EA-18G Growler electronic attack capability. Many other facilities there will be upgraded. Already the tarmac has been upgraded, and there will be a lot of possibilities for local employment and local contractors to get into the business of rejuvenating Woomera. In the south at Cultana we are also seeing over $80 million spent on that expansion, and I welcome that expenditure as well.
Grayndler Electorate
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:57): Twenty years ago today I had the honour of being elected as the member for Grayndler. I never forget the date because it happened to be my 33rd birthday, and since then I have been proud to represent my local community as the Labor representative and to serve as Deputy Prime Minister, Minister, Leader of the House and shadow minister. For two decades my electorate office in Grayndler has assisted many thousands of people. I thank my staff, my Labor Party members and the voters of Grayndler for giving me the ongoing privilege of serving here. Most of all I thank my family, who give up a lot when we are here, and I thank Carmel and Nathan.
In my first speech I said:
I will be satisfied if I can be remembered as someone who will stand up for the interests of my electorate, for working class people, for the labour movement and for our progressive advancement as a nation into the next century.
Now that we are in the next century my values remain the same, and I look forward to continuing to serve—however, on the other side of the House—after the next election.
Petition: Refugee Intake and Resettlement
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:59): I congratulate the members for Hunter, Grayndler and Jagajaga on their 20 years of service. They have been a credit to the institution of this parliament.
Today I ask your indulgence to present this petition with signatures from 17,000 petitioners that have been collected by Jess Hackett, who walked the 700 kilometres from Melbourne to Canberra to make her point about the plight of refugees in this country. Jess was able to gather these 17,000 signatures from people from around her community and along the way as she walked from Melbourne to Canberra. On the way she received the hospitality that can only be delivered by country Australians—in every hamlet she went to she was embraced by the local community, taken into their homes and treated like a queen. Congratulations, Jess! As a young schoolteacher representing your school you are the epitome of what the Australian personality is all about, making a point about refugees by walking all the way from Melbourne to Canberra and striding up those front lawns the way you did, walking with the 'grandmothers for refugees'—though I do not know whether that was your final desire. But, Jess, you are a proud Australian, and we thank you. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
Refugee Intake and Resettlement
To The Honourable The Speaker And Members Of The House Of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the generosity of the people of Australia. We are a nation that values mateship and giving people a fair go no matter where they are from. It makes us feel helpless to think that there are people out there who have to flee their homes and are often torn apart from their families. It makes us feel helpless because we are unable to do our bit to welcome asylum seekers and refugees. We want to build positive relationships with asylum seekers who will enrich our diverse culture, our sense of solidarity and assist our economy's growth.
We therefore ask the House to:
increase the number of refugees to be accepted for resettlement
abolish closed detention centres and resettle those living there in Australia. As an alternative, establish reception centres on the mainland to allow us to provide support to the most vulnerable
process people in a timely and humane way no matter how they arrive and ensure that there is a fair and adequate appeal system
treat every refugee and every asylum seeker as you would want a citizen of Australia to be treated if they were in the same situation
from 17,271 citizens
(Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): by leave—For the information of the House I present a revised list of the shadow ministry. In addition to his responsibilities as shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the member for Gorton will now be the shadow Special Minister of State. The member for Brand will retain his responsibilities as shadow minister for resources and shadow minister for Northern Australia.
The document read as follows—
SHADOW MINISTRY LIST
2 March 201 6
TITLE |
SHADOW MINISTER |
OTHER CHAMBER |
Leader of the Opposition |
Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on State and Territory Relations |
Senator Katy Gallagher* |
Hon Bill Shorten MP* |
Shadow Minister for Women Manager of Opposition Business (Senate) |
Senator Claire Moore |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Cabinet Secretary Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the O pposition |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition |
Hon Michael Danby MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting with Digital Innovation and Startups |
Hon Ed Husic MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition Deputy Manager of Opposition Business (Senate) |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition |
Terri Butler M |
|
Deputy Leader of the Opposition |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development |
|
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs |
Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
|
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
|
Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment |
|
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade and Investment |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
|
Shadow Minister for Defence |
|
Hon David Feeney MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence |
Hon David Feeney MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs |
Hon David Feeney MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
Hon David Feeney MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence |
Gai Brodtmann MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport |
Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Minister for Cities |
|
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Minister for Tourism |
|
Senator Carol Brown |
Shadow Minister for Northern Australia |
Hon Gary Gray AO MP |
Senator Claire Moore* |
Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government |
Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Western Australia |
Hon Alannah MacTiernan MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
|
Shadow Treasurer |
Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister for Small Business |
Michelle Rowland MP |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Assistant Treasurer |
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Minister for Competition |
|
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Productivity |
|
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer |
Hon Ed Husic MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business |
Julie Owens MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Finance Manager of Opposition Business (House) |
Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Special Minister of State |
Hon Brendan O’Connor MP |
Senator Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water |
Hon Mark Butler MP |
Senator the Hon Lisa Singh |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water |
Senator the Hon Lisa Singh |
|
Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Industry |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Hon Sharon Bird MP |
Shadow Minister for Vocational Education |
Hon Sharon Bird MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Higher Education |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing |
Nick Champion MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Communications |
Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Attorney General |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Minister for the Arts Deputy Manager of Opposition Business (House) |
|
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Minister for Justice |
Hon David Feeney MP |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General |
Graham Perrett MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts |
Hon Michael Danby MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Education |
Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood |
|
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Education |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education |
Julie Owens MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Youth |
Senator Sam Dastyari |
|
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Minister for Rural Affairs |
|
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Minister for Resources |
Hon Gary G ray AO MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Shadow Minister for Health |
Hon Catherine King MP |
Senator Katy Gallagher* |
Shadow Minister for Ageing |
Hon Shayne Neumann MP |
Senator Helen Polley |
Shadow Minister for Mental Health |
Senator Katy Gallagher |
Hon Catherine King MP |
Shadow Minister for Sport |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Senator Katy Gallagher* |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Health |
Stephen Jones MP |
Senator Katy Gallagher* |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health |
Tony Zappia MP |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care |
Senator Helen Polley |
|
Shadow Minister for Families and Payments |
Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Senator Claire Moore |
Shadow Minister for Disability Reform |
|
Senator Claire Moore |
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness |
Senator Katy Gallagher* |
Hon Catherine King MP |
Shadow Minister for Human Services |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Shadow Minister for Carers |
Senator Claire Moore |
Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Shadow Minister for Communities |
|
Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments |
Senator Carol Brown |
|
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Child Safety and Prevention of Family Violence |
Terri Butler MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection |
Hon Richard Marles MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism |
Michelle Rowland MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration |
Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs |
Hon Shayne Neumann MP |
Senator Claire Moore* |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
|
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations |
Hon Brendan O’Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Minister for Employment Services |
Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
* Senator Katy Gallagher’s appointment to the Shadow Ministry is effective from 1 November 2015. Senator the Hon Jan McLucas will serve as Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness and Shadow Minister for Mental Health, and represent the Shadow Minister for Northern Australia, the Shadow Minister for Health, the Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, the Shadow Minister for Sport and the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Senate until 31 October 2015.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to newspaper reports today which contain leaked national security documents and which also extensively quote the member for Warringah. This morning the Leader of the House said:
There are no more classified documents than ones that are in the National Security Committee.
He also said:
The government will take this leak to the Australian very seriously.
Given the seriousness of this matter, has this national security breach been referred to the Australian Federal Police?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that the Secretary of the Department of Defence has advised me that he has initiated an investigation, which will obviously be conducted by the Australian Federal Police, into the apparent leak of the classified documents that were referred to in the newspaper.
I should also advise the House that the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force have advised the defence minister and myself today that their consistent advice to the government since 2013 has been that it was highly unlikely the first of the future submarines could be delivered by 2026, and an extension of life for the Collins class submarine would almost certainly be required. The secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force further advised us that a study commissioned by the defence minister confirmed in 2012 that an extension of life for the Collins submarine was feasible and practical. The Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force have, since that time, worked on the basis that an extension of life would be undertaken as the only practical option to ensure that there was no capability gap between the Collins and the future submarines.
Economy
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan for Australia to make a successful transition to the new economy? How is steady and responsible economic management contributing to positive trends in investment, jobs and growth?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:03): I thank the honourable member for his question. The enthusiasm with which his constituents in Tasmania are embracing the opportunities opened up by the new free trade agreements, especially with China, is absolutely palpable when visiting his constituents.
The greatest challenge facing us today, the greatest opportunity, is the transition from the historic highs of the resources investment boom into the new economy for the 21st century. That is why every lever of my government is focused on driving innovation, investment and the take-up of new technologies and opening global markets to create new and better jobs for all Australians. It is why, since I became the Prime Minister, I have been relentlessly focused on assuring Australians that they can be confident—they should be excited—about the opportunities this transition to the new economy presents. In the face of what we recognise as global headwinds, nonetheless our economy, confident and strong, continues to transition from the mining-construction boom and grow. Real GDP grew by 0.6 per cent in the December quarter and by a strong three per cent compared to a year ago. We are growing faster than every other economy in the G7 and growing well above the OECD average. Key drivers of economic growth in the December quarter included household consumption, new housing construction and services exports, more than offsetting the continuing declines in resources investment as the mining-construction boom declines—as it always was going to do.
The road to the new economy is an exciting one. It offers enormous opportunities. But global uncertainty and some strong economic headwinds mean that we have to take the right decisions to ensure the economy continues to transition and grow. So in December we launched our $1.1 billion Innovation and Science Agenda to bring more Australian ideas to market, incentivise entrepreneurs and invest more in education and research. We provided incentives to invest—real incentives to invest; tax incentives to invest. I can only note that those opposite want to increase the tax on successful investments by 50 per cent.
The defence white paper, launched last week, provides the blueprint for our national security for decades to come and a plan to create jobs and spur innovation and new technologies. Our commitment is a successful transition to the new economy. We have the plan. We know how to get there. We have the commitment to ensure this is the most exciting future for Australians. (Time expired)
Defence Procurement
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer and I refer him to the member for Warringah's comments reported in The Australian today where he said that he was 'flabbergasted' at the decision to see these submarines delayed. The member for Warringah goes on to say we need the decision 'swiftly' made so we can 'get the new subs from the middle of the next decade.' He goes on to say that the Collins class have 'a fragile capability'. Prime Minister, is the member for Warringah wrong?
Mr Dutton: How many did Labor order?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration will cease interjecting, as will members on my left.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:07): I thank the honourable member for his question. The Chief of the Defence Force confirmed yesterday, as honourable members would have noted, that there has been no delay to the Future Submarine Program. The actual delivery date of the first future submarine will depend, naturally, on the outcome of the competitive evaluation process which is underway, and that reality has not changed. The Chief of the Defence Force confirmed that Defence analysis indicates that all of the Collins-class submarines will require upgrades before the introduction of the future submarine. One or two may need to be put through an additional full-cycle docking, which is a deeper level of maintenance.
Since coming to government the coalition has commenced a competitive evaluation process for our future submarines, future frigates and offshore patrol vessels. We have tenders underway for Australian industry to build the replacement Pacific patrol boats. Unlike those opposite, who slashed $18 billion from Defence spending—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Wakefield have been interjecting frequently, as I have said. They are both warned. I call the manager of opposition business.
Mr Burke: The question goes to—
The SPEAKER: No, the Manager of Opposition Business needs to state his point of order.
Mr Burke: It is on direct relevance because the question goes to a matter of national security as to whether the previous Prime Minister is accurate or not in his statements with respect to the Collins-class submarine.
The SPEAKER: Yes, I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business—
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon is warned as well. I am not going to have interjections while I am addressing a point of order or addressing the House. I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order. I do not agree. There were lengthy quotes within the question, but the Prime Minister has been on that policy topic the entire answer. When questions like that are asked, he is entitled to remain on that policy topic as he has. At no point has he strayed from it. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: The Labor governments delayed 119 Defence projects, degraded 43 and cancelled eight. Contrary to that approach, we are getting on with the job and providing the certainty that Australia's defence industry lost under Labor.
Labor sat on its hands when it came to the Future Submarine Program. Despite including future submarines in their 2009 white paper, they did nothing at all for six years in government. They delayed the project and announced they would not make a decision until after the 2013 election. Labor failed to commission a single naval vessel from any Australian yard during their entire time in office. They failed to make the decisions needed to avoid the valley of death in our shipbuilding industry.
We are getting on with the job. We are playing catch-up after years of Labor neglect. Our commitment is to support our economy in transition from the mining construction boom. It will promote more jobs and greater growth. It will promote innovation. Three hundred thousand new jobs were added to our economy in the last 12 months. The growth figures I mentioned a moment ago demonstrate that there is confidence and growth in our national economy. The defence white paper and the commitments made therein will ensure that we have a strong defence industry, unlike the way in which Labor neglected it during their six lost years—years lost to investment in Australian defence, years lost to supporting innovation in defence technology, years lost in ensuring Australia is secure.
Economy
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (14:07): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the latest national accounts provide further evidence of the growing strength of the Australian economy and how we are transitioning to a more diversified economy? How is the sound economic management of the government promoting further jobs and growth in our economy?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:07): I thank the member for Barton for his question. I also thank him for his tremendous service to this parliament as the member for Barton. Today's December quarter national accounts demonstrate once again that Australia is making the successful transition of its economy from the investment phase of the mining boom to a broader based economy. This is happening. It shows that our economy is growing. It grew at three per cent last year through the year and 0.6 per cent for the December quarter, exceeding expectations, which were far less.
This has been particularly through the strength of domestic household consumption backed up by the increased confidence that we have seen out there amongst consumers, particularly over the last six months. Dwelling investment improved some 12.1 per cent, the vast majority of which in this last quarter has been in the apartment market, which we know is more predominant amongst investors and particularly negative-gearing investors. Rural exports are up 13 per cent over the course of this past year. Service exports are doing very strongly at eight per cent growth, as I reported to the House yesterday. This will all be further encouraged and supported in the years going forward in our service exports and our other, more general export performance by the trade agreements which have been completed by this government.
There were more than 300,000 jobs generated last year, and we see why: because the economy is successfully transitioning. It is growing faster than the G7. It is growing faster than the OECD. It is growing at twice the rate of resource based economies like Canada. At three per cent, we are matching with economies like South Korea. We are working together as a country to ensure that we successfully transition our economy and we are doing it as a nation. It is the biggest challenge facing our nation and our national economy to ensure that we continue to manage this transition well.
What that requires in its next phase is to continue to encourage investment, and you do not do that by putting big taxes on investment like those opposite plan to do. What you do is what happened in the last budget: we increased the tax advantages, particularly for small businesses, and the instant asset write-off and those measures. As we go forward, we ensure that we continue wherever possible to do the right thing by businesses. In the innovation statement, we introduced new tax concessions and capital gains tax exemptions for new start-ups, because to get through this next phase we are going to need the productivity growth that comes from innovation.
I tell you what you also do not do: if you want to ensure that we continue to successfully manage this transition, you do not tax and spend like those opposite, because that is not a plan for jobs and growth. It is not a plan to transition the economy. This is the biggest challenge facing this economy and their tax expense budget (Time expired)
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will cease interjecting as will the Leader of the house. The member for McMahon has the call.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's Australian Financial Review reports that the Prime Minister is preparing to overrule the Treasurer in addressing the excesses in negative gearing. I quote a coalition MP:
Scott's definitely keeping it as a live option but the Prime Minister has effectively made up his mind.
Prime Minister, given the Treasurer has absolutely zero impact on the government's economic policy, isn't this proof that the Treasurer is one excess that the government can deal with?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to the question when it comes to negative gearing. When I was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and prior to that, I got some very good advice from General Molan.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I am going to call the Treasurer in a second; the Treasurer can just resume his seat for a second. I remind members of what I have said about persistent interjectors. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. General Molan gave me some very good advice—I wish those opposite had taken it. What he said is: you don't rush to failure. And that is what we have seen from those opposite when it comes to negative gearing. Because what those opposite have done is they have rushed out with a cobbled together policy which the shadow Treasurer says they were developing for eight months—something he neglected to tell the Leader of the Opposition just 12 months and nine months ago. They have rushed out with a policy which will ensure that one in three purchases of real estate in this country will be removed from the existing residential real estate market.
They have rushed to failure on this; but, by contrast, on this side of the House, we continue to work steadfastly and considerately through the options that are available to the government to look at the challenges that we face. And we will look at options. We will consider their impact on the economy and, particularly, on the markets that they may impact and then we will come to a considered decision.
What we will not do, which is what they have done, is cobble together a policy on negative gearing that will punish the nurses, the paramedics, the police officers, the servicemen and women of this country, the tram drivers, the train drivers and all of those who are the predominant users of negative gearing in this country. They think they are the problem, but we know they are the answer. It is these investors—it is these mums and dads, these people—who are working every day in our economy to make the transition of our economy a success. But those opposite, what they want to do is tax them and they want to keep taxing them whether it is a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax or the other higher taxes they are putting on across the board. However, it is for only one reason they want to continue to tax: they cannot walk or move away from their addiction to spending. Those opposite will spend silly, if they are given the opportunity, and to ensure that they continue to do that, they will tax you as high as they can. That is no way to manage the transition of our economy.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Denison, there are a couple of matters I want to address. I say to the member for McMahon, indeed to all members asking questions, whilst his last question had extensive quotes—and I am pragmatic enough to realise questions will have tag lines—some of the language is stretching beyond my tolerance. Because I want to be fair about it, I am not always going to allow a question to stand even when the minister is prepared to answer and the Leader of the House is not objecting. I am not comfortable with it and I am giving fair warning now. I am not going to allow an opportunity to rephrase either in some circumstances, if it warrants.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:20): The member for Denison, if you could just bear with me for one second—I am not going to forget you, I promise. We have a number of former members in the gallery this afternoon. I can see the former member for Hasluck, Stuart Henry; the former member for La Trobe, Mr Bob Charles; former Senator Brownhill; and the former member for Wentworth, Mr Thomson. Welcome. I am sure there might be others—they are the ones I have been told about. If others appear, I will get lots of notes as I usually do.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Gambling
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:20): My question is specifically to the Prime Minister, because the community wants to hear his answer. Prime Minister, I have just given notice of a private member's bill to combat poker machine problem gambling that would implement the Productivity Commission recommendations of $1 maximum bets and mandatory precommitment. Seeing as problem gamblers lose $5 billion annually and suffer terribly to the parasites in the poker machine industry—something you are on the record as being concerned with—will you support the bill or at least allow a debate on it?
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will cease interjecting—he interjected right through the question. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr TURNBULL ( Wentworth — Prime Minister ) ( 14 : 21 ): I thank the honourable member for his question and I recognise his long interest in this topic. The government recognises that, while most people gamble responsibly, gambling is a major social problem for some Australians. We recognise that the laws governing gambling are of course within the powers of state and territory parliaments who licence premises and poker machines. That is why the Commonwealth has abolished the national gambling regulator and restored control of gaming machine regulation to the states. They have that jurisdiction clearly and plainly.
We are nonetheless very interested in working with industry, state and territory governments and other key stakeholders to ensure that there are implemented practical solutions that will reduce problem gambling.
Mr Wilkie: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The state governments have shown that they cannot be trusted.
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison will resume his seat if he cannot state the point of order.
Mr TURNBULL: I thank the honourable member also for his views on federation, but we are a federation. Mr Speaker, I would invite the Minister for Human Services to elaborate on the government's approach on this topic.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (14:23): Thank you, Prime Minister. I also thank the member for the question directed to the Prime Minister.
I am aware of the member's private member's bill and the two key provisions in that bill which go to mandatory precommitments and to dollar bets. In relation to mandatory precommitments, it was something that we had considered in the past, and we had rejected it. In part, that was because in essence it requires a licence to gamble. We know that the other side is serious about this, as are you, but we are not, because we know that most people indeed do gamble responsibly and do not necessarily need to register themselves to put a couple of dollars in a machine.
In relation to dollar bets, this was considered by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission did find that 99 per cent of poker machines today are not technically capable of introducing dollar bets. Consequently, it would cost $1.5 billion to implement.
I will also just re-emphasise what the Prime Minister said: this is largely governed by state and territory jurisdictions. They licence the machines, they regulate the machines and they are responsible for their operation. We of course take gambling problems very seriously. We put considerable funds into financial counsellors which support people with problem gambling, as well as into gambling research. I think the problems of the future will come from the online environment. As you would be aware we have an inquiry into that, and we will be responding to that shortly.
Building and Construction Industry
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of a well-regulated building and construction industry to help create new jobs and growth in the economy? What evidence is there that the building and construction industry is less productive than it could be?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:22): I thank the member for Dobell for her question. I know that she, like everyone on this side of House, takes a well-regulated building and construction industry very seriously. The building and construction industry is one of the most critical and important parts of our national economy. In fact, in 2015 it was 7.7 per cent of real GDP.
In 2013 Independent Economics handed down a paper on the building and construction industry and the effect of the Australian Building and Construction Commission when it was in existence. It found that the building and construction industry productivity grew by nine per cent and more when the ABCC was in existence. Consumers benefited to the tune of more than $7½ billion a year when the ABCC was operating, and there were fewer working days lost through industrial action when the ABCC was on the beat.
The economy is in transition. Everyone on this side of the House knows that. This side of the House is best placed to manage that transition. We have the right team to manage that transition to a new economy. We need all parts of the economy working and firing. We cannot afford to have any lagging, but the building and construction industry continues to lag.
The evidence that building and construction industry needs reforming was provided by the Heydon royal commission. That found systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments, physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of right-of-entry permits, secondary boycotts, contempt of court and that a culture of wilful defiance of the law appears to lie at the core of the CFMEU.
That evidence alone is enough for people to support the Australian Building and Construction Commission, but it is not enough for the Labor Party to change their position. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister, was responsible for removing the ABCC. Apparently the unions asked him to do it and three days later he decided it was a good idea. He did not go through any of the usual processes of policy by which cabinet deals with issues; he simply paid the piper who was calling the tune.
This weekend the Leader of the Opposition is going back to the Gold Coast to be with his friends in the CFMEU. He will be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them and the MUA, praising the good work that they do in the industrial sector and shouting from the rooftops his pride to be a CFMEU supporter. It is time the Leader of the Opposition grew out of his union boss persona and recognised that if he wants to be an alternative Prime Minister he needs to support the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill that is in the Senate. It will clean up building and construction; it will improve productivity and create jobs and growth. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:28): My question is to the Treasurer. Today the Treasurer said, in reference to Labor's negative gearing reforms: 'Obviously, those who are more engaged in negative gearing have higher incomes than those who are on modest incomes'. Is the Treasurer aware that that is the point?
The SPEAKER: I will allow the Treasurer to address the question, but I again—for the last time—caution the member for McMahon.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:29): Mr Speaker, I thank you for that. I thank the member for his question and for the opportunity to talk about those on high incomes and negative gearing. Those opposite have a policy which allows those who have large investment incomes through shared dividends and things like that, after the changes are put in place, to continue to be able to buy existing properties and to offset the net rental losses against their investment incomes.
What that means is, if you are a CEO of a big company—and you could be on several million dollars a year; you could be pulling down over $100,000 a year in dividend income that comes from your shares—you can go down the road and you can buy an investment property, an existing property, and you can offset the net rental losses from that property against your investment income from the big share dividends you get as a result of the salary packaging that you have. But, if you are a nurse, if you are a teacher, if you are a police officer, if you are a paramedic, if you are a Defence Force member, if you are any of these and you want to go down and do exactly the same thing as the CEO on $2 million and over $100,000 a year in share income, then you cannot do that—you cannot offset that net rental loss against your wage income.
Those opposite think this is a fair measure, but what it shows is that, once again, they do not think it through. They never think these things through. They have turned rushing to failure into an art form on that side of the House, because they just do not consider the consequences of the decisions that they are making. They do not consider the consequences: that, under their policy, everyone who buys a new home—a first home buyer, an owner-occupier—as soon as they put the key in the door of that new property, it turns it into an old property, and immediately it is like driving the new car off the lot. People out there know what that means. If you drive a new car off the lot after you have bought one, you know it depreciates in value. Under their policy, that is what it does. They never think these things though.
If you are trying to manage a transitioning economy, you cannot afford that sort of recklessness. That is why, whether it is on innovation policy or targeted infrastructure policy or ensuring that small businesses are getting the right opportunity to work, save and invest, on this side of the House we know what it means to manage a transitioning economy, and we are seeing it happen under our administration.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of a well-regulated building and construction industry to decisions investors make about Australia as an attractive place to do business?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:32): I thank the member for Wright for his question. I know the member for Wright, like all members on this side of the chamber, is very committed to a well-regulated building and construction industry. Frankly, it stands in contrast to the opposition. But can I go very directly to the question that was asked. This government understands the strong link between a well-regulated building and construction industry and foreign investment and the ability of foreign investment to drive jobs and growth in the Australian economy. We welcome foreign investment into this country to help develop opportunities, to help drive jobs and to help drive growth. But it is crucial, in order for investors to have confidence, that they must know, when they invest in an Australian project, that their investment will be subject to a strong regulatory framework. The Howard government understood this, and that is the precise reason why the Howard government introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission, so that we had a strong cop on the beat, as was recommended by the Cole royal commission.
Unfortunately, though, what we saw was that the political arm of the Australian trade union movement, the Australian Labor Party, abolished that. They abolished the ABCC, and what was the consequence? We saw almost immediately industrial disputation going up. We saw lawlessness come back. And the Heydon royal commission clearly demonstrated that there was thuggery involved. Those opposite now go to great lengths to defend the thuggery that we see in the industry. This side of the chamber is absolutely committed to reinstate the ABCC. But what does the opposition say? What do we know the member for Gorton had to say when he was asked about the culture in the industry? He turned around and he said, 'It's a rough and tough industry.' That is their attitude when it comes to regulation of the building and construction industry.
When we saw, for example, fines that were imposed on the CFMEU and five officials for blocking a Queensland government housing project site in Brisbane, Justice Logan said:
The individual respondents in this case are exemplars of the union organisers and delegates displaying a disregard or contempt for the rule of law.
What do those opposite say? 'It's a rough and tough industry.' That is the message that we continue to see the Labor Party send to international investors. When we saw fines imposed on the CFMEU and its officials for breaching right-of-entry laws at Sydney domestic airport, Justice Flick said:
They behaved in a manner which was abusive and misleading. Their conduct can only be described as contemptuous of the limits to their power and the people on site with whom they were dealing.
What do opposition members say? 'It's a rough and tough industry.' That attitude will never welcome investors. That is not the guarantee investors are looking for, and we will provide a well-regulated industry. (Time expired)
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting, as will the member for Chifley. They are both warned.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Taxation
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports today that the current Prime Minister is preparing to cave into the former Prime Minister and protect what his own Treasurer described as the 'excesses' in negative gearing. Prime Minister, are these reports accurate and will this be a co-captain's call?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will just resume his seat for a second. Whilst I have said to the House—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Those on my right will cease interjecting—that a very strict reading of the standing orders would rule most questions out of order, and it has been the practice of the House for years, in fact decades—
Mr Swan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley can leave under 94(a).
The member for Lilley then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I have made it very clear that, when I am addressing the House, I am not going to have members interjecting. Otherwise, I will simply move to the next question.
A very strict ruling of the standing orders would rule most questions out of order, but, for practicalities, speakers over years, indeed decades, have been more lenient. I have already flagged that the tag lines to some of these questions are pushing it beyond what I am comfortable with. I have said that to the member for McMahon. The member for Sydney heard me. I think the last part of that question, in particular, is over the line, in terms of ironical expressions and the rest, and I am not going to allow it. The Prime Minister can address the first part of the question. If there is a repeat of it, the entire question will be ruled out of order and I will move to the next question.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:37): As the honourable member understands, the policy that she and her colleagues are proposing on negative gearing will have the consequence of ensuring that a person on average income—such as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman or a member of the Leader of the Opposition's former union—would not be able to get a tax deduction for the net rental loss on an investment property that they purchased if it was offset against their income. That is the object of their policy. When I raised that with her, yesterday, she gave a consoling interjection where she said under a Labor government these hardworking Australians—over a million of them are investing in investment property, now, just doing this—will not be able to do that in the future. They will not be able to make any new investments—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Honourable members say it is not true. They should change their policy. They establish properties, which is the vast majority of real estate, they will not be able to invest in. The member for Sydney's consolation was to say, 'They can always buy their own home.' Isn't it good that the Labor Party is not going to ban that. It really is good.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is warned.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am mindful of your previous ruling with respect to the fact that you cannot be aware of all personal explanations that are being given.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Burke: Under standing order 68 that a personal explanation has been given on this exact issue and the Prime Minister is simply repeating the information, which has previously been established in the House as inaccurate.
The SPEAKER: I was here for the personal explanation. This is, as I said to the House a week or so ago, it is obviously a new standing order that was adopted after the last election. The former speaker made a ruling on it that I concur with. The most important part of that ruling, as far as the Manager of Opposition Business is concerned, is it requires the member concerned to raise the point of order. That is the most important part. Without going over every part of what I said a week ago, and what was said in this House by the former speaker, it is a difficult standing order. In this case, where it relates to an interjection where the member for Sydney should not have been interjecting, it is unreasonable—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned. Apart from the fact it is difficult enough to know every word that is being said, it is unreasonable to expect the Hansard reporters to capture every part of an interjection, so I have very little tolerance on this point of standing order 68 being used to justify continual interjections.
Mr TURNBULL: Under the socialist paradise offered by the Labor Party, after the next election, teachers, policemen and nurses will still be able to go to the bank and borrow money to buy a home to live in. That will still be allowed. But they will not be allowed to go to the bank and borrow money to buy an established property to rent it out unless they are prepared to pay for any losses on that property out of their after-tax income. So naturally that is not a very attractive proposition. However, even the plans of the central planners, over, there will come awry because, in their haste, they have overlooked the fact that, of course, somebody with a large investment income under their plan—which is unlikely to be a teacher, a nurse or a policeman—will be able to offset net rental losses against their large investment income. The levelling instincts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have just gone askew, here. She has missed her mark yet again. What she will do, what Labor will do, is undermine the value of the family home—the single largest asset class in Australia.
Australian Defence Force
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:43): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the vital role that the Australian Defence Force plays in creating jobs and growth in rural and regional Australia? How will the government's defence white paper and Defence Industry Policy Statement secure that role in years to come in my electorate of Capricornia and around Australia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister) (14:43): I thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously, coming from Rockhampton and having Shoalwater Bay near to her is extremely important not only for her electorate but also for the defence of our nation and the defence exercises that go on there with our close allies. The United States will get great use of some of the expenditure that is going to be appropriated to the member for Capricornia's seat—expenditure such as the Shoalwater Bay training area, which will be upgraded to support the range of new land combat and amphibious warfare capabilities over the next decade to 2025-26, representing an investment of $150 million.
There will be an additional investment of a further $40 million as planned for the decade between 2025-26 to 2035-36. New facilities at Shoalwater Bay training area will support the introduction of new armed intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance of unmanned aircraft in the early 2020s. It will be conceived throughout regional Australia that we have substantial investment that is of benefit not only to the Defence Force but also to regional areas.
In the seat of Durack, where Melissa Price is the member—and it is also good to see Brendan Grylls here today—there will be upgrades at Learmonth and Exmouth to support the new strike and air combat capabilities, including the new F35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the new KC30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft.
We can see it also in the seat of Grey, where we have upgrades to the Woomera Range Complex. This is no doubt incredibly important to Rowan Ramsey, the member there. In the seat of Groom, the retiring member Ian Macfarlane will be proud to see that we have further investments in Oakey and Cabarlah barracks to support land force capabilities. There will be around $100 million in that area.
