The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand
The SPEAKER (09:31): For the information of members, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand from 5 to 8 April 2016.
In February 2016 the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives, the Rt Hon. David Carter, invited me to visit the New Zealand parliament. A delegation consisting of the members for Cowper and Moreton and Senator Bilyk, from this House and the Senate, visited the New Zealand parliament on the dates I mentioned. Over the three days, the delegation contributed to the relationship that Australia has with New Zealand through a series of meetings with our trans-Tasman parliamentary counterparts, including the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John Key, Speaker Carter and representatives from across all political parties. The report tabled today outlines the many meetings and cultural activities that took place and demonstrates the strong bipartisan commitment this parliament has to engaging with one of our closest neighbours. I commend the report to the House.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (09:32): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Di Natale, Hanson-Young, Ludlam, McKim, Rice, Siewert, Waters and Whish-Wilson have been appointed participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee’s inquiry into the 2016 election. Senator Farrell has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Senator Chisholm has been appointed a member of the committee.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
The SPEAKER (09:33): Pursuant to resolutions of the Senate of 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives of 11 October 1984, I present reports on access to committee documents. I also present a schedule showing the allocation to committees of annual reports of government departments and agencies. A copy of the schedule will be incorporated in Hansard.
The document read as follows—
45th PARLIAMENT
Speaker's Schedule
Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Government Departments and Agencies, September 2016 1
|
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Animal Health Australia
Australian Egg Corporation Limited
Australian Fisheries Management Authority**
Australian Grape and Wine Authority*
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)*
Australian Meat Processor Corporation*
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority*
Australian Pork Limited*
Australian Wool Innovation Limited***
Cotton Research and Development Corporation***
Dairy Australia Limited
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources****
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation*****
Forest and Wood Products Council******
Grains Research and Development Corporation***
Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited***
Landcare Australia Ltd******
Meat and Livestock Australia*
Murray-Darling Basin Authority*****
National Rural Advisory Council*
Plant Health Australia***
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation***
Sugar Research Australia Limited***
Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel**
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Education and Training Portfolio
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Australian Renewable Energy Agency*
Clean Energy Regulator**
Department of the Environment and Energy***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
Tourism Australia**
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Health Portfolio
Gene Technology Regulator*
*Referred also the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation*
Innovation and Science Australia**
IP Australia***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources.
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Australian Wool Innovation Limited*
Cotton Research and Development Corporation*
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources**
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation***
Grains Research and Development Corporation*
Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited*
Murray-Darling Basin Authority***
Plant Health Australia*
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation*
Sugar Research Australia Limited*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Pty Ltd
Australian Institute of Marine Science*
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**
Australian Skills Quality Authority***
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation****
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science*****
Geoscience Australia***
Innovation and Science Australia****
IP Australia******
National Measurement Institute
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority*******
Professional Standards Board for Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre********
Snowy Hydro Limited*********
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
******* Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
******** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
*********Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
Education and Training Portfolio
Australian National University*
Australian Research Council**
Department of Education and Training***
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
Defence Portfolio
Department of Defence*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Australian Renewable Energy Agency*
Bureau of Meteorology**
Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research**
Department of the Environment and Energy***
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Health Portfolio
Gene Technology Regulator*
National Health and Medical Research Council**
Australian Digital Health Agency***
Food Standards Australia New Zealand***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Classification Board and Classification Review Board*
National Archives of Australia*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Australia Council for the Arts
Australian Film, Television and Radio School*
Australian National Maritime Museum
Australian Postal Corporation
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Bundanon Trust**
Copyright Tribunal of Australia***
Creative Partnerships Australia
Department of Communications and the Arts****
National Film and Sound Archive
National Gallery of Australia
National Library of Australia
National Museum of Australia
National Portrait Gallery
NBN Co Limited*****
Office of the Children's eSafety Commisioner
Screen Australia
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
The Museum of Australian Democracy
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Postal Industry Ombudsman)*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Standing Committee on Economics
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Department of Communications and the Arts*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Employment Portfolio
Department of Employment*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Clean Energy Finance Corporation*
Department of the Environment and Energy**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Finance Portfolio
Australian Political Exchange Council
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation*
CSS Board**
Department of Finance*
Future Fund Management Agency*
Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust
PSS Board**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade*
Tourism Australia**
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Health Portfolio
Department of Health*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Border Protection*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Australian National Audit Office
Australian Public Service Commission*
Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates ACT, Defence Force, Immigration, Law Enforcement, Overseas Students, Postal Industry Taxation Ombudsman)**
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet***
National Australia Day Council Limited
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Department of Social Services*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Treasury Portfolio
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board*
Australian Accounting Standards Board*
Australian Bureau of Statistics**
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission***
Australian Competition Tribunal***
Australian Energy Regulator****
Australian Office of Financial Management*
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority***
Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission***
Australian Statistics Advisory Council
Australian Taxation Office*
Commonwealth Grants Commission*
Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee***
Financial Reporting Council*
Foreign Investment Review Board*****
National Competition Council***
Payments System Board
Productivity Commission*
Reserve Bank of Australia***
Royal Australian Mint
Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
Takeovers Panel***
The Treasury******
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Australian Film, Television and Radio School*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
Education and Training Portfolio
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies*
Australian National University**
Australian Research Council**
Department of Education and Training***
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Employment Portfolio
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Comcare
Department of Employment*
Fair Work Building and Construction (FWBC)
Fair Work Commission**
Fair Work Ombudsman
National Workplace Relations Consultative Council
Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
Safe Work Australia***
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (Seacare Authority)
Workplace Gender Equality Agency**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
Health Portfolio
Department of Health* (Australian General Practice Training)
General Practice Education and Training Limited**
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Australian Institute of Marine Science*
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Australian Astronomical Observatory)***
Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Australian Public Service Commission*
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal**
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet***
Indigenous Business Australia****
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Overseas Students Ombudsman)*****
Remuneration Tribunal
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Department of Social Services*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Australian Fisheries Management Authority*
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources**
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation***
Forest and Wood Products Council***
Landcare Australia Ltd****
Murray-Darling Basin Authority**** Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Bundanon Trust*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Australian National Botanic Gardens
Australian Renewable Energy Agency*
Bureau of Meteorology**
Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research**
Clean Energy Finance Corporation***
Clean Energy Regulator****
Climate Change Authority
Department of the Environment and Energy*****
Director of National Parks******
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority*******
Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board
National Environment Protection Council
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Wet Tropics Management Authority******
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
****** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
******* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Tourism Australia*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Health Portfolio
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Australian Institute of Marine Science*
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation***
Gene Technology Regulator****
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority*****
Snowy Hydro Limited*****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission
Australian Energy Regulator*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
Health Portfolio
Aged Care Pricing Commissioner
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency*
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care*
Australian Digital Health Agency**
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare***
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency****
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Australian Sports Commission
Australian Sports Foundation
Cancer Australia
Department of Health (including the Therapeutic Goods Administration)*****
Food Standards Australia New Zealand**
Gene Technology Regulator******
General Practice Education and Training Limited*******
Independent Hospital Pricing Authority
National Acoustic Laboratories
National Blood Authority
National Health and Medical Research Council********
National Health Funding Body
National Health Funding Pool Administrator
National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme
National Mental Health Commission
National Serology Reference Laboratory, Australia
Office of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner*********
Organ and Tissue Authority
Professional Services Review
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
******* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
******** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
********* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Defence Portfolio
Department of Veterans' Affairs*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade,
Education and Training Portfolio
Australian Research Council*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Employment Portfolio
Safe Work Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Social Services Portfolio
Australian Hearing
Australian Institute of Family Studies*
Department of Human Services**
Department of Social Services**
National Disability Insurance Agency
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Bureau of Statistics*
Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority)*
Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Australian Human Rights Commission (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice)*
National Native Title Tribunal**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Department of Communications and the Arts (regarding Indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Education and Training Portfolio
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies*
Department of Education and Training (regarding Indigenous matters)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Energy (regarding indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Health Portfolio
Department of Health (regarding Indigenous programs)*
General Practice Education and Training Limited (regarding Indigenous health)**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Aboriginal Hostels Limited*
Aboriginal Land Commissioner*
Anindilyakwa Land Council*
Central Land Council*
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (regarding Indigenous matters)**
Indigenous Business Australia***
Indigenous Land Corporation*
Northern Land Council*
Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations*
Office of Township Leasing*
Outback Stores Pty Ltd*
Tiwi Land Council*
Torres Strait Regional Authority*
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services (regarding Indigenous matters)*
Department of Social Services (regarding Indigenous Programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Energy*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation*
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science**
Innovation and Science Australia***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Airservices Australia*
Australian Maritime Safety Authority*
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited*
Australian Transport Safety Bureau*
Civil Aviation Safety Authority*
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development**
Infrastructure Australia*
International Air Services Commission*
Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited
National Capital Authority***
National Transport Commission*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet*
Digital Transformation Office
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Energy Regulator*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Administrative Appeals Tribunal*
Attorney-General's Department**
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Australian Federal Police***
Australian Human Rights Commission****
Australian Financial Security Authority
Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Institute of Police Management
Australian Law Reform Commission
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
Classification Board and Classification Review Board*****
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Family Court of Australia
Family Law Council
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia******
High Court of Australia
National Archives of Australia*****
National Native Title Tribunal*******
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
****** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
******* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Copyright Tribunal of Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
Education and Training Portfolio
Fair Work Commission*
Workplace Gender Equality Agency*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
Health Portfolio
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Gene Technology Regulator**
Office of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner***
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Law Enforcement Ombudsman)*
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet**
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security***
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Social Services Portfolio
Australian Institute of Family Studies*
Department of Human Services**
Department of Social Services**
National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transitional Agency
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
Finance Portfolio
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation*
Department of Finance**
Future Fund Management Agency***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Treasury Portfolio
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board*
Australian Accounting Standards Board*
Australian Bureau of Statistics**
Australian Office of Financial Management*
Australian Taxation Office*
Board of Taxation
Commonwealth Grants Commission*
Financial Reporting Council*
Inspector-General of Taxation
Productivity Commission*
Tax Practitioners Board
The Treasury***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Finance Portfolio
Australian Electoral Commission
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Attorney-General's Department*
Australian Federal Police**
Australian Human Rights Commission***
Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Defence Portfolio
Army Amenities Fund Company
Army and Air Force Canteen Service
Australian Civil Military Centre
Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited
Australian War Memorial
Defence Housing Australia*
Department of Defence**
Department of Veterans' Affairs***
Director of Military Prosecutions
Inspector-General ADF
Judge Advocate General
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme
Repatriation Commission
Repatriation Medical Authority
Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund
Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund
Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board
Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund
Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Recreational Company
Special Air Services Resources Fund
Veterans' Review Board
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport,
Employment Portfolio
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Finance Portfolio
ASC Pty Ltd (Australian Submarine Corporation)
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
Australia-China Council**
Australia-India Council**
Australia-Indonesia Institute**
Australia-Japan Foundation**
Australia-Korea Foundation**
Australia-Malaysia Institute**
Australia-Thailand Institute**
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (including the Australian Safeguards Office, the Chemical Weapons Convention Office and the Australian Comprehensive Test Ban Office)
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)***
Council for Australian-Arab Relations**
Council on Australian-Latin American Relations**
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade****
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*****
Tourism Australia******
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
**Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Border Protection*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Defence Force Ombudsman)*
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet**
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal***
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration and Refugee Division)*
Australian Federal Police**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Defence Portfolio
Department of Defence*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Education and Training Portfolio
Department of Education and Training*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Employment Portfolio
Department of Employment*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Finance Portfolio
Department of Finance*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Health Portfolio
Department of Health*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Border Protection*
The Australian Border Force
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Immigration Ombudsman)*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Social Services*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Treasury Portfolio
The Treasury*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Energy (Australian Antarctic Division and matters relating to the Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (matters regarding Australia's Territories)*
National Capital Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio
Australian Fisheries Management Authority*
Australian Grape and Wine Authority**
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)**
Australian Meat Processor Corporation**
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority**
Australian Pork Limited**
Australian Wool Innovation Limited***
Cotton Research and Development Corporation***
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources****
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation*****
Forest and Wood Products Council******
Grains Research and Development Corporation***
Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited***
Landcare Australia Ltd******
Meat and Livestock Australia**
National Rural Advisory Council**
Plant Health Australia***
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation***
Sugar Research Australia Limited***
Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
**** Referred also to the Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
Attorney General's Portfolio
Australian Federal Police *
Federal Court of Australia** (National Native Title Tribunal)
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Department of Communications and the Arts*
NBN Co Limited**
* Referred also to the the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
** Referred also to the the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Australian Institute of Marine Science*
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation**
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science***
Geoscience Australia****
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority*****
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
Education and Training Portfolio
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies*
Australian Research Council**
Australian Skills Quality Authority***
Department of Education and Training****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Environment and Energy Portfolio
Australian Energy Regulator*
Australian Renewable Energy Agency**
Department of the Environment and Energy***
Director of National Parks****
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority*****
Wet Tropics Management Authority****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Health Portfolio
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency*
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care*
Australian Digital Health Agency**
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare***
Department of Health****
Food Standards Australia New Zealand**
General Practice Education and Training Limited*****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs the Joint Standing Committee on Migration,
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training,
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)*
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research**
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation***
Tourism Australia****
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Airservices Australia*
Australian Maritime Safety Authority*
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited*
Australian Transport Safety Bureau*
Civil Aviation Safety Authority*
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development**
Infrastructure Australia*
International Air Services Commission*
National Transport Commission*
Regional Development Australia
* Referred also to Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Department of Social Services*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Defence Portfolio
Defence Housing Australia*
Department of Defence**
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Aboriginal Hostels Limited*
Aboriginal Land Commissioner*
Anindilyakwa Land Council*
Central Land Council*
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet**
Indigenous Business Australia***
Indigenous Land Corporation*
Northern Land Council*
Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations*
Office of Township Leasing*
Outback Stores Pty Ltd*
Tiwi Land Council*
Torres Strait Regional Authority*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Taxation Office*
Foreign Investment Review Board**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
Australia-China Council**
Australia-India Council**
Australia-Indonesia Institute**
Australia-Japan Foundation**
Australia-Korea Foundation**
Australia-Malaysia Institute**
Australia-Thailand Institute**
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)***
Council for Australian-Arab Relations**
Council on Australian-Latin American Relations**
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade****
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*****
Tourism Australia******
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, the Standing Committee on Employment , Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure Transport and Cities, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Employment Portfolio
Department of Employment*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Finance Portfolio
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation*
CSS Board**
Department of Finance*
Future Fund Management Agency*
PSS Board**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Bureau of Statistics*
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission**
Australian Competition Tribunal**
Australian Office of Financial Management***
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority**
Australian Securities and Investments Commission**
Australian Taxation Office***
Commonwealth Grants Commission***
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee**
Financial Reporting Council***
Foreign Investment Review Board****
National Competition Council**
Productivity Commission***
Reserve Bank of Australia**
Takeovers Panel**
The Treasury*****
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, and the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
______________
1 This allocation is current as at the date of tabling.
BILLS
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Television and Radio Licence Fees) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (09:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Television and Radio Licence Fees) Bill 2016 will implement a 25 per cent reduction in the licence fees payable by the commercial television and radio broadcasters by amending the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964 .