What I do like to see is that my good friend and colleague the member for Riverina has really struck the jackpot, because he has the upgrading of a range of support bases and recruitment training facilities such as the Army Recruit Training Centre at Blamey Barracks, at Kapooka and the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Wagga. In fact, I have been adding it up and the member for Riverina will be pleased that investment at Kapooka is $400 million to 2025-26 and at the RAAF Base Wagga it is around $400 million for the same period. That is $800 million there. On top of that, the member for Riverina gets a further $40 million invested for the RAAF and another $120 million at Kapooka. He is getting close to a billion dollars invested in the seat of Riverina. All in all it is a good thing for the Australian Defence Force and a very good thing for regional Australian country members.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley, this is your final warning.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:46): I have been advised by a number of members in the chamber that there are a number of state MPs from various states. I would like to welcome them. They include the state member for Kiama, Mr Gareth Ward and the state member for Hornsby, Mr Matt Kean. I welcome them and other state parliamentary colleagues.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:47): My question is to the Treasurer. Today, in opposing Labor's reforms to negative gearing, the Treasurer described negative gearing as 'an entirely legitimate practice to offset the cost of earning an income against that income'. Is the Treasurer aware that that is not actually negative gearing and is a practice unaffected by Labor's policy? Does the Treasurer actually know what negative gearing is?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:47): The member opposite has just demonstrated again why those opposite are not able to manage a transitioning economy, if they cannot manage the most basic of concepts. In today's national accounts—this is the real issue today—0.8 per cent was the quarterly growth in household final consumption, and there was 2.2 per cent growth in dwelling investment. I raise those two points for a particular reason. One of the reasons our economy is performing so well at the moment is the confidence in the household sector. What those opposite would do, with their policy, when it comes to the most important asset that Australians own—their own home—is that they would undermine confidence. They would undermine confidence in their own financial position, which is the reason that currently, with the reverse of that—with the increase in confidence—we are seeing the household sector perform so strongly.
Of the 0.6 per cent growth in the economy in that last quarter, the contribution of the household sector was 0.4 per cent. But the other one I highlighted is dwelling investment. I know you are not interested in the economy—
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question goes quite specifically to the definition of negative gearing. The Treasurer, by going nowhere near that, is actually answering the question in a pretty emphatic way.
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. I think the member for Adelaide was interjecting. If she was, she will cease interjecting. I can recognise voices much better than when I first became Speaker.
I do not agree with the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business, and I am going to say why. I had cautioned the member for McMahon about his questions, and it had a lot of information in it. It had an ironical expression at the end.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: That does offend the standing orders. And I am going to be as lenient on the minister as I was on the member for McMahon. He is on the policy topic.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: there is nothing ironic, given the quote that was given, in asking whether the Treasurer knows what negative gearing is. The quote went specifically to—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned.
Mr Burke: describing negative gearing by a definition that is not negative gearing, and therefore it is asking whether he knows what it is. That is not ironic; it is a very specific question—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will stop interjecting. The Treasurer is still on the policy topic and I am listening carefully to him, but I have cautioned on some of the questions and I am flagging it up-front. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr MORRISON: I know those at home are less interested in the schoolboy debating tricks of those opposite. What those on this side of the House are interested in is what is happening in the real economy in Australia—and the jobs that are being created, and the innovation that is being unleashed, and the support that is going in for small business but particularly in relation to dwelling investment. With dwelling investment we had a 2.2 per cent growth in the December quarter. The predominant component of that growth was actually in the apartment market. And do you know who buys investment apartments predominantly, Mr Speaker? Investors. Investors are the ones who buy apartments. And one of the reasons that they buy apartments is that they can sell them to someone else, on the other side—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: And what those opposite are proposing is that those who would invest in apartments, those who would create the rental stock and make it available for the 30 per cent of people who rent in this country—they are saying to them, 'Not only are we going to take one of three out of the purchasers who might buy your property out of the market but we are also going to increase the capital gains tax on your gain by 50 per cent.' If those opposite cannot understand that that would not have a terrible impact on the sort of numbers that we are seeing in here in the December quarter national accounts, and if they do not understand that that puts at risk the transitioning of our economy, then they simply do not get it.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. The member for Gorton was interjecting loudly into my left ear. He is now warned. I remind the member for Sydney that she has been warned and should not keep interjecting if she wishes to remain in the chamber.
Cybersecurity
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister advise the House on what the government is doing to strengthen Australia's cybersecurity capabilities?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:52): I thank the member for Calare for his question and acknowledge his role as chair of the government policy committee on foreign affairs. As he well knows, the issue of cybersecurity is one of the major global security challenges of our time. Malevolent online actors include terrorist organisations, transnational criminal networks and governments. Cyberattacks range from hacking to obtain sensitive information and gaining control of computer networks to destructive capabilities that can bring down essential services or, indeed, cripple government operations. This cyberthreat to Australia is unrelenting and continues to grow.
The Australian Signals Directorate detected more than 1,200 cyberattacks against Australian interests in 2015. The targets included Australian government agencies and companies, particularly in defence industries and in energy, banking and finance, communications and transport sectors. To counter this growing cyberthreat, the government is bolstering our national cybersecurity capabilities. Indeed, the 2016 Defence white paper includes a commitment to strengthen our cybersecurity capabilities through an investment of up to $400 million over the next decade. This means stronger protections for government and private sector networks.
The government will also establish a $30 million industry-led Cyber Security Growth Centre that will bring together industry, researchers and governments to develop an overarching cybersecurity plan to coordinate research, development and innovation in this vital area of national security. The Cyber Security Growth Centre will create significant business and employment opportunities for Australia's cybersecurity industries. That means there will be more jobs to protect us as part of this joint effort at improving online security for all Australians. We aim to be a global leader and attract international investment in this area.
Australia is also helping to shape the global response to cybersecurity challenges. We are an active participant in the United Nations processes to develop norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. I have represented Australia's interests at various international fora that are looking at this question of cybersecurity and how to prevent cyberattacks. So the government is responding vigorously to the threat of cyberattacks. It is a key part of our efforts to safeguard our national security.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:55): My question is to the Treasurer. Today, when asked about negative gearing excesses, the Treasurer redefined 'excesses' and said that they are now 'enthusiasms'. Given the government has refused to tell Australians and the House what the excesses in negative gearing are, will the Treasurer now outline what the enthusiasms are?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, is it in order for the question to now verbal the Treasurer and pretend that he said something he did not say and then demand that he had a response to that? You have been very lenient. We have been lenient on the government side and not taken points of order. But their question time strategy is in complete disarray and they need to get themselves in order.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I am ready to rule on the subject. The Leader of the House raises a point of order that, essentially, relates to factual accuracy. As I think I addressed the House a fortnight or so ago, I am going to adopt the approach that Speaker Andrew adopted, in that I cannot assess the factual accuracy of questions if questions are factually inaccurate. That will be worn by the questioner. In denying a question where there is an alleged factual inaccuracy, as Speaker Andrew pointed out, I am also denying the minister an opportunity to refute it if they wish. So I am going to allow the question, and I call the Treasurer.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:57): I referred today to the distribution of those who are engaged in incurring net rental losses across the income space and the various occupations that they have, and things of that nature. I said 'You can call them excesses,' 'You can call them enthusiasms'—you can call them whatever you like. They can refer to it as ever they wish. I simply made the point that across the income spectrum different Australians engage with negative gearing at different levels of activity. There is no great shock about that.
The thing that those opposite seem to constantly fail to understand is that the overwhelming majority of Australians who are engaging in negative gearing are ordinary mums and dads just trying to make their way and provide for their future. They go out and buy an investment property, an existing property, typically—what those opposite want to stop them doing. They want to stop ordinary people—nurses, police officers, Defence Force personnel, all of these types of people—from simply going out and using some extra money they have to acquire a property to build some wealth for their future. That is it. That is all they are trying to do. The vast majority of Australians do it. There are those on very high incomes who may have net rental losses of more than $50,000 and they would have an average income of more than $220,000 a year, and they are engaged in it at a much higher level.
What do you do when you look at the distribution of the way negative gearing is used to form a policy? You look at that and you decide what the impact would be if you made any changes there? You would think of the consequences of doing something like that? That is that the government is doing. It is a sober, rational process of policy development. Those opposite have just rushed out there. What the shadow Treasurer now finds is that he is out on the end of a very long pole. He is standing out there with his big hairy-chested negative gearing policy and thumping the table. But what he does not understand is that he has stung every nurse, every policy officer, every paramedic and every Defence Force personnel serving man and woman. He has stung everyone of them who is engaging in negative gearing or wants to in the future—and he has stung them hard.
We on this side of the House are not going to do that, because we believe that Australians who want to invest in their future—and those hardworking Australians who have done this—should continue to get those opportunities. And under this government they will.
Defence White Paper
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Materiel. Will the minister advise the House how the government's defence white paper and 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement are supporting small- and medium-sized Australian businesses to create jobs and help grow the economy?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Minister for Defence Materiel) (15:00): I want to thank the member for Banks for his question and say how much I enjoyed his first column as a modest member in the Australian Financial Reviewthis week—and I am sure there will be many more good ones. So well done.
The SPEAKER: The minister will come to his answer.
Mr TEHAN: As the House well knows by now, last week the government announced the defence white paper, which is a $30 billion additional investment in our Australian Defence forces. It includes an extra $1.6 billion to assist Australian industry to make the most of that $30 billion additional investment. That funding includes $230 million for the Centre for Defence Industry Capability; $730 million for research into emerging technologies; and $640 million for a new defence innovation hub.
The defence industry in Australia employs 25,000 people. There are 3,000 Australian SMEs in the defence industry, and they are ready to capitalise on this investment. I want to give the House an example of the type of company that will take advantage of this type of investment. It is in the seat of the member for Eden-Monaro, and I am sure he knows of this company. It is called Lintech, and they employ 35 people. That is real jobs in his electorate. They have been involved in the REDWING program, which has developed counter-IED devices. These devices are a world first, designed and developed in Australia. They are the size of a walkie-talkie and they stop IEDs from detonating by blocking their signal. That means that anything within a 10 metre radius will be blocked. This world-leading technology is saving lives. This Australian technology is being used in Afghanistan and it will be used elsewhere in the globe. Because of this, and the export potential, Lintech are now looking to hire more people to keep up with demand. That is more jobs in the seat of the member for Eden-Monaro and more income for that community. That community will be better off and the nation will be better off as a result of it.
This is the potential of our investment in the defence white paper—creating more jobs, a better defence industry for Australia, improving our nation and improving our national security. I ask all those opposite to please get on board and start promoting this defence white paper.
Taxation
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not the case that, by not addressing what the Treasurer calls excesses or enthusiasms in negative gearing, the Prime Minister is choosing to protect tax breaks for people buying their seventh house instead of protecting older Australians from cuts to their pensions?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:04): I thank the honourable member for her question. She raises, by inference, the very important issue of housing affordability. All Australians are concerned that all of us—our children; our grandchildren; everyone—should be able to aspire to buy their own home. There has been an enormous amount of work done on the issue of housing affordability over many years—not just in Australia but elsewhere as well—and it is very, very clear that the problem is a lack of supply and that is because of zoning. There is plenty of demand for housing; the problem is that there is in sufficient zoning—and that of course is a failure of state and local governments.
I want to address the honourable member's question very seriously here. The Treasurer spoke earlier about apartment developments and the fact that most of the buyers for apartments in most of our cities, particularly those close to the centre, where the member for Sydney's electorate is and where my electorate is—are investors, because the properties are typically rented out. So they are rental properties—and this is very important, obviously. The opposition's policy will have a very adverse effect. The opposition's policy would mean that investors would be able to buy an apartment off the plan from Meriton or Mirvac or somebody like that but, when they chose to sell that apartment, they would not be able to sell it to an investor—yet that is the market. That would have the consequence not only of reducing the value of those apartments on the re-sale but also of starting to progressively reduce the stock of housing that was available for rental.
This is something that the honourable members opposite have simply not thought through. Their policy has the logical consequence of reducing the number of properties, particularly apartment properties, that are available for rental. I cannot believe that that was the honourable member for Jagajaga's intention when she agreed to this policy. This is a classic example of not thinking important policy through, not working through the consequences, and recklessly aiming for a political announcement rather than taking due care to get the big questions determined correctly. That is what we are committed to do.
Resources and Energy
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (15:07): I rise not to parrot newspaper headlines; instead, I have a question for the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. Minister, as you know, South32—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Canning will ask his question again, without a preamble, and he will be heard in silence.
Mr HASTIE: My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. Minister, as you know, South32, who operate the Worsley bauxite mine, in my electorate Canning, have recently announced a global restructure, in view of challenging global market conditions. Will the minister update the House on what support is available for workers and how Australia is well positioned to take advantage of future opportunities in the resources and energy sector?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia) (15:08): I thank the member for Canning for his question and acknowledge that he comes to this place with an extensive and distinguished career serving our country. He has won the respect of his constituents for the way he has advocated on issues like resources and, on their behalf, after the terrible fires in January in Waroona, in his electorate.
As the member mentioned, South32, Australia's fourth-largest listed mining company, which came out of the demerger with BHP, has announced as part of a global restructure that nearly 400 jobs will, sadly, be lost from its Worsley alumina project and that includes a number of constituents from his own electorate. This is part of a global restructure, which has seen jobs lost in Wollongong, the Northern Territory and, further afield, in Colombia and South Africa. It is a tough time for the sector globally. As a government, we will be working with those people who lost their jobs and providing assistance through the jobactive program to the affected employees, including for them to get the adequate training, case management support, interview assistance and job referrals. We are advised that the company will be providing full redundancy entitlements and access to career support and other assistance programs to those affected workers. Our mutual objective—us and the company involved—is to get these workers back into the workforce, either in the resources sector or in a related industry.
Despite these developments, we remain positive about the resources sector in Canning as well as in Australia more broadly. Canning is home to the world's largest bauxite mine at Huntly. It is also home to Australia's largest goldmine, in Boddington. Australia is advancing its resources and energy sector through innovation, automation, big-data analytics and a range of other factors. The Leader of the Opposition believes that the plan for Australia is, 'If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.' We, on the other side, have a plan to advance the resources sector through innovation and collaboration between our research institutions, and the net result is going to be more jobs for the people of Canning and more jobs for the people of Australia.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:11): Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:11): Mr Speaker, the—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will resume her seat. I have called the Leader of the House.
Mr PYNE: We have some machinery things to do. There are a couple of machinery things. Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and the Proceedings. Mr Speaker, you have advice regarding this.
The SPEAKER: I do, and they are tabled. The Leader of the House can resume his seat for a second.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Griffith stood up while the Prime Minister was on his feet. This is a deliberate intervention from the Leader of the House so that the Prime Minister can leave before we vote on whether or not the marriage equality bill comes in. That is exactly what is happening right now. The Leader of the House has done it deliberately. He was given notice. This is all about the Prime Minister shuffling out before the debate begins.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Mr Hawke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker! I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business but, can I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, at the conclusion of question time we always do papers and then we move to legislation. I am going to deal with committee membership, which will take less time than we have taken arguing this point, and then we can move on to other business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of parliament are allowed to seek leave at any time. That is what is allowed under the standing—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr BURKE: When a member is on her feet at the same time that the Prime Minister is standing at the dispatch box seeking the call, it is impossible to have a situation that the call then goes to the Leader of the House. We, very regularly, will have questions to you before we go to papers. We, very regularly, will deal with other matters. It happens more often than not.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. We are not going to spend a long period of time on this. Those on my right will not interject. I am going to refer the Manager of Opposition Business to the practice with respect to the Prime Minister getting the call to end question time. It is very clear. The Prime Minister can seek the call, whether a question is being asked, whether it is midway through an answer—and that is what I did. I naturally looked to the Leader of the House, because we do papers at the end of question time. If members do not inform me that they are going to jump on something—most do, I have to say. That is the convention in this place. I hate to labour the point, but that is the convention in this place. Indeed, the member for Sydney came—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Mr Hawke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Whoever is interjecting on my right—the member for Mitchell is warned. The member for Sydney ensured that I was ready for her to take a personal explanation. I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business. We are not going to waste any more time on this.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:14): I was going to wish the member fed Grayndler are happy birthday in the spirit of goodwill and the member for rank and. But now that everybody is being so unpleasant, I feel the moment has moved on. I feel that we have moved on from the moment of goodwill that we had only moments ago. I wish a happy birthday to the members for Grayndler and Rankin, and to the member for Gorton, well done—you are not looking at all over 40.
By leave—I move:
That Mr Buchholz be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters;
Mrs Griggs, Mr Hastie and Mr Williams, be appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:15): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)the Prime Minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;
(b)former Prime Minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;
(c)Members of the Prime Minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the Prime Minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;
(d)a plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and
(e)lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and
(2)calls on the Prime Minister to be the Prime Minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the Parliament on marriage equality; and
(3)suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.
Leave not granted.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:15): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Griffith from moving the following motion forthwith.
That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)the Prime Minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;
(b)former Prime Minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;
(c)Members of the Prime Minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the Prime Minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;
(d)a plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and
(e)lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and
(2)calls on the Prime Minister to be the Prime Minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the Parliament on marriage equality; and
(3)suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.
It is well past time for marriage equality in this country. We know it and the Prime Minister knows it. Everyone in this country knows it is well past time for marriage equality and we can do it today. We can make marriage equality a reality right now. We can do it today. We can do it in this parliament. We have the power. The High Court says we have the power. The community knows we have the power. Everyone in the this room knows we have the power to make marriage equality a reality right now.
I call on Prime Minister Turnbull to agree to put this cross-party marriage equality bill to a vote. I call on him to allow his MPs a free vote rather than requiring them to vote against marriage equality as is the coalition's current position. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can vote on this bill and make marriage equality a reality together. Members of this parliament should do their job and legislate and that includes for marriage equality. We can reach across the aisle and pass marriage equality together. We can reach across the aisle to today. We can pass marriage equality together as a parliament. It does not have to be part of a divisive election or a plebiscite campaign. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can vote on this bill and make marriage equality a reality together.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families should not have to wait any longer to have the same rights as everyone else in this country, including most people in this room. The best time for marriage equality is already. The second best time is now without further delay. So let's all do our jobs and legislate. Let's all get together, let's reach out, let's legislate and do our job. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can do so.
A majority of Australians support marriage equality. Parliament should get on with doing its job and make marriage equality a reality. It is our job. This is a representative democracy. If members in this place do not believe in representative democracy then what are they doing here? If you do not believe in representative democracy then what are you doing here?
I do not often agree with former Prime Minister John Howard—it does not happen to me very often—but on this point here he is absolutely right. Former Prime Minister John Howard says that he believes in representative democracy. For the current Prime Minister, representative democracy was good enough for him as a means of becoming the current Prime Minister. He was perfectly happy to have a representative democracy to become the Prime Minister. I believe in representative democracy.
Mr Watts interjecting—
Ms BUTLER: Yes, member for Gellibrand; he did, didn't he? He says one thing and does another. That is his form.
Now is the time to do our job. Now is the time to work together. Everyone in this room knows that all we need to do is suspend standing orders and bring on the bill. It is a cross-party bill. It is a bill that is moderate, that is pragmatic, that has support across the parliament and support across the community.
I want to acknowledge Australian marriage equality—PFLAG, Rainbow Labor—I am proud of all the organisations across the country who have worked hard for marriage equality. They all want us to get this done. I acknowledge: Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt; the member for Werriwa; the member for Brisbane; the member for Indi; the member for Melbourne; and the member for Denison—all of whom are the movers or cosponsors of this bill. They have acted in the spirit of non-partisanship and we can do it now.
To all of you, I say we can all actually pass marriage equality in time for Mardi Gras. Imagine Mardi Gras on the weekend if we are all together celebrating marriage equality? We can hold this up as an example of a parliament working together to deliver something for the community. We can stand together. This can be something that we have delivered as a parliament, not as the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the National Party or the Greens Party, but as a parliament as one, in unity.
I acknowledge, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I also acknowledge every single member past and present and all of my Labor colleagues who have fought for so long for marriage equality. The Deputy Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, the leadership in the other place—these are people who have campaigned for a very long time to deliver marriage equality, and I particularly want to single out the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership in this.
But I also acknowledge, as well as the people who are in this place leading this debate and who are on the national scene leading it, every single person who is waiting for us—every single grandparent who is waiting for us to do our job; every single parent who is waiting for us to do our job; every single person who is waiting for us to do our job so that they can get married.
Shelley Argent OAM, who is the leader of PFLAG, was here last week. She is 66 years old. How long does she have to wait until one of her sons has the same right as her other son? How long do your friends and my friends have to wait? How long do our family members have to wait? How long does my grandmother have to wait? She is in her 80s—how long does she have to wait to see my cousin get married? How long do my friends in their 70s and 80s have to wait to marry the long-term partners that they have had for almost their whole lives? How much longer? How much longer do they have to put up with the people on that side using the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah's, obstruction tactic—the tactic that he deployed to try to prevent marriage equality and that has now been adopted 100 per cent holus-bolus by this Prime Minister?
Why should Australia have to wait because the current Prime Minister is too weak to overcome the impediments imposed upon him by the former Prime Minister? It does not have to be this way. The parliament has the power to make marriage equality a reality. The High Court has told us so. The Constitution confers upon us the power to legislate. We have been elected to legislate, and that is why we should suspend standing orders.
Let's not outsource. Let's not abandon our posts. Let's just do our jobs and get on with it. I know it is a novel idea for some of the people over there, but let's just do our jobs and legislate. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can do that. Everyone in this place knows the plebiscite was former Prime Minister Abbott's attempt to block marriage equality. It is a waste of time and it is a waste of $160 million. Guys, can you not think of a better use for $160 million than for a plebiscite to tell you what you already know and what some of your own members have said they will not follow?
To be honest, they have people on that side who are saying, 'Oh well, we're not going to abide by the plebiscite.' They are saying they want to have a free vote. They are saying it is going to be a free vote. If we are going to have a free vote, then I have a good idea: how about we have it today? Let's have the free vote today. If we are going to do it anyway, let's save the $160 million. We are all here; we are all ready to have that free vote. There are people here who are ready to have that free vote. There are so many people of goodwill in this parliament of all persuasions who are ready to have a free vote because they want to see marriage equality made a reality.
This is a serious matter. If the Prime Minister believes, and he has previously argued that he does, that marriage equality should be a reality, and if the Prime Minister understands—and I know he does, because he has previously argued for it—that it should be done by a free vote in this parliament, then we can do it now. That is why we should have a suspension of standing orders. We should not have an ultimately futile plebiscite that people on the other side have already said they will not abide by.
We should not spend the $160 million and, most importantly, we should not have a national vote on whether some kids' parents can get married when other kids' parents cannot get married. We should not have a national vote where kids are going to hear that their families are in some way inferior to the families of other people in the community. That is the disgrace in this issue. That is at the heart of the problem with this plebiscite idea that the former Prime Minister bowled up to the Australian people: it is going to hurt people. It is going to hurt families.
In a country where discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation of LGBTI people contributes to anxiety, depression and suicide, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging this idea of a plebiscite which is just a political fix to block marriage equality. Let's get together, let's suspend standing orders and let's make marriage equality a reality now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:27): I do second the motion, and I am delighted to do so. We should suspend standing orders because gay and lesbian Australians have waited too long for this change. On the weekend thousands of people will gather to march in Sydney—including, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition, the alternate Prime Minister of Australia. Since the first Mardi Gras in 1978, much has changed. Just this month we heard the New South Wales parliament's moving apology to those people who marched in 1978 who were subjected to violence, who were outed in the newspapers at the time, some of whom lost their jobs and many of whom lost connection with their family because of the political action they took. Much has changed since 1978, but there is one last great piece of unfinished business, and we should suspend standing orders today because we can deal with that today.
When Labor was last in government federally we removed discrimination from every piece of Commonwealth legislation—in health care, in immigration, in taxation, in family law, in benefits—except for this last one. And now is the time for this parliament to deal with this last remaining piece of discrimination. We should suspend standing orders today because this Prime Minister has broken the hearts of gay and lesbian Australians. He is a Prime Minister who in the past has supported marriage equality. He is on the record as supporting marriage equality. This is a Prime Minister who very recently said that this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality, but he sold out those values to get the support of the right wing of the Liberal Party for his prime ministership.
Of course, it is not just me saying this parliament should legislate for marriage equality. I was helpfully handed the copy of the Constitution that the member for Kingsford-Smith carries with him everywhere he goes, and you only need to go to part five, section 51, placitum (xxi) to see where it says this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality.
But you do not need to believe me and you do not need to believe the Constitution of Australia. Those people on the other side, for whom John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, is the font of all wisdom, only need to go to John Howard's comments earlier this week, where John Howard said this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality. That is why we should suspend standing orders today, because everybody agrees that this is the place that should legislate.
We do not need a plebiscite; we can legislate this today because there is a bipartisan private member's bill before the parliament. People may remember some of the genesis of this. About two years ago, in March 2014, I wrote to all of those opposite and asked them to co-sponsor a bill in this parliament. Not one single response did I get. Then it was time for the Leader of the Opposition to put forward his private member's bill. What happened? The then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said: 'This should be above politics. We should get the backbenchers to do it so we can move on it quickly.' We did that. We actually stepped aside in an effort to move this along, with goodwill, in the hope that this parliament could get this piece of unfinished business done.
I recognise the member for Leichhardt and other members opposite who have been public in their support for this. They have worked with my colleague to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. Instead, what do we get from the rest of those opposite? Instead of the goodwill that we have shown in working in a bipartisan fashion we get another delaying tactic: a $160 million plebiscite that will without doubt send a message to the LGBTI community in Australia that there is something wrong with them. Kids growing up who are same-sex attracted, who already experience higher rates of bullying and higher rates of social exclusion, what are they going to hear? They are going to hear that there is something wrong with them. It is going to send a message to kids who are growing up today with same-sex parents that their families are somehow broken. It appals me to think that people growing up today, whose mums and dads love them so much, will hear that there is something wrong with those families. We should suspend standing orders today to bring on this legislation and finish this business.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:32): I am pleased to speak on this motion to suspend standing orders. I would make the point that this really is too serious an issue for acrimony and shouting. It is too serious an issue for publicity seeking and playing politics. I think it is very disappointing that the Labor Party have chosen to try to make a political issue out of the relationships of men and women who want to be treated equally under the law. I was aware that they were going to move this political stunt today, and it is very disappointing that Labor would come into the House and try to get some political benefit out of what many Australians, good people—Liberal voters, Labor voters, Greens voters, Independent voters—want, which is to have marriage equality; to be treated the same under the law.
My views on this matter are well known. I support marriage equality. But this is not a debate about whether or not you support marriage equality; this is a debate about whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to have a vote on this private member's bill. That is what this debate is about: whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to stop all other government business in order to have a vote on a private member's bill.
So, what is the process for private members' bills? All members in the House know what the process is. They know there is no vote on private members' bills or private members' motions. They know that therefore many motions and bills are brought into the House and put on the Notice Paper for a debate in this chamber on issues that need to be aired and elevated. That is a good part of private members' business; that is the idea. Some things are brought into the House to be elevated because there will not be a vote. Members know that they can give their constituents a hearing, a platform, but they do not have to disagree with party policy, they do not have to determine government policy, because it is private members' business, and private members' business does not come to a vote. Therefore this motion to suspend standing orders is entirely out of order. It would allow a vote on a private member's bill, which would establish an important precedent and be stepping outside the role of private members' business. That is one reason that the government will not support this suspension of standing orders, the second reason being that we on this side of the House do not want to play politics with this issue. It is too important, and people take it too seriously, for people to try to play cheap politics around it.
The third reason the government will not support the suspension of standing orders is that we have a very clear policy on this matter. We will not be having a vote of the members of this parliament to determine whether we support marriage equality. We will give every Australian a free vote in a plebiscite after the election.
The extraordinary flaw in the member for Griffith's argument is that she says we must have a free vote in 2016—that we must do it today—but the Labor Party's policy is that in 2019 they are not allowed to have a free vote. Apparently in 2016 they must have a free vote at all costs but their policy is not to have a free vote in three years from now. What a ludicrous position! The principle is that you are either in favour of a free vote or you are not. If you are in favour of a free vote then have that policy into the future until you achieve one. But the Labor Party policy, apparently brokered by the deputy leader at the ALP conference this year, is this ludicrous hybrid policy where they would have a free vote now but in 2019 will not have a free vote. It is utterly ridiculous and exposes the Labor Party as utter hypocrites on the issue, because if they genuinely believed in a free vote why would they deny their members a free vote in three years from now?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for McEwen on a point of order?
Mr Mitchell: No, it is all right.
Mr PYNE: I do not intend to take my entire time. The government is happy to put its position why we will not support it and then get on with the vote. The Labor Party's position about a free vote today but no free vote in three years is so ridiculous that they actually lost a senator over it. Joe Bullock resigned last night as a senator for Western Australia because he sees the flaw in the Labor Party's position. They have lost a senator from Western Australia because of this harebrained scheme they came up with at the ALP conference.
On this side of the House we will give everyone in Australia a free vote. Your vote will be the same as my vote, Deputy Speaker Scott. You will be back in civilian life, as we say in the parliament for those who have been here a while, and your vote will be worth the same as my vote, assuming the good burghers of Sturt re-elect me at the coming election. Everybody in the gallery will have the same vote as everybody on the floor of the House. That is a genuine request asking the Australian people what they think. That is a good policy because this is a difficult issue for the Australian public.
This is a significant societal change. I support that change. One of the reasons I support that change is my experience as a member of parliament. I have seen the impact of same-sex households not having legal rights and, because of that lack of legal rights, not being able to support the children that they have been fostering or adopting. I think it is time to give those same-sex households the same stability, the same rights as those in opposite-sex households. So I do support a yes vote in the plebiscite, and that is how I will campaign, assuming I am re-elected, after the election. But there are people in my electorate who strongly disagree with me, and I want to give them the chance to have a vote and make a decision. If the Australian public's view is that there will be no change to the Marriage Act then that is the decision of the Australian public, and it is right and proper that they should be able to make that decision.
So we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. We do not want to play politics with this issue. There is a fundamental flaw in the Labor Party's position, which is that they demand a free vote today but they deny a free vote in three years time. I believe and the government believes that we have the right policy, which is to ask the Australian people what their view is and give them the opportunity to indicate to us where they want us to go in the plebiscite.
I should deal with one last-minute issue. The member for Griffith said some members of my party and the National Party have said that they will not follow the views of the plebiscite. They are allowed to say that. This is a democracy; it is not a Stalinist state. The point is that it is obviously beyond the wit of the Labor Party to work out how to get around that issue. But it is not beyond my wit. The easiest thing to do is to pass a bill through this parliament establishing the plebiscite and the last act before royal assent as the question of the plebiscite and whether it says yes or no to that bill. The bill will never come back to the House of Representatives for people to vote against the will of the people. It can easily be in the act of parliament that the plebiscite is the last part of the process and then, once it is passed—if it is passed—it goes directly to the Governor-General for royal assent. It is not beyond the wit of this parliament to make the plebiscite—the will of the people—the final act that determines whether the law changes. The fact that the Labor Party cannot work that out is kind of indicative of many of the flaws and weaknesses in the Labor Party's gene pool, which is why they are not fit for government.
The government will certainly be voting against the suspension of standing orders and resuming normal programming because we have a significant agenda to work through while the Labor Party continues with these pathetic political stunts.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:07): We should avoid a repetition of the spite that we have heard over the last few days about Safe Schools. It would have been good if Labor had supported bringing on our private member's bill in the last parliament. The Greens lead, Labor follows a couple of years behind and the coalition comes in our coat-tails. So let's support this. It would have been good if we had done it in the last parliament when we had the opportunity. The member for Moreton and the member for Grayndler know exactly what I am talking about. We could have had a vote. So let's bring it on for a vote now because it might be our last chance to avoid a plebiscite. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that the motion be agree to.
The House divided [15:42]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Scott)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Superannuation
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (09:34): The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's attack on superannuation.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:52): I thank the Leader of the House for showing long overdue support for our view about what the government is doing to the superannuation system.
In question time today, the latest excuse for the government not to have an economic plan for this country after 2½ years was that they did not want to 'rush to failure'. That is what the Treasurer of this country says about why he has no clue about tax and why he has no clue about the economy—because he does not want to 'rush to failure'. What an extraordinary excuse! It is the latest in a long line of excuses from this hopeless, hapless and heartless Treasurer. He came up here and said that the reason they do not have a clue about the economy is because they are not in a rush to fail. What a joke the Treasurer of this country is.
They might not be rushing to fail, but they are dawdling to defeat, dawdling to division and dawdling to disarray. The sort of chaos that you see on that side of the House is exactly what happens when the Prime Minister of the country is incapable of providing the economic leadership that he promised. When you pretend that you are all things to all people, it catches up on you at some point. When you say one thing and do another, inevitably it all collides and crashes at some stage. We have seen that with the motion just moved by my very capable colleague, the member for Griffith.
We have a Prime Minister who says that he believes in marriage equality at the same time as he does what he can to cruel the chances of marriage equality in this country. Just like it is with marriage equality, the same is true for superannuation when it comes to the Prime Minister's keenness to say one thing about superannuation and then to do an entirely different thing. The Prime Minister has said over and over again—as has the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer—that they believe in compulsory superannuation. They say that while they work behind the scenes to diminish it and to destroy it.
As always, if you want to know what the coalition actually thinks about these things, you need to listen to the newly liberated member for Warringah. When you listen to the newly liberated member for Warringah you know what they really think about compulsory super. This is what the member for Warringah has said about super:
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
That is what the member for Warringah said. When it comes to economic policy, in the absence of leadership from the Prime Minister and the absence of leadership or competence from the Treasurer, we now know that the shots are being called by the member for Warringah from his perch over there. When he says that super is a 'con job' we should listen, because we know that when he gets up in the party room and gets into the Prime Minister and the Treasurer it causes them to flap around and try to accommodate him. That is the view of the Liberal Party. That is the reason why this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are so frozen with indecision when it comes to the economy. They are so paralysed by the fear of getting off-side the member for Warringah and all of his cronies that now populate that part of the parliament.
Just like it is with super, it is also the case with Medicare. There is a link between what they want to do to Medicare and what they want to do to super. They want to attack universality and access. They want to attack the very foundations of what makes this country good in a policy sense—universal health care and compulsory superannuation. Those two attacks are of a piece. They are all part—as the member for Lilley said yesterday—of their efforts to rip and tear away at the social safety net in this country.
We know that they are working behind the scenes to strangle compulsory super because we get the usual kind of gutless, sneaky leaks to The Australian or to the News Limited tabloids. That is what they do. When they do not have the courage to come right out and say it, what they do is just put it on the front pages of the paper instead. The first one that we got was this ludicrous idea that we should take the 'compulsory' out of compulsory superannuation and make superannuation optional for those pesky people on low incomes in this country—those pesky people earning less than $37,000 a year. These are great Australian people working hard on low incomes, and those opposite want them out of the compulsory superannuation system. They want to make it optional. As the good people of Rice Warner pointed out, that would mean a 24-year-old today would be something like $18,500 worse off at 65. Anyone can see that there would be a massively detrimental impact on low income earners in this country.
That is not the only one they snuck into the papers because they did not have the courage to fess up to it. The second one was, 'Push to end super rate rises' on the front page of The Australian on Friday, 5 February. This story was about how those opposite wanted to freeze permanently the super guarantee at 9½ per cent. We already know that they have frozen it three times with huge impacts for working people in this country, and then they sneak on to the front of The Australian this plan to freeze it indefinitely. That would again have serious consequences for Australian working people.
Then we had the Prime Minister stand up here and say at that dispatch box that they had no plans and that it was no part of their thinking to mess with the capital gains tax discount in superannuation funds. Then we have this story in the Australian Financial Review the next day: 'Cabinet digs in as PM backflips on CGT'. What a farce! What disarray that we see from those opposite. These sneaky plans are dropped into the paper of all of the things they want to do to diminish superannuation, especially for people on low and middle incomes in this country, with the capital gains tax in funds, the super guarantee rate and also, of course, the compulsory nature of super itself.
Already they have done so much damage in superannuation. They have frozen the SG, as I said, three times. They abolished the low-income super contribution. They say they care about women in the super system, but they abolished the low-income super contribution which impacts on 3.6 million Australians, 2.2 million of whom are women. They say they care about the gender gap in super, but this is what they do and this is what their actions mean here in Australia for Australian working people. They are also weakening the penalties for bosses who do not pay super on time. So we have a problem where 690,000 Australians are missing out on $2.6 billion of super they are entitled to by law every year. It is a big and growing problem. The solution from the Assistant Treasurer is to weaken the penalties for people who do the wrong thing. There are all kinds of ways they are weakening the system.
Our superannuation system is the envy of the world, but it is not perfect. There are all kinds of ways we can work to make it better. We have got issues around adequacy, particularly at the low end. We have got issues around gender, as I have already mentioned. We have got those issues around compliance that I just mentioned. We have also got these ridiculously unfair tax concessions in the superannuation system.
One of the most important contributions was made yesterday, 1 March, by Tom Garcia from the AIST. He said:
AIST's research shows those at the top end of the income percentile receive as much as $660,000 of total government support to their retirement income over a working lifetime (mostly through super tax concessions). This compares to around $300,000 in government support to someone on the median wage of about $50,000 a year.
That does shine a light on the unfairness that we are seeing in the superannuation system.
Faced with these acknowledged concerns and challenges in super—and we have a terrific super system, a proud achievement not just of the Labor Party, although it is certainly that, but a proud achievement of the whole country—what do the Liberal Party do? They do all the things that will make it worse. They are not part of the solution when it comes to superannuation in this country. They are part of the problem.
In superannuation and all across the economic policy field, Labor is filling the void when it comes to good solutions for the future of this country. The Prime Minister of Australia wanders naked into the marketplace of ideas, without a stitch of policy to cover himself up. Whether it is negative gearing, capital gains or, especially, super, as I have just said, we have more concrete, better costed, more intelligently considered policies for the future of this country. We have got a plan for fairer superannuation which starts to address some of that unfairness at the very top of the superannuation system so that we can fund health and education in this country and we can underwrite the future of our country.
The time has long past for those opposite to give the Australian people some clarity on economic policy, on superannuation, on negative gearing, on capital gains, on all of the tax issues—no more just sneaking stuff onto the front of The Oz when you do not have the courage to stand up and say what you believe, when you do not have the courage to say that you do not believe in compulsory super, to say that you want to rip and tear at retirement incomes and the retirement income aspirations of ordinary working people in this country. Have the guts to say it. Put a policy on the table like we have. We put our policy on super on the table in April of last year. For the best part of a year, we have had a policy on super, and they lack the intelligence, the competence or the courage to say what they really think about super. They say they believe in it, but they are working behind the scenes to diminish it. Let's have no more sneaky leaks or half-baked hints when it comes to superannuation, no more saying one thing while you do something else.
If there is one thing that characterises this Prime Minister, it is pretending that he is one thing while he does another. The member for Griffith knows that when it comes to marriage equality. Everyone here knows that when it comes to all kinds of economic policy in this country. My message to those opposite is: have enough respect for the Australian people to put your super policy on the table and let them choose which is better, yours or ours.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (16:02): I have to say that I am puzzled by this MPI, because it talks about the government's attacks on superannuation, and yet I know nothing of such attacks. I can only assume one of two things: either this was a typo—and, given the sloppiness of your tax work, I suppose that is a real possibility—or, alternatively, you over there on the other side of this House had forgotten that you were no longer in government, and it is your own attacks we are talking about. Perhaps the topic of this MPI was actually a Freudian slip.
There is one other possibility—that, when you talk about attacks on super, you are referring to attacks on your own union official mates who have found cushy jobs in the superannuation industry. It is true that we are proposing some modest reforms to improve the performance of, and choice we have over, superannuation funds. They are modest reforms, to the average Australian, but I am sure they are not modest reforms to your union official mates, because we are proposing that one-third of directors on superannuation funds should be independent. This does mean, I have to admit, fewer union officials on the boards, and I am sure that is extremely upsetting for you, but those of us who have been involved in the business sector for a long time know that there is a long and esteemed history of independent directors playing a very positive role in investment funds and in all areas of business.
We have also suggested that people should have more choice of funds. Choice—your socialist utopia does not really like that, but two million people at the moment cannot choose because it is mandated by enterprise agreements or workplace determinations. That is two million people who do not have choice because you do not want them to have choice. We plan to give them that choice. We are more concerned for their welfare than the welfare of your union official mates.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Just so the gallery understands and those listening to this debate understand, the member speaking can look after himself, and I am allowing a robust debate.
Mr TAYLOR: This is all part of Labor's attempt to have a go at people who want to have a go. This, like so many of Labor's policies in superannuation, is a serious breach of trust with the Australian people, because the real attack on super is coming from those opposite.
Let us have a look at Labor's attacks on superannuation and the impact that they are going to have on people's superannuation over time. The thing you have got to remember about superannuation is that we put it away in our 20s, our 30s, our 40s, even our teens, and we put it away for decades, and we expect the government to show complete respect for that money and how it is treated over that time. Every time you change the rules, it is a breach of trust with the Australian people.
How has Labor changed the rules? To work it out, I went to their website and had a look at what they call the 'fairer super plan'. I found a case study, example 2, of Susie. Susie is on average weekly earnings or a fraction above. She is 63 years old. It turns out that Labor's attack on super, Labor's increased taxation of super, is going to knock Susie around for $2,250
That is a woman on a fraction above average weekly earnings, or median weekly earnings, and you want to tax Susie more. This tax that Labor is proposing is a slug on Susie—the average-weekly-earning Australian—and is a complete breach of trust to Australians who have put their money away, locked it away for decades, hoping that future governments will treat that money with respect.
This is part of a pattern because Labor looks under every rock for something to tax and for something to spend. Under every rock in the Australian economy there will be a Labor MP over there looking for some more money to spend and tax. This is the party of spending and taxation but, it turns out, that they are finding a lot more to spend than to tax. Some of these rocks are turning out good spending opportunities but not such good taxation opportunities.
If we have a look at how much they are proposing to spend, over the next four years, and how much they are planning to tax, unfortunately for them, there is a $50 billion black hole. If we look at what they are proposing to spend, there is $1.22 billion of their own hypocrisy as savings in revenue measures proposed by Labor in government, which they are now blocking—$1.22 billion, but that is just the beginning.
We have $5.35 billion of savings and revenue measures proposed by the government that Labor is now blocking. That is our stuff you want to block. We have $34.71 billion of spending Labor says we must restore. You want to just keep spending, don't you? That is $34.7 billion from the 2015-16 budget. We have just over a billion of budget savings Labor has said they will not support. We also have savings, since the 2015-16 budget, that Labor has said it will not support—and another $11.38 billion of Labor's spending proposals since the 2015-16 budget. So it is a total of just under $60 billion.
The bad news, for those doing the counting on that side, is that Labor's proposals to increase taxes over the forward estimates will deliver $7.05 billion, and Labor's savings since the 2015-16 budget come in at the grand total of $1.13 billion. So guess what? That is $59.5 billion against $51.3 billion. You have a $51 billion gap that you have to fill.
How are you going to fill it? They are going to tax everything. Is there going to be a tax on carbon, a tax on consumption and a tax on the next generation? Maybe you will spend it and wait for the next generation to be taxed. A tax on workers? Who knows? Who knows how you are going to find that $50 billion, but you have to find it somewhere. When you do find it there is a piece of bad news, because Treasury is telling us that for every dollar of extra tax and spend you shrink the economy by 40c.
This a plan by those opposite to tax, spend and shrink the economy. Their total planned spending over the next 10 years is $100 billion. That is $40 billion—your plan to shrink the economy. They are the numbers that Treasury gives us. The reality is, any economist will tell you, if you tax more you reduce activity. You reduce good activity whether its investing, saving or working, you reduce activity.
Mr Perrett: Hey, Angus; LBW!
Mr TAYLOR: I have seen the replay. There is an extremely dangerous part to what Labor is proposing in its tax plans and that is the tax on negative gearing. There are three reasons this will have a such a big impact. First, and most importantly, they have forgotten that the supply of housing is inelastic in this country. Go back to economics 101. Inelastic supply: you reduce demand and it has a sharp impact on price. They are the basics. They are the basic economics. If you are going to take a third of the demand out of the market, then you can be absolutely assured that with inelastic supply you are going to whack prices.
The second part of this that you need to be extremely cautious about is that there are over $2 trillion of household debt—160 per cent of GDP. That is one of the highest in the world. We have more household debt than the UK at 130, the US at 100, Spain at 115 and Greece at 75 per cent. Have you forgotten that sharp changes in housing prices were behind the GFC?
We are focused on supporting Australians who want to have a go, who want to work hard, who want to save and who want to invest for their future. Labor just wants to slug Susie—the mythical figure in their policy documents—who is on average weekly earnings. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:13): I note the member for Hume is going back to the mythical figures, again. I note that the unicorn policy is a big part of their response. I would have thought this MPI on superannuation might have seen him refer to superannuation or, perhaps, even refer to Australian working people. He is new in the job so, perhaps, that will come in the future.
Before I talk about superannuation, which is one of Labor's greatest achievements, I particularly note on this day, 2 March, the contributors Bob Hawke and, especially, Paul Keating. Paul Keating lost office on this day. He was our Prime Minister from December 1991 through to 2 March 1996. Obviously, I acknowledge his contribution, and Bob Hawke's, to the superannuation contribution that is significant.
Australia has $2 trillion under management, making it the third largest pool of funds in the world—a little country. Incredibly, the vision of people like Paul Keating—obviously, there were a few changes after 2 March when we had Prime Minister Howard. He was Prime Minister from 1996 right up until 2007. He did not do a lot in his time. He tried to take Australia backwards. Sadly, he did not make significant investments in superannuation. Perhaps, if Prime Minister Keating had been there for another three years he could have seen that progression through to 15 per cent, which was always his original plan. Instead, we see those opposite suggesting that we should freeze the contribution. The reality is that there are some challenges in the superannuation industry, but Labor always does the right thing by people who have superannuation funds. Let us look at the record of those opposite when it comes to superannuation. As my good friend the member for Rankin detailed, it was leaked by the newspapers; they are not prepared to put their name on these policy ideas. They floated these balloons namelessly and gutlessly to see what people would say. What were they prepared to do? The most telling is: they were prepared to lower the penalty on non-compliant employers. That is very telling. They talk about the many Australians who are out there working and trying to have a go. What about the 690,000 Australians who are losing $2.6 billion annually in unpaid super, and this figure is actually growing? What about those people—who are prepared to invest, prepared to have a go, but their employers do not put their money into super so they do not get the benefits of compound interest? So what does the government do? Obviously, if you are talking about $2.6 billion you would think that they would jump on it. But no, they say, 'What we are going to do is lower the penalties for noncompliance.' That is going to somehow make it better.
What else is the Abbott-Turnbull government doing? They are freezing the superannuation guarantee and abolishing the low-income super contribution. Who does that hurt most? It hurts women in particular, and I flag this coming up to International Women's Day. Of the 3.6 million Australians affected, 2.2 million of them will be women. I hope they remember that on Tuesday, on International Women's Day. Their contribution to women in Australia has been to make their retirement more impoverished. The super accounts of average Australians are $20,000 worse off because of this policy from those opposite. Shame.
The zealots opposite have also decided that it is important to attack the best-performing superannuation funds in Australia. What are they doing? They are attacking how these representative boards—
Mr Wyatt interjecting—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: I should point out to those opposite that they perform at 10.2 per cent compared with 9.6 per cent for retail. I need to point out to those opposite: do you know why they are called industry funds? It is because they have employees on the board and employee representatives. That is what you do not understand. And they are performing better—10.2 per cent, consistently.
Government members interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: They do have a choice. There is a choice of employers and a choice of employee representatives on the boards. I know these funds. I am in two of those funds already. The Labor Party's plan for fairer super will return $14 billion to the budget over the next decade.
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: I did mention independent directors. Why would you tinker with a system that is delivering for working Australians right now, with employer representatives on those boards? It is crazy. It is short-sighted policy. (Time expired)
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:18): I listened the conversation on both sides, and I am not sure whether I am on the crossbenches or where I am but I hope to add something edifying to the debate. One in three Australians—this is a very disturbing statistic—do not make it to 65. We have a vision that everyone is going to make it to 65 but one in three Australians do not make it to 65, and life expectancy in the Mallee is nine years less than in some of our cities—largely because of extraction rates with strokes and heart attacks. Whilst we are talking about the discussion around superannuation, we have to always remember that not everyone, unfortunately, is going to make it long enough to realise money that is put aside in superannuation.
I am also mindful that if a casual employee earns $450 a month with an employer, they do not receive superannuation. I think this is a fault. I can see the simplicity of it, but I think they should receive superannuation as part of their packet so they can put some money aside. I am mindful that I also represent, and I also have been one of those people who have been on a casual wage with multiple employers in shearing sheds and those sorts of things and have missed out on the benefits of superannuation.
It does surprise me, I have got to say, that Labor did not touch superannuation very much when they were in power last. They touched everything else. They essentially put the price of everything else up, with carbon taxes and those sorts of things, and in real terms what that meant was that people who did have savings had to draw on more of their savings to pay their living expenses. So the question about looking after people in retirement is also about keeping people's living expenses down rather than just being a simplistic debate about superannuation.
I think that keeping it at 9.5 per cent does have some value. In my patch, people would rather have the money in their pocket than in their estate. It needs to be said that there are pressures on people and they would rather have the money in their pocket. I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about accessing superannuation to be able to buy a house—to get that first deposit on a house. I hear those who are critical of that discussion say, 'People would be $18,500 worse off by the time they got to 65'. But might I add, to people who would say that: it is very easy, even on a $200,000 house over a 10-year period, to pick up at least 10 per cent. And when you talk about being able to purchase a house at 25 as opposed to not being able to—particularly for our low-income earners—we should have a very robust discussion about first home ownership. There are people in my patch who will be able to pay $200 a week rent but will never be able to save a deposit for a house that might have a value of $120,000. Allowing them to access their super as a deposit would give them a chance to own a home—and surely home ownership is something that we should aspire to as a country. It is home ownership that gives people a sense of self-worth.
Ultimately superannuation is a percentage; it is a percentage of a gross economy. If you can grow the Australian economy you grow the wealth that comes into the country and therefore we have more to spend. You can spend a lot of time arguing about the percentage but you can grow the Australian economy. I note today that the GDP is up 0.6 per cent—unexpectedly up. It has been quite remarkable that we, as a country, are walking our way through the transition from the mining industry to other opportunities in our economy. Largely that has been on the back of rural Australia, largely that has been on the back of the service economy, and seeing our currency now at 71c has afforded us an opportunity to diversify and grow our economy and, as a result, that in turn grows real wealth, and real wealth ultimately grows a better standard of living for Australians.
Our suggested changes about better governance, more choice for people about where they can invest their superannuation and better transparency should be welcomed by all. I am not here to say which super fund is doing best, but I am saying that I do trust the wisdom of the Australian people to be able to make a choice. Why shouldn't they have a choice as to where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have better governance about where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have greater transparency?
Everything that we are suggesting is not to undermine superannuation; it is actually to enhance it. It is to our credit, as Australians, that we have $2 trillion in superannuation. It helps us in our forward liabilities as we look at an ageing population. But do not look at it as something that cannot be touched and cannot be improved. I think we should have an open mind to addressing the challenges that we face, as Australians, in the future.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:23): It seems that every day we are seeing dysfunction at the heart of the Turnbull government. They lack both vision and direction. They have no economic agenda, just dysfunction; no plan, just complete chaos. And we are seeing media ideas leaks almost daily on a range of issues, but no policies and no decisions. This is happening because they cannot agree on anything, We hear different stories. First it was the 15 per cent GST, which we know is still on the table. We know they will bring it back. That is their plan. It is not dead and buried. Then it was negative gearing—lots of talk, but nothing happened; capital gains tax, nothing happened; superannuation, nothing happened.
The government cannot agree on the central idea about tax reform. We have asked the Prime Minister on a number of occasions to rule out many things, but he won't; he is just too weak. That is at the heart of this dysfunction—his weakness and his indecision. But he does allow the constant attacks on superannuation. Why? It is because they do not believe in superannuation. Well, we believe in it.
Superannuation is one of Labor's proudest achievements. Australia's superannuation assets are now worth more than $2 trillion, making it the third-largest pool of funds under management in the world. The fact is the Liberals and the Nationals simply cannot be trusted with the huge responsibility of managing our superannuation system, just as they cannot be trusted with managing any part of the economy.
Before the election they promised no changes to super, but we know this was just a lie, like the other broken promises—no changes to health, education or pensions; the list goes on and on. When it comes to super, this government have done nothing but make the system worse for workers and they continue to attack it. The people who will be hurt the most are, of course, low-income earners. Especially in regional areas, locals know that it is the Nationals who are attacking their super.
We constantly see the government leaking new attacks on super. Just last week, we heard that the government was planning to make superannuation opt-out for low-income earners. The fact is this would fundamentally undermine the compulsory super system for low-income Australians, casual workers and young workers. These are the people who would be hit the hardest. Let us look at the government's record on superannuation so far.
Firstly, they lowered the penalty on noncompliant employers. So their highest priority in the super system is to make it easier for employers to dodge super guarantee obligations. The government's attacks go further. They have frozen the superannuation guarantee, which directly hurts the retirement savings of millions of Australians. The super accounts of average Australians will be $20,000 worse off because of this single policy decision. Then last week, the government floated the idea of permanently freezing super at 9.5 per cent, which would have an even greater impact. The government have also scrapped the low-income superannuation contribution, which will hurt the super savings of 3.6 million workers. Scrapping this will rip up to $500 off the super accounts of workers earning $37,000 or less.
All of these policies from the government are in direct contrast to Labor's plans for super and Labor's plans for better economic management. We want to make super stronger and fairer, and we are committed to ensuring the sustainability of the retirement income system. We have outlined and costed detailed plans for high-income superannuation. These plans tighten the excessively generous, unsustainable super tax breaks for the very wealthy. To improve the fairness and sustainability of our super system, we will ensure earnings of more than $75,000 during the retirement phase are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent instead of being tax free. It is a plan that would return more than $14 billion to the budget over the next decade.
The government still does not have a plan to address the excessive superannuation tax concession for high-income earners. Why don't they have a plan? It goes to their dysfunction and chaos. Labor, on the other hand, have been up-front with the community about our plans for super and about our plans for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. We have been up-front and we have put all of these plans to the community.
With our policy for negative gearing, we will limit it to new housing from 1 July 2017. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. Also, we will reduce the capital gains discount for assets from the current rate of 50 per cent to 25 per cent—also fully grandfathered. We have been very up-front with these plans. Our reforms will strengthen the economy and provide an additional $32 billion in revenue over 10 years. Labor's plan would be the most important structural budget reform in a decade.
When you talk about superannuation, we are the party of superannuation. All the Liberals and Nationals do is make the system harder and worse, especially for low- and middle-income Australians, particularly for women and people in regional areas who will be severely impacted by the government's harsh changes. On the Labor side, we will continue to fight the government's attacks on super. We will fight them every day here in the parliament and out in the community. We will fight them every day up until the next election. We will stand up against this government's very cruel attacks on workers. In the country, we blame the National Party for these cruel attacks on our superannuation system.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:28): This is all a bit half-hearted from the Labor Party. We know the Labor Party have one guiding principle with superannuation and that is just treat it like a pinata—whack it a bit more, and you get a bit more money out of it. Over six years of the Labor Party in government, we saw them make 13 changes to superannuation—not to transparency, not to make it easier for people; 13 changes to increase taxation on superannuation by $9 billion. That is the recent legacy of the Labor Party—13 changes to super, $9 billion in tax.
Then last year, the Labor Party hadn't learnt and the shadow Treasurer made a solemn commitment to not increase taxation on superannuation, they made an announcement that they would increase super by $14½ billion over 10 years—again, just treating it like a cookie jar that you raid when you need to get a little more money. We do not treat superannuation in that way.
The Labor Party do the most egregious thing with super: they tax retrospectively
They forget that people made contributions under certain rules. Regardless of the fact that people contributed their money under certain rules, they will tax contributions once they are already in the fund. We will not operate in that way.
Then we have their policy on negative gearing, which is the most ill thought out policy that this parliament has seen in 30 years. The most ill thought out policy for 30 years will be the death knell for half of them over there, so that is fantastic. But they really should have read the policy, because every single superannuation fund that has invested in Australian property will be hit hard by that policy. Every single self-managed super fund that has invested in Australian residential property will be hit by that change. So for them to have the gall to get up today and criticise our policies on superannuation is quite extraordinary. The Labor Party have a track record of continually taxing superannuation—treating it like a pinata, whacking it a bit harder and hoping a few more lollies will drop out of the bottom. We do not support that.
We also think that people have the ability to make decisions in their own best interests. We also want to see the $2 trillion superannuation industry grow to $9 trillion by 2040 and to have the best possible corporate governance arrangements available—corporate governance arrangements that have been proven to work in the private sector. So it is extraordinary that the Labor Party, under pressure from their union masters, who control their preselections, would vote against a change to see more independence on boards. This is $9 trillion. It is not the HSU that you can treat as your own little fiefdom to raid for money like the Labor Party and the unions have done over many years. This is $9 trillion by 2040.
We must have the best corporate governance arrangements available, and that means that industry super funds, of which there are 43 out of about 250 funds, have to get with the program of the rest of the industry and have a mandatory part of their board represented by independent directors. What party could argue against that? The only thing that I can put that down to is that their union bosses put undue pressure on these members to ensure that they vote in a certain way.
The other thing we are doing is making it easier for people to choose their own fund. What could possibly be wrong with a principle that everybody should have the freedom to choose their own fund? Presently, in Australia, up to 800,000 people will have a fund mandatorily chosen for them under an enterprise agreement. What could be wrong with giving those people the ability to change that fund and to choose the fund that they would like their hard-earned money to go into? Let's remember—and the Labor Party needs reminding—that it is not the government's money. It is money that we mandatorily take from people's pockets and invest on their behalf. They should have the right, at the very least, to choose where that money goes.
The Labor Party is standing in the way of better corporate governance; they are standing in the way of giving people more choice as to where their money is going, and they are mercilessly whacking the superannuation of Australians through ever-increasing taxes. It is not a cookie jar for you—the Labor Party—to raid. It is Australian workers' money, and we, on this side of the House, will always stand up for those individuals.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:33): What interesting contributions we have heard from those opposite. They come in here and say that they are the workers' best friend and that they want to look after the workers. But we should have a look at their actions and not their fluffed-up words—and their actions are quite clear.
One of the first things they did was remove the low income superannuation contribution—the $500 that the government put towards the superannuation of people who were earning less than $37,000 a year. These are people on low wages, part-time workers and women who are in and out of the workforce. They shamelessly sit there and take that money away from them and say that they are looking after the workers.
Let's look at the next thing they did. They decided to freeze the superannuation contributions. Instead of raising them, so that people have money to live on in their retirement, they froze them. What is the third thing they did? In true Tory, conservative, right-wing, nut-job fashion they went out and removed the penalties for businesses—their big business mates; the people who line their pockets—who do not pay the superannuation contribution.
This is the key to what happens opposite. They come in here and absolutely disingenuously say, 'We are here to look after workers', but they do not. The first thing they do is attack the people who are on fixed and low incomes. They do not particularly care about workers in any way, shape or form. But they will stand there for the handful of people like their Gina Rineharts, who have lots and lots of money, and do their bidding. We have seen that on many occasions.
Let's look at superannuation for what it is. It is something that Labor put in place because Labor wanted to support people with their retirement incomes. This government attacks superannuation and says that it is not on. Then their hand-picked Small Business Commissioner Kate Carnell—a former Liberal MP—says you should make people sell their houses to fund their pensions. This is the thought that has come out of the mess that is called the T-A-T-A—the Turnbull-Abbott-Turnbull-Abbott—government.
We do not know who is going to be there at the next election; they do not know. But what we do know is that, whatever happens, they will, first and foremost, be out there attacking people who can least afford to be attacked. That is why they looked at bringing in the 15 per cent GST and putting it on fresh food and other services. They do not particularly care. None of those opposite particularly care about the people at the bottom end. They are more worried about lining their own pockets and making sure that they are comfortable.
Let's talk about the superannuation boards that were so ineloquently spoken about by the previous speaker. The ones they want to attack are the industry boards. The industry boards are made up of workers and employers, who work together. And guess what? They outperform every single one of the boards that those opposite put their Liberal mates onto. That is why they want to attack them. They want to attack them because they are building wealth for people. They are building the opportunity for people to have a comfortable retirement.
I know there are a couple of members—only a couple—over there who are probably uncomfortable with the way the government works. But most of them are there because they think that that is the right way to go. You should not be going out and attacking people who cannot afford a big retirement income. Many people who have worked in casual employment or have been in and out of the workforce do not have a large superannuation income to retire on. That is why we have put in the low income superannuation contribution to help people and to give them the opportunity to live well once they get past their retirement age.
As we are talking about retirement age, let us have a look at another thing they did: they lifted it up straightaway, to the age of 70. They are going to make you work longer, they are going to give you less and they want to take more. That is the history of this government over the last 2½ years. It has been nothing but a tangled mass of lies, deception, backstabbing and all of that.
When it comes to superannuation, look at the people who put it in place. Look at the people who actually went out there and said, 'This is what we need to do for this country's future.' That is what built the wealth. The wealth that they talk about in superannuation was built by Labor governments. It started off under Keating and it continued under us. When we were in government, we actually lifted the rates to make sure that people got more superannuation to help them out in their later years of life. As soon as this lot came in, they cut it. It is the story of this government—cuts for the people who cannot afford it, while, at the same time, making sure that they look after themselves and their big business mates.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for McEwen, twice in that speech you made references to members of the parliament that suggested impropriety. You should know better, and I expect that in future speeches you will address yourself to that.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:38): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for McEwen. As usual, the contribution from those opposite adds absolutely nothing substantive to the debate on the issue we are seeking to discuss. I remind the member for McEwen that when super was introduced it was actually a trade-off for wage increases. So every increase in the superannuation guarantee has an impact on future wage increases. As we stand here, after six years of your government, with the damage that you did to household budgets through the carbon tax and any of the other tax increases that you presided over, is it any wonder that people find life and their budgets very difficult at this point in time? Increasing SG contributions at this time and further impacting on the capacity of people to meet their day-to-day budget requirements is a long stretch.
It is also interesting to note that when those opposite were in government they reduced the concessional contribution limit from $50,000 to $25,000. They wax lyrical about supporting workers and wanting people to save for their retirement, yet one of the things they did quite early in their government, back in 2009, was to actually reduce the capacity of people to put money into super, where they had the ability to put money into super. They halved that capacity for people. Labor's solution to anything is only ever to increase taxes and spending.
The member for McEwen also touched on increasing the retirement age, or the age for accessing the age pension, to age 70. What he did not say was that the preservation age for super is actually 60—that has not changed. Maybe the member for McEwen might like to take some time to get his facts right.
If the member for McEwen and those opposite are so interested in the capacity of people to manage their own superannuation, they might support some of the changes that we are proposing, particularly in terms of the ability for people to choose the fund that they so wish and not to be tied up in union funds under EBAs.
Let me talk about a Western Australian truck driver, Paul Bracegirdle, a member of the TWU. He wanted to choose his own superannuation fund, yet he was prevented from doing so because his super fund was the TWU super fund, which was mandated in the EBA. If you really want to support workers and their choice of super, and their capacity to manage their own superannuation funds, how about you allow people the capacity to choose their own super fund, irrespective of what is in their EBA? How about you allow that and give people true choice and mobility for their super funds?
How about you support the corporate governance changes to superannuation funds? I remind the member for McEwen that they actually apply to all super funds and not just to industry super funds. Additionally, Member for McEwen, they were a recommendation out of the Cooper review, which your government commissioned. You introduced all of these other changes out of the Cooper review, but, strangely, you did not touch the corporate governance ones, which may affect some industry funds. Why not?
Mr Mitchell: They are performing better than your lot!
Mr VAN MANEN: The member for McEwen says they are performing better. It helps some funds to perform better when you do not price your units on a daily basis. If you are going to have a true comparison, make sure that your unit pricing is on a daily basis, the same as retail funds. There are any number of failures in their argument across the way, because they purport that they want to support the worker, but, when push comes to shove and the rubber hits the road, the reality is that they do exactly the opposite.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:43): This government is basically lowering—and making it easier for employers not to pay—compulsory super contributions. This government has put forward the fact that they want to reduce the penalties for employers who do not pay their staff properly. The one thing I agree with the previous speaker about is that superannuation is wages. It is wages that people have earned. It is wages that they have decided to defer until they have retired, for their retirement income. It was workers who decided, through collective bargaining, to defer these wages and to save them for superannuation.
It was a Labor government that introduced the compulsory super contribution so that all Australians would have access to super. Prior to this, it was only those at the very top end of the wage bracket who had access to superannuation savings schemes—or people who were in collective agreements. Now the government want to say that people do not have the power to decide collectively which super fund they will have. They want to weaken that opportunity through some of the attacks that they have made on super.
The government have clearly not sat down and spoken to somebody who has lost super as a result of an employer going broke or an employer not paying their superannuation. Time and time again, whether they be cleaners, people working in hospitality or security guards, people who work in a number of businesses lose their super because their employer has chosen not to pay it. Whether it be fraud, whether it be theft, these are people who are not paying people what they are entitled to. This is part of their wage that they are not being paid.