Commercial television broadcasters are the largest funders of Australian content and remain a key source of news for Australians. The reduction in broadcasting licence fees contained in this bill will allow commercial broadcasters to effectively meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive global environment and continue to invest in high-quality content.
The government's decision to reduce the fees recognises that the Australian media market has changed significantly since broadcasting licence fees were first introduced. In the current media environment, the move to online and on-demand content is fragmenting the market for media services and increasing competition for audiences and advertising dollars. In turn, this is placing increasing financial pressure on Australia's commercial broadcasters whose main competitors, including online operators such as Netflix and Apple, pay no licence fees.
Commercial television and radio broadcasters are required to pay broadcasting licence fees, which are levied as a sliding percentage of their gross earnings. The formulas for calculating the relevant percentages are set out in the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964.
In relation to television, the maximum rate of licence fees payable is 4.5 per cent of gross earnings applicable to licensees with earnings in excess of $100 million. The current rate of television licence fees was set following an amendment to the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 in 2013, which provided a permanent 50 per cent reduction in commercial television licence fees.
In relation to radio, the maximum rate of licence fees payable is 3.25 per cent of gross earnings applicable to licensees with earnings in excess of $11.5 million. There have been no changes to the rate of radio licence fees since 1991.
The 2016-17 budget included a measure to permanently reduce the rate of broadcasting licence fees by 25 per cent per annum, effective from the licence fees payable for the 2015-16 financial year. The bill will give effect to this budget measure by amending section 6 of the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 and section 6 of the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964. These amendments will provide that commercial television and radio broadcasting licensees must pay a fee that is 75 per cent of the amount otherwise due to be paid for a given year.
The bill will also introduce a measure to address an anomaly between the two licence fee acts relating to the making of regulations. Subsection 5(2) of the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 specifies that regulation made by the Governor-General under section 8 of that act may make provision for the rebate of licence fees. This rebate provision was introduced in 1987 to allow the government to offer a rebate on television licence fees as a financial incentive for television licensees to meet the government's desired policy outcome of television market aggregation.
However, the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964 does not permit regulations made under that act to make provisions for rebates. The bill will amend the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964 to address this inconsistency, and provide flexibility in the future administration of the licence fee regime as it applies to commercial radio broadcasters.
The measures contained in this bill will build on the government's media reforms contained in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, which will repeal redundant media control rules and enhance local content obligations on regional commercial television broadcasters.
The Australian public is best served by a strong and vibrant free-to-air commercial broadcasting sector. These reforms provide tax relief to assist Australian broadcasters so they can be better positioned to invest in Australian content and local jobs.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Andrews, for Mr Turnbull.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No.1) Bill 2016 which has two distinct purposes. Firstly, the bill aims to improve the way we assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to participate in and graduate from university. Secondly, the bill makes an administrative amendment to ensure the Department of Education and Training can collect tax file numbers to improve the administration of the VET FEE-HELP scheme and improve data management arrangements for the HELP scheme as a whole.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are enrolling in universities in greater numbers than ever before, with enrolment rates growing faster than those for other Australian students. Unfortunately, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are not progressing through university and completing degrees at anywhere near the rate of other Australian students.
The government has worked with universities to reform arrangements so students are not only enrolling, but also progressing through their courses and completing university degrees in greater numbers.
These new arrangements were included in the Indigenous Student Success in Higher Education measure announced by the government in the 2016-17 budget.
The amendments that I introduce today will mean that existing supports for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university students can be administered through a single part of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and, importantly, through a single set of guidelines.
The bill proposes the establishment of a new special appropriation under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to consolidate the existing Commonwealth Scholarships Program and the Indigenous Support Program, administered under separate divisions of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, with tutorial assistance administered under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
Consequential amendments to the social security law and to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ensure that grants under the new part are subject to current arrangements for other grants under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and do not disrupt checks and balances that are currently in place.
Should the parliament pass this bill, Minister Scullion will issue guidelines that ensure universities continue to offer scholarships, tutorial support and safe cultural spaces for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to learn. However, these new guidelines will improve the capacity of universities to design and implement the best services for each circumstance, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander staff or advisers.
The government appreciates the assistance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff from many universities across the country in developing these reforms. The government also appreciates the support offered by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium, Universities Australia and Innovative Research Universities for the reforms to Indigenous student assistance.
Together we have developed reforms that shift the focus from simply getting students in the door, to also helping students to achieve and succeed at university.
This government recognises that our richest capital is our human capital. At the heart of building the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander professional workforce, is increasing the number of successful university graduates. Improving completion outcomes will lead to more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people taking up professional careers in medicine, education, engineering, law and management, to name a few.
The Turnbull coalition is committed to delivering better outcomes for our first Australians and the government will continue to ensure that every dollar invested delivers the best outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
With the support of this parliament, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university students will be able to benefit from this legislation as they enter the 2017 academic year.
The bill also introduces administrative amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to allow the Department of Education and Training to access the tax file numbers of VET FEE‑HELP students in order to improve the efficiency of data exchange with the Australian Taxation Office, and to improve data quality. This element of the bill does not relate specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students but all HELP debtors.
These amendments build on existing administrative processes already in place for Trade Support Loans and for the other four Higher Education Loan Programs.
The amendments provide consistency across all five loan schemes. They will enable more efficient and effective administration of the Higher Education Loan Program and, importantly, improved HELP data. The amendments will also make it possible for VET FEE-HELP students to use, from 2017, a new digital Commonwealth Assistance Form that is managed by government, not by providers. The government form contains valuable enhancements that are designed to protect VET students from the unscrupulous enrolment practices of a few unethical providers.
The amendments will allow the Department of Education and Training and the Australian Taxation Office to efficiently exchange loan data using the common identifier that is a student's tax file number. Student loan debts that were incurred in an unconscionable way can be removed with speed and certainty, reducing stress on people who had never intended to incur a debt. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were among those targeted by providers that did not have the best interests of these often vulnerable students at heart.
This government recognises it is vital that the HELP scheme remains sustainable so that it can continue to be accessed by future generations of students. These amendments authorise use and disclosure of tax file numbers between Commonwealth officers specifically to improve available data on the HELP scheme and assist in its future administration.
These amendments support the broader VET FEE-HELP redesign that the government is pursuing to ensure future loan arrangements are robust, sustainable and above all have the interest of students at their centre.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg, for Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016 contains important measures making amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.
The first measure is in response to a lack of functionality in section 54 of the OPGGS Act, which provides for apportionment of petroleum for revenue purposes between Commonwealth and state/territory jurisdictions. Section 54 applies where a petroleum pool straddles a jurisdictional boundary and the relevant Commonwealth and state titles on either side of the boundary are held by the same titleholder.
Petroleum in the seabed and subsoil tends to migrate towards an area of lower pressure, most commonly a producing well, so once production commences in either the Commonwealth or state/territory jurisdiction, petroleum may move from one jurisdiction into another. Section 54 of the OPGGS Act is intended to ensure that the respective proportions of petroleum in each jurisdiction are determined before any such migration takes place.
Section 54 provides for the proportion of petroleum that is taken to be recovered on each side of the boundary to be determined by agreement between the titleholder, the joint authority and the responsible state minister. The purpose of the apportionment is to provide certainty for the titleholder and government parties into the future as to the revenue regimes that will apply to the petroleum once it is recovered. In the case of a titleholder whose resource straddles a Commonwealth-state boundary, an up-front apportionment between jurisdictional tax and royalty regimes may be a key factor in the titleholder's commercial decision whether to commit to further investment in the project at that point in time.
This was the case with the Browse Joint Venture's decision in 2015 to proceed to the next stage of investment in the Torosa gas field, a very large resource that has the potential to be significant for both the national and Western Australian economies. The apportionment agreement that was negotiated prior to the making of that investment decision cannot come into force until the amendments now proposed are made to section 54 of the OPGGS Act.
Currently section 54 contemplates that an apportionment agreement relates to a single discrete pool that straddles a boundary. However, this assumes that there is a greater level of knowledge about the particular pool than is often available at the early stages of a project, which is when section 54 agreements are negotiated. As section 54 currently stands, if it subsequently became apparent that the area specified in the apportionment agreement in fact contained multiple petroleum pools, as may be the case when fuller technical information is obtained during the development of the resource, the apportionment agreement would fail. This would negate revenue certainty for both Commonwealth and state governments and commercial certainty for the titleholder. Yet the number of pools involved is not necessarily of any great significance. What matters is that an area of potential migration of petroleum across a boundary is the subject of an agreed apportionment.
The amendments in this bill will therefore expand section 54 to ensure the ongoing validity of apportionment agreements if it becomes apparent that an agreement relates to an area which in fact contains multiple petroleum pools rather than a single pool. The amendments also enable the making of a section 54 agreement about a specified part of the seabed that contains a common pool, but where connectivity between jurisdictions is not necessarily confined to the pool. This will ensure greater certainty and flexibility in relation to the development of an apportionment agreement, to support investment decisions. The amendment will apply equally to existing and future agreements.
While these amendments have been prompted by the need to give legal efficacy to the Torosa agreement, they are not limited to the circumstances of that agreement. In the Torosa case, the apportionment followed a change in the maritime boundary between Commonwealth waters and Western Australian coastal and inshore waters. Similar boundary changes are in progress in other offshore areas. These may also result in blocks containing petroleum deposits becoming wholly or partly located in a different jurisdiction and an apportionment agreement may then be required.
This measure underscores this government's ongoing commitment to investment in the Torosa gas field and the offshore petroleum sector more broadly and to the facilitation of sufficient certainty in relation to apportionment agreements developed in the future.
Australia's upstream petroleum sector is experiencing significant investment through several new LNG projects which have recently commenced production and further projects under construction which are due to come online over the next year or two.
These new projects combined represent around $200 billion in capital investment and will deliver significant economic and employment benefits over their multi-decade lives.
They will see Australia's LNG exports more than triple from 25 million tonnes per annum in 2014-15 to around 75.2 million tonnes per annum in 2020-21, making Australia the world's largest LNG exporter.
Beyond this, intensifying competition, project cost pressures and uncertain market conditions will have implications for further investment in new projects, like the proposed Browse project to which this bill relates.
The Australian government is working with industry on a range of reforms and other measures to ensure the ongoing competitiveness of Australia's oil and gas sector in an increasingly global market.
It is critical that the appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks are in place. This provides a level of certainty and removes any undue impediments to support the significant and long-lived investments which characterise Australia's oil and gas sector.
This underlines the importance of this bill to future investment.
This bill also makes amendments to ensure there is a clear regulation-making power to support regulations that provide for the refund and remittal of environment plan levies in certain circumstances. The environment plan levy, imposed by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003—the levies act—allows cost-recovery of environment related regulatory functions undertaken by the national offshore petroleum regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). To ensure effective cost-recovery, as well as fair and equitable application of the levy to titleholders, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Regulations 2004 provide for the refund and remittal of amounts of the levy in certain circumstances. NOPSEMA has been refunding and remitting amounts of environment plan levies on this basis.
This bill will insert a regulation-making power in the OPGGS Act to ensure there is a clear legal basis for the regulations to provide for the refund and remittal of environment plan levies. Retrospective commencement of the amendments will ensure the validity of refunds of amounts of environment plan levies previously given to titleholders in good faith and in accordance with the levies regulations.
A further amendment made by this bill will clarify that regulations may provide for remittal and refund of safety case levies imposed in relation to offshore petroleum facilities under the levies act. Currently, the relevant regulation-making power in the OPGGS Act refers only to remittal of safety case levies which can potentially be interpreted in a narrow way. This amendment will provide clarity and fully deliver on policy intent of the Australian government that the offshore industry is not paying levies for regulatory services that it is not receiving.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (09:57): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the Treasurer's Budget Night promise of tax cuts from 'July 1 this year' and the Prime Minister's assurance they would be delivered 'administratively';
(2) notes the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook later confirmed the tax cuts would not be implemented on July 1; and
(3) calls on the Government to explain whether, if it cannot do something as simple as enacting a bipartisan tax cut, it is really up to running the nation."
This is a story about a Treasurer who boasted he would deliver an income tax cut to Australians, who are now discovering that they are not going to get it for three extra months. On budget night the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box opposite and said:
From 1 July this year, we will increase the upper limit for the middle-income tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000 per year.