This government wants to go weaker on them and make it easier for them not to pay what they are supposed to. It is like the minimum wage. If you do not pay somebody their weekly wage, you can be pulled up before Fair Work. It should be the same for super. It is compulsory to pay super, yet this government wants to weaken the compliance measures. Already the statistics are out. Roughly 700,000 Australians are losing because employers are not paying super. The Australian National Audit Office believes that it could be as high as 20 per cent of employers that are failing to meet their super guarantee obligations—20 per cent! Imagine if 20 per cent of employees did not receive their pay cheques on Friday. What would the government be doing about that? Maybe this government would be doing nothing about that. Maybe it does not care about low-paid workers. But, if you are required to pay wages on time, you should be required to pay and have the toughest penalties against you if you do not pay super on time.
If we are serious about lowering the pension obligations of the government into the future, that is linked to how much people have in their superannuation. Superannuation is about empowering people in their retirement to have the income that they need to live, and the sooner they start saving superannuation the more they will have in the long run. I know. I am in the generation of superannuation. When the people in their 30s retire, they will have a working lifetime of super to retire on, if we continue as a parliament to support measures to boost those savings.
That is why this government's attacks on super are hurting not only the people of today who are retiring but also the people of my generation and of the future who will retire. There is the fact that it has frozen the super guarantee. Let us just remind people: it is a minimum guarantee. Like the minimum wage, it is the decision that we have made for the minimum amount of savings that people need to ensure they have an income when they retire. That is what this is about: the lowest paid workers in our community, who have worked really hard their whole lives, having enough income to retire on. It is about our cleaners, our nurses, people working in hospitality, people working in food processing—making sure that they can have a decent life in retirement. All they get from this government is attack after attack, whether it be their basic weekly wage or their superannuation. This government needs to stop attacking people's super.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:48): It is always a privilege to follow the bleater from Bendigo, but I have to address three things she said. She was formerly an industrial advocate for United Voice.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. First, I ask you to remind the member to refer to other members by their seats, and, second, I would ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Yes, I would ask the member for Barker to withdraw.
Mr PASIN: I withdraw that. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Bendigo. She is a former industrial advocate, of course, and she just proved why it is that United Voice took the decision to plant her in this place. As the industrial advocate, she must not have been all that successful, because she just said to the House that superannuation is wages that have been deferred, and that is a decision taken by the employee. She might want to check the definition of 'compulsory'. Joe Bullock knows what compulsory means. He got a bullet to the head, and he got it last night.
She might also want to check about the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. She spoke about workers missing out on their superannuation when companies or individuals go into liquidation. That is why we have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
Finally, she said people cannot get hauled in front of the Fair Work Commission for failing to pay their superannuation. Of course they can. Newsflash for the member for Bendigo: it is an offence for an employer not to pay the compulsory—you heard it again: compulsory—superannuation contribution. But that is enough about the member for Bendigo. I do not know what I have done, but I seem to follow her every time in this place, and I suppose I will keep doing that for some time going forward.
Enough of the negative. Enough of the not-so-scary scare campaigns that seem to be the order of the day in this place. I want to talk about how we are strengthening superannuation. There are a couple of ways you can go about strengthening superannuation, but the principal one is that you can get more people into jobs, because people going into jobs means people receiving—guess what?—superannuation. There are 421,400 people in this nation who have achieved a job since we came to government. That is 421,400 people who are now receiving superannuation payments who formerly were not. I think that is a pretty strong indication of how one goes about strengthening the system.
The other way that you can strengthen the system is that you can encourage people to make voluntary contributions. Note to the member for Bendigo: voluntary not compulsory. One way that you can do that is that you can keep the rules around superannuation and particularly the way we tax superannuation consistent. If you do not do that, you discourage people from using superannuation as a vehicle to save and invest for their future.
What did Labor do on this? You heard from the member for Deakin earlier: 13 changes to super rules, pocketing $9 billion of extra revenue. Nine billion dollars—that is more money than you can fly a rocket over. It has the effect of discouraging people from investing in superannuation.
What are Labor proposing at the forthcoming election? It caused me to go to their website, which is a pain in and of itself. But I did that and I printed off Labor's fairer super plan. And—surprise, surprise—it is a plan for increasing taxes. They really are a one-trick pony. The only tool in their fiscal toolbox is ratchetting up taxes on the economy. Of course they have got form. Today they are also talking about changing the negative gearing rules—increasing taxes for those attempting to negatively gear. Some will say, 'It is not an increase in tax; it is just taking away a deduction,' but, of course, it is an increase in tax. Not happy with that, Labor are also looking at increasing capital gains taxes. I go back to what I said—they have only one tool in their fiscal toolbox, and that is to ratchet up taxes on Australians.
Note to those opposite—the member for Bendigo and others: you cannot tax your way to prosperity. Do you know what you also cannot do? You cannot legislate your way to prosperity. What we need to do is take the red tape away, reduce taxes and allow the economy to grow because a strong economy means a stronger superannuation system. I think we both agree that that is a good thing—a strong economy and a stronger superannuation system.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): The time for this discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Report
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (16:54): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2014-15.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr MATHESON: by leave—After examining the report I would like to make a few comments on it. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious and systemic corruption issues in Australia's law enforcement agencies. ACLEI is required, pursuant to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act, to provide an annual report to the parliament detailing its activities and investigations.
The annual report notes that ACLEI's jurisdiction continues to expand. In July 2015 ACLEI's jurisdiction expanded to include the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, including the newly formed Australian Border Force. ACLEI expects integrating the Department of Immigration and Border Protection into ACLEI's jurisdiction will remain a priority into the foreseeable future.
ACLEI continues to receive a high number of corruption issues. In 2014-15 ACLEI received 100 new corruption issues. Comparatively, in the first six months of the 2015-16 reporting year ACLEI received 134 new corruption issues. This is a trend that ACLEI and the committee will continue to monitor closely.
The committee agrees with ACLEI's assessment that corruption-enabled border crime continues to be a significant law enforcement integrity issue. The committee had a firsthand opportunity to examine the challenges that ACLEI faces at the border during our inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements. That inquiry is continuing and I look forward to updating the House when the committee concludes its inquiry.
The committee notes that ACLEI's budget in 2014-15 was increased to over $10 million. This funding included $1 million of temporary transitional funding to prepare for the integration of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection into ACLEI's jurisdiction. ACLEI concluded the 2014-15 reporting year with an operating surplus of $1.4 million, due to ongoing difficulties in filing temporary vacancies and supplier expenses that were lower than expected.
The committee also notes that ACLEI has met or exceeded all of its KPIs in 2014-15. In particular the committee notes that the appointment of a workflow manager resulted in 96 per cent of notifications and referrals received in 2014-15 being finalised within 90 days of receipt. It also notes that ACLEI adopted the recommendation of the committee's report from the previous reporting period to implement regular meetings with partner agencies to oversee internal investigations and that the increase in corruption notifications and referrals reflects greater awareness of ACLEI's role in supporting the integrity of Australian law enforcement agencies.
ACLEI and its partner agencies have contributed resources to concluding historical corruption issues. The committee has recommended minor changes to the set out of tables to provide a clearer picture of the issues being carried forward and the agency responsible. Finally, the committee congratulates the Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin, and ACLEI officers for the quality and readability of the 2014-15 annual report and for their cooperation and engagement during the inquiry.
I would also like to thank the deputy chair, Senator Catryna Bilyk, committee members and former member Senator the Hon. David Johnston for their contribution. I would also like to thank the secretariat—the secretary, Mr Stephen Palethorpe, and his team—the research team of Mr Jedidiah Reardon, Mr Josh See and Mr Michael Kirby, and Rosalind McMahon, the administrative officer, for their help during the past 12 months.
BILLS
Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:57): I speak today in support of the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Essentially, the bill purports to streamline the functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and to provide for a single administrative entity supporting shared court management responsibilities and processes amongst those federal courts. This shared approach should be beneficial in supporting a proper functioning and better resourced court system, compared to the existing system, which seems to be labouring under the weight of matters it has before it. That is why we do support the passage of this bill.
The 2012 Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's Portfolio considered that there was merit in shared administration arrangements. This was echoed in the 2014 National Commission of Audit report Towards responsible government. The National Commission of Audit report certainly considered the merit in shared administrative arrangements for the courts and stated:
It would be possible to merge the Federal Court of Australia with the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This would reduce administrative costs and provide additional opportunities to share facilities and streamline back-office functions to achieve more efficient administration of justice.
The necessity for such savings measures through shared court management, I think, is clearly obvious, particularly when we consider, in my own local patch, the Federal Circuit Court located in Parramatta. As it stands today, I know there are significant problems. I know how under-resourced the court system is there. In the last budget, the Family Court was projected to have over $44 million of operating losses.
These are issues with the administration of justice. It is one of the central aspects of our democracy that everyone is entitled to be equal before the law but, more importantly, everyone is entitled to receive justice before our courts. This is an attempt to ensure greater efficiencies through shared management in respect of our federal court structures. The corporate services would be managed by a Federal Court chief executive officer and principal registrar. The holder of that position would act as the CEO. This would allow for the streamlining of existing services to place the courts on a sustainable funding footing. I note that the proposed amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act would also ensure that there would be a mechanism put in place to provide a form of constraint on the way in which funds are spent by the CEO.
There is no question that we are satisfied with this legislation and the way it ensures the ongoing independence and integrity of our federal court system and also the jurisdictional nature of each of those three courts. The Federal Circuit Court has certainly undergone various changes in recent years, since being renamed, allowing the court to practise within concurrent jurisdictions of both the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court. The change was also aimed at creating a faster, simpler and more accessible justice system. This has allowed the Federal Circuit Court to include larger volumes of cases and expand its accessibility to other areas of the law. Taking those changes into account, it is nevertheless vital to ensure that each case is being dealt with in a timely manner and that individuals are assured of due process before the law. Such justice and timely consideration of matters must be the objective under any proposed streamlined structure.
As it stands today, the Federal Circuit Court has Family Court matters as its highest workload. As I understand, in 2015 that comprised about 91 per cent of its workload. One of the main issues of the everyday workings of the Federal Circuit Court is the large array of domestic violence cases, as well as cases being referred from the Magellan registrar, a case management system in the Family Court of Australia process to improve the outcomes particularly for vulnerable children and their families. This is an interagency approach created to combat court processing times for serious cases involving allegations of sexual or serious physical abuse. The Magellan registrar has reduced court time for serious matters involving abuse and has allowed for serious cases to be allocated unlimited resources, specialist welfare workers and the appointment of independent children's lawyers.
One of the criticisms as it stands today is the lack of replacement judges in the Federal Circuit Court for judges who have retired or been relocated. This has significantly impeded the court's ability to function in a timely manner, particularly given its heavy workload. An understaffed court system and the possibility, in respect of Parramatta, of the closure of the registry contravene the very reason for the implementation of programs such as the Magellan registrar, which exists to combat the problem of a backlog of cases. Therefore, this desperately requires closer attention. Recent reports have indicated that the Federal Circuit Court was able to finalise only 75 per cent of its applications in 2014-15, which fell somewhat short of the target of finalising 90 per cent of its matters. A former Federal Circuit Court judge, former Justice Coakes, noted:
… (cases involve) dysfunctional families and children at risk from dysfunctional parents because of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence in all its forms and mental illness.
That represents a real danger to the children. Until a case can be heard and finalised by a judge, those risks are continuing.
Therefore, it is vital to ensure that matters are run efficiently and in a timely manner and that justice is not delayed in the processing of matters in those courts.
I acknowledge the government's recent injection of $100 million to combat domestic violence. I certainly supported that initiative to some extent. Many would say that is not enough, because domestic violence is an epidemic in many of our communities, but I believe it is important that we continue along that path and ensure the maintenance of our judicial officers and court systems to be able to give justice and preside over matters as serious as domestic violence. It is critically important that these caseloads be handled as quickly as possible and orders made, particularly where protecting abused partners, where child protection matters are involved, and where recovery orders and other urgent applications are necessary.
I also acknowledge what is certainly considered a failing of the government when it comes to the appointment of new judges to vacancies. We are seeing more and more that, in various of our courts, vacancies are being left unfilled. This is certainly a cause of discontent amongst many of the legal profession due to the large volume of matters, the delays experienced and the frustration for both clients and litigators. I have received various pieces of correspondence from members of the legal profession requesting assistance in relation to this matter. If judges are not appointed to the Federal Circuit Court to replace retiring judges in a timely way, we could possibly see the shutting down of various registries. The courts are already understaffed and under-resourced and lack efficiency. That is why this bill is before the House today. But the last thing we want to see is a registry, such as the Parramatta registry, closed down, leaving the work to the Sydney based registry.
When it comes to justice, I think working together to ensure that the courts are appropriately funded and making certain that the ratio of court staff and judges is consistent with the workload is a good thing and would ensure that the intended outcome of the smooth and efficient running of our court systems is maintained. The ability of the community to access our court systems is fundamental to the system of Australian justice. It is fundamental, particularly in respect of matters that require urgent attention or litigation, particularly where litigation is necessary to protect the vulnerable. I support this bill.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:09): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is a crucial step towards placing the federal courts on a sustainable funding footing.
As has been noted before, there is a pressing need for the savings forecast from the bill, given the significant budgetary pressures and ongoing deficits faced by the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. This bill would ensure that more of the courts finite budgets are targeted at the thing that really matters: their delivery of justice to the Australian community. This is not only sensible, it is a matter of duty to the Australian taxpayer.
The bill's objective should not be conflated with calls to address broader concerns relating to the family law system, nor should such arguments be allowed to denigrate what the bill seeks to achieve. The reform is forecast, once fully implemented, to deliver $5.4 million each year in savings from the amalgamation of back-office functions. The reform will also create scope for the courts to identify further opportunities for efficiencies into the future, so the final impact could be even greater. Let me reiterate: this is no government grab for savings to be returned to consolidated revenue. All of these savings made by the courts are to be retained by the courts for the benefit of the courts. Clearly, funding injections are not sufficient to ensure the courts' long-term financial sustainability. Despite a significant funding injection in the 2012-13 budget, the family courts are now in a grave financial position. Realistic savings and efficiencies must come from within the system. The bill is vital to the courts achieving long-term financial sustainability; however, in a tight fiscal environment, there must be a continuing focus on all court administrative practices.
The bill contains numerous measures to safeguard the integrity and independent identity of each of the courts. It addresses the unsatisfactory situation at present where the separate management of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is impeded by their sharing of a single CEO. It guarantees the integrity of the separate budgets of each of the courts by preventing one court's funds being spent on another without appropriate consent, and it ensures that relevant delegations will be made from the administrative head of the organisation to support the courts independent management. The bill has been developed in close consultation with the courts, and many of the key measures are the result of close consultation with the chief justices and the Chief Judge.
In its submission on this bill, the Family Court has indicated that it had only one issue it wished to raise: the unconstrained powers of the Federal Court CEO for managing corporate services, particularly in relation to the courts' information technology systems. The narrowness of the Family Court's concerns is indicative of the close consultation with the courts undertaken throughout the bill's process. The Federal Court CEO's ultimate responsibility for the delivery of corporate services is required to ensure that projected savings can be delivered, which will be critical to averting the need for cuts to frontline services. This is particularly necessary in relation to information technology, which is key to the savings to be achieved. The Federal Court CEO will be required to consult the CEOs of the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court and the heads of jurisdiction in relation to corporate services, including information technology. This will ensure that their delivery is tailored to the needs of the courts. The heads of jurisdiction of the other two federal courts have advised that they do not support the creation of a board to oversee the functions of the Federal Court CEO. Adopting the proposal that the Federal Court CEO's decisions be voidable would create uncertainty in relation to the courts' contracts.
Although corporate services will be run by the Federal Court CEO, I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place. Consultation requirements have been built in to ensure that each Chief Justice, the Chief Judge and the CEOs are all consulted in relation to the delivery of corporate services. The retention of corporate services functions within the courts administrative entity, and their management by a court CEO, will ensure the delivery of these functions is closely aligned with the needs of the courts. This offers a better alternative to the approach taken prior to self-administration, where the Attorney-General's Department provided administrative support to the courts.
In the debate on this bill, some honourable members opposite have complained of vacancies in the court. I can tell those members that on 25 February the government announced the appointment of six federal judges. Four of the six appointees are women. The government is considering the vacancy in the Federal Circuit Court's Melbourne registry following the recent untimely passing in office of Judge Whelan. But for this vacancy, each court has its full complement of judges. There are no other vacancies in the federal courts.
The government continues to monitor the resourcing of the federal courts. Court funding and appointments must be considered in the context of other budget priorities. Consistent with the independence of the federal courts, the chief justices and Chief Judge are responsible for allocating available judicial resources. This bill will deliver much-needed savings to be reinvested in the courts' frontline services, while protecting and upholding their independence. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:14): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Single Appeal Path) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (17:15): I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Single Appeal Path) Bill 2016. The bill will give effect to a veterans' affairs 2015 budget measure that will create a single appeal path for the review of original determinations made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This measure was previously introduced into the parliament under the Veterans' Affairs Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015.
At that time, Labor identified key flaws in the legislation and we urged the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs to engage in extensive and thorough consultation with the opposition, crossbenchers and key stakeholders so that parliament could achieve a single appeal pathway but one that keeps faith with the original recommendation as found in the review of military compensation arrangements in 2011 and our shared goals for this legislation. Since that time there has been the consultation we sought, and I take this opportunity to thank the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP, and his successor as minister, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP, for engaging with us in good faith and for indeed entertaining those consultations with stakeholders and the veterans community so that this legislation is, in our judgement, much improved.
The opposition continues to support the ideal of establishing a single appeals pathway for our veterans. But, for Labor, that single appeals pathway is required to achieve certain key policy goals. It must be fair. It must present both the Department of Veterans' Affairs and individual veterans with the opportunity for procedural fairness. It must be appealable on fair terms. It must aim to lessen the time—all too much time—that veterans spend bogged down in an appeals process.
By way of background, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 provides compensation and other benefits for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force who suffer a service injury or disease. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act also provides compensation and other benefits for the dependants of some deceased members. Under the existing arrangements, the two pathways for a reconsideration or review of an 'original determination' made under chapter 8 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are internal reconsideration by the MRCC under part 3; or review by the Veterans' Review Board under part 4. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the reconsideration by the MRCC or the review by the VRB, part 5 provides for the claimant to apply to the AAT for a review of what is referred to as a 'reviewable determination'.
In 2011, the review of military compensation arrangements—which was initiated by the former Labor government following an election commitment, and I pay credit to the Hon. Alan Griffin MP, the honourable member for Bruce—recommended that the MRCA appeal process be refined to a single appeal path for clients. The amendments in this bill give effect to this recommendation.
The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, originally proposed a single appeal pathway and he brought to this parliament a plan whereby the single appeal path would remove internal reconsideration by the MRCC for claimants and enable a claimant to appeal an original decision of the MRCC to the VRB, the Veterans' Review Board, with a second tier of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Currently, applicants who choose reconsideration by the MRCC are not able to access legal aid at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The removal of reconsideration by the MRCC had the consequent effect of not being able to apply for award costs at the AAT, but the single appeal path through the VRB will mean that all applicants will have access to legal aid at the AAT, subject to the usual legal aid eligibility criteria.
As I said earlier, the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP, and his successor Dan Tehan MP, have negotiated with us in good faith to present the bill before us today. The bill before us proposes to streamline the review process by removing the option to choose between the commission and the VRB. While the budget measures bill proposed to no longer allow the commission to conduct an internal reconsideration of the matter, this bill will allow the commission to 'initiate and conduct an internal review on any original determinations that are the subject of an appeal to the VRB'. This change reflects the advice provided by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's inquiry into the budget measures bill. That inquiry and the work of that committee demonstrated that, contrary to the wording in the explanatory memorandum, 'internal reconsiderations and screening will automatically take place before matters proceed to the VRB'.
The explanatory memorandum notes at page 1 'that the 'single appeal path through the VRB would enable all applicants to have access to legal aid at the AAT, subject to the usual legal aid eligibility criteria'. The proposed amendments would also allow the award of costs at the AAT for Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act appeals through the VRB in some circumstances. This change reflects the view of the Law Council of Australia, who submitted to the committee inquiry into the budget measures bill that not allowing veterans access to costs 'would be at odds with the current costs provisions in the civilian community and would plainly place military personnel in a position of disadvantage and discrimination'.
You can imagine how plainly absurd it would be for a veteran to appeal a department's determination at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to engage the lawyers and endure the trauma and hardship that necessarily comes with legal action, and, at the end of that, to win that legal action to have the department proved negligent or whatever it may be, and to have the AAT find in favour of the veteran and yet for the veteran to not be able to recover costs and to be significantly out of pocket. Way back then, the government was proposing to set up a system which meant it was in no-one interest to review the department and, even if one successfully reviewed a determination of the department, it could be costly and utterly counterproductive—a proposal to put the department in an irresistibly powerful position. I am very pleased indeed that the bill before us today has recognised the error of that approach and has made the appropriate changes.
Items 11 and 12 of the bill amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to allow for a claimant to recover either all or part of the costs in relation to an AAT review of a determination by the VRB in certain circumstances. In order to recover costs, the AAT must have either varied a determination in favour of a claimant or set aside and substituted a decision in favour of a claimant. Further, the claimant will not be allowed to recover costs where: the claimant failed to provide a document to the VRB that, if provided, would have resulted in them receiving a favourable outcome at that earlier stage; the claimant received legal aid for their matter at either the VRB or the AAT; the claimant failed to comply with a direction under the subsection 148 (4B) of the Veteran's Entitlement Act; or where the claimant failed to comply with a direction under section 330 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 before the commission made its original determination.
The explanatory memorandum to this bill argues that these amendments will ensure that claimants are not encouraged to withhold information or fail to fully participate in the processes of the commission or the VRB. Claimants will not be entitled to both costs and legal aid. The amended proposal would give effect to the single appeals pathway as follows: original determination by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission; if dissatisfied with the commission decision the claimant may appeal to the Veterans' Review Board; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission will initiate and conduct an internal review on any original determinations that are the subject of an appeal to the board, using its existing 'own motion' powers under section 347, in a manner similar to section 31 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; if the claimant is not satisfied with the commission-initiated review decision, the matter will proceed to the Veterans' Review Board; and if the claimant is not satisfied with the board's decision, the claimant may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At that point, legal aid may be provided subject to the National Partnership on Legal Assistance.
The government's new proposal will specify the circumstances under which costs may or may not be awarded at the tribunal, in relation to a decision of the board. The amendments are intended to ensure that the right decision is made at the earliest level of decision making and the awarding of costs of the tribunal does not discourage the presentation of documentary evidence at the earliest possible stage of the decision-making process. Again, I note that the amendments allow, for the first time and, in some circumstances, an award of costs at the tribunal on its review of a board decision.
If 'new evidence' is presented, the AAT will have the power to remit the matter back to the commission for determination of the claim, based on that new evidence. The commission will have a statutory period of 28 days to determine the matter referred back by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In the event that the commission failed to meet the 28 days for an AAT-referred case, the matter will be deemed 'refusal' and returned to the AAT for a decision. If the commission determines the matter but the claimant is not satisfied with the decision, there will be a right of review to the AAT.
The following are further prohibitions on the award of costs: if the matter has received legal aid funding; if, at the VRB, the appellant sought a decision 'on the papers' and did not appear before the VRB; or if there is non-compliance with a request for further information. I have received assurances that the AAT will not remit cases back to the commission in order to avoid awarding costs. This is a matter of concern in some quarters of the veteran's community, and it is a matter that the opposition will be looking at very carefully. Further, the government has stated that they remain committed to the VRB remaining as a non-adversarial, beneficial jurisdiction, as they believe this is in the best interests of the veteran.
That has, ultimately, been the conclusion of Labor, but let me make it plain that there has been a very active discussion in the Labor Party, and between Labor and stakeholders, about this jurisdiction and whether it should remain a lay jurisdiction. While that has, ultimately, been our conclusion, there is a view that it is appropriate for this jurisdiction to also be a jurisdiction where lawyers can work and be engaged on behalf of veterans. In Labor reaching this decision, I simply make the point that this debate is a live one and remains a live one, and this process, hopefully enacted today, as a result of this bill, will be under serious scrutiny and pressure to succeed or that debate will not go away.
Legal representation is not permitted at the Veterans' Review Board. It is strongly the view of some veterans' organisations, not the least of which the Returned and Services League, that that is an appropriate course. Although legal representation is not permitted, the claimant may be accompanied by a nominated representative. While people with legal qualifications are prohibited from representing applicants at VRB hearings, applicants are permitted to consult lawyers prior to the hearing, and a paralegal employed by a law firm may appear. Written submissions prepared by a legal practitioner will be accepted by the VRB for consideration as evidence; however, legal aid funding is not available for legal work on VRB applications. This is an issue in some quarters of the veterans' community.
The government has advised that the National President of The Returned & Services League, Rear Admiral Ken Doolan, and the National Spokesperson for the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations, Colonel David Jamison, have provided written confirmation of their support of the proposed pathway. I, of course, have spoken with those gentlemen and can, indeed, confirm that is the case.
It is our view that this amended bill represents a victory for Labor. It is the government's third attempt and, on this attempt, Labor is able to support the legislation. The original legislation was flawed and, thanks to Labor's resolve to refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and highlight those flaws in evidence, we have, as a result, found ourselves now dealing with a much better piece of legislation. In particular, veterans will now be able to appeal determinations of the VRB to the AAT, confident that, if successful, they can recover their costs. As a consequence, the department has not engendered a system which shields itself from scrutiny or the review of its determinations. This means that an enormous disincentive to challenge the MRCC has been removed. It is a good thing too.
The introduction of a 28-day statutory reporting time frame for the MRCC to consider new evidence provided by a claimant is an important step in speeding up the time that it takes for a claimant to achieve justice under the appeals system. I might note that there are many elements of the veterans' community who are very interested, indeed, to see how the department responds to dealing with statutory reporting time frames. The revised pathway also allows for an internal review of an MRCC decision, as envisaged in the original 2011 military and compensation inquiry.
It is fundamental to Labor that the compensation system for injured veterans, including the appeal system, is balanced and fair. The system must also operate without unnecessary delays because those delays exacerbate hardship, sometimes with crushing results. We believe that the legislation as now presented to the House will provide an appeals process that best serves our veterans.
As I indicated, this is an issue of great interest to Labor. We will be watching how it proceeds. We will certainly continue to remain very engaged with the veterans' community and how it is they find this process. I take this opportunity to thank those organisations for working and consulting with me. I think my parliamentary colleagues Warren Snowdon and Alan Griffin, both of whom remain passionately interested in this subject. As former ministers for veterans' affairs, their counsel continues to be an enormous aid to me as I deliberate through these questions. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Minister for Defence Materiel) (17:30): I thank the member for Batman for the constructive way that he has engaged on this bill. I look forward to working with him where I can in a most cooperative manner so that we can make sure that these matters are dealt with in a very constructive and bipartisan way.
The bill gives effect to the remaining's veterans' affairs 2015 budget measure that will benefit the Defence and ex-service community. The bill will implement the streamlining of the appeal process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, MRCA. This will be of benefit to future, current and former members of the ADF covered by the MRCA. Under the current arrangements, a claimant may seek a right of review through either but not both the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission or the Veterans' Review Board. They then have a second right of review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The bill will streamline the appeals process under the MRCA by creating a single first-tier appeal path directly to the Veterans' Review Board. This will simplify the process for claimants by removing the current complexities faced by veterans in deciding which appeal path to take, and the potential impacts of that decision such as different time limits apply to the submission of appeals.
This is a streamlined process that combines the advantage of the two current paths. The Veterans' Review Board provides a process that is non-adversarial and veteran friendly. Overall, the single appeal path will encourage and support participation in the process to reach a resolution for the veteran at the earliest possible point. The chair of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission has given an undertaking that the commission will conduct section 347 reviews in the same manner that section 31 reviews under the Veterans' Entitlements Act currently occur.
The bill will also give the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the discretion to award costs in favour of the claimant in relation to a decision of the board. Until now, under the MCRA, the tribunal had no ability to award costs in relation to decisions of the board. The circumstances under which the tribunal has the discretion to award such costs are intended to ensure that the right decision is made at the earliest level of decision making. It is also intended to ensure that the awarding of costs at the tribunal in relation to the decisions by the board does not discourage the presentation of documentary evidence at the earliest possible stage of the decision-making process.
This streamlined single appeal path is broadly supported by the veterans' and ex-service community. This 2015 budget measure contributes to this government's commitment to recognising and meeting the needs of current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and their families.
I seek leave to table a document that illustrates the proposed single appeal pathway.
Leave granted.
Mr TEHAN: I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Minister for Defence Materiel) (17:34): 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.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (17:35): If you were to drive down the road 15 to 20 kilometres from where we are standing today, you would find some of the worst broadband coverage in the country in terms of availability and quality. We are talking 15 or 20 kilometres down the road from the nation's Parliament House in the nation's capital. As communications minister, the Prime Minister had 2½ years to do one job. What does he have to show for it? We have missed targets, we have cost blow-outs and we have broken promises. As of last week, nbn co had completed 29,000 of his second-rate fibre-to-the-node projects, less than a third of its target of 94,000 premises.
This is a government that is failing to deliver its own second-rate copper NBN. This week's leaked report revealed the true cost of that failure being $56 billion—that is, $56 billion worth of failure. That is nearly double what the Prime Minister said it would cost at the last election. We always knew the Prime Minister's second-rate NBN would be cheap and nasty but now it is not even cheap, and people are sick of it. They are sick of the delays, they are sick of the mismanagement and they are sick of being promised one thing and getting another. People in the southern part of my electorate are particularly sick of it; they are not even on the NBN rollout map. We are talking 15 to 20 kilometres from this building, from the nation's Parliament House in the nation's capital. It has the worst broadband coverage in the country in terms of availability and quality. It is absolutely outrageous—this is the nation's capital!
When the latest rollout map was released the residents of Tuggeranong, like so many millions of other Australians, eagerly typed their addresses into the website and were appalled to see that they were not even there. There was just one big, blank space—one big, blank space on the future of NBN for the southern part of my electorate, particularly in Tuggeranong. They are not even on the rollout map, and there is no indication of when the NBN is going to be coming to them; no indication at all. There is nothing—just one big, blank space. There were lots of nice dots everywhere else in Australia, and good luck to everyone else in Australia, but there was just one big, blank space for the southern part of my electorate. As I said, only 15 to 20 kilometres from Parliament House in the nation's capital there is one big, blank space on the NBN rollout map, with no idea of when we are going to get NBN.
Naturally, my constituents are feeling pretty frustrated. I feel those frustrations too. So last December I presented a petition signed by hundreds of Canberrans calling for the new communications minister to take action. When presenting the petition I asked the minister: 'Minister, please prioritise Canberra's NBN rollout map. Our situation is bleak, as you have heard. It is dire, and we are being left behind. We are victims of a digital divide here in Canberra.' It took more than two months to get a response from the minister, and it is hard to imagine a less constructive response. The minister wrote back that, yes, many in my electorate are considered underserved in terms of broadband quality and availability—as if the people of Canberra did not know that already. You would think that, having recognised how urgent and pressing the NBN rollout is to so many in the Tuggeranong region and its surrounding areas, the government might make delivering the NBN a particular priority, particularly when they have acknowledged that many areas in my electorate here in Canberra are underserved in terms of broadband quality and availability.
However, the minister went on to say, 'The coalition government is prioritising underserved homes and businesses in the NBN rollout, and by 2017-18 more than 65 per cent of those underserved homes and businesses will be able to order a service on the NBN.' Brilliant—with 65 per cent, surely we are going to be included in that. But guess what? That 65 per cent does not include the electorate of Canberra and those parts of Tuggeranong that are only 15 to 20 kilometres away from the nation's Parliament House; 15 to 20 kilometres away from the seat of democracy here in the nation's capital. And even though it has been acknowledged by the minister that they are underserved, they are not being prioritised for the NBN. They are not part of that 65 per cent that is going to be rolled out in future.
There is a human cost to the cost blow-outs of project delays and cut-rate service delivery. These are some of the letters that I have received in recent months. I repeatedly read these out in parliament, and I will continue to read these out in parliament until my electorate gets prioritised on the NBN rollout. This is the nation's capital, and 15 to 20 kilometres from Parliament House we have the worst coverage in the country in terms of availability. It is absolutely outrageous, so I will continue to read these letters out in parliament, I will continue to petition the minister and I will continue to write to the minister until the electorate of Canberra gets prioritised. 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.
Alex wrote to me when he managed to find an upside to the latest report of delays and reviews:
I'd prefer that the Liberals make absolutely no progress at all on the NBN. The less they do, the less they can stuff up. When NBN comes to Isabella Plains, I want it to be fibre to the premises, done right the first time.
Alex might have been able to see the silver lining to the government's chronic mishandling of the NBN, but others just cannot. They have seen it very differently. 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. Some nights my broadband is so slow I can't download text emails.
Here we are in the nation's capital, and here is Rebecca not being able to download text emails.
How is this acceptable in 2015?
—which is when she wrote me the letter.
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!
All I can say, Rebecca, is, 'Good luck with the university studies, given the fact that you cannot even download text emails as a result of the outrageously bad service that is being provided to the people in the southern part of my electorate.' They are not even on the rollout map and they are not even being considered for prioritisation, despite the fact that the minister has acknowledged that we are underserved. This came from Roger:
The NBN has the potential to transform our economy—
Yes, Roger, it does—
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 they think my speed is a joke. Canberra should be a high priority because of our government and tertiary education sectors.
And there was this from Daniel:
Please help. Our internet is terrible—three or four times a week it won't work at all.
We are talking about 2016, and three or four times a week our internet will not work at all.
Certainly limits productivity!
It does indeed, Daniel. It does certainly limit productivity.
Work provides flexible work options, but without a reliable internet this is limited, and can also be dreadfully inefficient even when connected! And we're not even on the rollout map!
Yes, Daniel, I know. I have been trying to get this message through to the communications minister for some time and, despite the fact that he has acknowledged that we are underserved, despite the fact that he has acknowledged that we are not on the rollout map, unfortunately we ain't a priority. That really does typify this government's and former coalition governments' views on Canberra: the complete contempt and disdain they have for this city, the complete contempt and disdain they have for the public service and the complete contempt and disdain they have for our servants of democracy.
We saw what the Howard government did to this city in 1996. As I said, today 20 years ago was a dark day for Canberra in terms of the decimation wreaked by the Howard government. And we are seeing the same contempt and disdain from this Abbott-Turnbull government, not just in the NBN but also in the cuts to funding for our cultural and scientific institutions and cuts to science jobs and Public Service jobs. It was 8½ thousand at the last count, but that is nothing compared to 1996 when it was 15,000 and sent Canberra into an economic slump. Yes, Daniel, we know what coalition governments' views on Canberra are. They have got form. All I can say is that Sir Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave.
The day before yesterday I was out with a colleague trying to defend those jobs at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to move to his electorate. These are highly specialised, highly skilled jobs and he wants to move them up to Armidale. The approach is: 'No, these people do not have families; they do not have children in schools. Let's just move them up to Armidale as part of some exercise, some political stunt. Let's just move people around as if they do not have lives, aspirations and dreams, as if they do not have careers here in Canberra.' It just underscores this government's and former coalition governments' complete contempt and disdain for Canberra.
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. Still waiting for an acceptable alternative, with nothing on the horizon to give hope. Is it time to move to the Northside?
And there is Adrian, who wrote:
… in global standards we are a third world country when it comes to Internet download speeds and pricing! Latvia has faster average internet speeds than we do!
And then there was this letter from Renny, who works in one of the many local small businesses that are struggling with second-rate internet speeds:
I read, with utter disbelief and disgust, that Theodore, Calwell and the like are—yet again—missing out. If this wasn't bad enough I see that places like Wanniassa are getting included. These suburbs already have access to some form of high speed internet (TransACT) and now they are getting a second bite of the cherry while we in the south struggle with technology that peaked 15 years ago. Before the change of Government we were told that the NBN would be in our area in 2015. Now that has been pushed back to 2018 … or never maybe?
As I said, a lot of these areas are not even on the rollout map, so we do not know when they are going to be appearing. Renny continued:
Has anyone thought about the businesses, such as mine, that are trying to operate using an internet service that is one of the worst in any developed nation?
As Adrian said, Latvia has faster average internet speeds than we do.
This is not fair! What have we done to attract such scorn and cynicism?
Unfortunately, Renny, this is what you get when coalition governments are elected. As I said, they have complete contempt and disdain for our nation's capital and for Canberrans.
Renny's frustrations are echoed all across the electorate of Canberra and all across the country. As a former small business owner myself, I know how it feels. You have a deadline with a client. You have spent weeks, often months, working on a particular project. You have laid it out, you have carefully edited it, you have carefully researched it, you have put a lot of work into it and you are really proud of the piece of work that you have produced. You put it in a PDF and send it to the client by deadline on a Friday afternoon. Your next pay packet is dependent on that product being delivered to the client by deadline. Can you imagine what would happen if that were Renny? With poor old Renny the file would be somewhere in his clogged up outbox and the client would be getting it in six months time. By that stage Renny would probably have lost the client and the business, and God knows how he would be paying his mortgage. Small businesses depend for success on their reputation and the ability to deliver a quality product to their clients on time and to deadline.
This is outrageous. I again call on the Minister for Communications: Minister, please, I have written to you and I have petitioned you. Will you please prioritise Canberra on the NBN rollout map. You have acknowledged that we are underserved, so will you please put us on the priority rollout map. Canberrans deserve it. We do not deserve to have worse connections than those in Latvia. (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (17:50): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. Like the previous speaker I want to acknowledge that on this day 20 years ago the Howard federal coalition government was elected. I remember that day well. I was watching on election night and it was a great relief that the coalition had been elected after years of Labor government incompetence. I remember clearly that we were left with $96 billion in debt and it was the federal coalition government that paid it off. What did we have to do at that stage? We had to actually sell Australia's communication network Telstra. This time, coming into government in 2013, we were left with something like $250 billion in debt, but there was not a lot left to sell. Those opposite voted for those increases in debt.
This bill will implement the government's response to the independent cost-benefit analysis and review into NBN arrangements that was undertaken by a panel in 2014. Basically, the measures in this bill will finetune NBN's business obligations and administration. Unlike Labor, the coalition government care about providing taxpayers with value for money. That is why at the last federal election we said we would do an independent cost-benefit analysis on major infrastructure projects, as we did for this in 2014. The federal government care about having a world-class telecommunications network.
There are four measures in this bill. The first is changes to clarify regulation surrounding access to facilities. At the moment, access to telecommunications facilities—pits, pipes, ducts, mobile towers—is regulated under several schedules of the Telecommunications Act and is also regulated by the ACCC under part of the Competition and Consumer Act. This causes confusion, so amendments clarify that access and determine what part will have precedence over access determined under the Telecommunications Act. This clarifies the relationship between the two acts.
The second change is to ensure 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 is especially relevant in my electorate of Petrie, particularly in the Redcliffe Peninsula, where there are quite a few high-rise buildings and apartment blocks. This change will remove the potential of restricting access to competitors and ensures end users can get faster access to broadband and telephone services. If someone owns the in-building cabling, they cannot prevent a telecommunications company providing a service to the consumer in that building.
Third, we are also making changes to the wording around fixed principle provisions to improve the consistency and effectiveness. This is basically a procedural change that the Senate committee and the industry have supported.
Fourth and finally, the bill will change nbn's line-of-business restrictions to ensure the National Broadband Network can dispose of surplus assets to any person. Currently, it can only sell those assets to another carrier or service provider. For example, the current law prevents nbn from selling surplus office equipment or vehicles unless it supplies an eligible service to the potential buyer unless the sales is connected with the supply of that eligible service. This is very impractical, and it makes sense that a government owned organisation like nbn can sell surplus vehicles or office equipment to anyone that they choose and get the best value for taxpayers where they can.
As you can see, what the government is doing here is making the National Broadband Network processes more efficient and effective. Every day since this federal coalition government was elected, this government has put priority on rolling out a world-class telecommunications network as fast and as cost-effectively as possible. That is very relevant after the $43 billion blow-out under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—$43 billion which only racked up the debt even more.
Unlike the Labor Party, we know we are working with taxpayers' money. The Australian government money comes from taxpayers, those hardworking Australians who pay income tax and company tax, the people the Labor opposition want to hit with their changes to negative gearing and superannuation. Through the great work of the Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, and the Minister for Communications, the Hon. Mitch Fifield, and their staff, almost two million premises around the country can right now access the NBN. That is an 80 per cent increase on what it was when we were elected. That is a big improvement. It is actually a very stark contrast to Labor's NBN mess, which saw fewer than two per cent of the population hooked up to the NBN, at a cost of some $6 billion. Labor does not understand that every dollar wasted comes out of taxpayers' pockets and that every dollar wasted is a dollar that has to be repaid with interest by the next generation of Australians, which is irresponsible.
What a legacy we were left with! Luckily, the people in my electorate of Petrie and around this nation are in the safe and effective hands of the coalition government. I have been strongly advocating in my electorate of Petrie for a faster NBN rollout. I was very proud to announce that last year 53,390 local households had been prioritised for the rollout. This is happening years sooner than Labor's 2024 completion date. In suburbs in my electorate like North Lakes, Mango Hill and Griffin—fast-growing areas in my electorate with loads of new people coming in—construction is due to begin in July 2016, just three or four months away. There will be 5,020 priority premises around the North Lakes, Mango Hill and Griffin areas. This is very important because that area in my electorate has a very fast growing business sector. It is a little city in its own right just north of Brisbane. These people certainly do need better internet and telecommunications connections than other parts of my electorate.
Thirty per cent of my electorate is in the Brisbane City Council, which has probably better services at the moment. I grew up in Bracken Ridge. It has better services than what the Moreton Bay regional sections of the electorate have, so I am very pleased about this priority rollout beginning in July for North Lakes, Mango Hill and Griffin. The design in this area has been completed, and they are ready to kick it off. So that is that area.
There will also be a second round of construction in Mango Hill, and it will begin in the second half of 2017. The Prime Minister knows this part of my electorate very well. He came up prior to the 2013 federal election, when the Park Vista Estate, a new estate in my electorate, basically had no telephone or internet services. After his visit, very quickly those services were connected when he was the shadow minister. I want to thank him again publicly for that.
In the Redcliffe Peninsula and Rothwell areas, as part of the multitechnology mix in the National Broadband Network, the NBN will connect homes to already-present pay TV or HFC networks, which are some of the most competitive in offering superfast broadband. Under the previous government this infrastructure was going to be junked. It was bought back from Optus. They paid millions of dollars for it, and it was going to be scrapped, but we are using this technology. I am very pleased to say to the people in Redcliffe and the people in my electorate that the Redcliffe Peninsula in our electorate was the first trial site in Australia to have this technology tested. The rollout to some 22,000 across Redcliffe has started, and you should hear more from the nbn over the coming months.
Construction of thousands of new lead-ins has now been completed to houses in Redcliffe that did not already have one—there were already houses that had pay TV services previously and had a lead-in. People very soon will be able to get a connection.
In Rothwell, NBN construction will start on 600 priority homes by July this year—so that is great news for Rothwell. A second round of construction in Rothwell will begin in July 2017. Aspley, Bridgeman Downs or Carseldine in the Brisbane City Council area most homes are already connected to the NBN, and the rollout is continuing—I am very pleased about that.
A second round of construction in Bridgeman Downs will also begin in July 2017. In Bridgeman Downs there are a lot of homes with acreage, so it is important that that area is connected. In Bald Hills, Bracken Ridge and Fitzgibbon construction will start in the second half of 2017. In places like Bracken Ridge and the neighbouring suburbs like Brighton, they will also be able to use the HFC connections which have already been rolled in Redcliffe.
In Deception Bay construction will start on 1,960 priority premises around Burpengary and Burpengary East—part of my electorate—in July 2016, so very soon, and the rest of Deception Bay NBN construction will begin in July 2017.
I believe that pretty well every home in my electorate should be connected by the end of 2018; everyone should be connected. That is probably two years earlier than the rest of the country for every home to be connected and some six years earlier than what it would have been under Labor's plan.
Mr McCormack: They have got a good local member!
Mr HOWARTH: Thank you—I will take that interjection; thank you very much. Yes, we work hard but of course we would not have been able to do this without the Prime Minister, the current minister and the nbn staff. The people who work for the nbn are hard at work, rolling out the NBN through my electorate in Redcliffe, the Brisbane City Council area and North Lakes—I spoke about North Lakes earlier. It is a priority area and, if you missed it before, it will start being rolled out there in July 2016—some 5,020 premises, along with the Moreton Bay Rail Link—that is exactly right: we are fighting hard.
I want to thank everyone again—thank the nbn staff for what they are doing. I thank the minister and I look forward to better internet connections for the entire federal seat of Petrie some six years earlier than promised under Labor and some two years earlier than the rest of the country. Thank you.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:03): I rise to oppose the Telecommunications Legislation Commencement (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, although it is understood that the government will gut its own legislation through a series of amendments that it has flagged to remove parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the bill. That is of course, I think, symbolic of what the government has done when it comes to the National Broadband Network: it has gutted its own policies when it comes to the NBN.
I had the great honour of being the communications minister at the end of the period in which we were in office. What I saw were professional public servants, a professional board led by its chair Siobhan McKenna and an organisation that is so important for transforming Australia's infrastructure.
The current Prime Minister, who was appointed the communications minister after the election by his dear friend Tony Abbott as the shadow Minister for Communications, was given the task of 'destroying the NBN'—that was the task, direct quote from Tony Abbott, when he appointed Malcolm Turnbull as the shadow minister for communications.
I think that he was very much the shadow minister for 'fraudband' rather than broadband and the copper economy rather than the digital economy. We saw Malcolm Turnbull as the communications minister set about destroying the NBN.
There is a fundamental difference in views: we on this side of the House supported fibre to the premise, fibre to the home and fibre to the business. We saw that as essential as enabling people to connect to water, electricity or other utilities. Fibre and fast-speed broadband are not something that should be kept from people on the basis of their income; it should be accessible for all.
Those opposite, with the approach of the current Prime Minister, have a very different philosophical view. You have fibre to the node or a fibre to the fridge-type box on the corner of streets and then the old copper wire into people's homes or businesses. If people are wealthy enough, they can connect up to high-speed broadband through fibre So we change it from a universal system to one that reflects people's wealth.
One of the things that is extraordinary is that in 2016 access to high-speed broadband is essential for any student at school and any business, and it is particularly important in regional Australia. One of the issues of the NBN is that access to high-speed broadband can, in a country such as Australia, break down some of those spatial inequalities that are there. If you can establish a business in a regional centre—like Coffs Harbour, where I turned on the NBN as the minister and as Deputy Prime Minister in 2013—then that makes living in those regional cities and towns much more attractive. The overheads of living in a regional city are often far less, in terms of rent or ownership of business premises compared to if you are in the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth.
We saw the NBN as very much an equity issue. The National Broadband Network should be rolled out right around the country. We know that that is world's best practice. We know that in government we achieved the structural separation of Telstra and other significant reforms which essentially had laid dormant under 12 years of the Howard government.
In terms of the principles that were being rolled out, the government has this absurd proposition that somehow they have a mandate for what they are doing. Of course, when people such as journalists at the ABC have been critical of the NBN, they quite clearly have been intimidated into not being able to express their views. Indeed, it is quite extraordinary that an article written by Emma Alberici after she hosted a debate between myself and the now Prime Minister on Lateline was published after the federal election and not before, because of so-called checks that needed to take place.
While in opposition Malcolm Turnbull had this to say:
We are going to do a rigorous analysis, we will get Infrastructure Australia to do an independent cost-benefit analysis.
Instead of appointing Infrastructure Australia, which is what Malcolm Turnbull said repeatedly in terms of those issues, Mr Turnbull appointed a collection of former Liberal Party staffers and advisors and critics of the National Broadband Network to conduct his cost-benefit analysis. The Senate select committee into the NBN had a look at the Vertigan panel's independent cost-benefit analysis to broadband. What that Senate select committee highlighted was a number of absolute shortcuts and failures when it came to a proper cost-benefit analysis. The extraordinary circumstance now whereby the government purchased in 2016 through the National Broadband Network some 1,800,000 metres of copper—that was the last amount purchased—is almost beyond belief in 2016. But what that shows is just how hopeless the government's approach was. That is why what we have seen from the government is a doubling of costs and a halving of speed under the government's own analysis.
The costs appear to be going up and up and up. We saw the extraordinary payment to Telstra for the existing network. It takes a special kind of profligacy to engage with Telstra the way that they did. They are now finding out, funnily enough. In the strategic review that took place in December 2013 they said it would cost $55 million to fix up the copper. Two years later they are saying that figure is $641 million. That is much more than a tenfold increase. In the strategic review they said that there would be $2½ billion of revenue this year and next. Now they say that figure is $1.1 billion—much less than half. They said that the fibre-to-the-node cost for the home would be $600. The actual cost, two years later, they find to be $1,600. That is an increase of 167 per cent.
All of those issues show what a failure it has been. Indeed, this government, when it comes to the NBN, shows its lack of vision for this nation. There can be no more visionary a project than the NBN, because the NBN will have an impact not just on our economy, but on the way education services are delivered, the way health services are delivered, the way that our entire national economy functions and, importantly, the way that regional economies function. That is why it is so disappointing that the National Party tail has just wagged itself at the end of the Liberal Party dog. They have failed to stand up for the interests of regional Australia when it comes to the NBN. There are people over there, including the now Leader of the National Party, who used to say quite strong things about universal service obligations and the need to have the same service available in the bush as in the city, but they are pretty quiet about that now.
Fundamentally this government stands condemned for the fact that Malcolm Turnbull said that the rollout of the NBN would be completed in 2016—this year—at 25 megabits per second minimum speed. This Prime Minister also went down to Tasmania and said very clearly that the Tasmanian rollout, which was contracted, would be continued and should have been completed by now. Everyone in Tasmania, by right now, was going to have access to the NBN, and yet you can stand on a street in Launceston and look across the road and one side does not get it and the other side does get it—with an extraordinary impact, of course, on house prices, which the government likes to consider that it is interested in, due to an accident of where the lines were drawn on the map. The people who missed out are going to miss out forever under this government's plan, because they will not get fibre to the premises.
I think this goes to the heart of the competence of the person that we now have as the Prime Minister. He made big promises. He was very critical of the former government. He had one job and one job only. He did not do anything else. He did not do media reform. He did not do anything else, except maybe plot against Prime Minister Abbott. He certainly was very conscious of that, and of spending time taking selfies on public transport—which he now, of course, does not fund. But the fact is that a doubling of the cost, a halving of the speed and inequitable distribution so that we will have haves and have-nots, suburbs divided on the basis of access to NBN—
Ms Butler: And the delay.
Mr ALBANESE: and the delay in times, the blow-out in terms of delivery, show that this Prime Minister could not deliver as communications minister, so it is no wonder that he is all at sea when it comes to providing national leadership for Australia.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:18): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Grayndler, who is such a strong advocate for his own electorate but also for infrastructure across the country. He has done a great job today, on the 20th anniversary of his election to this parliament, of really exploring and exposing some of the shocking mismanagement and incompetence in respect of the NBN. As the member for Grayndler said, when it came to the NBN, the now Prime Minister, then communications minister, had one job. He had one job, and what are we seeing? We are seeing headlines that talk about just what a hash of that one job he has—unfortunately and very sadly—made. I guess he has got a lot of difficulties because he has completely failed to deliver on the NBN, the great nation-building reform that our country needs. By 'our country', of course, I am speaking about not just schoolkids, not just small businesses and not just university students who are trying to study but about people across this country, whether you are in the city, whether you are in the bush. Malcolm Turnbull has failed you when it comes to the NBN.
Malcolm Turnbull has failed to provide the 25 megabits per second that we were all promised we were going to get in 2016. Everyone is not getting the NBN by 2016, despite the election commitment that Malcolm Turnbull made. In fact, this NBN rollout plan of his is blowing out to 2020. Given the election was in September 2013, that is more than a doubling of the time period for the delivery of the NBN. But that is far from the only example of incompetence on this issue. Before becoming the communications minister, when the current government were in opposition, Malcolm Turnbull said that the second-rate NBN that the Liberals would deliver would cost $29½ billion. But it has blown out, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would not even believe it. It has almost doubled, to $56 billion in cost. So you have got a doubling in the time frame and a doubling in the cost.
The really sad thing is that, while it is Malcolm Turnbull who has made such a hash of this, it is households and businesses that suffer. Even more disappointing for people is the amount of old technology that is being added into this second-rate version of the NBN. Malcolm Turnbull said that it would cost $55 million to patch up the old copper network, but this cost has blown out by more than 1,000 per cent—it is hard to believe, but it is true—to more than $640 million. He said that 2.61 million homes would be connected to the pay TV cables—for the second-rate version of the NBN that he is using—by 2016. Even on those new figures, only 10,000 homes, not 2.61 million, will be connected by June 2016. He said that this second-rate network of his would bring in $2½ billion in revenue in 2016-17. This has crashed to only $1.1 billion. He has blown a $1.4 billion hole in the nbn co's revenue line.
Given the complete hash that the now Prime Minister made of the NBN, you might think that someone who had so comprehensively failed to meet every one of the KPIs on the one job that he had would suffer some of the ramifications of that. But no. He was promoted. He had one job and he hashed it up, made a complete mess of it, and what did the Liberal and National parties do? They promoted him. And why? Members of the Liberal and National parties must be asking themselves: what was the point of changing? What was the point of axing the member for Warringah from the prime ministership and installing the member for Wentworth? What has it actually delivered? We have seen what can only be described as a repeat of his incompetence on the NBN writ large in tax policy. This running up the flagpole idea after idea—a failure to put anything comprehensive out for the Australian people to consider—is so emblematic of the problem with this government. There is so much hot air and no real concrete solutions being provided to anything. It is something that we are constantly seeing, unfortunately, from the new Prime Minister.
The NBN is a really important issue in my electorate. I have some inner suburbs along the south side of Brisbane's river—that is my electorate. In some of those suburbs in South Brisbane there is fibre. There is fibre because an exchange was demolished during the building of the new children's hospital. The provider decided to lay fibre because that is the new technology. Why would you go to copper? You would not. So fibre was laid and the consequence of that is that I have some haves and have-nots in my electorate. I have the people in South Brisbane who have fibre, and I have everyone else who have 40-year-old crumbling copper wires. Even worse, there are some people in my electorate who cannot get ADSL, they cannot get cable, so they are having to rely on dongles. It is ridiculous that in the inner suburbs in Brisbane, a major metropolitan city in Australia—one of the powerhouses of economic activity in this country—people are having to rely on dongles to get internet access. It is not just households it is also businesses. In fact, I had a business move into Morningside and then contact me to tell me they cannot believe the lack of internet access there.
I have some really high-end new media, new technology, businesses in my electorate that require not only good download speeds but also great upload speeds, because some of them use very high resolution images. There are people in digital design, there are people in online video production and they need a decent NBN. It is such a shock to them when they come into what is an inner suburb, and inner metropolitan area, only to find that the internet speeds are ridiculous.
I undertook a survey of my electorate last year and I was unsurprised, but saddened, to learn of some of the problems people were having. I wrote a letter to the now Prime Minister who, at the time, was the communications minister. I delivered the letter to him by hand, in a meeting I had with him, on 12 August 2015. I told him that 80 per cent of the respondents to my survey—at the time, there were 437 of them—said that their current internet connection did not meet the needs of their business or household. I told him in my letter that the main complaints were related to internet speeds as well as the reliability of the network. I also told him that the complaints were consistent between people who had ADSL and people who had HFC connections.
Here are some of the things residents said to me. Paul of Camp Hill said:
We constantly have delays and wait long periods for downloads, our speeds vary dramatically from day to day and the time of day.
I bet they do. The internet access is terrible around Camp Hill.
Rae of Murarrie, last year, said:
I have two children in grade 9. The past term they had eleven assignments each to complete. At no set time during the day we have no internet or very slow internet. They often have to remain at school to use the computers to complete tasks.
It is just not good enough. These are kids working towards their junior certificate who will, no doubt, want to go on to senior school and possibly on to university—and I certainly hope they do. We cannot have our children being hamstrung by ridiculously slow internet speeds. Firstly, it is terrible for them individually. Secondly, it is terrible for our economy that the people we are relying upon to develop the skills and knowledge that will be needed in the future, for the jobs of the future, do not have internet access. It is ridiculous.
As I said, not everyone can even get an ADSL connection. I have people in Mount Gravatt East and in Carina who were being told, at the time, that the local exchange was at capacity. They could not get a new ADSL connection. It was not possible, so they either had to rely on HFC or, if that was not possible either, they had to rely on dongles.
I had Liam of Camp Hill talk to me about his HFC connection. He said:
It's too slow and drops out all the time. Our household is 2 adults and 4 children (incl 2 high school students). I do some work from home. There are frequent times when the speed is slow it is unworkable - this inhibits both my work and my children's school requirements. There is certainly not enough bandwidth for entertainment e.g. Netflix, YouTube, Spotify on top of school and work. I have the opportunity to do video calls to attend work meetings. The internet connect though is too unreliable for me to do so and as such do not take advantage of the opportunity to work from home - particularly annoying with family commitments.
Of course it is.
The demographics of my electorate are that it is a younger electorate than the Australian average, it is an electorate with more two-income households where both parents are working more than 40 hours a week and it is an electorate where people have a lot of family responsibilities. There are young people and young families. They are very hard working and work very long hours. Of course, they should be able to take the opportunity of flexibility that a lot of firms are providing now, but that requires being able to work from home. What do you need to work from home? You need a decent internet connection.
I wrote to the now Prime Minister. I gave him those stories and many others. I told him that some places have neither ADSL nor HFC. I told him that businesses were being held back. I raised with him my concerns about the deliverability of his government's pre-election commitments. I said:
With respect, the feedback I've received appears to indicate that promises made by you and the now Prime Minister—
at the time the member for Warringah, so he is now the former Prime Minister—
before the election that, "under the coalition's NBN all premises will have access to download speeds 25mbps to 100 mbps by the end of 2016", are unlikely to be met.
And surprise, surprise: they are still unlikely to be met.
This was a ridiculous situation where massive commitments had been made and the government is not honouring them. There is a complete blow- out on every KPI. It is certainly not the case that people are getting 25 to 100 megabits per second by 2016—that is just ridiculous. It is not happening, and no-one, frankly, can have any trust in the credibility of this government led by the person who was the communications minister at the time of this document.
I said to the now Prime Minister that I understood that the coalition's NBN was now not expected to reach all Australians until December 2020. I also drew his attention to the fact that, under Labor's 2013 rollout plan, construction of fibre was due to start for 54,000 homes and businesses in November 2013 but, regrettably, the Abbott government—now Turnbull government—had cancelled that rollout. I raised those concerns in my letter to him and I also raised them in our meeting. He was able to talk to me about some HFC that was there but, when I pressed him on it, he could not even tell me how many houses were passed by HFC. More to the point, just being passed by HFC does not mean there are going to be enough opportunities for people to connect to the HFC—because being passed by the HFC and actually connecting to it are two different propositions.
After we had that meeting on 12 August last year, I wrote to him again on 17 August, referring to my letter of 12 August, and raising further concerns that had arisen from that meeting in respect of HFC, and I asked him some specific questions about the HFC. I asked him how many of the 76,000 residences located within the distribution areas on a particular map were actually passed, how many had connections and, of the ones that did not have connections, how many could get a HFC connection currently. Unfortunately, I have not received a response to either of those two letters that I wrote to the then communications minister, now Prime Minister, in August 2015.
What would the response say? What could they possibly say? As I said, in 2013 our rollout plan was to get out to 54,000 homes and businesses. Our rollout plan was for the Camp Hill and Woolloongabba areas, which covered Bulimba, Camp Hill, Cannon Hill, Carina, Carina Heights, Carindale, Hawthorne, Morningside, Norman Park, Seven Hills, Balmoral, Dutton Park, East Brisbane, Fairfield, Highgate Hill, Kangaroo Point, South Brisbane, West End, Woolloongabba and Annerley. Some of those have fibre now—through no action of the now Prime Minister. As I said earlier, that is because an exchange was bulldozed and the provider laid the fibre. But all of those that did not have the benefit of that change are still waiting for this Prime Minister to deliver decent broadband. And what did we see last year? I have a document that says that the Woolloongabba area, which would cover East Brisbane, Kangaroo Point, Woolloongabba and Annerley, are not getting fibre; they are not getting the fibre-to-the-node that this government wants to roll out. They are getting HFC. And they are not getting it until the second half of 2017. So much for the 25 megabits per second to 100 megabits per second that everyone was going to get this year. That is not happening.
What else have we got? Let's have a look. Camp Hill-Carindale, which is in my electorate, and the Camp Hill exchange—Camp Hill, Carina, Carina Heights, Carindale and Seven Hills—are not getting fibre either. I am shocked! They are not getting their rollout, unfortunately, until the first half of 2018. It is not good enough. (Time expired)
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (18:33): It is appropriate, as we are marking the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Howard government, that we do note one of its most critical failures. I think it is important that we note it, because precisely what this failure was and how profoundly it has affected us as a country does not seem to be understood by members of the current government. Of course, I am talking about the absolute failure to prepare the ground or, indeed, to take any action on the establishment of a broadband network in this country. It is quite extraordinary that, after 11 years in government, Prime Minister Howard was still saying—when asked what he was going to do about the provision of a broadband network of the fundamental digital infrastructure that we needed for the modern economy—'We'll wait and see'. Eleven years into the job he was still waiting and seeing what the government of the day would do to establish a broadband network.
When the members opposite get up in this chamber—as they do day after day—and say, 'Look what we've achieved during our 2½ years in government and what you achieved in six years', I say to them, 'Think about the fact that when we took government, towards the end of 2007, it was ground zero.' Absolutely nothing had been done to prepare the way for the development of the broadband network. The government had been completely and utterly unaware of how absolutely critical this was. They had poisonous relationships with Telstra—and I do not entirely blame them for that. I think the three amigos who were in charge of Telstra at the time were very poor choices by that company and they were taking the company in the wrong direction; but the Howard government rejected—and probably quite properly—time and time again the proposals that were coming from Telstra to rebuild the network. In 2005 when Telstra was telling the government that it was 11 minutes to midnight for the copper network, that it was on its last legs, what did they do? They did nothing. They just waited: 'We'll wait and see' and 'We'll wait until the next offer'. And the next offer came back and it was not much better. I think it was offering about eight megabytes, but only in the five major cities—virtually no penetration outside those five major cities.
These offers, of course, were entirely unacceptable. But, then, they needed to do something else. It is not acceptable for a responsible government to just say: 'We don't like that stuff coming from Telstra. That is nonsense. That is not good enough. We don't want to give Telstra the monopoly. We will continue to wait and see if some other private sector proposal comes up. We're not going to take any agency here. We're not going to take responsibility. We're not going to recognise that this nation is behind all of our competitors. We're not going to have the imagination to understand that business in the future will be fundamentally reliant on sound and fast digital infrastructure. We're just going to wait and see. We're going to be some sort of inert blob and wait and see if someone other than Telstra is going to bowl up a successful proposal to us.'
I say to those members opposite: do not come into this House and say that we had six years. When we came into this place not a thing done had been done to establish a broadband network. There was not a piece of infrastructure in place that we could build on. We had to start it. Of course it was very complex. It was going to be a joint private-public sector venture. We were starting from ground zero. There were a few false starts. The first process did not work. But that is not a reflection on poor planning. It was that we were trying to get this thing underway. We tried a particular proposal and that did not work. Then we went back to the drawing board, very promptly, the following year and made the determination that we were going to establish nbn co.
Also at the time, we took the proper decision that we were going to build infrastructure for the 21st century not infrastructure for the 20th century because were nudging up to the turn of the new century. We totally needed to have modern technology. So we made the decision that we would go with fibre to the premises as the fundamental proposition. That is still very much the right proposal.
When the member for Warringah was Leader of the Opposition he was very much of the mode of John Howard—he wanted to wait and see if some private sector company would come along. The current Prime Minister had to persuade him to at least let them go with 'fraudband' or 'broadband lite', which is based on fibre to the node—an increasingly discredited response.
Can I take the members to the report that came out in September last year on the global broadband rankings. We should not be comparing our performance to what we had 10 years ago.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: What we have to do, as the member for Griffith says, is look at how we are ranked against the rest of the world. This is not like going to gym, where your gym instructor tells you: 'Don't worry about what anyone else is doing. Just focus on what you're doing and whether or not you've done better than you were doing before.' We do not want that. That is not an appropriate response here. But that seems to have been the response from the government—'We're doing better than we were before.' This is not in the gym. We are in the world economy. We are entering into free trade agreement after free trade agreement and we are telling our community that we have to be globally competitive. We have to go out there and be agile and flexible and compete. But we are being asked to compete with one if not two hands tied behind our back.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: The member for Griffith is a very distracting person. If we look at the people we are competing with, if we look at the people we are entering into trade agreements with, we can see that we are not going to be on a level playing field. I am not now talking about the asymmetry that is fundamental to virtually every trade agreement that this current government has entered into. The fundamental infrastructure that we have is increasingly falling behind the other nations. The gap is getting bigger.