But the Treasurer has been unable to deliver on that categorical promise—yet another promise made and broken by this Abbott-Turnbull government. Even after the budget had been brought down the Prime Minister was on ABC radio saying:
That is really up to the Labor Party whether it's legislated, but certainly it will be covered administratively after the election, we expect the Parliament to come back and ensure that all of the legislation supporting the Budget measures is passed.
The tax cut enjoys bipartisan support, but this government is so inept and so incompetent that it has been unable to deliver to the Australian people a bipartisan middle-income tax cut on time. As the tax commissioner confirmed in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the tax cuts would not be flowing from 1 July, as promised by the Treasurer, but instead will only take effect when the legislation passes the parliament. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, as members will know, is prepared by the secretaries of the departments of Treasury and Finance. It says on page 40:
There are a number of tax measures included in the 2016-17 Budget that take effect on or before 1 July 2016. Many of these measures can be legislated at a later time within 2016-17 without materially affecting the estimates. However, the Commissioner has indicated that the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan—targeted personal income tax relief measure requires the relevant legislation to be passed before the change will be incorporated into the income tax withholding schedules. As the timing of this is uncertain, there is a risk that some of the revenue cost of this measure will slip from 2016-17 into 2017-18 (improving the 2016-17 bottom line with a commensurate worsening in 2017-18).
These promises made by the Treasurer on budget night have turned out to be false. We do not know whether the Treasurer was deliberately misleading the House, but certainly the effect of the Treasurer's statements were to mislead the Australian people. We are asking the Treasurer to reveal whether or not advice was sought from the tax office before these statements were given. We are calling on the Prime Minister to release any evidence which was given to him before his statements on ABC radio.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: The member for Kooyong is crying about this, because what the member for Kooyong knows is that the top income tax cut will come in on time. Oh, yes, when this mob opposite have to deliver a tax cut to the top one per cent—and, let's face it, that is what the tax cut that removes the temporary budget deficit repair levy will do—then that comes on time, but a tax cut which comes to middle-income Australians, a tax cut which comes to those earning over $80,000 a year, they cannot get that one right. With the tax cut for the very top—and we have done some numbers on this tax cut that will flow from 1 July next year—94 per cent of the benefits of that tax cut will go to the top one per cent of Australians.
It has been a pretty good couple of decades for the top one per cent. The top one per cent have doubled their share of national income. The share of national income held by the top one per cent is now getting up towards levels not seen in three-quarters of a century. Yet, when it comes to deciding tax policy, this government's priority is not to look after middle-income Australia, not to show a sense of love for middle-income Australia but to show a sense of love towards the top one per cent. That is their way of conducting public policy. Australians will make their judgement as to what side this government is on. Are they on the side of middle Australia, whose tax cut has been kicked off through the incompetence of the government, or are they on the side of the top one per cent, who get their tax cut square and on time?
Mr Frydenberg: The lifters.
Dr LEIGH: I hear the member for Kooyong going back to that old Menzies-Hockey rhetoric of lifters and leaners, dividing Australians by referring to those who have retired or those who have suffered a disability as 'leaners'. That sort of nasty Australian politics separating Australians into lifters and leaners is so characteristic of this government.
The SPEAKER: The minister, on a point of order.
Mr Frydenberg: Yes, a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Fenner knows Sir Robert Menzies was a giant in this place and 'lifters' is talking about a better—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. That is not a point of view. The member for Fenner has the call.
Dr LEIGH: As the member for Kooyong knows, the Menzies era was the salad days of Australian economic policy in which little got done, in which Australia sat back and cosseted itself from the world behind the tariff walls and in which this divisive rhetoric began to grow and grow. We have seen it in other countries, too. In Britain, they talk about the 'strivers' and the 'skivers'. It is an attempt to suggest that the social welfare state is not a form of insurance but a form of simple redistribution. The very fact is, though, that if we look at the statistics over the course of a lifetime the majority of Australians benefit from the social safety net. That is why the Treasurer's rhetoric and the rhetoric of his predecessor, Treasurer Hockey, is so out of touch with the economic reality that our social safety net is there for all of us—for the moment in which the firm that we are working in shuts down and we lose our job, for the moment in which we suffer a horrendous accident and find ourselves disabled and for those old age pensioners who have worked hard all their lives until their bodies give out. Let's face it: the pension is the largest portion of the social safety net, so the rhetoric of lifters and leaners is a rhetoric squarely directed against older Australians, as economic journalist Peter Martin has pointed out.
With this bill we see the House finally putting effect to a bipartisan tax change, but we should not have been debating this bill now. We should have been in this House before 1 July debating this bill. If that had happened then Australians earning over $80,000 a year would be getting this tax cut right now; but, instead, the Prime Minister put his political interests ahead of the interests of Australians earning $80,000 and more. The consequence of that is that, if you are on $81,000 a year, you are not seeing the benefits of a bipartisan tax, and that is disappointing to those of us on this side of the House. We do not believe that the narrow interests of political parties should be put ahead of the interests of middle Australia. We would have been happy to debate this bill in the 44th Parliament to make sure that Australians got the bipartisan tax cut.
So, I ask again, as I was doing so before the member for Kooyong got a little over excited about his Menzian hero: will the Prime Minister, will the Treasurer, reveal the evidence that was given to them that this this tax cut could be implemented administratively rather than legislatively? This is another piece of evidence of the ineptitude of this government. This is a government which has lost control of parliament—the first government to lose control of the parliament in 60 years. Not since 1962 has a majority government lost a vote on the floor of the House.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: I hear the member opposite referring to the parliament of 2010 to 2013. As the member opposite would well know, that was a minority government and it certainly did a lot better in maintaining control of the parliament than this so-called majority government, which has to station staffers at the eight exits to the parliament because its members are so desperate to get out of the parliament, to leave their jobs, that they are happy to walk out of the parliament before the day is even finished. The members opposite talk about hard work, but when it comes to really doing the hard work they will knock off early. They look at their watches: 'Oh, 4.30', they say. 'Well, I am supposed to be here to five o'clock, but I guess I will knock off early.' So much for that rhetoric about hard work. I guess hard work is for someone else—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting.
Dr LEIGH: as we saw on Thursday of the last sittings. We have seen other errors from this inept government. When it introduced its omnibus legislation—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting.
Dr LEIGH: it claimed that there would be more than $6 billion in savings. In fact, we discovered the savings were less than $6 billion because they had made a basic mathematical error. Was it long division, I hear you ask? Was it multiplication?
The SPEAKER: The member for Fenner will resume his seat. As the member for Fenner well knows, because it has been raised with him previously, he needs to confine his remarks to the bill, in this case his amendment. He knows that well. I am going to pull him up if he continues to do it.
Mr Frydenberg: He is a repeat offender.
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting. I do not need his assistance.
Dr LEIGH: I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I do, as the second reading amendment points out, question whether, if the government cannot do something as simple as enacting a bipartisan tax cut, it is really up to running the nation. The question of being able to do simple things is at the heart here.
This is a bill which is belatedly delivering an income tax cut to middle Australia. This is a government which is able to do things on time when it comes to the top one per cent but which gets its homework in late when it comes to middle Australia. It is true in other areas of income tax as well. We are debating here a critical matter of income tax. One of the questions, when it comes to income tax, is the deductions that are applied to that income tax. We now know that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were rolled in cabinet by the backers of the member for Warringah on their attempt to reform income tax deductions in the form of negative gearing. They took changes to negative gearing—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fenner is now straying again—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will not interject when I am addressing the House. I do not need her assistance or the minister's assistance. The member for Fenner is straying again from the substance of his own amendment. He will not range widely over a number of topics. It is not an open-ended debate. It is not a matter of public importance. It is not a censure motion or a suspension motion. The member will confine himself to his own amendment that he is moving.
Dr LEIGH: Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your guidance. I am focusing in particular on point 3 of my amendment, which goes to the question as to whether, if the government cannot do something as simple as enacting a bipartisan tax cut, it is really up to running the nation. It is a question which requires a focus on not just the areas contained in this bill but also some of the basic errors which have been made by this government—the areas which go well beyond the issues in this bill and, hence, the reference in the second reading amendment.
This is a bill which makes a change that reflects the fact that the tax brackets are not indexed in Australia. In Australia we have a system where for a brief period of rapid inflation during the 1970s tax brackets were indexed. Now, as a result of those tax brackets being fixed, they must be periodically raised. That is why we on this side of the House have supported the increase in that middle-income tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000.
But if the government had properly sought advice on this one would expect that it would not have been placed in the position where the secretaries of Treasury and Finance said that the tax cut could not be delivered administratively. The secretaries of Treasury and Finance would have been those providing the advice to the government. If it had asked, you would have thought it would have gotten the same answer that the secretaries gave in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. It makes one think that either it did not ask—it did not seek advice as to whether the tax cut could be delivered administratively—or, more worrying still, it asked, were told it could not happen and went ahead and made those statements. If that is true, then the Prime Minister misled ABC radio listeners to whom he told Australians would receive the benefits of this tax cut.
This is a tax cut which goes to those around the middle-income distribution. Last time I checked, median full-time wages were in the order of $60,000, so this is for people a little above that. But it certainly kicks in considerably lower than the high-income earner levy, which will come off next year.
Labor will not support the tax cut that the government proposes to deliver to high-income earners because we do not believe that it is right to increase inequality at a time in which the label on that tax change has not been delivered as promised. Do not forget: this was a temporary budget repair levy. But under this government we have seen an increase in the deficit and an increase in Australia's debt—an increase of over $100 billion, representing around $5,000 for every person. So, given that, we do not believe it is appropriate to deliver a personal income tax cut to the top one per cent of Australians while low- and middle-income Australians are slugged with cuts under this government.
We have seen bipartisan support this week for omnibus legislation, and that has involved Labor standing up for those at the bottom. As we do so, we also believe it is not appropriate to make tax changes at the top. It is those tax changes at the top which I believe must be contrasted with other changes that are being made.
So, again, Labor supports this bill. But we wish we had been debating this bill some months ago in order that Australians around middle incomes could have enjoyed the benefits of the tax cut right now rather than having to wait until the end of the financial year.
The catch-up payments will not be made immediately, as we understand it. I would be happy to be corrected if the situation for middle-income Australians is better than this. As I understand it, the tax office proposes that the portion of the tax cuts that would have been paid from July to September will be returned to Australians when they lodge their tax return next year. For example, this would mean that somebody who lodges right up until the end of October might find themselves waiting until November or December of 2017 in order to receive the benefits of tax cuts they should have received in July 2016—a delay of some 16 months in the payments of tax cuts. That 16-month payment may not matter very much to the top end of the income distribution, but it certainly matters for middle-income Australians. On this side of the House, we are concerned that middle-income Australians will have to wait an additional 16 months to receive the benefits of a bipartisan tax cut.
The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Rishworth: I second the amendment.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (10:16): I declare that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:17): The proposed agreement is an objectionable emergency management term, given that clause 7A of the proposed agreement specifically provides that:
The role of volunteers in fighting bushfires and maintaining community safety and delivering high quality services to the public … is not altered by this agreement.
With one exception nothing in the agreement prevents:
…volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers.
The opposition will seek to clarify these matters during a Senate inquiry. I make this point now only to emphasise that ultimately it does not matter what the government thinks is objectionable or even what Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria thinks is objectionable. It only matters what the Fair Work Commission determines is objectionable. In the event that the Fair Work Commission determines that these or other clauses in the agreement are objectionable then the commission can choose not to approve the agreement or can approve the agreement subject to undertakings about those clauses.
If the Country Fire Authority, or any other employee's bargaining representative, disagrees with the decision of the Fair Work Commission they could appeal to the full bench of the Fair Work Commission, and from there to the Federal Court. Further, given the views of the respected academics, including Professor Andrew Stewart, that the bill may be unconstitutional, one could expect that the legislation itself will be challenged. In his submission to the Senate inquiry, Professor Stewart said:
In summary, I am concerned that the amendments proposed in the bill would be difficult to apply and potentially subject to a constitutional challenge. They are intended to help resolve a single dispute at a single state agency, yet the uncertainty they would create would likely serve to exacerbate that dispute and delay its resolution. Furthermore, at least some of the issues raised by that dispute can be addressed through legal mechanisms that already exist.
The enactment of this bill does not guarantee any speedy resolution to this matter. In the meantime, there is nothing but uncertainty for the workforce of the CFA, and all the CFA volunteers, and no foundation for mending the fences that have been broken in the course of this dispute. Compare this to the current Supreme Court case, which will be resolved shortly.
The opposition has other concerns about the impact of the government's approach on community safety that we will be exploring in the Senate inquiry. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission found that:
Some organisational factors inhibited the fire authorities' response on Black Saturday, and the full potential of operational capability that was not exploited because of differences in processes and procedures.
The Victorian government has advised that the proposed agreement contains numerous clauses to improve the way the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and CFA work together. This includes secondments, a single training course and standard equipment, giving effect to recommendations of the Black Saturday Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. It is unclear what impact the government's legislation will have on those clauses of the agreement.
There are at least two clauses that the Prime Minister objected to in his second reading speech, which have potential negative safety implications. The first relates to the dispatch of paid and volunteer firefighters. The Prime Minister claims that the agreement interferes with the capacity of the CFA to manage its volunteers by mandating that a minimum of seven paid firefighters are dispatched before the paid firefighters commence firefighting operations.
There has been considerable confusion about this particular clause of this agreement, in large part perpetuated by the dishonesty of the Minister for Employment who, in an opinion piece in the Herald Sun, claimed that the proposed agreement required seven paid firefighters to be present before CFA personnel are able to be deployed to a fire.
As the opposition understands the proposal, nothing about this clause affects the dispatch of volunteers or the commencement of firefighting operations. In other words, just as is the case now, if a truck with volunteer firefighters turns up first and puts the fire out, that is that. If a truck with paid firefighters turns up first and puts the fire out, that is that. What this would mean, however, is that the safety of those first firefighters is protected—that they are guaranteed backup. That is in the interests of all firefighters and the community generally.