We might be doing better than we did last year, but we are not catching up to the rest of the world; indeed, the reverse is the case. We have to worry about how our competitors are doing. It is not like being in the gym. It is a very, very different proposition. Our architects, our engineers, our boilermakers—everyone is competing globally for work. If we do not have the infrastructure, we are just not going to be in the game.
Sometimes I think that we forget that this is not just about manufacturing, though that is very critical for manufacturing. Look at work in the services and all the spruiking we have heard about that from the free trade agreements: 'We might be losing manufacturing—
Mr McCormack: We haven't heard any questions in question time.
Ms MacTIERNAN: We have so many other things to go you on, mate. The problem is you are too big a target and we cannot actually get enough guns out to hit every one of them, so we are just going for the bullseye. And, my god, has it worked. Had we not pared back—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: I have personal considerations. It does not mean that for one minute that I lack the commitment to this cause or that I lack the view that your side can be beaten. Each day that I am in here, the clearer I am that the great promise of the Prime Minister just simply has not materialised and, indeed, if anything, it is worse because we are absolutely rudderless. We have got this sort of A-lister steering the ship, but he does not want to get his hands dirty by putting his hands on the steering wheel, or maybe it is because he has people holding his hands and keeping them off the steering wheel.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: I have 3½ minutes to go. I will tell you about the—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: It is actually very germane to this big problem. We were waiting and seeing and then they got envious that Labor had actually got this right. Labor understood the 21st century and understood the future that was coming at us. But Malcolm Turnbull had to compromise and had to get this silly fibre to the node, based on the most inferior copper infrastructure. We talk about 'Turnbullistan'—the land of the great, bright, shiny high-velocity copper.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: No; Turnbullistan is the land of bright, shiny copper. I can tell you that in my electorate, in the member for Griffith's electorate and in the member for Cunningham's electorate the copper is anything but bright and shiny. It is falling apart and, when it rains, in certain streets near my office you cannot even get a voice call. And we are apparently going to be running 25 megs down that copper network that cannot even take a voice call when it rains.
I will conclude by going back to my first point. Do not come into this House and say, 'You had six years and this is what you did.' We started from ground zero. We had an idea, we prosecuted that idea, we got nbn co entrenched and we started that process. You came in and proceeded with the contracts that we had already let, but what you are doing now is putting in place a second-class piece of infrastructure that, within 10 years, will have to be replaced. It is a great tragedy.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (18:47): I have to say that it is an extraordinary outcome for us to be standing here talking to this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, in the full knowledge that it is within a hair's breadth, a short time, of being ripped apart by the very government who put the bill before the House. My colleague, the member for Perth, has just spoken very animatedly about the impacts of this government's decision making.
Mr McCormack: Eloquently!
Ms BIRD: Eloquently, as the member opposite says. I will take that interjection. What we have before us now is a bill that was introduced into the House in this sitting period and now we know that the government is going to gut the bill. It is probably consistent with the story of the NBN rollout under this government. It is probably legislation to the node. They have got it to the despatch box, nice and fast and running well and fibre happening, and it hits the despatch box—there is no doubt a bit of copper on the despatch box here—and it is now petering out, failing and being gutted. So that is what we have before us with this particular piece of legislation. It should be no surprise, because that has been the story of the current Prime Minister's period as the minister managing the National Broadband Network rollout since he was given the task as the shadow minister to destroy it.
So we now see before us a bill that was introduced in, I can only say, if I am kind, a misguided effort—if I am realistic, I would probably say a very ideological effort—by the government to roll back a number of very important competition- and consumer-friendly reforms that underpin the National Broadband Network. My colleague across the table, the member for Riverina, and I did our inaugural regional and rural Australia session with Radio National.
Mr McCormack: The first of many, hopefully.
Ms BIRD: It was an excellent segment. I can absolutely endorse it, and I look forward to us being invited back together again to have a discussion about these matters. The reality is that the bill before us has started to unpick and unwind the very important principle that underlined our initial National Broadband Network rollout proposition, and that was that the way you structured the National Broadband Network as infrastructure was to ensure that the wholesale cost was consistent across the country. Why do you do that? You do that because in rural and regional Australia, as we know full well, the cost would be so much more significant than it would be for city based areas and, as a result, the flow-on retail price for people would be significantly higher. So we had that underlying, underpinning equalisation of the costs at the wholesale level—and that is really, really important to regional and rural Australia.
The bill before us was based on the recommendations of what was called the Vertigan panel, a group of Liberal Party staffers and some Liberal Party advisors. I do not think there were any National Party people in there. That might have been where they went wrong. That might have been the problem: there should have been more of my learned colleague opposite's ilk, because, as it is said, it is the National Party people who understand what the implications for rural and regional Australia are. They were all very strident critics of the National Broadband Network. Clearly they were there to do a job, and they did it: they put forward an advisory report, a market and regulatory report, to the current Prime Minister. Sadly for the government, the response to that has been absolutely scathing. The Competitive Carriers Coalition released a statement calling on the recommendations to be 'binned'. They might have been able to call on it to be actually delivered over the new NBN, because it would have taken so long to come through the system it would have been irrelevant. But, no, they just said, 'Don't even bother with that; just bin it.' 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.
The industry response to the bill was scathing. In particular, they pointed out the risks to consumers—to the detriment of the consumer—that would come from those proposed measures.
I have some fantastic broadband advocacy groups in my local area. I work a lot with the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network—ACCAN, as it is commonly known. They have also raised some serious concerns about consumer detriment in the report, which is the basis for legislation that is now before the House, but the government ignored those concerns in the majority report of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. It recommended, in that majority report of the review of the legislation, that the bill be passed without amendment. This week, however, the government has been forced into what could only be described as a very humiliating backdown on the bill. The amendments to be introduced by the government follow, to the letter, Labor's recommendations in its dissenting report to the committee. We are glad that they have, finally, heeded the recommendations of industry and are bedding down those recommendations that were put forward.
We now have a national broadband network rolling out, under this government, that is creating as much anger and disappointment that the current Prime Minister promised to stop when he was the shadow minister and the minister. We heard all the big promises about how they were going to be so much more effective in managing this infrastructure rollout. It was going to be faster. It was going to be cheaper. We see very little of that on the ground.
In the time remaining, I just want to take members to the direct local implications for my area of what is going on. The member for Perth, quite rightly, indicated that I am, certainly, as with most of my community, no fan of copper. We live in a coastal area. We get quite heavy rainfall. We have known for a long time that, when you get water in the pits, you get disruption to both your phone and broadband service delivery. That copper has been squeezed for everything that it can give. It is in a very parlous state and it needs to be replaced.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the decision by this government to say, 'We'll actually fund ripping that old decrepit copper out of the ground and replace it with new copper.' Where the thinking behind that lies is an absolute mystery to me, and to many of my constituents who I regularly have to deal with after heavy rainfalls. Indeed, we have an ongoing mass disruption in place, at the moment, from rainfalls in January. We need that copper gone. We need 21st century technology put in place. We need the fibre to go in the ground, because it is not impacted by wet weather in the same way that copper is.
As a result of much of the frustration that is going on locally, there have been a few, very active, voices developing in my community. Initially, of course, there was a lot of complaint, and I had to deal with a lot of contact with constituents about the fact that, under Labor's National Broadband Network website, their suburbs were on the map. Now, to be fair, before the change of government most people were ringing me saying, 'I'm on the map but it says it won't start for three years, and I'm frustrated by that.' It was a point of frustration, as people increasingly understood, in a very short period and represented a shift in how they were using broadband in their homes. Five or six years ago, you would talk to people about a national broadband project and, generally, you would have very technology-active constituents saying, 'This is great. We want this.' The broader community were generally more, 'That might be okay' but they were not really engaged. In that five or six years, that has completely changed.
There would not be a household in my community now that is not insisting that they need not only fast broadband but also reliable broadband. The big issue has become reliability. Speed is frustrating, not just download but upload speed, particularly if you have a university student at home doing very content-heavy submissions and assignments, if you are running a small business from home where you are exchanging information in both directions or if you are trying to work from home. I have a very large commuter base in my electorate who work in Sydney. A lot of them are professional people who do very content-heavy work at home. So the upload/download speeds is a very significant issue for them. But the big issue is reliability.
If you are trying to run a small business and your broadband is down for days or, indeed, weeks—and, on a few occasions, I have had to deal with 'months'—you are almost killing off that small business. That is the outcome of unreliable technology. In my area, and I am sure it is the case in many other areas, most of that breakdown and problem is driven by the issue of the copper. Even in areas where the broadband may roll out to the node, I have an ongoing fear that my life as a member for that region will continue to be consumed by issues to do with heavy rainfall and the effect on that last piece of technology from the node—the copper—still being in the ground.
People were devastated to disappear off the map. So they all started contacting me again saying, 'I know I was writing to you about why we're on a three-year build and not an immediate one, but we've disappeared off the map. What on earth does that mean?' For those people, not only did they no longer have some sense, at least, of when the build would commence but also it was a pretty clear indication they were going to get fibre to the node as well and not fibre to the premise. That generated quite a lot of campaigning. There is a great local group. They are a Facebook based group. They have indicated to me that it is frustrating because, quite often, they cannot update their Facebook page due to their poor connections. People who have visited the Illawarra would be aware that the northern suburbs of the Illawarra are a beautiful part of the world. There is an escarpment that comes down and meets the sea. There are a whole lot of villages up and down that area—fantastic lifestyle with beautiful views. A lot of people in that area work from home, have businesses they run from home, do contract work and so forth. They are now back on the map but they had disappeared for the last 2½ years. They were so frustrated they set up this Facebook page. It is called '2508+disconnected'—2508 is the postcode. They are now a very active member of the ACCAN network. In fact I caught up with them when they were here just last week for the ACCAN forum that was held in this area. They continue to lobby very hard not only for fast but, most importantly, reliable broadband.
I would like to acknowledge Mark and Karen McKenzie, who initially set up that Facebook site. Sometimes I do not dare look at it because they are really on the ball. They pick up whenever there is a service breakdown or whenever there are delivery issues around the speeds that they are getting. I know that is like the canary in the mine—it is a warning to me that my office is about to get flooded with a whole lot of people complaining. Probably Telstra watches it avidly too because it is a pretty clear indication I am about to ring them as well.
The change that has occurred over the five for six years that we have been discussing broadband has been to me a really significant indication that people really are living the 21st-century lives that we were talking about five for six years ago. A really important survey was done by the Bundeena Chamber of Commerce in my area, which indicated an enormous percentage of local people working from home—if not full-time then part-time to avoid a couple of days commute—or running businesses and this infrastructure has to be not only fast but it has to be reliable. We continue to see a commitment by the government to this multi-technology mix that is just not going to deliver that into the future. I hope the next bit of legislation is a bit more organised and a bit less catastrophically amended. I look forward to further developments. (Time expired)
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:02): Malcolm Turnbull's handling of the National Broadband Network has been nothing short of calamitous. His government's desperate attempts to cover up the mess he has made of the NBN is no less spectacular. The facts are extremely clear. Malcolm Turnbull said that his second-rate NBN would cost $29.5 billion; instead, we found out it is costing almost double, up to $56 billion now. He said he would get his second-rate NBN to all homes in Australia by this year, by 2016. This time frame has of course not been achieved and indeed has now blown out to more than double. We are now looking at 2020, not 2016.
Malcolm Turnbull said that his second-rate copper NBN would cost $600 per home. We know that the cost has nearly tripled to some $1,600 per home. He said it would cost $55 million to patch up the old copper network and this cost has blown by more than 1,000 per cent to more than $640 million. Indeed that has been the particularly astonishing part of the mess that we now find ourselves in. As the member for Cunningham said previously, the government is replacing 19th-century copper with more 19th-century copper for a 21st-century technology. The stupidity of that has not been lost on the people of Newcastle, I can assure you. The fact that we have purchased enough copper to go to Bangkok and back now is ridiculous.
Let's not forget Malcolm Turnbull said that there would be 2.61 million homes that would be connected to the pay TV cables also by 2016—that is, this year; nbn co is now forecasting that it will connect only 10,000 homes by June 2016. So we are not getting the 2.6 million homes that we were promised; indeed, it is significantly scaled down to just 10,000. Malcolm Turnbull said that his second-rate network would also bring in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2016-17. This has crashed to only $1.1 billion. He has blown a $1.4-billion hole in nbn co's revenue line already.
Malcolm Turnbull guaranteed NBN downloads speeds between 25 and 100 megabytes per second; instead NBN users in my electorate of Newcastle are getting about five megabytes per second on the highest available NBN plans. There is a big difference between five megabytes that people are getting in actuality as opposed to the promised 25 to 100. He also promised more accountability and disclosure to the Australian people; instead we have seen cover-up and loaded review panels.
How did we get to this very sad state of affairs? While in opposition, the then shadow communications minister, now Prime Minister Mr Turnbull, said 'we are going to do a rigorous analysis'. That was what he promised us. He said:
We are going to do a rigorous analysis, we will get Infrastructure Australia to do an independent cost benefit analysis.
Instead of appointing the independent Infrastructure Australia as promised, Mr Turnbull appointed the so-called Vertigan panel—former Labor Liberal Party staffers, Liberal Party advisers, and noted and strident critics of the NBN. 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. The cost models have since been proven to be hopelessly wrong as the cost of the government's second-rate NBN has blown out from the $41 billion assumed in December 2013 strategic plan up to $56 billion assumed in nbn co's latest corporate plan. When Malcolm Turnbull released his strategic review in December 2013 he said it was:
… the most thorough and objective analysis of the National Broadband Network 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.
But the Vertigan panel also made other 'assumptions' to deliver to their master, to make sure that the answer he was looking for was always going to be provided. The Vertigan panel 'assumed' that the median household in Australia would require only 15 megabytes per second by 2023. This absurd assumption was universally panned—67 per cent of Australians on the NBN are already ordering speeds higher than this. This was a loaded panel that made assumptions well outside of reality.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, as introduced, was a misguided and ideological attempt by government to roll back a number of competition- and consumer-friendly reforms underpinning the National Broadband Network. The industry response to the Vertigan panel's market and regulatory report was rightfully scathing. The Competitive Carriers' Coalition released a statement calling on the recommendations to be 'binned', noting that:
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 industry response to this bill before us here has been scathing as well. Industry has pointed to the risk of consumer detriment from the proposed measures. The peak telecommunications consumer body in Australia, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, ACCAN, has raised similar concerns about the risk of consumer detriment. The government ignored these concerns in its majority report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. But today the government has been forced into a humiliating backdown on this bill. The amendments introduced by the government follow to the letter Labor's recommendations in its dissenting report to the legislation committee. Labor is pleased that the government is finally heeding the recommendation of industry and is 'binning' the recommendations of the Vertigan review.
I guess the big question is: what has this government really got to hide? Last week, the Senate was forced to amend the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 due to the Turnbull government's refusal to provide the most basic financial information about how nbn co is spending $30 billion dollars in taxpayer investment. Late last week the government then amended this legislation so that nbn co does not have to release information that it used to release—basic, simple information like total capex, total opex, total revenue and the amount of interest that nbn co will pay. This is all information that nbn co used to release in corporate plans when Labor was in government. This argument that the government is using—that this information is somehow commercial-in-confidence—is complete nonsense. It is a move by a desperate government and a desperate Prime Minister who is willing to do whatever it takes to try and hide the mess he has made of the NBN.
How can the information be commercial-in-confidence if nbn co used to release it in the past? It is an outrage indeed that nbn co and the Turnbull government will not provide the Australian parliament, and the Australian people, with basic financial information about how nbn co intends to spend $29.5 billion dollars of taxpayers' money. The Senate has asked for this information in committee hearings, questions on notice and through orders for the production of documents, but on each and every occasion the government has refused to provide this information. The hypocrisy of this government and this Prime Minister is breathtaking. When Malcolm Turnbull was shadow minister he used to lecture us about transparency. On 24 September 2013 Malcolm Turnbull said:
… our commitment is, our focus is, to have a much greater level of transparency and openness …
That was in 2013. But even on 11 February 2014 the now Prime Minister was arguing that:
Maximum transparency is going to be given to this project.
That is what he promised when he was the shadow minister for communications. Likewise, in the same month, February of 2014, he said:
The bottom line is that as far as the NBN project is concerned, the government's commitment is to be completely transparent.
Again, in April 2014, he reiterated:
The government requires a high degree of transparency from NBN Co in its communication with the public and parliament.
There is a series of these fervent pleas from the Prime Minister for transparent democracy and, of course, we on this side of the House could not agree more. Regretfully, and somewhat typical of the Prime Minister now, these promises have turned out to be nothing but waffle—saying one thing while in opposition and doing exactly the opposite when he gets in power and is in a position to bring about serious change. A shroud of secrecy has descended over this project since Malcolm Turnbull took over, with basic information that was previously made public now being completely hidden. It is little wonder that people are asking, 'What is it that this government has to hide?' How could it possibly be any worse than the complete mess the Prime Minister has already made of this project?
In my electorate of Newcastle we were one of the first to be dudded by Malcolm Turnbull's mess of the NBN, with most people only receiving access to the fibre-to-the-node network. Since the rollout started, my office has been inundated with complaints about the NBN and the work being undertaken on the ground.
Firstly, there are those who have been able to connect to the NBN—like Simon from Merewether, who hooked up to the NBN as soon as he could, hoping to get a dramatic improvement in speed compared to his existing ADSL connection. He used to get eight megabits per second on ADSL; now, on the NBN, he gets less than three.
There is Robbie from Newcastle. He too signed up to the NBN as soon as he could. He used to get 12 megabits per second on ADSL; now he gets speeds as low as one megabit per second on the NBN, despite signing up to a 100-megabit-per-second plan.
Then we have Bill from Hamilton. Bill signed up to the NBN after being convinced by his service provider that it was the right thing to do. Since he got hooked up he cannot be on both his home phone and the internet at the same time. Calls come through and the internet drops out. It is a very frustrating experience when he is trying to download larger files.
Secondly, there are those who have been taken out as collateral damage, many having services cut despite their best efforts to steer clear of the calamitous NBN rollout. There is Robert from Carrington. Robert and his wife are an elderly couple who do not use the internet but do rely on their home phone. Robert's wife has cancer and is heavily reliant on the home phone for emergencies and to coordinate medical appointments. They do not want the NBN but they have quite a bit of work going on in their suburb—work that has led to their home phone service being disconnected without notice.
There is John from North Lambton. He lost his home phone and ADSL broadband without notice and went three weeks without any service whatsoever. Thomas from Cooks Hill suffered the same deal. His home phone was disconnected without warning.
And then there are a series of local business in Newcastle—a bridal business, a medical surgery and a florist—all of which have had significant losses and impacts on their capacity through the NBN.
Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate NBN is an absolute mess. Costs have doubled, time lines for the rollout have blown out, patching up the old copper network is a lost cause, revenue has crashed and speeds are abysmal. It is not good enough. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:17): The NBN rollout has become a personal embarrassment for the member for Wentworth, now the Prime Minister, as the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015 highlights.
When Labor were elected in 2007, Australia lagged behind the rest of the world with respect to internet connections. It was affecting Australia's competitiveness and ability to operate in a global 21st-century economy and social world. Labor understood that and commenced a plan to roll out a high-speed broadband network across the country. We did that because we understood that connection to a reliable high-speed network was no longer a luxury but in fact a necessity in today's life. Labor committed to the largest infrastructure project in memory with a plan to roll out a fibre network to around 93 per cent of all Australian homes and connect the other seven per cent to wireless or satellite. The planning was underway. Relevant negotiations took place. There were many, many impediments to overcome at the time, and those impediments included opposition from the then opposition, but the rollout was well underway when Labor left office. I can say that with confidence because in my own electorate I could physically see the rollout taking place. The network had already been rolled out past several hundred homes in my electorate.
We then had a change of government. The member for Wentworth, now the Prime Minister, became Minister for Communications. The NBN rollout became his personal responsibility. His promise at the time was a faster, less costly and better serviced NBN rollout. Two and a half years later what we have is the complete opposite and a national embarrassment, not just for the Prime Minister but for this country. The Prime Minister's incompetence is there for all to judge, as the member for Newcastle said a moment ago when she referred to the many people in her electorate who have contacted her about the current rollout. People are continually contacting MPs because of the poor service. I am sure the member for Wakefield, who is here in the chamber, would attest to my comment that hardly a week goes by when we are not contacted by a business or homeowner with respect to the difficulty they are having with connection to the NBN.
What is even worse is that this is the Prime Minister who claimed that there would be absolute transparency with respect to his plan. What we now have is the opposite. Not only are we seeing information about the current plan withheld; we also saw a panel, the Vertigan panel, hand-picked to supposedly provide advice to the government of the day. That advice, as we now know, was based on grossly inaccurate information and costings, and I want to go through some of those costings.
Firstly, the advice was based on the NBN rollout costing $41 billion. As we now know, the cost is $56 billion. It was based on a fibre-to-the-node cost of about $600 per home. Again, as we now see, the cost has gone up to $1,600. It was also based on expenditure of $55 billion to fix up the copper. We now see that that figure has blown out to $641 million. And we were told by the panel that there would be 2.6 million homes connected to the NBN or pay TV by December 2016. We now know that the figure is somewhere between 10,000 and 875,000 homes that will be connected by the end of this year. Lastly, there was $2.5 billion in revenue tagged for 2016 and 2017, which has fallen to $1.1 billion. Those figures speak for themselves. The Prime Minister does not come into the House and deny those figures; he is simply not prepared to provide the relevant information.
The critical matter with this legislation is the government's intent to axe Labor's policy of universal national wholesale pricing, which would have meant that people in regional and rural Australia would pay the same wholesale price for equivalent services as people in the city. In other words, they would not be disadvantaged. This is the government that wants to reverse that policy and yet it is the government that also claims to represent country Australians. Why are the National Party MPs and the country government MPs in this place not standing up for their regional communities?
With respect to that, I want to quote from a letter that I received from the West Coast Council in South Australia. The letter is addressed to Minister Fifield. 'I refer to the recent briefing by nbn co to the new council on 7 September 2015 at which your representative confirmed that five towns and several villages of the West Coast municipality are not being considered for a fibre or even fixed wireless service and are instead being limited to a satellite service only. By not being considered for a higher level of service, the West Coast will be left behind. That is, while the desperately needed NBN infrastructure program has the potential to deliver improved communication capability that will see some disadvantaged areas increase their competitiveness and ability to attract investment, I strongly believe that the West Coast will likely see further declines should we not be able to keep pace and to build our capability with a modern, competitive communication platform that has the potential to create more jobs in the region that has been hard hit in recent times with changes to the mining sector and the consequent loss of jobs in locations such as Queenstown.'
It goes on to say: 'The default option of satellite-only flies in the face of the federal government's own priority criteria for the NBN rollout. The West Coast population centres were slated for a fibre rollout under the previous government. Therefore, the argument that the infrastructure does not exist to underpin the business case for the higher upgrade services that fibre or even fixed wireless will bring would appear to be a poor excuse and not true. Higher grade NBN services will provide critical improvements not only to general residents but can improve our health service such as e-health and education services such as e-learning and should provide a solid platform for the region to attract new investment, population and business development.'
The letter further goes on to say, 'Real-time high-bandwidth services cannot be guaranteed with a satellite-only option due to latency issues, and nbn co itself has admitted that NBN satellite broadband may be prone to rain fade and service disruption in heavy rain conditions.' There are other sections of the letter. I seek leave to table the letter.
Leave granted.
Mr ZAPPIA: The West Coast Council is not alone as a remote community in understanding the importance of a reliable NBN fibre-to-the-home service. Jackson County and Owsley County in the Appalachian Kentucky region of the USA have a combined population of 18,000, with the largest community a town of 900, and last year completed their fibre rollout to every homeowner through some of the toughest terrain one could imagine. These are some of the most economically disadvantaged parts of America, with low income and high unemployment, yet such was their appreciation of the benefits modern high-speed internet could bring that they relied on mules—an old Kentuckian tradition—to haul the fibre through the rough terrain where it was too difficult to use modern machinery.
Rural workers in those counties now have work-from-home employment opportunities that previously did not exist. They can participate in the global economy without relocating. In fact, it also took less than a year for the Teleworks USA program to place more than 100 trainees from those communities into jobs, which further added US$2 million to the local economy. Here is a community that was prepared to do whatever it took to ensure that everyone had access to a fibre connection.
It is also evident that the Turnbull government and the so-called small business advocates on the government benches do not really understand the benefits of the nbn to business. An analysis by North American firm Strategic Networks Group showed that broadband enabled 39.7 per cent of all new jobs from 2013-15, a dramatic increase from an already large 25.5 per cent over 2010-2012. When job losses were subtracted—that is, quantifying the net new jobs created—the figure rose to 51 per cent. It is therefore obvious that, if we want to tackle unemployment and ensure jobs growth, we must embrace the use of reliable broadband and make it available to all. Logically, broadband which is faster and more reliable would enable greater job creation opportunities.
The Prime Minister talks up an agile economy, small business and start-ups, but the mess he has presided over with the NBN is doing the most damage and creating the greatest barriers in those very sectors. We know that the greatest potential for jobs growth is with small business and we also know that small business employs about 4.7 million people. However, the digital divide is affecting and limiting small business around the country. The SNG research also shows that, the smaller the business by number of employees, the lower the internet utilisation rate. The same research shows that a business that increases utilisation by 10 per cent is likely to increase revenues by 24 per cent and decrease costs by seven per cent. The reliability, expense and connection speeds are all factors which can prevent small business from making greater utilisation of the internet.
Indeed, I am frequently contacted by businesses in my local area—especially by small businesses—which are being held back by poor internet speeds. Whilst most home users will be more concerned with their download speed, many business are finding upload speeds are their main frustration, with one or two megabits per second or less being insufficient for their needs. Some of the businesses that I am contacted by are moving out of the area in order to expand their business and employ more people, because they cannot access reliable, high-speed internet.
It is clear that this government's management of the NBN service has become chaotic. It is clear from all the figures that have been presented both in my own contribution tonight and by others. We also see that this is a government that is spending millions of dollars on thousands and thousands of metres of additional copper wire. Labor was prepared to roll out an NBN plan that ensured that we could meet the needs of the 21st century right through to the end of the century, yet this is a government that has gone backwards by relying on a copper system that we all know is fraught with faults, a copper system that we were trying to move away from and which every other smart country in the world is moving away from but which this government persists with. It should be condemned for that—and will be by the voters of this country. I believe this legislation highlights the ineptitude of this government with respect to the NBN rollout.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Youth Unemployment
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:30): Youth unemployment is an issue not just in my electorate or in Central Victoria but across the entire country. Currently, there is a perfect storm brewing for young people who are trying to get their first job. The economy is slowing: 0.6 per cent is not good growth. Employers are turning to cheap backpacker labour, and there has been a collapse in university graduate positions, trainees and apprenticeships. This is happening right now.
It is heartbreaking when you meet a young person who says, 'I've applied for 200 jobs and barely a handful have responded to say I've been unsuccessful. I keep rocking up to my appointments as requested, but there simply aren't jobs available.'
It is true that there are fewer jobs today—those entry-level jobs—than a generation ago. Take Bendigo Thales, which used to be the old ordnance factory: today they have two apprentices; a generation ago they had 100. That example alone demonstrates the lack of apprenticeships available today compared to a generation ago.
It is not just in my home town of Bendigo in Central Victoria where youth employment is high at 18 per cent; in areas like Townsville, you have parents who say, 'Our kids just don't get a look-in when it comes to hospitality jobs. Restaurants and cafes look to cheap backpacker labour. They go straight to the hostels and recruit from there, and our young ones don't even have a chance.'
A university graduate based in Ballarat, Geelong or Bendigo like me said: 'I have a university degree, but there is nothing in my field. I've applied for a few jobs but failed to get past the interview stage, because they say they are looking for someone with at least two years experience. I am ready to start the rest of my life, but it feels like I am still trapped in a university time warp. I am still working casual retail jobs, taking any shift that I can get. Sadly, I'm still eating two-minute noodles and sneaking home in the hope that my parents can do my washing.' That is the sad reality for too many of our university graduates stuck in a part-time, university-style time warp when they just want to get on with a graduate job.
Our government, our public service, is hiring fewer graduates today than a generation ago. Our businesses are taking on fewer graduates today than a generation ago. It is harder today for our young people—people who are under the age of 30—to get a start in a career.
Prior to the 2014 budget, this government cut lots of money from this space. In their 2014 budget, they cut more money from this space: vital money for skills and training. Since they have come to government, they have cut a billion dollars from skills and training to ensure that our TAFEs, our businesses and our organisations involved in training this generation of young people and apprentices will get a start.
A large proportion of the employment that is available to young people—that is, part time and casual—particularly in hospitality, is going to overseas backpacker labour. This issue needs to be looked at. In my area of Castlemaine, work at our local bacon factory is going to overseas backpackers. People used to take a gap year, work at Don KR, earn enough money to qualify for youth allowance and have a little bit extra. However, this year, those gap-year positions were not available; instead they went to overseas backpackers. Why is it cheaper? Because they work for an agency that pays an award that undercuts the collective agreement.
Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. When you have almost equal numbers of local young people, who are unemployed and looking for work, to overseas backpackers of exactly the same age, we have a problem that we need to address. We need to be serious about creating job opportunities for the next generation.
Housing Affordability
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (19:35): I rise to speak about housing affordability in Australia and in particular for the people within my electorate of Canning who are seeking to own property. Property rights in the Western democratic tradition were first enshrined when King John of England signed the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215.
Since then, much has been written about the relationship between property ownership, voting rights and democratic participation. In short, property ownership is a pillar of a free society and essential to a functioning democracy.
Today, home ownership symbolises equality and opportunity as well as the primary vehicle by which Australians can build wealth and thereby secure their economic future. But entry into the Australian housing market is becoming increasingly difficult for young Australians—Australians of my age and my generation.
As we move further into the 21st century, house prices relative to income have increased from three times the median income to more than nine times the median income. In the 12th international housing affordability survey of 2016, Australia was listed as having 33 severely unaffordable metropolitan markets. The City of Mandurah, which sits at the heart of Canning, ranked as the 10th most expensive metropolitan market in Australia based on its median multiple. The median multiple is the ratio of median income to median house price. Housing affordability has been traditionally considered at one to three; Mandurah has a ratio of one to seven.
In my seat of Canning, 40 per cent of homes are currently being purchased via home loan mortgages and 25.8 per cent of homes are currently rented. I have just under 50 per cent of my constituents with mortgages and a quarter of my electorate who do not live in a property they own. My family and I only recently became first home buyers this last Christmas. For the majority of Australians, owning their own home is a goal for them and for their family. However, there is growing concern among everyday people that barriers to homeownership are insurmountable. The huge costs of purchasing a home, the exorbitant stamp duties at the point of transaction and supply shortages make homeownership a challenge.
According to the McKinsey Global Institute Report of 2015, Australia's household debt to GDP is at 168 per cent. Australians are overleveraged and a lot of capital—capital that could be used productively in other sectors of the economy—is locked away in a largely unproductive housing market. The statistics are troubling. In the same report from McKinsey, Australia's government debt is not so bad relative to other parts of the world. China sits at 55 per cent of GDP; the USA, 89 per cent of GDP; Germany, 80 per cent of GDP. Australia's government debt sits at 31 per cent of GDP, but we need to check the current trajectory of our public finances. We have the right leadership team under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison to make the necessary reforms.
Far more troubling is our household debt to GDP, which sits at 113 per cent. It is the worst by a long shot when compared to China, USA, Germany and Canada. Australians have locked away far too much capital in an unproductive housing market. Housing prices are unaffordable for many Australians. We have a problem. This government has cast a vision to drive innovation in our economy and to drive change into the 21st century so that we are positioned to capitalise on the huge opportunities in the China, Japan and South Korea free trade agreements. Many Australians stand ready to take those opportunities with both hands.
The key questions are: how do we unlock that capital so that we can see investment and growth in other areas of the economy? How do we deleverage the housing market without creating trauma like the Labor Party is suggesting with their negative gearing policies? Where can we make policy changes that allow for an incremental shift of capital from the housing market to other sectors of the economy? How do we increase the supply of housing for average Australians so that homeownership is a goal that can be realised early in our working lives rather than much later?