The second clause the opposition is concerned about in this context relates to the wearing of uniforms. The Prime Minister claims that the uniforms of volunteers cannot be the same as those provided to paid firefighters. Through the Senate committee, the opposition will ask whether this is a fair representation of the issue by the Prime Minister. Schedule 20 of the proposed agreement says:
… station wear and uniform must be significantly visually distinguishable for professional firefighters … This shall not prevent the CFA from providing PPC—
personal protective clothing—
and uniform of the same standard to volunteer firefighters …
The opposition understands that paid firefighters have sought visual distinction so that the person in control of a fire can make the operational decisions based on sound information about the level of training, skills and qualifications of the firefighter they are directing. Again, this would seem to be a matter of community and firefighter safety.
It is worth noting that, in the absence of the legislation, section 27 of the Fair Work Act already makes clear that state laws like the CFA Act cannot be overridden by enterprise agreements in certain circumstances. The chair of the CFA board has confirmed with the chief officer of the CFA that the proposed agreement cannot interfere with or detract from the chief officer's powers and obligations under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 concerning directions to perform work relating to the provision of essential services or in situations of emergency. The opposition will seek to examine these issues in committee.
The Prime Minister has consistently urged Labor to support the volunteers, not the paid firefighters. Well, Labor supports all of our professional firefighters—those who volunteer and those who are paid. They provide a critical service to the community, and community safety depends on both volunteers and paid firefighters. Of course, a true leader knows this. A true leader unites the community. A true leader—indeed, a Prime Minister—when confronted with a dispute between two remarkable sets of people, would look to reconcile differences and disagreements, find a solution and an accommodation, and lead by example, not inflame tensions, politicise those differences and misrepresent the circumstances of this matter.
We would say the Prime Minister has done everything he can to divide the community. We would say what is truly disconcerting is that the Prime Minister's intervention was more about helping himself during an election campaign than helping the volunteers that fight fires in Victoria. Labor would say that this is unconscionable conduct by the Prime Minister, and we would add that he has been aided and abetted by a hapless Minister for Employment—a minister who, when interviewed by David Speers and being asked 14 times what were the effects on volunteers of the proposed enterprise agreement, could not answer the question. She was incapable of answering about the potential effects upon volunteers from the approval of the enterprise agreement, which really raises the question: what is this about? If the minister cannot explain the effect on volunteers and cannot explain the true impact of this legislation, it really shows that the government is not sincere about resolving this matter but really wants to play politics in Victoria between two sets of remarkable people.
We saw that interview. You would have to say it was beyond satire. If you fell upon it when you were watching your television, you would think it was two comedians having a skit. It was that farcical. The minister, being asked a trick question by David Speers on 14 occasions—'What is the effect of the agreement on volunteers?'—could not answer that question on each and every occasion it was asked of her. I would invite members and senators, if they want to know what this is about, to watch that interview to show that the minister is not across her brief, has not read the agreement and does not understand the impact of this legislation.
There are too many questions about this legislation for the Labor Party to even consider supporting it. There are too many uncertain provisions that arguably will lead to greater litigation rather than resolve this matter. There are questions of constitutionality. There are questions as to whether, in fact, agencies outside the Northern Territory, the ACT and Victoria will be affected or not. Some say that it might involve emergency agencies of other states because of the recent Federal Court case that deemed the CFA to be a corporation. Others—including, indeed, the department, whom I thank for their briefing—advise that it is confined to those three jurisdictions. But, even if it is only to apply to the two territories and Victoria, what briefing has the government provided to the ACT government and the newly elected Northern Territory government? The answer to that is, of course, that they have not provided a briefing. What, too, about the question as to whether in fact it does apply to agencies outside those three jurisdictions? These are matters that are unresolved.
So the problem we have with the motives of the government is that it has never been about resolving what is a genuine dispute that needs resolution in Victoria. Labor would agree with that. We want to see a resolution to this matter, but it is not going to be helped through the ill motivation of the government and by politicising this matter, and we would argue that the government should reconsider its position in relation to this issue. Labor stands by volunteers in Victoria. We have a remarkable regard for the volunteers who place themselves in danger to fight fires in our state. But we do not accept that the best way to deal with this matter is to inflame tensions.
I want to finish by remarking upon the minister's use of Ash Wednesday as a metaphor for the dispute. As someone who can remember, and knows of people who were affected by, that awful tragedy in February 1983 in Victoria, where 47 Victorians and 25 South Australians died, I say it is not acceptable to use as a metaphor the worst tragedy up until the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 and to compare that with a dispute that is occurring within Victoria. We would ask the minister and the government not to continue to use as a metaphor for this dispute that awful tragedy that occurred in 1983. It is disrespectful to the victims of those awful bushfires in 1983 and it is disrespectful to their families and to those who remember the awful devastation that occurred as a result of those fires.
We believe the best way forward with this matter is firstly to allow the volunteers who have initiated proceedings before the Supreme Court as plaintiffs in the matter to have that matter heard and resolved by the Supreme Court of Victoria. We believe that would be fitting and a better means by which we can come to a resolution on this matter. We have some very serious questions to ask in the Senate inquiry and we will ask them, but let's make sure we keep our temper on this issue. Let's desist from inflaming matters by improperly using emotional language to create anxiety and discord. Our job in this place is to see where we can help to resolve matters between paid firefighters who potentially endanger their lives each and every day and volunteer firefighters who are called upon to do the same. Our job should be—we say this to the Prime Minister via this place—to heal the differences and reconcile those differences, not to make things worse.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:31): It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. This is a bill to implement the government's commitment to protecting emergency service bodies and their volunteers by providing that an enterprise agreement cannot include terms that undermine the capacity of volunteer emergency services bodies to properly manage their volunteer operations or terms that are inconsistent with state or territory laws that regulate such bodies.
As we promised prior to the election, this was the very first bill introduced into this 45th Parliament. This bill honours a coalition election commitment to protecting the Victorian Country Fire Authority and other emergency service volunteers. In the case of our wonderful CFA volunteers in Victoria, these amendments to the Fair Work Act protect them from a hostile takeover by the Victorian Labor Party and Premier Daniel Andrews, working in concert with the Leader of the Opposition and federal Labor and working hand in glove with the militant United Firefighters Union.
Let's be clear: CFA volunteers in Victoria have been utterly abandoned by Labor. The extent of the misrepresentations and untruthful statements made by the member for Gorton in his contribution are a disgrace. Let me put on the record one of the worst. The Prime Minister has never made any reference at all to the fact that paid firefighters are not as important as CFA volunteers. What the Prime Minister has done—in contrast to the member for Gorton, to the Leader of the Opposition, to Daniel Andrews and to federal Labor—is stand up for CFA volunteers. We are mightily proud to do so. In Victoria there are some 60,000 volunteers, around 35,000 operational. As the member for Corangamite, one of the most fire-prone areas in the state, I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local CFA volunteers and Corangamite's 65 CFA brigades.
We all remember Christmas Day. We all salute and acknowledge the bravery of the Wye River Fire Brigade, led by Roy Moriarty—and, of course, we know that the Prime Minister visited the sites at Wye River and Separation Creek and saw the devastation. We saw the bravery in action. From Meredith to Beeac, from Lorne to Apollo Bay, from Smythesdale to Grovedale, we have the most incredible men and women who go out every day, protecting Victorians, protecting our homes and our kids and our property. We are so proud of what we are doing to stand up for CFA volunteers.
Let me make this very clear: Premier Daniel Andrews should hang his head in shame. In contrast to his former Minister for Emergency Services, Jane Garrett, who had the strength and the good judgement to oppose some of the extreme provisions in the proposed EBA between the CFA and UFU, Daniel Andrews has acquiesced to this militant union and has not been prepared to stand up for volunteer firefighters, and he has done it hand in glove with the Leader of the Opposition and with federal Labor, including the member for Corio and the member for Gorton.
Let's not make any mistake about how damaging this proposed EBA is. For example, I will go through some of the most problematic provisions. This is why the Supreme Court has now found that there is a case to be answered as to whether it is even proper: under the proposed EBA paid firefighters can only report to another paid firefighter—except for level 3 incidents, which are around one per cent of annual incidents—sidelining volunteers and providing a potential dual command structure. That is in clause 35.4. Union agreement is required before the CFA can make a change to policy, stifling the ability for the CFA to adapt to present needs. That is in clause 41.1. Seven paid firefighters need to be dispatched before other paid firefighters can commence firefighting, meaning volunteers can be left to fight fires alone for a period, despite the sudden and swift nature of fire emergencies. That is in clause 77.5. Union agreement is required on what uniforms are worn by volunteers, and paid firefighters must have uniforms that are visually distinguishable from volunteers', diminishing the equal value and significance of volunteer firefighters. That is in schedule 20. And union agreement is required for workplace changes by the CFA, including matters that could impact on the use of volunteers such as their terms and conditions of employment. This change effectively hands control over volunteer management to the UFU. And there is no surprise that we have 50 shades of veto—all the many ways in which the UFU can veto the operations of the CFA.
These restrictions are not only ridiculous but also dangerous, as they jeopardise the CFA's ability to respond swiftly to emergencies. Many people have spoken out about the disgraceful proposed EBA and we have seen an absolute catastrophe—a huge number of people who have objected to what the Labor Party and the UFU are doing in Victoria. We know that the former Victorian emergency services minister, Jane Garrett, has resigned. She is now prosecuting a formal complaint of bullying against the UFU state secretary, Peter Marshall. The CFA chief executive and the chief fire officer have also resigned in protest, and a number of CFA volunteers have resigned. The CFA board, which staunchly opposed this EBA, was sacked by the Andrews government—none of which, of course, happened to be mentioned by the member for Gorton. And a new hand-picked board was appointed in an effort to force the CFA into submission.
The former CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, said that this agreement—the proposed EBA:
… was not going to make the organisation a better place — it is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA.
… … …
I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers and our volunteer contribution.
So our bill, very proudly, will fix the sorts of skulduggery, the sideline deals and the attempts to undermine our wonderful volunteer workforce in the CFA. It will add to the definition of objectionable terms in section 12 of the Fair Work Act to prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. I will not go through all the detail because I am going to keep my comments fairly brief on this bill. The Fair Work Commission will no longer be able to approve agreements that contain these terms, and any such terms in existing agreements will be legally ineffective. It will also make sure that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency services volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations.
The bill will also give volunteer organisations the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency services bodies that could affect the volunteers they represent.
For a century CFA volunteers in Victoria have put the community first and now what we are seeing is the Labor Party, both here in Canberra and in Victoria, putting its union mates first and volunteers last. I am so proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with CFA volunteers. It is now time for Labor to do the same thing and to stop supporting this disastrous union power grab—to tell the truth, because that is exactly what it is. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:40): I will stand here and tell the truth about what is going on in my home state and my community about our volunteers and about our career firefighters. I will tell the truth about what is actually happening in our community and about how in an election period this government jumped on a state issue to exploit it for its purposes for an election.
I wanted to start today by acknowledging our SES volunteers, who as we speak have not quit in droves, as the government and government MPs are suggesting. Last night, yesterday and today they are meeting with communities to support the areas of my community that are under flood threat. We have rising water in Victoria, and as we stand here today debating this bill—which will affect the SES, not just the CFA, in Victoria—our volunteers are getting on with supporting our community. They have asked their employers for leave under the Fair Work Act—measures that were introduced by the former Labor government to support volunteers. They are standing side by side with communities. They have skills, they train every week for these emergencies and they are supporting our communities which are currently facing the heartbreak of another damaging flood.
The last time our area was under threat, when the Loddon was rising, was in 2010. What they are saying to the communities of Charlton, Newbridge and Newstead is that it will not be as bad, they hope, as September 2010 but it may be worse than November 2010. And most people will remember November 2010 because it was actually the state election day when our area was under a similar threat.
But why I acknowledge their hard work and dedication to our community at the beginning of my speech is that, whilst members of the government rally the politics about this issue, the volunteers in my electorate are doing what they have always done: taking time out of their days and taking time out of their work to do what they are passionate about—volunteering to support their community. And this bill and this government's ranting and rhetoric have not stopped them from doing that. The Andrews government in Victoria have not stopped them from doing that. They are continuing to volunteer because they are proud and passionate about their community. And that is something that the government does not know. There are not thousands of volunteers resigning. Yes, there have been some, but when I go out and talk to the CFA brigades in my electorate they say: 'I volunteer because I support my community. I am proud of my community and I want to be there for my community when something happens.'
I would also like to acknowledge, in saying that statement, the Maldon CFA. People forget—if you do not know and you are not a regional MP—that our CFA brigades, like our SES units, do more than just fight fires. They do more than that—they are such an important part of our regional communities. In Maldon, our CFA is practically involved in every single event that happens in the town, particularly around Easter. I acknowledge Robert Thompson and his family. If you are in Maldon and involved in the CFA, you will know the Thompsons. They make sure that the oldest continuous Easter festival and Easter parade continues to happen in Maldon because of the volunteer work of the CFA. During this dispute—and it is a dispute—there was the Woodend Winter Arts Festival. That is another example of what CFA volunteers do outside of the work they do in emergency situations. At the Woodend Winter Arts Festival they made sure the parking was appropriate and they ushered cars in.
Regional MPs know the importance of our CFAs beyond just what they do as volunteers to keep our communities safe. Our CFA brigades are organised volunteers who help out in so many other ways. In Bendigo, the Golden Square CFA helps to organise the popular farmers market that we have there. They help us with setting up. I am a Bendigo farmers market volunteer and quite often we work together to set up the market. These brigades are a big part of our community.
Something that has also been lost is that our CFA brigades reflect our community. They are men and women from many walks of life. What a number of them said to me during this dispute was that they want the politicians out of it and to stop politicising them and their brigades. They want the division to end. They do not want to see their service continue to be divided by politics. They want to get on with what they have always done—protecting and supporting our community.