These are very difficult questions to answer and we should not rush to failure with policies like Labor's policy to abolish negative gearing. We should not undermine the equity in people's homes and deny middle income earners, like nurses, teachers, emergency workers and defence personnel, the opportunity to invest in property. This is what will happen under a Labor government. The Turnbull government understands the stakes are high for Australians. We need clear-eyed, considered, methodical leadership in this area. Rash populist policies advocated by Labor are not the answer.
I know personally that housing for my generation is unaffordable, but our best hopes for increased housing affordability lie with the Turnbull government, not with Labor. Tonight I express my confidence in the leadership of this government to work towards careful economic solutions in housing affordability for the next generation. (Time expired)
Calwell Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:40): In 2015 the Australian government announced the Stronger Communities Program to fund small capital works projects in local communities, matched dollar for dollar or in kind. Funding was set at $300,000 per electorate over a two-year period, with round 1 having commenced in 2015. Grants of between $5,000 and $20,000 are available under the Stronger Communities Program. In partnership with the Hume City Council and Brimbank City Council, my office formed a committee and called for expressions of interest from our local community. My community responded enthusiastically to this program and I am very pleased tonight to announce six community groups—so far—in my electorate who have been successful in the first round. I would like to congratulate these community groups and the projects for which they have received funding.
I would like to begin with the Greenvale Football Club, which received $20,000 to fund the construction and fit-out of its canteen and a new set of public toilets. The Greenvale Football Club is an Australian Rules club operating out of Greenvale Recreation Reserve, and for years it has struggled with the need for a services building, including a storage shed, a canteen, and new public toilets. Congratulations to Greenvale Football Club, especially their president, Mr Bruce Kent, for a much-needed improvement for a very great local club.
The next group I would like to congratulate is the Keilor St Bernard's Athletic Club, which received $10,097 for a high jump facility for Keilor Park. The Keilor St Bernard's Athletic Club is a long-term licensed user of the Keilor Park Athletics Track, along with Keilor Little Athletics and the numerous schools who use the track for school athletics meetings. The club wishes to upgrade the current high jump facility at Keilor Park by introducing an international standard high jump bag and associated equipment. This bag will be available to all users and will provide a safe jumping environment to all athletes—especially the advanced teenagers and senior athletes. I also very much look forward to seeing the new high jump bag in use by the young athletes who use the athletics tracks. Congratulations to the athletics club president, Mr Ian Upton, for submitting a successful grant proposal on behalf of his club.
The next group I want to congratulate is the Keilor Electric Off-Road Car Association, who received $7,000 to build their permanent pit area. The Keilor Electric Off-Road Car Association is located at Keilor Park Recreation Reserve and is a club of about 130 members. Their project will comprise the construction of a sheltered area with a roof that will provide shelter from the weather for participants who enjoy using the track. I am pleased that the association has received funding to develop the track and improve its facilities for its members. Congratulations also to the president, Mark Polistena, and to the entire association on receiving the grant.
Next up is the Craigieburn Fire Brigade, under the auspices of the Country Fire Authority, which has received $10,000 for the purchase of a brigade emergency response vehicle. The Craigieburn Country Fire Authority has been working hard to fundraise for a new emergency vehicle for its fleet. They upgrade their vehicles every few years to ensure that they have the best resources available to help the community in their time of need. They have been fundraising for two years, and with this grant can now afford to buy a new vehicle. I am very pleased that the Craigieburn Fire Brigade has received funding to purchase a new emergency response vehicle. This is indeed a very worthwhile and much-needed addition for a group that works very hard to protect our community. Congratulations to secretary Mr Chris Grey and all members of the Craigieburn CFA.
Finally, the Brimbank Bicycle Education Centre has received $17,000 for the refurbishment and upgrade of the centre. This centre was developed as a joint project between the Rotary Club of Brimbank Central and the then Keilor Council in 1993. The committee of management have formed partnerships with numerous local organisations, including the Lions Club of Taylors Lakes, and four local secondary schools.
The centre not only runs bicycle and traffic safety programs—which had catered for over 1,500 preschool and primary school children by the end of 2015—but also offers programs for people of all abilities and hospitality training for unemployed youth. They are also hoping to start a Men's Shed and to purchase and refurbish a decommissioned tram to make it a community meeting place. The centre is a great resource for residents of Brimbank and is always looking for innovative and novel ways to engage the local community. I look forward to seeing how the upgrade of the centre will help them to continue to serve the community. Congratulations to all the recipients who have received funding for these very worthwhile projects. I await the outcomes for the remaining worthwhile projects awaiting a decision. (Time expired)
G21 Geelong Region Alliance
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:45): It was my great pleasure today to welcome a delegation from G21. G21 is an effective and very well-respected lobby group from my region, made up of representatives from the five regional councils. It included the chair of G21, Mayor Darryn Lyons, from Geelong; Mayor Des Phelan, from Golden Plains, Councillor Clive Goldsworthy, the Deputy Mayor of Surf Coast; Councillor Bob Merriman, from Borough of Queenscliffe; and, representing Colac Otway Shire, CEO Sue Wilkinson. It is a great example of councils working together advocating for the needs of our region. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the many other ministers today who met with the G21 delegation to talk about our needs. As I often say to the member for Aston, we have lots of issues in our electorate, lots of needs. It is a very expansive, wonderful part of the world with enormous natural beauty—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Ms HENDERSON: Yes, as the member for Aston says, there are a lot of issues in Corangamite that need a great deal of attention. And we are punching above our weight, which I am very pleased to see, with lots of infrastructure projects being delivered by our government, including the Great Ocean Road upgrade, of course. This is the road that Labor forgot. It was not supported at all by the previous Labor government. The Princes Highway duplication is so important for not just our region but the whole of south-west Victoria. Of course, the ABS Centre of Excellence has just started, and the NDIA headquarters is now underway, in terms of the tender to build a very big $100 million-plus building.
We spoke a lot about LAND 400. That is an incredibly important $3 billion Defence project. Across our region, we are working so hard to see whether we can secure a slice of that action. We have incredible skills in our region. Of course, many workers from Ford and Alcoa have the capacity to do the sort of work that is needed on these very big Defence projects, and I know there has been a lot of hard work advocating for the Geelong region and the Corangamite region to win a big part of that contract.
We do have some particular infrastructure issues, and there is, I have to say, a lot of concern about state Labor's decision to shut down the East West Link. We all know, and it has been verified by the Auditor-General, that state Labor paid $1.1 billion not to build a road. This is a road desperately needed. Infrastructure Australia, in its report recently released, says that the East West Link is vital. Unlike Labor's Western Distributor, the western section of the East West Link offered a second major arterial road from Geelong, via the Western Ring Road, into Melbourne, providing an alternative route to the clogged West Gate Bridge.
The Western Distributor, which involves a couple of extra lanes on the West Gate Freeway and a second crossing, is very Melbourne-centric, a very poor cousin to the East West Link. It does nothing for the needs of the Geelong and Corangamite regions. The business plan for this project has still not been properly costed. Labor is negotiating in secret with Transurban, raising fears this will leave Victorians paying another $20 billion to $30 billion in tolls over the life of the contract and getting very little in return. I know that will concern people in the east of Melbourne as well. With no deal on the table, the Commonwealth is not able to assess the merits of the Western Distributor project.
Without action, the cost of road congestion in the Melbourne-Geelong area is projected to increase from $3 billion in 2011 to $9 billion in 2031. In Victoria the Turnbull government is investing some $4.9 billion in infrastructure, delivering on our economic action plan to boost economic growth and prosperity and create thousands of new jobs. Of course, the East West Link would have created some 7,000 jobs, and those jobs have just been trashed by Labor. It really is an absolute disgrace. The Turnbull government remains absolutely committed to this road. We are willing to look at other projects, but we need to get on and build these roads. We need to get on and build the infrastructure that the people of Corangamite so desperately need.
It is also extremely disappointing that state Labor has not prioritised the duplication of the rail track through Geelong's southern suburbs. This is an incredibly important infrastructure project, another one that the Labor Party is turning its back on. We are standing up for infrastructure, because it leads to jobs and prosperity, particularly in my electorate of Corangamite. (Time expired)
Employment: South Australia
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (19:50): I want to talk about jobs in South Australia. It has been a pretty tough week for South Australia and for jobs in my state. We see that in steelmaking, we have seen that in shipbuilding and we have seen that in the vehicle production industry. The common link in all these things is a government that is defined by its malice to blue-collar workers and by its inaction on these industries. I went up to Whyalla last Friday to visit Arrium, to visit the AWU and to talk to the local member, Eddie Hughes, about the South Australian government's plans in this regard, particularly around procurement and co-investment. What is going on in the steel city of Whyalla is that they have already lost 600 jobs—600 important blue-collar jobs—from that town. They are looking down the barrel at trying to protect the remaining 1,100 at that site.
We know that, around the world, there is a flood of cheap, inferior and subsidised steel, mainly from China. Just today there was a headline saying that in China they were going to sack 1.8 million coal and steel workers—500,000 steelworkers. That is what they are talking about doing in China, which gives you an idea of the massive oversupply in steel. There are all these state-owned industries pumping out steel and then, obviously, when it is not being used in the domestic market, pumping it out into export.
What this industry desperately needs is a bit of government attention. We would expect the member for Grey and the member for Sturt, the industry minister, to start engaging with the South Australian government and start engaging with the town of Whyalla—with Arium and with the workforce there—about how sensible government action can protect Australian jobs, whether it is in antidumping, whether it is in procurement, or whether it is in co-investment. They are the things that need to happen and, sadly, we see complete inaction in this area.
I am incredibly sensitive to the automotive industry. I come from a car-making city—not a steel-making city. I heard the sad news when I was coming back from Whyalla. I was in the airport and Holden rang to tell me that they were discontinuing the production of the Cruze. It is not unexpected because we all knew when this government told GM to leave—when then Treasurer Hockey told GM to leave—that this was an inevitable consequence of that—job losses, the discontinuation of production, in this case of a model, and the slow closing down of the industry in the run up to 2017.
We knew that was going to be the consequence and we knew it was going to be devastating, but every time you are told about these things it hits you in the guts. If you are a worker, or a family member of a worker, or you know someone at that plant—as I know many at that plant—it kicks you in the guts when you hear about those job losses and when you see those consequences of the coinciding of Tony Abbott being Prime Minister, the dollar being high and an investment decision having to be made. If we had taken out any one of those three things we would have had a very different outcome. We would have still been making cars in Australia because the dollar is now 60 or 70c. We would have been exporting cars to the United States rather than seeing the slow destruction of cars and the car-making industry in this country—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: Nothing those opposite say can get them out of their responsibility for the demise of the car industry. They can sit there laughing, but nothing you can do can remove the dirty stain of removing Holden and Toyota from this country. It was your actions. You should own your work and not try to hide from it.
Sadly, in ship building we saw another 70 go from Australian warfare destroyers and another 40 from the Collins class.
We see the leaks out of this government this week on Defence. The leaks and the division—two prime ministers, two treasurers, three Defence ministers, a revolving door on your National Security Committee and an immigration minister who is not on the National Security Committee. What a divided, disgusting, useless bunch you are!
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite can cease interjecting, particularly when she is not in her seat. The very tail end of that contained some unparliamentary remarks and I will ask—
Mr CHAMPION: I am happy to withdraw but I was being provoked.
Page Electorate: Lower Clarence Scottish Association
Linkater, Ms Alba
Mr HOGAN (Page) (19:55): This year is the 112th Highland gathering in Maclean. As Bob MacPherson, one of the organisers, told me, having an event that goes over 100 years is not a surprise when you have always had a Scot as treasurer. It is on this year, on 25 and 26 March. Maclean is the Scottish capital of Australia. These Highland games are a celebration of their heritage and the good people who settled the area.
It is fun and games and it is going to be a very busy weekend. There are piping competitions, drumming contests, highland dancing and highland sports—including tossing the caber, log wrestling, shot-put and the hammer throw. There is the kilted dash, which is over 100 metres, which always has interesting sites. There is haggis throwing, which is a car tube filled with sand and you throw it as far as you can.
This is all organised by the Lower Clarence Scottish Association. There is the chief, Peter Smith, and Norma Smith, his wife, who organises the dancing; Bob MacPherson, the outgoing secretary; Dianne Latta, the new secretary; John McPhee, the outgoing treasurer; Jack Wallace who is the incoming treasurer—and we know he will continue good Scottish tradition in this role; and there is Justine Wallace who organises the solo entries. There are many more I could acknowledge.
I would also like to mention that the Lower Clarence Scottish Association were a winner this year's Australia Day awards, and I congratulate them on that. I would also like to acknowledge the sponsors: Little's SPAR supermarket in Maclean, the Maclean Services Club, the Maclean Hotel, the Maclean and District Bowling Club, the Maclean community markets, the Skye Coffee Lounge and Restaurant in Maclean, the Rotary Club of Maclean, the Cane Cutters Bar and Grill hotel in Maclean, the Clarence Valley Council, TheDaily Examiner and Coastal Views newspapers, NBN Television, the Clarence Valley independent newspapers and Radio 2GF.
It is going to be a great couple of days. I encourage everyone to come along. Maclean is a fantastic spot to hang out, on any day, but it is certainly going to be a fun filled and action packed weekend with the Highland gathering.
I would like to acknowledge the Clarence Electorate Woman of the Year, Alba Linkater. I congratulate my state colleague, Chris Gulaptis, on choosing Alba. Alba is known throughout Grafton for the extraordinary work she does fundraising for the Grafton Base Hospital. Alba joined the Grafton United Hospital Auxiliary, the UHA, in 2004 and became president the following year—a position she still holds.
Under Alba's leadership the Grafton branch of the UHA has been highly successful in its fundraising. Alba is regularly identifying new ways to raise funds. Last year, the Grafton branch fundraised enough to purchase a state-of-the-art portable point-of-care ultrasound machine, for Grafton Base Hospital, at a cost of $69,000. It has also purchased a birthing bed for the maternity unit at a cost of around $18,000. Alba was instrumental in establishing an op shop attached to Grafton Base Hospital. She volunteers each week at that shop. Approximately $16,000 was raised in just its first year of operation.
Alba has a long history volunteering to help her community. In the late sixties she was president of the Beverly Hills Preschool. Not long after her retirement, in 1990, Alba started volunteering at the local primary school assisting in reading, sports, carnivals and fetes—which she did for 12 years. She also volunteered at the Rathgar Nursing Home's op shop at Ulmarra between 2005 and 2015. Congratulations, Alba, and thank you for what you do for our community.
The SPEAKER: It being 8pm, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 9am tomorrow.
House adjourned 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Joyce: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, and for related purposes.
Mr Keenan: to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Local Court Act 2015 of the Northern Territory, and for related purposes.
Dr Hendy: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: C-17 Maintenance Facility, Aircraft Apron and Associated Infrastructure Project, Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, Queensland.
Mr Broad: to move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Government on its support of the development of rural communities through the Stronger Communities Programme (SCP);
(2) acknowledges the commitment of the Government to the SCP and the essential role small grants play in giving communities a positive interaction with federal Members of Parliament regardless of political persuasion;
(3) advocates for the continuation of the SCP for rounds 3 and 4; and
(4) notes the significant social and economic benefits of the SCP to regional Australia.
Mr Broad: to move:
That this House acknowledges the:
(1) importance of free trade agreements in Asia, especially with China, Japan and North Korea;
(2) removal of trade barriers has assisted regional producers exporting goods;
(3) increase in trade and investment will bring money into the economy, and provide a valuable source of employment;
(4) efforts of the former Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, in delivering the free trade agreements; and
(5) development of stronger trading links with China, Japan and South Korea has been of great benefit to regional and national economies.
Mr Broad: to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of road safety, especially for those engaged in freighting goods over long distances;
(2) notes that:
(a) a recent decision relating to road safety conditions has impacts for 35,000 small businesses engaged in freighting goods in Australia;
(b) the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, set up by the previous Labor Government as independent from Government, issued its first remuneration order known as the Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order on 18 December 2015 to take effect from the 4 April 2016; and
(c) this order sets mandatory minimum pay rates for contractor drivers and may create significant obligations for owner operators that will essentially price them out of the market; and
(3) acknowledges that this is a significant issue for rural and regional Australia, where many of these owner operator businesses are located, providing essential transportation of goods to small towns and remote areas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:34.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Medicare
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (09:34): I rise to condemn the coalition government for their continued attacks on Medicare. For 40 years we have seen the Liberal Party try to destroy Medicare. They opposed it from the start and continue to oppose it. More recently, we have had the former Prime Minister attempt to impose a GP tax on all of our citizens. Quite frankly, that would have hurt the fabric of Medicare. It would have hurt the fabric of our well performing health system here in Australia. That played a part in the downfall of the former Prime Minister, because Australians know that we have a healthcare system that should depend on what you need, not how much you can pay.
Unfortunately, the new Prime Minister has not learnt the lessons of our former Prime Minister, and he continues to attack Medicare. The new Prime Minister is cutting $650 million by scrapping bulk-billing incentives and cutting rebates for much-needed pathology and other investigative procedures. The result of these measures will be many out-of-pocket expenses for MRIs, X-rays and CAT scans, which will leave patients with cancer and other serious health conditions significantly out of pocket, potentially paying thousands of dollars up-front. We have also seen that these cuts will affect preventative services such as mammograms and Pap smears. This up-front cost would be a deterrent for many women and others to go and take preventative measures and get checked out before their health condition becomes quite chronic.
This cut is outrageous. We have had the shadow minister for health and many members on the Labor side of parliament standing up against these health cuts. I have had many constituents raise concerns about this with me. Gabriele from my electorate said: 'I would like to voice my concerns regarding having to pay for Pap smears, blood tests, scans and X-rays. I am not going to be able to afford these.' Kerry also says that these new cuts will mean it is impossible for families to save for their health care in the future.
Government members interjecting—
Ms RISHWORTH: We hear interjections from the other side. Why don't they go out and listen to their constituents and say, 'We are cutting health and we don't believe in universal health'? I will continue to stand up for my electorate, protect our universal health system and ensure that patients are not suffering as a result. (Time expired)
Banks Electorate: Caroline Chisholm School
Chinese New Year
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (09:37): I rise today to discuss two important issues in my community. Firstly, there is an ongoing issue at Caroline Chisholm School in Padstow. Caroline Chisholm School is a school for children with special needs. One of the issues is the need for a pedestrian crossing at the school. At present, the request for a pedestrian crossing has been declined on the basis that Caroline Chisholm School does not have sufficient people crossing the road to meet the Roads and Maritime Services guidelines for the introduction of a pedestrian crossing. But those guidelines do not take into account a situation such as at Caroline Chisholm School, where children with special needs and disabilities have a particular need for a pedestrian crossing, even if the minimum number of people crossing the road as per the guidelines is not met. I believe that discretion should be exercised in this matter. It requires cooperation of both the New South Wales government in exercising discretion and also Bankstown City Council in putting the crossing in place. I am hopeful that a common sense solution can be implemented. I believe it should be done so. I have taken this matter up with the New South Wales disabilities minister, Mr John Ajaka, and with Bankstown council, and I am hopeful that a common sense solution can be implemented, because a pedestrian crossing should be put in place at Caroline Chisholm School.
Recently I attended the CanRevive Chinese New Year celebration in Hurstville. CanRevive is a tremendous local charity which focuses on providing support to people with cancer in the Chinese Australian community. The event included cultural performances, singing, musical performances and so on. I would like to thank Mr Eric Yeung, the president of CanRevive. Eric is somebody who gets things done, and he is a very, very consistent advocate for CanRevive and for the cause of cancer education. I thank him for his work. I would also like to thank Club Central for their support of the event and many community organisations in my community. It was good to see board member Sandra Coogan there on the day, as indeed it was to see council Annie Tang of Kogarah Council—who is a strong supporter of many local community organisations including CanRevive. CanRevive's mission of providing advice and support for people suffering from cancer in the Chinese Australian community is a very important one. I thank Eric Yeung, I thank the board of CanRevive for all their efforts, and I appreciate their invitation to the recent event.
Education Funding
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (09:40): Yesterday I met with Ray Collins, the superintendent of Catholic Education in the Hunter. He talked to me about the impact the Gonski reforms have had in Catholic education. He also spent quite a considerable amount of time talking about the Building the Education Revolution and what it had meant to Catholic education. He told me how it had transformed many of the schools in the Hunter, and how the most disadvantaged schools—schools that had the poorest infrastructure—were actually transformed and how their buildings had been brought into the 21st century. He talked to me about how prior to the Building the Education Revolution and prior to the Labor government investing money in school infrastructure, these schools were struggling to provide adequate accommodation for their students. Now they have state-of-the-art accommodation, and the students are enjoying this new learning environment. Environment is very important when it comes to learning, because if you do not have the right type of environment, then it actually impacts on a child's ability to learn. He passed on a big thank you to Labor for looking after Catholic schools and looking after all schools during the time that we were in government and providing adequate funding for Building the Education Revolution.
He also spoke to me about the transformation that has taken place in Catholic schools under the Gonski reforms. He told me about how those students that needed extra assistance have been able to be supported through the Gonski reforms. He told me that it particularly benefited Aboriginal students in the area, and he implored me to make sure that that funding continued. Catholic education has always had a priority of providing for children with disabilities, and he emphasised the importance of that. What I want to conclude by saying to the government members in this House is to get on board—listen to the schools in your electorate and fund Gonski fully.
Tasmania: Southern Highlands Irrigation Scheme
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (09:43): I rise to congratulate those involved in the promotion and development of the Southern Highlands Irrigation Scheme at Bothwell, in the Central Highlands municipality in my electorate of Lyons. I note the member for Franklin and the support of both sides of government—in Tasmania particularly. I acknowledge particularly David Llewellyn—the work that he did as the previous minister—and more recently, Jeremy Rockcliff. There is $60 million to deliver five of the Tranche Two schemes around the state—the first of which will be under construction is the Southern Highlands scheme. It is a scheme that will deliver over 7,200 megalitres of highly reliable—95 per cent reliable—irrigation to the surrounding areas. There will be a holding dam of water pumped out of winter flows from the Shannon River north-west of Bothwell that will deliver water over the summer irrigation's 120-day season, at 95 per cent reliability, to over 23 farmers who have purchased water in the scheme. This is a truly public-private partnership. Across the five schemes, nearly $30 million of private money has gone in, as well as $30 million from the state government and $60 million from the Commonwealth government to see the schemes developed over the next year or so. They are transformational. The Central Highlands area is one of the driest parts of our state. It is fine agricultural land indeed, but it is an area that has been prone to drought. That might sound a little odd to somebody from the middle of New South Wales, but, nevertheless, it is an unreliable rainfall area.
This will provide certainty and will give the farmers in that area the confidence to invest and expand their businesses. For the broader community that will mean employment. For local businesses—the ag suppliers, the agronomists, the rural services, the pub, the local store—it is an opportunity to grow their businesses. It will be good for the local community of Bothwell. It will mean that the school will have the chance of being more viable over the long term. Indeed, this is a truly transformational project. I congratulate Richard Hallett and all the people who have been involved for so long in seeing this scheme come to fruition. Deirdre Flint, Mayor of the Central Highlands, has been a strong advocate for this scheme. As I mentioned, Minister Jeremy Rockliff has supported the Commonwealth's efforts to fund this. This will be great for the Central Highlands.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (09:46): Whilst I certainly agree with the member for Lyons when it comes to irrigation and the bipartisanship the irrigation schemes have seen in Tasmania, I want to draw the attention of the House to a document that I came across when I was looking at exactly what the members for Lyons, Bass and Braddon have delivered for Tasmania. I came across this little gem: Economic growth plan for Tasmania. Running through the document, I came across a whole range of interesting projects that the Liberal Party, prior to the last election, committed to deliver to Tasmania. Interestingly, as you run through the document, you can see it is quite a failed list. It is interesting because the member for Bass was in here going on about how great it is and how they have delivered on it, but when I read through the document all I find is a whole heap of broken promises.
The Major Projects Approvals Agency was established in July 2014 by the government. It is true—they did establish it—but it has not done anything at all. What was it supposed to do? It was supposed to make it easier for projects to occur that would invest a minimum of $50 million in new fixed capital in Tasmania before 2020. We have not seen anything occur at all by the Major Projects Approval Agency to date. The second item was the Tasmanian jobs plan. They were going to fund a payment of $3,250 to a Tasmanian business and create up to 2,000 jobs. It was such a failure—it was administered, of course, by Senator Abetz, the former Minister for Employment—that they had to double the subsidy. They cancelled it and put it into their wage subsidy pool because it was such a failure. It actually spent more on advertising itself as a program than it did on actual wage subsidies. That is how much of a failure it was.
If we keep going down the list, there is $38 million to expand the Hobart airport. This week we saw that they have only allocated just over $1.5 million, or thereabouts, to the $38 million for the project. According to Senator Abetz, construction was supposed to start last year—a two-year construction period creating 200 jobs. It has not even started yet and, indeed, we do not expect it to start this year. We saw the Midland Highway commitment for which they allocated $400 million—which amounts to $100 million being ripped out from Labor's commitment on the Midland Highway—as part of the economic growth plan. We saw a commitment to relocate federal government agencies to Tasmania and, of course, that has not happened. Instead, the Oceans and Atmosphere office of CSIRO has been threatened in Hobart. There are only 300 CSIRO employees in Tasmania and about 200 of them work in this office, and they still do not know what their future is. So the coalition's plan for Tasmania has been an abject failure and it has not been delivered on.
International Development Assistance
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (09:50): One of the challenges, I think, for Australians is that we are becoming a little too selfish. If you look at generations in the past, they have contributed and done great things, and I wonder whether perhaps we need to lift our eyes to the shared humanity that we live within. Australians, I think, increasingly do want to do something outside of themselves, and the environment movement has been great at capturing some of those people, but I am still a believer that people are the principal of God's creation and that we should be doing more for people. In my electorate last year, we had a thing called Operation Christmas Child, where we encouraged people to work with their children to pack a shoebox and those shoeboxes were collected through our electoral offices and distributed to children on Christmas Day. Consider the delight of children in refugee camps and in very poor areas who do not even have a present to be able to open up and see. I commend our community on their participation in that.
My 6½-year-old foster daughter said to me the other day, 'What apps did you have on your iPad when you were my age?' which just shows how technology has changed. Of course iPads did not exist when I was 6½; it is a long time ago. In fact, the internet did not even exist when I was 18. But technology should afford us some opportunities. I want to reflect on the fact that, even with old technology, good messages can be told. A guy by the name of William Booth, who people would know as one of the founders of the Salvation Army, in his very last Christmas, as he was ageing, scraped together a little money to send a telegraph. He was an invalid, his eyesight was failing and he was reasonably poor, and he was only able to put one word in that telegraph. The word has become epitomised in the legends of the Salvation Army and that word was 'Others'.
There is something powerful about looking outside of yourself. There is something powerful, as Australians, about being generous to people in our regions. As we look at how we spend our Australian aid funding, I hope that some thought is given to an exchange program. The farmers I represent have skills that they can take over to impart in developing countries. Many people in their lives have built up careers but have skills that they would like to contribute back to the broader humanity. I think there is something powerful about the word 'Others' and ensuring that, as we think about aid, we think about how can enjoy the blessings we have as Australians but remember that the blessings we receive are not just for us; they are also for our region. We do live in a very poor region and we have an obligation as a country to ensure that, when we think about aid, human-to-human relationships are developed and that we remember the great word sent by telegraph, without an iPad, in 1910 by William Booth: 'Others'.
Parramatta Electorate: Indian and Tamil Communities
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:53): On Saturday, I will be joining the wonderful women from the United Indian Association at their International Women's Day celebration for this year. I have attended for a few years in a row now and it is always a great event. This Saturday, it is called the beyondblue Bash, which means we will all be out wearing our blue saris. I do happen to have one—I think I have three and I will certainly be wearing one of them this Saturday and joining these wonderful women.
I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of the extraordinary women who have worked so hard to support women in the Subcontinent community to raise the profile of issues such as domestic violence and breast cancer, and the work they are doing this year on the theme of closing the economic gender gap. I particularly acknowledge the wonderful work of Sue Advani—Sue, for those of us who know her, is an extraordinary woman and is tireless in her efforts working for her community—and Varsha Tembe as well. Then there are Aboorva Sundar, Dr Nagamma Prakash, Dr Anju Agarwal, Mala Chandani, Honey Rupani and Shalini Ponnaiya. These are extraordinary women who do a great job and I am really looking forward to joining them in their blue saris on Saturday. We will look fabulous and we will be doing fabulous work.
Then I am going to leave my sari on and head off to join the Tamils for their silver jubilee celebration of the Catholic Association of Sydney Tamils—so it will be a full-on sari day, with one event in the morning and two more in the afternoon and evening. The Catholic Association of Sydney Tamils was founded way back in 1991, in the Archdiocese of Sydney with the Reverend Father John Alt at Meadowbank. But the organisation grew and, naturally, they relocated to the Diocese of Parramatta—most things come to Parramatta eventually! They did that in the nineties and they remain there today. They were found with the objective of fostering and promoting spiritual growth, friendship and understanding among Tamil Catholics residing in Sydney, and they continue to do that. They gather at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Westmead to celebrate holy Mass in Tamil on the last Sunday of every month. Throughout the electorate of Parramatta, Deputy Speaker, you will find churches that celebrate Mass in different languages, and this one is incredibly important for our Catholic Tamil community. They make a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Mercy at Penrose Park, Berrima annually during the season of Lent. They organise a Christmas concert in December each year where they sing carols in both Tamil and English and stage gospel dramas in Tamil. Again, this is a great opportunity for children who are learning the language of their parents and grandparents, as well as English, to celebrate Christmas in the language of their grandparents. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these important events.
Page Electorate: Economy
Mr HOGAN (Page) (09:56): The latest economic figures on the Clarence Valley show some promising trends, and that is before the majority of the benefits of the over $7 billion upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Ballina and Woolgoolga fully kicks in. The latest research has found that in the last financial year the Clarence Valley's gross regional product was $2.6 billion. That represented an annual growth rate of 13.1 per cent in real terms. The number of people in work also grew by over seven per cent in the last September quarter, and the employment rate has now fallen to levels far below that in most areas in Sydney. On the home front, housing approvals jumped by nearly 60 per cent and non-residential approvals soared by nearly 500 per cent. Farmers are also telling me that prices are on the up for them in a whole variety of things; cattle, dairy, blueberries, sugar and macas are all getting higher prices than they once were.
We as a government are also doing our bit to ensure this growth continues. Last December I announced a grant of $4.15 million to upgrade the Harwood Mill and Refinery under the Australian government's National Stronger Regions Fund. More than 2,000 jobs exist because of the Harwood mill—this obviously includes direct jobs at mill, as well as the growers, the carters, and a lot of associated jobs. This grant means not only that these jobs are more secure but also that the mill can now focus on growth to create more jobs. It is a massive investment in the future of the industry, which will directly benefit any employer associated with the mill, including all small businesses in the region. As mentioned already, we have also guaranteed federal funding of $5.6 billion to complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway; that in itself creates 4,000 direct full-time jobs, and thousand more indirect jobs.
I am very proud to represent the Clarence Valley and proud to be member of the Turnbull-Joyce government, which understands the importance of regional Australia and the significant role it plays in the national economy. We have more to do, but the direction we are going in is good and the Clarence Valley is growing well.
Budget
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (09:58): Time and time again, we have seen the Turnbull-Abbott government go after low- and middle-income earners in our community. We have seen them go after pensioners, the very men and women who have worked hard all of their lives to make our country great—all they expect is dignity and respect in their retirement. Through two budgets, we have seen this government go after low-and middle-income earners through cuts to family payments—a family on $65,000 a year with two children will lose up to $115 a week; a family on $120,000 with two children will lose up to $60 a week. At every opportunity, the Turnbull-Abbott government has gone after Medicare, penalty rates, progressive taxation, and investment in education. None of these things are safe under a Liberal government. So we have to ask the question: why are the Liberals so driven to destroy our social contract? It is a social contract which has delivered one of the highest living standards in the world, with some of the best outcomes in terms of equality of opportunity anywhere in the world.
Through the two budgets they have attacked low- and middle-income earners, but they have refused to go after the tax concessions which go to some of the wealthiest and highest-income people in our community. They sit in the parliament and take money away from working families but will not touch the tax concessions going to some of the wealthiest people in our community. Take negative gearing, for example: the top 20 per cent receive around half of all negative gearing subsidies; the top 10 per cent receive nearly 70 per cent of all capital gains subsidies. Why is this the case? The fact is: the last three Liberal leaders—Nelson, Turnbull and Abbott—represent three of the five wealthiest electorates in our country. Wentworth is the wealthiest, with a median income of $2,643. So we have a leadership that represents the wealthiest communities in the country attacking the middle class around the rest of the country. The Liberals and Nationals sit in the parliament and vote for it whilst refusing to do anything about the tax concessions which go to some of the wealthiest people in our community.