And that is what we saw happen in the election. There were a couple of stories that jumped out at me and reminded me why I am so proud to represent the area of Bendigo. One article I want to highlight, which appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser on 13 June, talks about the camaraderie within our CFA between the career firefighters and the volunteer firefighters. Entitled 'Working together', it has a picture of Geoffrey Cain, from the Eaglehawk Fire Brigade, and Stephen Harris, from the Bendigo Fire Brigade, standing together. The Bendigo electorate is very similar to other Victorian country electorates. We have an integrated fire station—the Bendigo Fire Brigade. That is in the heart of Bendigo. Bendigo is a town of 100,000 people. And then surrounding the Bendigo fire station we have a number of volunteer firefighter stations. There are about 60 volunteer brigades across the Bendigo electorate—from very small communities like Walmer and Mia Mia to the larger outer suburbs of Bendigo like Eaglehawk, Strathfieldsaye, Huntly and Kangaroo Flat.
That article spoke about how closely our career and volunteer firefighters work together. Career firefighters from the Bendigo Station and the volunteers from Eaglehawk quite often do training exercises together that end with a lunch:
"We try to train with the integrated station as often as we can … It just shows the camaraderie between the integrated station and volunteers." … both brigades had a common goal: "We're here to protect the community."
These are the words of volunteer firefighters. These are the words of career firefighters. I understand that these are not the words of Liberal party politicians, but these are the words of the career firefighters and what they are saying about the work they do. These training sessions are not just with Eaglehawk. They are also with Golden Square and a number of other volunteer firefighter stations that we have in the area.
What is frustrating about this debate is that, to this moment, the government still has not outlined how this legislation will actually change the bargain and the proposed agreement that is currently going on. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side. We have heard a lot of chest-beating about how they are going to step up and defend volunteers. But what we have not heard is how this legislation will practically and technically change the bargaining that is going on in Victoria. So let's just park the politics for a moment and look at what is before us. I really support this legislation going off to review to test its rigour and see if it will actually change things.
Nobody denies that bargaining is tough. Bargaining is always tough; whether you are an employer or an employee, it is tough. If you are closely involved with bargaining at the state level with the CFA you will meet people on all sides of the bargaining who say it has always been tough. It is up to the Victorian state government to sit down and resolve this. And they do have a challenge ahead of them—I acknowledge that. But is it right for this place to intervene in that bargaining in that way? Is it going to be a slippery slope, where this government intervenes in all bargaining cases? Every time a state gets itself into trouble will this parliament try to amend the Fair Work Act? We have heard from nurses who say they do not know how this legislation could affect nurses. We have heard from ambulance employees in Victoria who say they do not know whether this legislation will affect them—because it is up to legislation to determine what an emergency body is. There are a number of new terms that have been created by this government in this bill and the Fair Work Act.
I have been speaking to some metropolitan based government MPs. They were not aware that we have volunteers who work in ambulance—our CERTs. In the town of Maldon, there is a team of volunteers who have been trained because they do not have an ambulance station in Maldon—the closest one is in Castlemaine. If there is an emergency, they will call a CERT and the CERT will be there. They are trained to have the skills to be a first response, to be there on hand in case there is an emergency in the town until the ambulance arrives. In what has been put forward by the government, we do not know if this change will affect those people in Ambulance Victoria and the CERTs. This legislation opens a Pandora's box about where volunteers will sit and where employees of emergency services will sit.
The CFA and UFU have been negotiating a new EBA for over 1,000 days. So this is not a new issue; it is an issue that has been ongoing for a while. Yet on the eve of an election, this government chose to politicise this issue and divide our communities. I was outraged then that a Prime Minister and a workplace relations minister could divide my communities the way that they did—communities who work really hard to support one another, as they are doing, as we speak, in my electorate with SES and CFA brigades ready to mobilise to support residents and businesses with sandbagging, to help people if they get caught in floodwaters. This bill is not stopping volunteers from doing what they have always done in the Bendigo electorate.
What the government do not realise is the damage that they have done by politicising this issue during the election, to the extent that the Victorian Liberal Party set up a page to fundraise off this issue. They set up a website. They registered this. When people signed the online petition, 'Hands off the CFA', they then sent them an email asking them for a donation. How this government used this issue to fundraise before the federal election could not get any more transparent.
On election day, it was quite confronting for my family. My partner's grandparents died in a house fire in Kangaroo Flat and it is something that they still reflect on because losing loved ones in a house fire is hard. But as I arrived at the last polling station, we drove past the house where they perished. I did not get the chance to meet them; it happened when my partner was quite young. We also drove past the cemetery, and stuck to the fence of the cemetery were Liberal Party endorsed 'Hands off CFA' corflutes. It was authorised by Exhibition Street and someone from the Liberal Party had gone around posting these all over town—another example of how the government are not genuine about supporting the Victorian government and showing leadership to resolve this crisis. They are only interested in the politics of this issue.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:56): I suppose I can speak with some authority about this. Believe it or not, I am 41 years of age but I am a 25-year member of the Country Fire Authority. I signed up at 16 and that gives me a unique opportunity to speak in this place on this, because there are not many country Victorian MPs and this is largely a Victorian issue. Also, my electorate is a third of the state and has many, many CFA branches right across it. Having been President of the Victorian Farmers Federation in a previous job and represented farmers, who largely go out and fight the fires, and also in that capacity having worked quite closely with Daniel Andrews, who is now the Premier of Victoria, I cannot believe the blundering mess that Premier Andrews has created here. He has taken strong stances against family violence for which I commend him. He has done some good things in drought-affected communities for which I commend him. But this is one where he has absolutely stuffed it up.
As much as the Labor Party are trying to say that the federal government is trying to play politics on this, the politics have been played out by Daniel Andrews within his own team. The message that has come to the average volunteer is that the government does not value them, and that is a great sadness because, really, that is not the message that the government of either political persuasion would choose to send. Our Country Fire Authority volunteers, as we speak, are active today in the electorate of Mallee with Charlton looking like it will hit flood levels at about two o'clock this afternoon—a town that was flooded three times recently and people are very nervous about it.
Without politicising this, I want to say that both sides of parliament do value our volunteers. These are people who do not brand themselves as heroes. I have stood out at two o'clock and three o'clock in the morning when there has been a fatality from a rollover of a B-double and I have put class-A foam to try to stop that tragedy from resulting in more fatalities. I do not class myself as a hero; I am a country person just doing what country people do. But what they are disappointed in is that the United Firefighters Union's quest to take them over to have a greater say has been endorsed by the Daniel Andrews government.
Essentially, the United Firefighters Union were very active in the last state election of Victoria. They were quite active in handing out how-to-vote cards, quite aggressive in handing out how-to-vote cards. They campaigned in their uniforms, and this is really payday for them. Daniel Andrews has wrongly judged the sentiment of Victorians. In an effort to pay back the unions, he could have given them greater pay, he could have given them better workplace conditions. But what he has chosen to do is cave in to the United Firefighters Union's attempt to take control of the CFA. This is where the government needed to intervene.
Now, this should not be a federal government issue. This should be dealt with in Victoria by a respectful Andrews government. It was such a political issue inside Mr Andrews' own parliament that he had to sack a minister. They then had to sack a board and put in one that is regarded by the membership, whether rightly or wrongly, as comprised of yes-men and yes-women. I predict it may well lead to Daniel Andrews no longer being the Premier in a term of his own government. I think that is a very real possibility. Any talk that this has been politicised by the conservative side of parliament does not recognise that the politicisation is taking place within the Andrews government. The message that they have sent is that volunteers are not valued.
What this bill seeks to do is to give greater recognition to the fact that a union, in negotiating the best outcome for their members—which is what their role is, and we do have a role for unions in Australia to do that—cannot do it to the detriment of volunteers. That is what this bill is all about. It tries to put a weighting back into the obligations of Fair Work Australia to consider the impacts upon those volunteers. It is unprecedented that a union or a government would stand by and allow the control of volunteers when they try and negotiate outcomes for their membership, so I think this bill is a very wise move for the government to take.
I will go back to the very start and say that we should never have had to go down this pathway, because the state Labor government, in particular Daniel Andrews, should have sent a very strong message that the union was not going to override the rights and value and minimise the authority of a volunteer organisation such as the Country Fire Authority. I support this legislation. We must have this legislation. I appeal to the Premier, who I know personally, to have a hard look at the messages he has sent to our volunteers, and to rein in the United Firefighters Union and hold them to account instead of giving them everything they want at the expense of our hardworking and dedicated Country Fire Authority volunteers.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:02): This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, potentially will have a significant impact on how well residents in outer metropolitan Melbourne are protected from fire. That is the untold story of this bill and something that the government has failed to utter a single sentence about. It is really what the negotiations that are going on in Victoria, about the enterprise agreement and the actions of the state Labor government, are about.
The government would have you think that this is some takeover of activities in rural areas some distance from the CBD or major regional centres. The government would have you think that this is about some proposed takeover of purely volunteer brigades in areas that cover the vast majority of Victoria. Those things are completely untrue. To understand what is going on in Victoria, you need to understand a bit about the history. In Victoria the metropolitan fire district was set quite some time ago. It extends 15 kays, give or take, from the GPO, and outside that area you are in the CFA. Quite some time ago, 15 kays from the CBD GPO would have been quite a long distance, and you could legitimately have said you were in the country, but now we have outer metropolitan Melbourne suburbs like Springvale that are in the CFA district.
Increasingly as Melbourne grows, there are areas that are within the CFA fire district but, for all intents and purposes, the people living there think they are in outer metropolitan Melbourne. We have big new housing estates being opened up on the outskirts of Melbourne that are covered by the CFA. Where you used to have farmers and rural workers—people with the time to be volunteers, as we have in many other areas in Victoria—these people are being replaced by people who work in factories or work nine to five in offices and who expect, because they are paying their levies, rates and taxes, that they will have the same standard of fire cover as people in the city.
This issue has been raised in the bushfires royal commission. The bushfires royal commission said: 'We've got a problem here in Victoria with these boundaries. What is called country in some areas is still legitimately country, but in some areas it is now suburban Melbourne, so what are we going to do about it?'
The issue becomes increasingly acute when you live in one of those outer suburban areas and fire trucks do not get to incidents on time. That is not because volunteers are not working hard or doing their best; of course they are. It is just a fact of life that when somewhere that was once farmland is now a housing estate there will be fewer people able to commit time around the clock in the way that they used to. So the government in Victoria has decided, following the bushfires royal commission and recommendations from an independent panel, to roll out additional paid firefighters in some of these urban growth areas, and that makes sense. It is what the people of Victoria would expect.
What we are dealing with in Victoria is what happens in those areas where fire services were once solely volunteer but are now becoming what are called 'integrated fire stations' because of the number of people who live there. We are not talking about what happens in purely rural areas where the brigade will remain purely volunteer; we are talking about these growth areas. What the state government has said is: 'We're going to employ some additional staff there. We have then got to work through a process of how they relate to the volunteers, so that these stations become what are called "integrated stations" where paid staff and volunteers are working side by side, as they do currently in many CFA stations.' So it is nothing new. It is just saying we have got to move with the times and move with the fact that there are lots of people living in areas where there used to be fewer people.
But what does this government do? This government sees a political opportunity and it pounces. It comes into Victoria during a federal election campaign—when this issue about how to deal with growth in population and Melbourne has been going on for years and has been managed within the CFA and the state government for years—and inflames tensions. The fact that it has to come in and tell untruths to the people of Melbourne and Victoria in order to inflame those tensions tells you everything you need to know about this bill. The minister who is responsible for industrial relations, who had all the staff of her office and all the staff of her department at her disposal, sat down and wrote an opinion piece for a significant newspaper in Victoria, the Herald Sun, saying everyone should be concerned about this agreement and everyone needs to back their legislation. She likened what is going on to Ash Wednesday, which is an appalling comparison to make, and then she said here is why you should be scared and why people should vote for this government's bill. The No. 1 reason, she says, is:
SEVEN paid firefighters (ie union members) to be present before CFA personnel are able to be deployed to a fire;
The No. 1 reason the minister gives after deliberation—this is not an off-the-cuff quote; this is a deliberate opinion piece that she spent a long time thinking up—is simply untrue. I could understand why people would be concerned if they thought that this agreement meant that if volunteers were deployed to a fire they would have to sit there and wait until paid staff turned up, but that is not what the agreement says. Despite the minister's putting it in writing to the whole country—indeed, to the whole state—in the middle of an election campaign, that is not what the agreement says. What it says is that in these areas where you have volunteers and professionals overlapping seven firefighters have to be deployed, but they do not have to turn up before the volunteers can start fighting the fire. If the volunteer turns up first, they start first. That is what the agreement says. And why do you have seven? It is to ensure that the minimum number of firefighters who can fight a fire safely are on their way, are going to turn up at some point. Seven is understood to be the minimum. At the end of the day, that could be a mix of seven paid and volunteers, but there is nothing in the agreement, despite what the minister says in that clear untruth that she peddled after deliberation, that stops a volunteer or a team of volunteers fighting the fire first if they turn up.
The second reason that the minister gave as to why we should support this was:
PAID firefighters to report only to other paid firefighters (not CFA commanders);
The implication is that paid firefighters cannot report to volunteers. Again, that is a complete untruth, because what clause 77.5 says is that the first arriving incident controller on scene can determine the number of appliances and crews, and elsewhere the agreement refers to the incident controller, who could be a volunteer. In other words, the agreement says, despite the clear lies from the minister in this piece in the Herald Sun, that if the incident controller is a volunteer then ultimately the paid firefighters report to them.
Mr Hunt: I would ask that the reference to lies be withdrawn. That is a direct imputation against the minister.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The term was used not directly to one person. I was listening very carefully. The member for Melbourne will continue.
Mr BANDT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. The minister goes on:
THE CFA to get the approval of the union "for any policy that affects the application or operation of this agreement or the work of employees covered by it".
And she says:
This would completely destroy the CFA's chain of command and its volunteer-based model.
What she does not say is that the agreement says, right up the front, on page 11:
For the avoidance of doubt, except as provided in Clause 60-Peer Support, nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers without remuneration.
The role of volunteers is explicitly protected, right up the front of the agreement.
If you read the minister's opinion piece you might think there are some concerns here, and purely regional areas that are staffed purely by volunteers are under threat, but that is simply not the case. The issues that we are primarily dealing with are in the high-growth areas, primarily in outer suburban Melbourne but also in other outer regional centres. Paid staff will continue to report to volunteers if they are the incident controllers at the incident, and nothing in the agreement affects the ordinary operation of volunteers. Instead, we have a government that is prepared, for its own naked political purposes, to try and divide volunteer and paid firefighters, because that is what is going on here. They are scaring and misleading volunteers by telling them things that are simply untrue.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr BANDT: I hear the minister at the table interjecting. If he wants to get up and defend what the minister wrote in the Herald Sun, please do. Since we called the minister out, not one member of the government has got up and defended the minister's claims. Not even the minister herself could defend them when she was asked on television, because the government knows in its heart that this bill is based on a lie. This bill is based on a lie and it is based on a naked political attempt to divide volunteer and paid firefighters. The real concern is that this sets an incredible precedent. This sets a precedent that says this government will intervene in one particular industrial dispute that is going on in one particular state if it happens to fall during an election period and rewrite the laws to deal with that one particular dispute. If this government's defence of the CFA holds true, surely it is up to the CFA and the Victorian government to decide how they want to roll out their firefighters and their new stations, and the terms and conditions on which they want to do it. If the government and the CFA in Victoria say, 'We think there is an increased fire risk in many of our areas; the bushfire royal commission has told us to have a look at whether the boundaries are still up to date, and we want to go and put some extra staff in those areas,' surely they should be allowed to do it.
There is a provision in this bill that says nothing in an enterprise agreement can override the CFA's powers or the State Emergency Service's powers under a state act. Well, that provision is going to be one of the first ones that will be tested in the Federal Court or the High Court, because surely it is up to the state government and the CFA itself to determine how it wants to exercise its powers. If the state government has powers to look after Victorians, and the state government and the CFA under their own legislation say, 'The best way to look after Victorians is to put a fire station here with this many people working on it; this many are going to be paid and this many are volunteers,' and they want to put that in an enterprise agreement, surely it is their right to do that.
Instead—and I do not think the government fully appreciates what it is doing here—this federal government is stepping in for naked political purposes and saying, 'We will override the ability of the CFA to reach an agreement with its paid workforce and its volunteers and implement it in the way that it sees fit to protect Victorians.' When, as a result of this legislation, there are stations that cannot be built or crewed in the way that is envisaged in the agreement, and there is lawsuit after lawsuit about what this means, and when that holds up the rollout of new fire stations and new firefighters, it will be this government's responsibility, because you, the government, are saying to people in outer suburban Victoria or in those regional areas: 'You don't deserve the same standard of fire cover as people who live in the cities. For naked political purposes we will pass a bill that will make it more difficult for the Victorian government to give you a standard of fire cover.' It will be on your head when people do not get the standard of fire cover they deserve.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (11:17): I also stand to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. After listening to the member for Melbourne, it is obvious that he is representing the Greens, who realise there are no CFAs in the seat of Melbourne. He has never been to a seat like mine, La Trobe, where nearly every suburb has a CFA, and the CFA volunteers are absolutely furious with what is going on. CFA volunteers are a huge part of my community. They have protected us for so many years and have also been there at times of tragedy, such as the devastating 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires, where sadly we lost 12 CFA volunteers from the Narre Warren and Panton Hill crews. Those fires destroyed many houses and took 75 lives. I still recall the day, as a 16-year-old, seeing the fires first start in Belgrave South as I was catching the bus home from Upper Ferntree Gully tech. My father fought in those fires and is still a member of the Ferny Creek CFA. Our CFA volunteers are so good. They fight fires not only locally and interstate, but also internationally. Each year they go and assist other countries.
Despite this, Daniel Andrews wants to give control of the CFA to the UFU. At this point it is important to fully understand the implications of the United Firefighters Union proposal of the enterprise bargaining agreement. At the behest of the UFU, Premier Andrews is pressuring the CFA to sign an EBA. The EBA would undermine volunteers and the CFA's operations. For example, clause 35.4 means that paid firefighters can only report to another paid firefighter, except during level 3 incidents—around one per cent of annual incidents. Clause 41.1 means that union agreement is required before the CFA can make a change to policy. Clause 77.5 means that seven paid firefighters need to be dispatched before other paid firefighters commence firefighting. Schedule 20 means that union agreement is required on what uniforms are worn by volunteers and that paid firefighters must have uniforms that are visually distinguishable from the volunteers. I have heard some people say, in defence of the UFU, that the EBA has a clause 7A that says:
The role of volunteers … is not altered by this Agreement.
However, this is more of a motherhood statement. This clause does not override, and is fundamentally contradicted by, a number of other clauses. The specific clauses will override a general clause such as clause 7A.
So far for the CFA these proposals by the UFU have meant the Victorian emergency services minister Jane Garrett, a Labor minister, resigned to support the CFA volunteers. I did not hear the member for Melbourne say that! The CFA's chief executive and chief fire officers also supported the CFA and resigned. The highly respected Lucida Nolan, whom I know through her role as a deputy commissioner at Victoria Police, resigned because she said this would lead to the destruction of the CFA. The CFA board, who staunchly opposed this EBA, were sacked by the Andrews government. John Schurink, who was a board member, is also captain of the local Ferny Creek CFA. He was sacked neither for being a bad CFA member, nor for being a bad board member; he has a very highly distinguished career. He was sacked for standing up for other CFA volunteers.
Because of this, and in recognition of the importance of CFA volunteers, the Prime Minister announced during the 2016 election campaign that he would amend the Fair Work Act in order to protect volunteers. We had to do something. I also thank Minister Greg Hunt for his role in this intervention. Also, during the election campaign it was great to have Michaelia Cash, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, and the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, visit my electorate. When Julie Bishop visited Belgrave, in my electorate, we had probably 300 CFA volunteers attend that rally, including Emerald SES. Members opposite say it is all a coalition stunt and this is pushed by the coalition, but the CFA volunteers want our protection and our support. It is a shame the Labor Party do not feel the same way.
How does the coalition propose to fix this problem today? The bill will simply add to the definition of 'objectionable term' in section 12 of the Fair Work Act to prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. An 'objectionable emergency management term' is a term which will prevent an emergency services body being able to properly manage its volunteer operation—and, as I said, our volunteers are good enough to go and fight fires overseas, so surely they are good enough to look after themselves—and terms which are contrary to the relevant state legislation covering these bodies. This will mean that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency service volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations. This simple amendment will apply only to firefighting and state emergency services organisations in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory because they are covered by the national workplace relations scheme.
So, despite the criticisms I have heard from staunch unionists, it is not right to characterise this as interfering in a state matter. The proposed EBA is made under the Fair Work Act, a federal law, but it would directly contradict the Victorian firefighter act, a state law. So this small amendment to the Fair Work Act will prevent the Victorian government using federal law to undermine its own state law. Without the federal parliament passing this amendment, the CFA volunteer base model would be severely undermined. This would threaten the safety of communities, cost taxpayers and erode Australia's great tradition of volunteerism and community spirit, which beats strong in my electorate of La Trobe, and that is why I strongly support this bill.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:24): Members of the public in the gallery, this is the second sitting week of the 45th Parliament. This should not be a remarkable fact. At this point in time the legislative engine should be roaring. The just re-elected government should be ready to put through legislation, one after the other, giving life to the policies and visions it is supposed to have, that it campaigned on and said would improve the country. It should be doing that. Yet in this 45th Parliament we start later in the day and we finish earlier—we meet less. At this rate we will be legislating via a drive-through. Basically, when we go to pass laws we will be asked if we want fries with that. We do not sit here long enough to debate any legislation—nothing—and that is why we have got this Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016.
The government have put forward one bill, which their speakers hardly speak on. They have 15 minutes allotted and they have all been told to keep it short. Why? What is coming through? There is no legislation that will be following this. You would think they would want to pad it out, but they do not. They do not want to talk about this bill.
For those people in the gallery, this is the bill we are debating. You come here to see the laws we are debating. This is the bill itself. Look how long it is. It is hardly anything. It would hardly have the strength to be used as a flyswat. Even within it it is empty. More of it would be blank pages. In the best work of a school student who is trying to pad out their own work to impress a teacher, they did not even start at the top of the page—that page is half blank as well. The only thing that would make this bill thicker is changing the font size. If you changed the font size it would make it a thicker document. This is not a bill; it is ink seeking a desperate purpose—a political point to be made.
You are wasting the time of the chamber. For what? You see how exercised speakers on the other side of the chamber are and you will see some ministers here get exercised about it as well. What we are talking about is them defending volunteers. The Liberal Party love defending people who are not getting paid. If you are not getting paid, they are happy to talk about you. They are not happy to talk about stagnant wages in this country. They are not happy about helping employees get a better job. They are not happy about making sure people actually do well. They do not care for it. They do not have an answer for the fact that wage growth is at the lowest level it has been in decades. You never see them talk about that. They are not here talking about advancing workers. They are never here about advancing workers.
They have found voice on one issue—this one that involves a dispute that is occurring in one state. It is not even a federal agency; it is a state agency. They come in here and waste the parliament's time talking about this. Why? Because they want to score political points. That is it: they want to score political points. That is why they have done this. That is why this bill is embarrassingly thin. It cannot even be defended by its own minister. When Minister Cash was interviewed in late August she was asked to explain the bill they are putting forward here and she said: 'It's a simple bill. There's not much to it.' Of course there is not. It is exceptionally hard for them to actually do anything relevant in this bill. It is exceptionally hard to do it.
When they are asked to defend the bill you have the classic kind of train wreck interview that the minister had in late August when trying to defend this. When she was asked on Sky to defend it—putting forward scenarios and then saying how it relates to the actual legislation that is being proposed—the minister said:
At the moment—let’s say there's a burning car; for simplicity: a burning car—volunteers arrive. They put out the fire. Paid firefighters arrive. They put out the fire.
… … …
My understanding is there needs to be a minimum of seven firefighters dispatched before safe firefighting operations can commence.
David Speers asks:
What does safe firefighting operations mean?
… … …
… clause 7A of the agreement says it does not require seven professional firefighters to be physically at the fire ground before commencement of firefighting operations.
The minister was contradicted straightaway by a journalist, looking at the legislation. One thing being claimed by the minister is being disproven by the government's own legislation on national TV. Hashtag fail, as they say in the Twittersphere: #fail, fail 1.
Then Speers said:
Can the chief fire officer at the CFA be wrong, because he says this proposed agreement won't affect his ability to direct the fire.
It will not direct his ability to 'alter'. The minister:
Again, there are varying interpretations …
How could there be varying interpretations of a bill that you are proposing? You should know it. She then goes on to cherrypick some other people who do not think it works but does not address the firefighting issue properly. Then David Speers says:
7A.1 says 'the role of volunteers in fighting bushfires … is not altered by this agreement.'
Minister:
Well, I completely disagree with that clause.
Speers:
Well, it's in the agreement.
Again, the minister is being contradicted. The minister is saying one thing on TV and then being contradicted when going back to the legislation. This is a journalist on TV doing it. Their own minister cannot do it. Speers:
Clause 7A.2: 'nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers without remuneration. '
Minister:
And then when you actually go through the agreement—and I cannot actually find what you are referring to here.
This is the minister. She cannot even find it. Speers:
Clause 7A.2: just turn to the page right here.
It is being pointed out again on national TV. Speers:
Just to finish: what will happen to Don?
There was a big thing made about how the minister met a firefighter called Don and she kept referring to this firefighter and trying to demonstrate what impact this bill would have. David Speers says:
Just to finish: what will happen to Don if this agreement goes through?
Don is the firefighter that the minister spoke about in terms of this fight being their Ash Wednesday. Cash:
If this particular agreement in its current form goes through, well, basically, that is why we seek to change section 12 to create a new term.
Speers:
What happens to Don if you don't succeed?
He is onto it. He is pressing the minister to actually provide evidence. He says:
What happens to Don if you don't succeed. If this proposed agreement goes through, what happens to Don?
Minister:
Well, I would hope Don doesn't resign as so many have already started doing.
Speers:
Why would he? What would happen to him?
Minister:
Well, again, it's not just what would happen to Don.
Speers:
I'm trying to get to the specifics here. What would happen to him? What would the impact be on a long-serving, very honourable hardworking volunteer?
Minister:
Well, you would need to ask that person.
No. Your bill is designed to protect them. You are supposed to come in here and demonstrate that in this exceptionally thin piece of work—this pamphlet rather than legislation. You are supposed to describe what is actually being done. When this goes through, how will people be protected? And the minister on national TV could not do it. She could not do it on repeated occasions.
Ms Butler: It's a stunt.
Mr HUSIC: Exactly. As the member for Griffith rightly says: it is a stunt. As David Speers says:
You're the one wanting to intervene here.
The minister says:
No, no, no. You need to ask that particular person.
No. It is the job of those opposite to explain it, and they cannot. The reason they cannot do it is that, again, this is a stunt. It is not legislation. This is a stunt that is basically trying to justify an intervention during a political campaign.
Mind you, here is the danger with what they are doing: imagine at some point down the track if we were on the other side of the House and sought to intervene in individual industrial disputes. That is what is being opened up here. The door is being opened to this type of thing. The federal government have shown that they can just intervene on whatever they choose in a state bargaining arena. They will go forward and just intervene. This is not the way that business is done. There is a clear delineation between the levels of government. There is a clear delineation between the industrial relations systems that are oversighted at the federal and state levels. Clearly, it is not about politics. The worst thing that could happen is that, instead of business having certainty, they have to wonder whether or not a federal Liberal government, trying to extract political gain, will just leap in and decide that they are going to get themselves involved. That is what they are doing.