Why is this the case? Four years ago this week I wrote an essay for The Monthly, 'The 0.01 per cent: the rising influence of vested interests in Australia'. This is where big money talks, and it talks in the Turnbull and Abbott governments. So now we see the Property Council marshalling a big campaign to back in their sponsors, the people they really control and run: the Liberals in Canberra, who represent the 0.01 per cent. They do not represent the 30 or 40 or 50 per cent of working families out there in the electorates right around this country who are being dudded, week after week after week—having their Medicare attacked, having their education funding attacked and having their incomes attacked. And the Liberals sit in the parliament and defend some of these obscene tax concessions which deliver the benefits to the highest-income earners in our community. They do not represent the many; they represent the 0.01 per cent.
Swan Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:04): I am pleased to be able to speak this morning about three grants that I have announced in my electorate as part of the Turnbull government's Stronger Communities Program. Since we just heard a massive speech about class warfare, which went out in about the sixties, I would like those on the opposite side to know that these are lower-SES areas that these grants are going to.
We see the former Treasurer leaving. He did nothing about the things his speech was about, for six years. He sat in his chair, promising surpluses but never delivering them—not one surplus! And then he sits here and talks about class warfare. He did nothing about it for six years. He sat on his backside for six years and did nothing—absolutely nothing—and now he stands up here and complains about it.
Anyway, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Cobb, there are always club changing rooms and kitchens that are in need of upgrading around everyone's electorates, but the cost can often be prohibitive to what are essentially small, not-for-profit, volunteer organisations. I am sure there are people in this place who played sport, and when we were younger there were many changing rooms that we visited over the years, and I can remember visiting a changing room in Olinda in Victoria where there were no hot water facilities, and during that particular day there was extremely bad, icy weather—there were hailstones the size of golf balls coming down—but those facilities were an abject failure and we ended up leaving and going back to our own clubrooms. But the Stronger Communities Program makes these upgrades possible, with the Commonwealth providing up to 50 per cent of the cost for small-scale infrastructure upgrades, to a maximum of $20,000.
The clubs and the not-for-profits in my electorate think the program is fabulous and have been submitting expressions of interest. Local councils are also able to apply, for facilities that they manage. One of the great things about the Stronger Communities Program is the opportunity for involvement of local members of parliament at the expression-of-interest stage before the applications to go to the department of infrastructure. The feedback I have had is that all members of parliament, from both sides of the House, have participated in this program.
In Swan, we have been very active in promoting it and making sure that as many clubs and not-for-profits as possible are aware of the opportunity. In round 1 there was a great response, and we generated dozens of expressions of interest from across the electorate for worthwhile projects.
The three successful projects we are announcing are: two in Belmont—which is a really low-SES area in my electorate—one being $20,000 for the City of Belmont Miles Park playground, the other is $20,000 for the City of Belmont upgrade of cricket nets; and in Karawara, which is another low-SES area and part of the City of South Perth, where we have $20,000 approved for the purchase and installation of a shade structure at the Manning Skate Park.
Fowler Electorate: Safer Streets Program
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:05): I understand that during this period of time funny things tend to happen in politics, but I thought a rather funny thing happened yesterday in question time. A Dorothy Dixer was asked of the Minister for Justice, and he advised that tomorrow—being today—round 2 of the Safer Streets Program grants will terminate. That was very interesting, because when the Liberal government came to power, they rebadged Labor's community safety program—which they are entitled to do. They called it 'Safer Streets', which is fine. The proceeds for this program are funded out of the proceeds of crime fund. That is something Labor also did, and we encourage the government to extend that program even further.
Interestingly, money was formally allocated under that—including in my area, where $300,000 was allocated to Fairfield city council to put in closed-circuit television monitoring in Cabramatta and Canley Vale at the behest of the New South Wales police—has been terminated. As a matter of fact, what happened at that particular point in time was that the Fairfield city council was 'uninvited' to make an application. Their application was supported by the New South Wales police, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups. That money was reallocated. Then—lo and behold!—we did a bit of a look at this to see where the money was reallocated to; it was all reallocated to Liberal-held councils.
In terms of the communication that flowed back to Fairfield city council, they were told, 'You will be considered in round 2'. When I contacted the mayor, Frank Carbone, yesterday and he checked with his council, they were not told anything about it. They were not told that the grant was open. They have now tracked through and found that there was some reference on the Attorney-General's website to it, but all of a sudden those Labor councils have not been told—others were—and the grant closes today.
Obviously, we are seeing an election coming, and they are out there once again doing what they do—taking care of their mates. But the grant they knocked off that was due to be made in my electorate was in Cabramatta. It was once the heroin capital of the nation and the firearms exchange for this country. The police have said in their application—according to the New South Wales police—that the monitoring of CCTV in the past has been a major factor in reducing crime and the fear of crime, and that it is certainly one of the unique aspects of policing in that current crime environment. That was all ignored on the basis of politics; that is continuing.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Tennis
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (10:08): As many will know in this place, and in my electorate of Hindmarsh, I am a keen tennis player and I love being on the court. I am privileged to call the member for Bennelong, and Australian tennis great, John Alexander, OAM, a hitting partner and also coach when I get a spare minute to play in Canberra and early in the morning during sitting weeks.
Hindmarsh is home to many great local tennis clubs, and over the years I have thoroughly enjoyed having a competitive game or a social hit with some of the following clubs in my electorate: Ascot Park Vermont Tennis Club, Glenlea Tennis Club in Novar Gardens, Grange Lawn Tennis Club, Henley South, Mellor Park, Morphettville Park Tennis Club, Peake Gardens Riverside, Seaside, Somerton Park Tennis Club, South Park Holme, West Beach Tennis Centre and West Lakes Tennis Club.
Clubs such as these are vitally important for so many reasons. They help our kids live a healthy and active lifestyle through sport and keep people of all ages active and involved in the community. Most recently, I enjoyed visiting and supporting a number of clubs, and I would like to thank Col Lawson of West Lakes Tennis Club, Dave Coughlin of Seaside Tennis Club and Kerry Dempsey of Somerton Park for their hospitality and cooperation in working with their clubs.
I would also like to recognise and congratulate two local tennis clubs in my electorate that are celebrating some significant milestones in 2016. Congratulations go to Glenlea Tennis Club at Novar Gardens, which is celebrating a massive milestone of 100 years. Founded on 1 January 1916 and based in Novar Gardens, I am proud to have played a number of seasons there and to support the Glenlea Tennis Club as their club patron. I recently enjoyed their gala dinner with my wife, who is also a club member, and heard stories of their history over one hundred years. Well done to all of those involved in this special event, especially president, Bryan Sellick, and Julie Kimber, Jane Downs and all the others on a fabulous centenary celebration.
Another club also celebrating a milestone in 2016 is the Grange Lawn Tennis Club. Founded in 1940, the club is celebrating its 75th season and I would like to congratulate the club on this significant achievement. I was pleased to visit the club last weekend and enjoyed discussing all things tennis with many of the members and seeing some fine tennis played on the grass courts and hard courts. Thanks to members of the club: Ursula Gregg; president, Andrew Gates; coach David Grainger; Kim Williams and a number of other members for stopping to have a chat. I wish them the best for the finish of the season.
I am also keen to assist local tennis clubs and sporting organisations in Hindmarsh whenever I can. I am a proud sponsor of many clubs and enjoy attending their presentation ceremonies or end-of-season events where I often donate a trophy or a raffle prize. Local clubs often need funding support for courts or facilities, whether it be sporting clubs such as the Plympton Sports and Recreation Club or the Seaton Ramblers. They have received government assistance. Round 2 of the Stronger Communities Program is currently open, so I urge all sporting clubs to contact my office if they have not already.
Griffith Electorate: Brisbane City Council Elections
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (10:11): As you would be aware, the cities agenda is so crucial for our future economic prosperity. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has paid a lot of lip service to the cities agenda but has got nothing done when it comes to improving the productivity, liveability and sustainability of our cities.
Of course, being from a Brisbane electorate, the electorate of Griffith, the cities agenda is highly important to me and to my constituents. That is why it is important for me to say that our council, the Brisbane City Council, needs new energy. The Brisbane City Council needs new energy and the man to deliver that is Rod Harding.
Rod Harding will be an excellent Lord Mayor of Brisbane and I am supporting him wholeheartedly. One of the things I love about Rod is that he takes congestion in the suburbs seriously. It is not just all about gold-plated inner-city projects for Rod Harding; it is all about delivering projects that are going to help the lives of the people who live in our suburbs. In my electorate, Rod has said that his 'Suburban Congestion Busting Fund' will deal with some really important projects that are really going to help deliver better public transport to take pressure off roads and deliver better roads.
One of those projects is the Eastern Busway TransitWay on Old Cleveland Road. It will upgrade five intersections with bus priority measures along Old Cleveland Road, between Cavendish Road, Coorparoo and Creek Road, Carindale. It would fast-track the upgrade of Wynnum Road, stage 1—Shafston Avenue to Canning Bridge—to be completed early and then stage 2, from Canning Bridge to Hawthrone Road. For anyone who lives anywhere on that peninsula, whether it is Hawthorne, Bulimba or down at Balmoral, if they have queued at that intersection they know what I am talking about and know how important it is that we do something about that intersection.
It also includes the upgrade of the intersection at Lytton Road and Col Gardiner Drive, Morningside, with traffic lights and a right-turning lane. And, of course, it would kick-start the Coorparoo open rail level crossing overpass, a matter that I have been campaigning for since before I became a member of this parliament. We have to address that level crossing on Cavendish Road at Coorparoo. That rail crossing is such a snarl, it is the ban of the existence of many of our local residents who use those road every day to get to work.
One of my favourite things about the new energy Rod Harding will deliver to the Brisbane City Council if he is elected Lord Mayor is that he has made the commitment that as Brisbane's new Lord Mayor one of his first acts would be to immediately commence construction of what he hopes will become an iconic Brisbane attraction. That is a bridge that the current Lord Mayor and his LNP council have been talking about for more than a decade.
It is a pedestrian bridge from the Kangaroo Point cliffs. It will give access to the precinct around the cliffs and make that precinct more accessible. It will be an iconic project and it is just one example of how this LNP administration is all talk and no action. We have a Prime Minister who says one thing and does another. We have a Lord Mayor in Brisbane who says a lot of things and the only thing he ever delivers is gold-plated inner-city projects and nothing for the suburbs, so I am very pleased to support Rod Harding as Lord Mayor.
Dobell Electorate: Education
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (10:14): I rise to share with the House some new programs that I have implemented in the Dobell electorate for the new school year. The first of these is known as the Kindy Reading Program. During my time as a federal member, I have made it my mission to be actively involved with the schools in Dobell. I am extremely fortunate that the majority of schools in my electorate recognise the benefits of having an open working relationship with me and the value this adds to student development, particularly through providing the students an opportunity to meet their local member of parliament, and not only learn firsthand about the parliamentary process, but also to provide me with an opportunity to assist them where I can.
During a visit to a local school, I was disheartened to learn that some children commencing kindergarten have never read a book, nor had a book read to them. Even more disheartening is the fact that some children do not even own a book at home. Out of this, the Dobell Kindy Reading Program was born. Starting last year and now in 2016, the Kindy Reading Program is going full steam ahead. The Kindy Reading Program is very simple yet so effective. During a visit to the kindy class at the school, I sit with the students and we read a book together. Some of my favourite books include Phoebe Digs Politics and Big Bad Bushranger—two books that I sourced right here from the APH bookshop. After the book is read, it is donated to the school library for their use. My favourite part is that after the shared reading session I present each and every kindy student with their very own book to take home and keep. The pure joy on the children's faces when they receive their very own book to take home is sheer delight.
The other program I have commenced for the 2016 year is the Year 6 Parliamentary Program. This involves visiting year 6 classes before their trip to Canberra, to provide them with some insight as to what to look for on their visit to Parliament House and some highlights to spot. It also provides an opportunity for the students to ask me questions about parliament and my role as their local member. The most interesting questions always come from our students. I must commend them for their interest in politics. When any school from Dobell visits Parliament House, I do my absolute best to meet with them. I like to present them a book about parliament, answer their questions and get that all-important photo on the marble staircase. However, as we are aware, sometimes schools are unable to attend Parliament House when parliament is sitting, and students can miss out on seeing the everyday workings of parliament. To counteract this, when I attend the classes as part of the Year 6 Parliamentary Program, I like to take items that they would not necessarily see—for example, videos of what happens when parliament opens. There are also a few cheeky hellos from various parliamentarians. So far this year, these two programs have had a fabulous uptake from local schools. Hopefully, the ones that have contacted me yet are not too far off. After all, this is all about our students.
Oromo People of Ethiopia
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:17): Today I rise to begin bring to the Australian parliament's attention the emergency facing the Oromo people. The Oromo people are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, with a unique language and cultural identity. Oromo Australians form a vibrant emerging community in Australia who are making a big contribution to Melbourne and elsewhere. Many members of the Australian Oromo community arrived in Australia after being forced to leave Ethiopia because they were political opponents of the current regime. Right now, there are disturbing reports that peaceful Oromo protests are being met with violence in Ethiopia. Oromo activists and community members tell of ongoing attacks on the human rights of Oromo people, including the historical suppression of Oromo language, history and culture.
Amnesty International has reported that from 2011 to 2014, at least 5,000 Oromos were arrested as a result of their actual or suspected peaceful opposition to the government. Beginning in November 2015, Oromo students led protests against the actions of the ruling regime against Oromo rights, including the eviction of Oromo farmers from their ancestral lands under the government's integrated master plan to expand Addis Ababa. Protesters believe that the plan will ensure the continued erasure of Oromo historical and cultural values from the city. Oromo farmers evicted from their land do not have anywhere else to go.
Meanwhile, much traditional farming land in Oromia and other regions has been sold off to international business and agricultural interests for large-scale farming and food exports, from a country already facing food insecurity and threatened by changing climate. Oromo activists in Australia talk of their fears that with climate change, conflict over land and resources will only grow more intense, leaving the most vulnerable exposed to injustice or pushed off their lands. International media and organisations such as Human Rights Watch have reported that over 140 peaceful protesters have been confirmed as killed by security forces. Witnesses tell that that number may be much higher. Activist tell that hundreds of people have disappeared, 2,000 have been injured and 10,000 people have been imprisoned simply for exercising their political and human rights. Amongst the imprisoned are opposition party members, journalists, singers, students and others. The government has reportedly withdrawn aspects of the integrated master plan, but violence against peaceful protesters has continued, according to reports.
Oromo Australians tell me movingly that Oromo people are still protesting daily for their rights, knowing of the violence that they may face. The Oromo Diaspora has supported protesters. Several rallies and meetings have been held in Melbourne and in other cities around the world and campaigning continues online. Hundreds of people from Melbourne's Oromo community have signed a petition calling on the Australian government to affirm to the government of Ethiopia the human and political rights of the Oromo people. On another day, I will table that petition in parliament. I urge our government to take action with the Ethiopian government to ensure that human rights and dignity are extended to all, including the Oromo people.
Gilmore Electorate: Crime Prevention
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (10:20): Earlier this month there was a large gathering of concerned East Nowra residents. The theme was crime prevention and talking with our local police. Members of Nowra Police Station's Crime Prevention Unit spoke with this local group, primarily made up of worried elderly residents and those with young families. They all said they are tired of continuing crime issues. Shoalhaven Local Area Command officers have, as always, been willing listeners, ready to help residents understand who to contact when events take place. Very often we feel we are being a bother to the police as the vandals or the troublemakers are often gone by the time the police arrived at the scene. However, we must all realise that every snippet of information helps our local police work up a community profile and eventually a jigsaw-like puzzle leads to a full picture and the police are able to act more effectively. Already, as part of the assistance to make our streets safer, I was able to deliver an election commitment for CCTV cameras. They are installed in our local East Nowra shopping neighbourhood. These have been switched on and they are certainly helping. However, we still have some antisocial elements and our local community can help by always reporting to the police.
In another community, the same sort of reporting, via Crime Stoppers by phoning 1800333000, helps police develop and execute Operation Croci, resulting in a number of arrests relating to the drug ice. The federal government is encouraging more people to follow this successful initiative and has developed a dob-in-a-dealer action plan, which is all part of keeping our children and our communities safer. People often are not aware of what the police are doing. One resident said at the meeting, 'It's up to the community to be more proactive. We need to be the eyes and ears of the police so we can accurately direct them to suspicious activity.' The meeting allowed residents to coordinate a community pride group with police which will soon be set up and run in a similar fashion to a community watch group.
Talking about community pride and being watchful, in another part of town an amazing young woman, Ms Shayne Hunt, was recently our community hero. Walking in Junction Street and hearing a man screaming for help, she saw a struggle between an older man and a younger man. The younger man had assaulted the older man after he had withdrawn cash from an ATM. Shayne did not hesitate and ran to intercept the escaping man. According to the local paper, she tackled him and they both fell against a glass shopfront. Luckily, it did not break. Follow this, a group of three guys restrained the runner until the police got there. Shayne is only 19 and she had ever done anything like that before, but she was glad that she did. I am proud to be able to tell her story here in parliament, and she is a local hero.
I commend East Nowra residents for also taking action to get together and create a community group to watch out for each other. They plan to have another community engagement meeting later in the year at Nowra East Public School, hoping to engage more parents with their crime prevention group. They are all local heroes, either actual or in the making. We have to promote the people who are getting together to make our community safer and to look after our children and our youth. I commend them all.
Lalor Electorate: Budget
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:23): I rise today to share my concerns. It is now 10 weeks until Prime Minister Turnbull and his Treasurer, the member for Cook, hand down their first budget. They have 10 weeks to tell us that the cruel cuts to family tax benefit recipients will be off the table in the next budget. The family tax package hurts the electorate of Lalor more than any electorate in this country. Twenty one thousand families—that is, over a third of the families living in my community—are recipients of the family tax benefit. A significant number—a third of the families—are set to lose up to $4,700 a year from their income. These are savage cuts to families. It will affect a third of the families. Imagine the impact on our local economy as those families have their income reduced.
I have said many times in this chamber that when it comes to changes such as these, communities in the electorate of Lalor are hit the hardest. Unlike electorates like Wentworth and Warringah and Cook, the people in Lalor rely on family tax benefits to make ends meet across the year. There are 10 weeks until we get a new budget to see if there is any substantive change in the attitude of this Prime Minister compared to the former Prime Minister, but we do not hold out much hope in Lalor.
In fact, we are quite despondent about this, and this of course was not helped last night when John Howard told us that there is broad continuity between the Abbott and the Turnbull governments. In fact, he put it best when he said that there are obviously presentation differences. This is a critical concern for my electorate, a critical concern for the families who live in the electorate of Lalor, because they are worried, like the rest of us are, that there are only presentation differences. This Prime Minister's actions speak louder than his words. He is conducting a review of the Safe Schools program, an opt-in program that schools choose to be involved in. He has called for a review of that program, but what he should be reviewing is the $80 billion cuts to schools and health. That is the issue that should be reviewed by this Prime Minister. But we have almost given up hope that there will be a sign of any substantive change. We have seen that with the GST being looked at and the idea to introduce a 50 per cent increase on a regressive tax. That is now being backed away from, but we have silence on negative gearing, we have silence on retrospectivity. That is happening while Labor has 50 policies in the field—50 policies. (Time expired)
Bradfield Electorate: Killara Bowling Club
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Major Projects,Territories and Local Government) (10:26): I rise to speak about a fine organisation in my electorate, the Killara Bowling Club. The Killara Bowling Club was formed in 1916, and it was first bowling club on the North Shore. It still stands on the land it was built on, and it stands adjacent to the Killara tennis club. The two clubs have a strong, long-standing and cooperative relationship.
Since 1916, the Killara Bowling Club has lent its support to the creation of many other bowling clubs across the North Shore, including many in my electorate of Bradfield. The club's facilities are also used extensively by many other local community groups. For example, it regularly hosts meetings of Probus and Rotary. Killara Bowling Club is a mainstay of the Killara community; it brings together all of those who enjoy a friendly game of bowls. Of course it is also the club for many fierce and dedicated competitors, and the club has won many competitions. Killara Bowling Club showed that it was forward thinking for its time in 1978 with the creation of the women's club. At the beginning I am told there were less than 30 members, many of whom had never bowled before, but soon the women's club began to thrive, and it continues today.
I recently was fortunate to attend a ceremony to celebrate the club's 100th anniversary, and I was struck by the vibrancy of Killara Bowling Club and of life for members of the club. There were more than 200 attendees at this event, and I was honoured to have my name included on the plaque commemorating the event. There were representatives from Bowls New South Wales and many representatives from bowling clubs up and down the North Shore.
People from all sections of the community enjoy both the sport of bowls and the friendly atmosphere in the Killara Bowling Club, and it continues to enjoy strong patronage and membership. It is a very diverse club, with members from many nations. During the speeches at the celebration, I was astounded to learn that since the club began operations in 1916 more than 1.2 million games of bowls have been played at Killara Bowling Club.
Killara Bowling Club has much to be proud of in its distinguished record of contribution to our community on the upper North Shore. It is an institution; it is a fixture in the suburb of Killara and throughout the upper North Shore. It has been an important part of our community and an important part of fulfilling community life for so many people in the electorate of Bradfield and on the upper North Shore of Sydney. I was delighted to join the club and its members for their 100th anniversary event, and I extend my best wishes to Killara Bowling Club for its continued success.
East West Link
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (10:29): A generation ago, the government of then premier Jeff Kennett in Victoria took decisions about infrastructure that have had a very substantial continuing economic effect, in Melbourne in particular and in Victoria more broadly. The extension of the Tullamarine Freeway, the building of the CityLink, the extension of the Monash Freeway and, most significantly, the joining of these together around Melbourne—it was visionary at the time, and has been very positive in terms of not just the amenity for drivers in Melbourne but also the economic benefits, and those economic benefits are continuing. Subsequently, decisions were made by another government in relation to the EastLink exercise in Victoria. The point of this is that these sorts of decisions are very much long-term decisions. They take a visionary look at what is required for a city like Melbourne, and they put in place the changes that need to be made. If you look at the latest data, you will see that the population of Melbourne in 2013-14 alone increased by 95,700 people, bringing the total population to some 4.4 million—in other words, an additional 1,800 people per week are added to the population of Melbourne. This is likely to continue for years into the future. That is reflected in vehicle registrations: in 2010, there were some 4.1 million vehicle registrations in Victoria; by 2015 this had risen to 4.56 million—in other words, an increase of almost half a million vehicles on the roads, or an 11 per cent increase, in just five years. One would expect that, again, that increase will continue into the future.
That is why for my constituents the building of the East West Link remains of paramount consideration. Anybody who drives as I do in Melbourne, from the Eastern Suburbs into Melbourne, in the morning or the afternoon, will know the volume of traffic that uses the East West Link. Equally, there is an increasing volume of traffic on the Monash Freeway in the south-east as well. In particular, what is concerning my constituents is the virtual gridlock, for hours in the morning and the afternoon, around the suburbs of Bulleen and Heidelberg—Rosanna Road, Banksia Street, Burgundy Street and Manningham Road virtually come to a standstill, from early in the morning until mid-morning and then from mid-afternoon until later in the afternoon, every day. It is regretted that the current government of Victoria, the government of Premier Andrews, tore up the East West Link contract. It should be built, and it should be built as soon as possible.
Rail Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:33): I rise to support high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia. In government as the infrastructure minister, I commissioned a $20-million study into the economic opportunities that would be presented by high-speed rail. There is no doubt that it would be a game-changer. The study found that—just as in Europe and in Asia, high-speed rail is being rolled out—in Australia, particularly down the east coast on a route between Brisbane and Melbourne via great regional centres like Newcastle, and here in Canberra, it would be a game-changer. In relation to the capital city routes between Sydney and Brisbane and between Sydney and Melbourne, which consistently rank in the top 10 of the most travelled air routes in the world—indeed, at one stage last year, Sydney to Melbourne was the busiest air route in the world—it would put those great cities under three hours away from each other. Given the convenience of rail travel compared with other modes, be it the motor vehicle or air travel, it would be taken up by Australians as well as by visitors to Australia. This is truly a nation-building project. It was found that, between Sydney and Melbourne, there would be a $2.15 benefit for every dollar invested.
That is why it was very disappointing that, as part of its draconian 2014 budget, the government cut all of the funding for the high-speed rail authority that had been recommended by an advisory group made up of eminent Australians, including the former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia and other representatives. They recommended that that authority was required because of the intergovernmental nature of a route that will go through three states as well as the Australian Capital Territory. They recommended that we need to start preserving the corridor now so that construction could commence in an efficient way in the future.
So I call upon the government to adopt my private member's bill that is before the parliament to establish such an authority. Andrew Robb has now come out in support of it; it is a pity he sat in the cabinet that cut the funding for it. We need to get on with this project in the interests of jobs and our economy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Procedure Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:36): I rise to support the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure's report into the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. It is appropriate that this debate takes place in the Federation Chamber because, for the last two years, some issues have arisen with regard to the interpretation of the existing standing orders in dealing with the appropriations consideration-in-detail debate. The consideration in detail of appropriations is an important opportunity for House of Representatives members to question the budget and the details of the budget—whether that be in a general sense, in my case as shadow minister for infrastructure, transport, cities and tourism, or in a specific, electorate based sense, in my case as the member for Grayndler, in the inner-west of Sydney. Unlike senators, who, of course, represent the states and territories, House of Reps members should be given the opportunity to raise issues that are of concern to their particular electorates. This is the only real opportunity that House of Representatives members have to question the executive about budget details.
What has occurred, though, is an attempt on two occasions—which were unsuccessful—by ministers to organise the debate so that there was one speaker from the opposition, then a speaker from the government and then the minister in response. Effectively, that cut down the opportunities for the opposition members to question the budget to one opportunity out of each three. Of course, that is contrary to the standing orders, which require the call to alternate from the left to the right of the chair or from government to opposition members. It created some tension in the chamber when there was an attempt to change that system. Hence I asked the then Speaker, the member for Mackellar, to initiate an inquiry into those issues, and the Speaker did so, and this report is as a result of that. I am pleased that the committee saw fit to ask me to give evidence to that to improve the functioning of those processes.
What they have come up with is essentially a confirmation that the call should alternate, and in some cases it suggests that the minister should not seek the call and should therefore allow a government backbench member to participate in the debate. But it also recommends, importantly, that the time of contributions be reduced to two minutes. What that should do is encourage more debate across the chamber and encourage members to genuinely ask questions of ministers and ministers—who, of course, have departmental representatives in the chamber advising them at the time that they are presenting—to be able to answer those questions.
I think it is a very important part of accountability in terms of the budget. In recent times, since the last budget was handed down, there have been three announcements by the government of infrastructure projects, all of which, we have been told, come from within the existing budget. That can only mean one thing, which is that other projects are being cut to fund the new announcements. But we do not hear what they are, and that is not accountable—to this parliament or to the Australian people through this parliament—for budget matters. That is, I think, one of the issues that individual members would have a right to ask about: why is it that projects are proceeding faster or slower than was envisaged in terms of the budget detail?
Of course, we have another announcement on top of three new projects, and that is, I think, far worse than taking money from one project and giving it to another. That is the $18 million that is being taken from infrastructure investment—to actually build projects—and being used to pay for advertising the government's failure to build infrastructure. I have seen one of the ads that are on television, and I have had a look at the website that advertises the projects that the government, in the lead-up to the election this year, is spending $18 million on. You will not be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just about all of the projects that are mentioned are projects that were initiated by the former Labor government, and the government is spending $18 million—cut from the existing infrastructure budget that was there for actual construction—to hide the fact that it has failed and that, indeed, public sector infrastructure investment has fallen by 20 per cent according to the ABS figures for September 2015 compared with September 2013. So it is quite an extraordinary proposition that you cut funding and you then cut it further in order to pay for an advertising campaign to pretend that you have not cut funding.
They are the sorts of issues that ought to be able to be raised when it comes to the appropriation bills. Members of parliament get only one opportunity for each portfolio area to scrutinise the executive. Government members, of course, can far more easily drop by a minister's office and request information of relevance to their electorate, but for non-government members, whoever the government of the day is, that is a prime opportunity that they have in real time to get answers. That is why this reform, which is recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, which would confirm the alternating of the call, is the appropriate way to go, as I suggested in this chamber on more than one occasion. It confirms that my understanding of the standing orders was right and that ministers' attempts to manipulate those processes so that they were not accountable to this chamber were simply wrong and have been seen for what they are. But also I think the reduction of time to two minutes is worthy of support, and the recommendation is that it be a trial. I think that will encourage genuine questions to be asked and hopefully ministers—certainly competent ministers—should be able to answer those questions for members in this chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:4 7
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental and Agency Venue Hire Costs 2014-15
(Question No. 1941)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the House of Representatives in writing, on 10 November 2015:
In respect of the departmental and agency venue hire in 2014-15:
(a) what total sum was spent,
(b) what functions were these hires for, and
(c) on what dates were these functions held.
Mr Turnbull: The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Minister for Indigenous Affairs is advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that:
The Department only separately records costs associated with major venue hire.
Costs associated with hosting other routine events are not disaggregated between cost categories (for example – venue hire, audio visual equipment, business catering and etc.) nor recorded separately in the finance system.
For the 2014-15 financial year, all major venue hire was in relation to the G20 Summit. Detailed information related to the G20 Summit venue hire costs have been provided in response to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Additional Estimates 23-27 February 2015 – Question on Notice PM218.
For all other events, the total amount spent, details of the function and the dates of these functions cannot be provided without an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
REX Braddon Pty Ltd: Tender
(Question No. 2001)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 November 2015:
In respect of the $22,000.00 tender to REX Braddon Pty Ltd (CN3292347) for venue hire and catering (a) what was this event, (b) who attended this event, including (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff, (c) what outcomes were achieved, and (d) can his department provide (i) the itemised budget for meals, travel, and other allowances, and (ii) a copy of the run sheet, refreshments menu(s), and itinerary.
Mr Chester: The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
a) The event was a five day training course on Human Factors facilitated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
b) Four staff from the ATSB and 27 external industry based stakeholders including four international guests. There were no ministerial staff in attendance.
c) The key objectives of the course are to provide each participant with an awareness of: the key terms and concepts used in human factors; basic human performance capabilities and limitations; the factors that influence human performance; the importance of human factors in transport safety; how human factors issues can be considered during an investigation; and where to find expertise on more complex human factors issues.
d) Yes (Attachment A). There were no travel or other allowances.
The tender was for $22,000 although the actual venue hire and catering costs were $16,159 (GST Inclusive). This course is facilitated on a full cost recovery basis with most participants paying $2,500 to attend.
Copies of A ttachment A can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources: Operation Fides
(Question No. 2133)
Ms MacTiernan To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—In respect of the brief of evidence submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on 9 April 2015 on the investigation Operation Fides, did the CDPP recommend any prosecutions be launched; (a) if so, has a prosecution been initiated, and (b) if not, why has the investigation not been concluded.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) A brief of evidence was submitted to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on 9 April 2015 and remains under assessment by the CDPP.
(b) The decision to initiate a prosecution or not is a matter for the CDPP. Operation Fides is an ongoing, complex criminal investigation involving a number of entities and individuals.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources: Serana Pty Ltd
(Question No. 2134)
Ms MacTiernan To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—In respect of the application to the Magistrates Court by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources on 7 January 2016 to retain the copy of the computer hard drive seized in December 2013 from Serana Pty Ltd, was the Secretary of the department made aware of this action prior to its commencement; if not, at what level within the department was this action approved.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
This decision was made at an operational level. The decision was confirmed with the First Assistant Secretary, Compliance Division.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources: Serana Pty Ltd
(Question No. 2149)
Ms MacTiernan To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—In respect of the testimony of the Department of Agriculture to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee in Senate Estimates on 9 February 2016 confirming that a brief of evidence had been submitted to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in December 2015, did that brief of evidence concern a possible offence by Serana Pty Ltd.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
A brief of evidence in relation to the Operation Fides investigation was submitted to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in December 2015; however, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the nature of the alleged offending detailed in this brief in evidence. The decision to initiate a prosecution and the charge(s) preferred, is a matter for the CDPP