This is not some pro-business government; this is a pro-political outfit that is deciding for its own benefit what it will get involved in and when, how and where. This is not the way that the parliament should work. But, again, what would you expect? What would you expect from a parliament now being run by a government that is making us sit later in the day and finish earlier? They talk about crewing levels; they cannot even crew themselves to meet an adjournment debate or to vote on one, and they want to be able to dictate to others what is going on. It is a shambles and it should not be occurring.
As the shadow minister for employment outlined today, what is at the heart of this legislation, this stunt, is currently being decided in the courts. The legislation will also be subject to a Senate inquiry. We will be going through it. There will be opportunities to highlight what a ridiculous situation we have been put in. This is not a situation where the government should be getting involved in this way.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: All it is is a stunt that was triggered by that minister there, who decided that he needed Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, to get involved in doing something to rescue the flagging fortunes of a coalition that had no clue and was rudderless, and they decided to kick into this. That is why they are getting so exercised and that is why they want to interrupt while this debate is going on. They well know this is—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Listen, there are so many issues that occur in public life at a federal level that you have a responsibility for, Minister, but you would not get involved. You would not care; you would not get involved. So please don't tell me that for some reason this is the biggest signature issue that you will deal with right now. When people are not getting the money they feel they should be getting, the wage increases that they want to get to be able to get a bit of breathing space so that they can then get ahead themselves, you will never see those opposite talk about that.
You will never see them championing for wage growth in this country to make sure that people actually feel much more comfortable and able to do what they want to do. You will not see it. They will talk about cuts. They will talk about changes that rip people off and make it harder for them. But they will never come in here and make people's lives easier—unless it is for themselves. That is why this legislation is a joke, why this bill is a joke, why the parliament's time is being wasted. They do not have an agenda. They have a three-word slogan, a one-point plan and stunts like this, and the parliament's time is being wasted as a result.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (11:37): The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. It is about the volunteer spirit our nation was built on. It is about our communities and about the ability of our communities to look after themselves.
On Sunday I toured Coleraine and Casterton, where we have just seen the impact of floods. You would say to yourself: what has this got to do with this legislation? Well, it has everything to do with it, because there were houses that had been inundated, there were businesses that had been inundated—and who was there helping those communities? CFA volunteers, SES volunteers and, of course, the hardworking police. They were there because they care about their communities and because they are prepared to volunteer their free time to make sure that their communities get the care that they need.
They do it because they understand how important it is to be able to look after yourself—not to wait for assistance to come from Melbourne, not to wait for assistance to come from other capital cities. It is about who we are as a nation, looking after ourselves, making sure that when you are in harm's way there are people ready to come to your help. What these volunteer groups want, purely and simply, is one thing: to be left alone to be able to do that—nothing more, nothing less.
I say to the member opposite, who seems to think this is a stunt: this is not a stunt. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will come before this House, this parliament in these three years. Our communities depend on our volunteers, and the idea that an out-of-control union will try and dictate how those volunteers do that is an absolute national disgrace.
If you think that the union does not care about this piece of legislation, think again. Why did Peter Marshall come to this place and meet with the crossbench senators a couple of weeks ago to convince them not to pass this piece of legislation? Why did the person who is orchestrating this, who has the state Labor government under his control, come here to try and convince the crossbenchers in the Senate not to pass this legislation? If this is a stunt, why did he do that? This is one simple question you on that side need to answer. I do not think you will answer it, though, because we know, a couple of months ago—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: You might yawn. You might yawn and think this is tedious and boring. Go to those Victorian communities who, at the moment, are relying on volunteers to keep them safe and tell them that you think this is boring. You think this is boring. You think this is tedious. Go to those communities and ask those who are there volunteering, trying to protect them. You go and say that to them. Go on. Go on.
Ms Kate Ellis: You are yelling.
Mr TEHAN: No, not that I am yelling, but that you think this is tedious and boring. It beggars belief that you would sit there—go to Casterton, go to Coleraine, go to Charlton and go and talk to those volunteers. Ask them about this. Ask them why your leader, Bill, would not go to Victoria and go out to country communities while this was going on during the election campaign. Why? Because he knew that he would get the truth delivered to him. He knew that he met with Peter Marshall, the head of the UFU, a couple of months ago. He had a secret meeting with Peter Marshall so that all this could slip through and he would get his way. Well, we on this side are not going to stand for it. And if I have to raise my voice to make it known that we will not stand for it, I will and I will do it unashamedly, because this is so important. If you do not realise that on your side of parliament, then damn you.
Ms Butler: Through the chair.
Mr TEHAN: Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, damn them if they do not think that this is important, because this legislation is important. For those opposite, just so they understand—and I am going to conclude briefly after this—Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria was able to provide valuable input into the development of the legislation. This is what Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria has to say:
… we are very pleased that it has shaped up in a way that we believe meets our concerns and deals with the practical issues affecting volunteers.
The legislation will be a simple change to the Fair Work Act …
So, yes, it is a thin piece of legislation—a simple change to the Fair Work Act. We do not think you need a multitude of regulations to fix this. It is a simple change. Often the simple things in life are the best. The legislation will be a simple change to the Fair Work Act, making it objectionable for workplace agreements to restrict or limit an emergency services organisation's ability to: engage or deploy its volunteers; provide support or equipment to those volunteers; manage its relationships with or work with any recognised emergency management body in relation to those volunteers; otherwise manage its operations in relation to those volunteers.
I will conclude on this note, because others want to speak on this. On polling day, I went to a booth in my electorate, and I will not name the booth because it could get the people who were working on that booth in trouble. They were two Labor Party members handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor Party. They approached me and said, 'We are handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor Party because we have been members most of our lives, but we wish that we were handing out for the coalition because of what the Labor Party are doing to volunteer spirit and organisations in the state of Victoria.'
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:45): It was a very passionate speech from the member for Wannon—clearly not passionate enough to go the full time allotted to him to make the speech, but passionate nonetheless. The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 is another example of the Liberals turning their backs on the principles for political expediency, by seeking to restrict the matters about which parties can bargain. It is a bill that is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. This Liberal government is seeking to lecture others about workplace bargaining while at the same time they have been utterly incompetent at bargaining with their own workforce, the Australian Public Service. It is a bill that serves one useful purpose: to remind us that Australia needs to do better when it comes to collective bargaining in the public service.
This is just an example of the Liberals sacrificing their own principles for political expediency. If you want another example, we had a great one yesterday when the Prime Minister came into this chamber and tabled a bill that he himself did not believe in, which was a bill for a plebiscite for marriage equality. In that example there were so many Liberal principles that were sacrificed for political expediency. It is hard to know where to start, but a good place to start is the purported belief in civil rights and individual liberties, something that the Liberals claim is the core of liberalism, and yet despite claiming that to be the core of liberalism—which it really is—the Turnbull-Joyce government is working hard to do whatever it can to stop marriage equality, including by coming up with this plebiscite idea, which of course was invented by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott. The member for Cook has also claimed responsibility for that.
Mr Craig Kelly: On relevance—this bill is about the rural fire service. It has nothing to do with marriage equality. There are plenty of other opportunities for the member to debate that. She should restrict her comments to the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the member for Hughes's comments, but this is a broad-ranging subject and I give the call to the member for Griffith.
Ms BUTLER: I thank the honourable member for seeking to interrupt me because he is clearly so embarrassed by the fact that what I am saying is true—the Liberals sacrificing their own proclaimed principles in the name of political expediency. If you believe in individual liberties and freedoms and if you are not sure how this is relevant, then you might want to listen because I think it is pretty obvious. You do not take away individual liberties and freedoms and you certainly do not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, which is of course what the Liberals are seeking to do in their continued quest to at least delay if not obstruct marriage equality, and that is really what the plebiscite idea was invented for. That is why the Liberals came up with the idea: they did not want to see marriage equality pass. It is interesting that at the end of that six-hour party room meeting where marriage equality was debated and the plebiscite idea was first floated then Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that that would be the last term the Liberals would be bound in relation to marriage equality. In the next term—which we are of course now in—people would no longer be bound in relation to marriage equality. You would think that would have led to the delivery of a free vote on the floor of this parliament in relation to marriage equality, but, sadly, it has not, because the Liberals are pretty hypocritical when it comes to their proclaimed beliefs in individual freedoms, liberties and civil rights.
Another principle sacrificed for expediency was parliamentary democracy. In fact, one of the new members of this place stood up this week and cited in his first speech the belief in parliamentary democracy as one of the reasons why he is a Liberal. I believe in parliamentary democracy myself. It is one of the reasons why I think the plebiscite's radical departure from parliamentary democracy is something that we should really take a deep breath and consider before this parliament continues to pursue it in this place. It is a radical departure from parliamentary democracy tradition—it is not a conservative idea at all.
The final so-called dearly-held principle of the Liberals that has been sacrificed for political expediency in relation to the plebiscite is the purported claim to fiscal discipline. If anything makes a mockery of the claim to fiscal discipline, I do not know what could be better than the idea that we are going to set fire to $170 million just because some people in the Liberal Party do not think that people who have a sexuality different to theirs should be able to get married, which of course is exactly what they are seeing.
In the bill we are debating today, there is yet more sacrificing of this commitment that Liberals are supposed to have to individual liberty, in the name of political expediency and in the name of this highly-political piece of legislation. In fact, the principle that is being sacrificed is something that the Liberal tradition has so strongly believed in for such a long time, and that is the freedom of parties to a contract or to an agreement to agree on the terms of that agreement—the freedom to bargain and the freedom to agree without restriction by third parties. But what is actually happening in this bill? Of course, the whole effect of this bill is to restrict the nature of the bargain that can be struck between consenting parties. It is saying to parties: no matter what you want to agree on when it comes to reaching agreement with each other you cannot agree on this topic. You are prohibited from agreeing in relation to this particular topic. It is a throwback to the Work Choices era, when the then Prime Minister John Howard led a government that sought to—and was effective in legislating it—prescribe a set list of specific matters about which people could not bargain, at risk of being fined. That was what is in the Work Choices legislation—a long list of prohibited content for agreements. This is not only another attempt to try to ignore the fact that Liberals stand for freedom to contract and bargain. This is not only an attempt to ignore that very longstanding belief that there should not be an intervention by the state in agreements between parties; this is the second time in recent history—well, it is more than the second time, of course, but this is another example—when the Liberals have used the apparatus of the state to intervene in bargains that can be struck by seeking to prohibit terms that can be contained within those bargains. They cannot help it. Work Choices runs through the blood of every Liberal and National member in this place. They are addicted to seeking to use industrial relations legislation to serve their own political ends. That is what this government is doing with this legislation, and of course it is what it did with the Work Choices legislation.
That is a grave shame. You would think that after the 2007 election, the 2010 election and, for that matter, the 2016 election the government would have learned that continuous ideologically driven pursuit of your political opponents, particularly where that is inconsistent with the principles that you profess to hold dear, is not a very good idea, and trying to restrict the matters on which people can bargain is also not a very good idea, particularly when it is for political purposes or where it is excessive intervention by the state in bargains that are struck between parties.
But I also think that this bill really serves to emphasise the hypocrisy of this government in another way, and that is that it is seeking to lecture parties about bargaining when it has proven entirely incompetent at bargaining in its own right. Not only are the Prime Minister and his ministers at this point trying to bring forward this legislation that is really an attempt to lecture other people about how they can bargain, but they are doing so at a time when they are fundamentally failing to accomplish a basic function of government, and that is bargaining with the Australian Public Service in relation to its terms and conditions. This is the first government in 30 years that has been unable to settle public sector bargaining. It is an embarrassment. It is yet another example of how this Prime Minister and this government have plenty to say and talk a lot but are absolutely incompetent when it comes to actually executing. They cannot execute.
The Howard government, a government known for its ideological approach to industrial relations laws, was nonetheless able to progress and finalise bargaining with its own workforce. The Howard government could do it. Governments over many, many years have been able to resolve with their own workforce, the Australian Public Service, pay and conditions through bargaining and through industrial relations arrangements. But this government has been completely unable to do it.
In fact, bargaining for Australian Public Service workplace conditions and pay has been going on for 1,028 days. It is a disgrace. It is part of a wider attack on public services by this coalition government. The reason there are waits at Medicare and over a million phone calls that went unanswered at Centrelink is that this government is unable to lead a service provision framework. It is unable to reach any sort of arrangement with its own workforce. It is unable to deliver services. It is unable to execute, as I say.
When you think about the people that are affected by this, it is not just Minister Cash, who is obviously highly embarrassed by this. It is not just Prime Minister Turnbull, who at least should be highly embarrassed by this. The people who are really affected are normal people with mortgages, people who have families, school fees and bills to pay. They have been stuck in this bargaining deadlock for more than a thousand days, simply because they do not want to accept cuts to the rights and the conditions in their agreements.
This is not a situation of a few staff. It is not a handful of staff. Enterprise agreements covering approximately 165,000 staff across around 115 Commonwealth agencies expired on 30 June 2014. Approximately 70 per cent of APS staff in around 55 agencies have not yet made an agreement. That is about 115,000 workers, the overwhelming majority of them. They work in the Department of Human Services, in the Australian Taxation Office, in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and in Defence. Staff in these agencies have voted up to three times to reject the government's proposed agreements, and the last pay rise provided for by enterprise agreements for most of them was back in mid-2013. I remember mid-2013 very fondly. It is a long time ago. That is a long time, because of course what has been happening while they have not received a nominal increase in their pay is that inflation has been increasing, so of course the consequence for them is that in real terms they have received a pay cut in those 1,028 days.
Of course, there is also the question of conditions and the arrangements under which people work. A lot of people who are working in these jobs are low-paid people who earn around $50,000—in that vicinity—and they have families and family responsibilities. So it is not just about pay, although pay is important; it is also about conditions of work, because if you have young children—as you know very well, of course, Deputy Speaker Vasta; you have very beautiful young children—you have to be able to have some flexibility.
What is so frustrating about this is that a resolution to this dispute is actually being prevented by the government's own current workplace bargaining policy, which caps pay rises at two per cent per annum and obviously does not make any allowance for the gap since the last pay rise. When you work out and take into account that you have had this real pay cut over the 1,028 days, the offer is, in effect, around one per cent per annum, and people know that that is less than CPI. They know that this makes them worse off.
Probably just as distressingly, the government's policy mandates cuts to working conditions, like increases to working hours and reduced access to part-time work and workplace flexibility. So people know that this is going to make it harder for them to manage work and family obligations. These are competing obligations, and probably what is just as bad as that is that the centralised control over bargaining is such that departmental heads who are pragmatic and can see what needs to be done in order to land a deal so that they can stop the constant bargaining—which is, of course, in and of itself something that takes resources and time—do not have the flexibility. The department heads themselves lack the authority, and they cannot be in a position to put forward tables.
It has got to the point where the workforce is actually having to file good-faith bargaining applications against the government. It is a disgrace that that is having to happen. The government needs to sit down with its workforce and actually find a way to resolve these bargaining disputes, because they are a drag on the Public Service. I think that most people would agree that, whatever your views are about industrial relations, about the politics of industrial relations and about workforce issues, it is actually better for our country if the government is able to deliver stable workplace conditions for its workforce—for the 115,000 or so people for whom that is not yet a reality. But, of course, that takes a government that is able to be competent and to execute—and, unfortunately, that does not seem to have been the case. It is very, very rich, it is ill in the mouth, for the Prime Minister and ministers to lecture other Australians about bargaining when they have been unable to land bargains for their own workforce—the Australian public sector employees.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:00): I have been in this place for near on six years. I know the member for Griffith has to speak on behalf of her union bosses but, with the greatest respect, that was the most hypocritical speech that I have heard in the last six years. To come into this chamber to speak on this bill—the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016—and to talk about freedom and liberty and to vote against it is an absolute disgrace. The member never even spoke about the bill. The member wants to talk about freedom, liberty and EBA's, but does she understand that the Victorian state government actually sacked the CFA board because they did not do what they wanted? How was that freedom and liberty? They sacked the board and replaced them with their own hand-picked patsies. This is something you would expect in Soviet Russia. And you come in here and you talk about freedom and liberty. What an absolute disgrace!
We live in the greatest country in the world. It is the greatest country in the world not because of good luck but because of our institutions, our customs, our practices and our traditions. Not only do they make us the greatest country in the world; they are the glue that holds our communities together. These things include providing economic opportunity to individuals and, as the member for Berowra said yesterday in a most wonderful speech, 'The ability in this country to chance your arm.' I acknowledge in the gallery Mr Ian Krantz, a gentleman that runs his own business and supports his own family by chancing his arm—and I give him credit for that.
The other glue that holds our community together and that makes us a great society that we are is that spirit of volunteerism. That is why we are bringing this bill into parliament. What the Victorian government are doing is a direct attack on the spirit of volunteerism. It is simply what we see time and time again from the Labor Party—attacking the fundamental things that make our country great. We saw it on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, for which we had the report this morning from Small Business Ombudsman Kate Carnell. She talked about where the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal put those who were chancing their arm, those individual small business people, at a competitive disadvantage and forced them out of business—a Labor Party initiative. Kate Carnell said:
Fundamentally what we found was the order caused significant financial and emotional distress for small business owner-drivers; many lost work, resulting in a loss of income that impacted not only on their business, but their entire family.
The inquiry also heard evidence that a small number of people found the order compounded their mental health battles and financial difficulties to the extent that they took their own lives ….
The Labor Party supported that. They supported the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. They came in here with the phoney argument that it was all about road safety, when it was all about giving more power to the unions, and they all stand condemned today from that report from the Small Business Ombudsman. And here we are seeing an exact repeat: an attack on that spirit of volunteerism in the Rural Fire Service, as we know them in New South Wales, and the Country Fire Authority, as they are known in Victoria.
The member for Chifley came in here and said, 'There's is no problem. Look away. Look away,' and tried to distract. Is there a problem? Let's just have a look at some of the evidence. Because of this EBA in Victoria, the Victorian emergency services minister—a Labor person elected under the Labor banner sitting in a Labor ministry—resigned because of what the Victorian government is trying to do. Congratulations to Jane Garrett for standing up and pointing out how wrong this is. The chief executive of the Country Fire Authority also resigned in protest and many volunteers have already resigned. I have a few quotes from the CFA chief himself. He said that the EBA 'undermines volunteers, our culture' and 'allows the union operational and management control.' Former CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, said this agreement:
… was not going to make the organisation a better place. It is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA.
I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers, and our volunteer contribution.
Yet we have Labor members of parliament, because they have to support the union bosses, not standing up against this.
I also quote the former Labor Minister of Police and Emergency Services under the Bracks government. This is a Labor person who is actually standing up on principle. The former Labor minister said that the Firefighters Union:
… attitude to volunteers has often been dismissive. Many of its demands in its current dispute with the CFA and Trojan horses that would sideline CFA volunteers and undermine their interests, with little or no real benefit for the paid firefighters the UFU represents.
This is, remember, a former Labor minister in Victoria. He also said:
It would also undermine the operational authority of the CFA's Chief Officer and operational commanders as well as compromise the fiduciary responsibilities of the CFA's board under the Country Fire Authority Act.
This is so wrong; this is why this government is acting.
I represent an electorate that knows how important our volunteer firefighters are. In January 1994 we had horrific, catastrophic fires through the Sutherland Shire. We lost 91 buildings and houses in Como West, Bonnet Bay and Jannali. Como West Public School was lost; Como West Presbyterian church was lost. In Bangor we lost five houses, and at Alfords Point, where I was living at the time, we lost nine. Five thousand residents were evacuated and, tragically, there was one death. I can well remember being at the back of my house with flames coming towards me, standing next to my neighbour, and seeing a Rural Fire Service truck, armed with volunteers, coming down the hill. That is something I will never ever forget. And to think that we have Labor members trying to undermine that spirit of volunteerism, because they want to give more power to their union buddies. It is an absolute disgrace. Every single one of you stands condemned. I know you must do what your union bosses tell you, but listen to what your Victorian state minister did. She was prepared to stand up; she had the courage to resign in protest. They can make their speeches to get the tick and flick from their union bosses, but I hope when the vote comes on this legislation and when they call for the noes that those on that side will be silent.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:09): I rise in opposition to this unnecessary and untimely piece of legislation and in support of the proposal of the shadow minister to refer the subject of this legislation to the Senate employment and education committee. Before addressing the substance of the bill before the House, I am very conscious of a remark made by my friend Anna Burke, the former member for Chisholm, in the course of her valedictory speech in this place. She noted that she had not had the opportunity to speak from this dispatch box. Doing so for the first time, I am deeply conscious that such a wonderful politician and extraordinary parliamentarian did not have this opportunity. I am mindful, of course, of her role as the Speaker of this place. It is something that I am deeply conscious of, and of course it is an extraordinary privilege for any of us to speak from any place in this House—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Mr GILES: as the member for Adelaide I think reminds me—but particularly to be able to do so from here. I will strive to be mindful of this privilege.
Turning now to the bill and to the contributions that government members have made. Perhaps that is not the best of segues, because what we have seen in this parliament so far is that government members seem to have a problem with their lawmaking function. We have seen that most obviously in the debate around the proposal to abrogate this place's responsibility when it comes to marriage equality in preference to a plebiscite—a harmful and unhelpful and unnecessary plebiscite. We have seen that in the thinness of the legislative agenda that has been put before the House and the willingness—the understandable willingness perhaps—of government members not to be here last sitting week. And of course we have seen that in the closure of the restriction of sitting times in this place yesterday and, before it, last sitting week as well. But in this debate we have seen government members interested only in commentary, not in dealing with the matters that are before the House. No government member has squarely addressed what this legislation is intended to do or, indeed, its obvious limitations in that regard.
It was quite extraordinary listening to the member for Hughes—it always is quite extraordinary listening to the member for Hughes, but in his contribution today he criticised the member for Griffith for not going to the subject of the bill. That showed a remarkable lack of self-awareness on his part as at no point in his contribution did he refer to any matters that are covered by the legislation before the House that we are supposed to be debating—the legislation that is supposed to reflect the Prime Minister's No. 1 priority in this parliament, as we recall from his cynical and opportunistic actions inflaming tensions in the Victorian community during the federal election.
The member for Hughes went on—I was interested to hear this—and referred to the road safety tribunal. I think that is quite an apposite reference, because here, as with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, we see this government showing its contempt for independent bodies. Here the Fair Work Commission; there the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. And on many other occasions they have seemed incapable of respecting decisions or advice proffered by independent umpires.
To the bill itself. I think no-one can speak to the inadequacies of this piece of legislation better than the responsible minister, Minister Cash. This is the minister who took the time to pen an inflammatory and divisive opinion piece in the Herald Sun in Melbourne without having regard for the key concepts—the subject of the enterprise bargaining agreement that this piece of legislation purports to deal with—and clearly without having read the agreement, much less understood it. She was forced to apologise for that opinion piece, but I ask myself: was she chastened, having apologised? No, she was not. She went on Sky News, an interview which the shadow minister described as satire. I think that is a generous description. On 14 occasions David Speers asked Minister Cash to explain the purpose, the effect, of the legislation having regard to her stated concerns with the enterprise agreement at issue. She was unable to do so. When he asked her which clause she found most worrying, Minister Cash said:
There is no one clause, David, no one clause.
When he pressed her on the impact of the agreement on a long-serving, very honourable, hard-working volunteer in respect of whom she expressed deep concern, she replied:
Well you would need to ask that person.
What an extraordinary act by the minister, to drag this volunteer into a dispute but be unable to address the questions she advanced apparently on his behalf. So he pressed her:
I'm just asking, you're the one wanting to intervene here.
And she went on again:
You'd need to ask that particular person, but certainly they feel so affronted that many have said they will resign, or are resigning.
The responsible minister is not taking responsibility. Why is that so? Perhaps she was led up the garden path by the cynical opportunism of the Prime Minister in the course of the election. The promises he made to CFA volunteers are not promises he can meet.
That has been made very clear by Professor Andrew Stewart, a professor of law at the University of Adelaide and one of Australia's leading academics when it comes to workplace relations. He was asked by Samantha Donovan about his scepticism of the federal government to amend the Fair Work Act to deal with the dispute that apparently has issued, the dispute that has been spoken of by government members in intemperate terms. He said this:
Well, they—
the federal government—
have now come up with a very specific proposal to amend the Fair Work Act: to essentially prevent emergency services organisations making agreements and registering them under the Fair Work Act that in any way are inconsistent with state or territory regulation of the relevant bodies, or that impose any restrictions on the role of volunteers.
There's at least two problems with what the Government's proposed. Firstly: it seems to me there's a very good argument that this oversteps the line between the Commonwealth and the states under the constitution.
I appreciate that there is some debate about a recent Federal Court decision about the status of the Victorian Country Fire Authority, but that at the very least goes to a very significant question that members in this place should have regard to. Professor Stewart goes on:
The second problem is that, if you take the proposed legislation literally, it would seem to give rights to volunteers to be involved in absolutely anything that any form of emergency management body does.
It does seem to me to be highly problematic, in terms of the extent to which it interferes with the work of emergency service bodies—
the matter government members are apparently so deeply concerned with. The journalist goes on to ask this question:
So how much confidence do you think CFA volunteers should put in the Federal Government's promise to protect them?
Professor Stewart replies:
The chances of this particular dispute being resolved by the kind of legislation that the Coalition's talking about: very, very unlikely.
Again, this is unnecessary legislation. It is a very slight piece of legislation, but it does signify a bit.
Principally, it speaks to the deep cynicism of this Prime Minister and of the government he is failing to lead. It speaks to his preference for opportunism and division over real leadership, of recognising that in communities such as the one I represent and the one represented very well by my friend the member for McEwen there are real tensions—difficulties between CFA volunteers and professional firefighters. It is creating anxiety in the community, which may impede their ability to work together in the coming bushfire season. Real leadership would involve not inflaming these tensions but seeking unity. He has chosen a very different path.
And more generally, this is true of our Prime Minister. We are one year and one day into his prime ministership, and Australia of course faces great challenges as a nation—challenges that should be priorities for a national government: growing inequality, stagnating wages growth, persistently high unemployment, underemployment, further compounded by the growth of insecure forms of work. We are falling behind when it comes to educational outcomes. We are failing to grapple with the great challenge of climate change, another issue about which the Prime Minister was formerly passionate and that he has put in the bottom drawer as the price of leadership.
Today in the Financial Review, on the front page, it is reported that the Prime Minister has said that the government's singular focus will be on budget and economic reform. But what do we have? A pale imitation of the agenda of the man he replaced, the member for Warringah, demonstrated by his persistence with an unnecessary harmful and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality and a backbench out of control running its own agenda, also an agenda of division when it comes to the proposals to amend race hate protections. And, speaking of unnecessary and divisive, we see the introduction of this legislation. This is all about the most cynical of politics. Let me be very clear: the cynicism is writ large in the titling of this bill, because whatever this bill does it does not respect our firefighters, whether volunteer or career.
I should make absolutely clear my deep respect for all of our firefighters and emergency services volunteers, a respect that is shared by all my colleagues on this side of the House. In the Scullin electorate there are hundreds of CFA volunteers who give so much, alongside professional firefighters. I am in awe of the sacrifices these people have made for their community, of their courage and their commitment. We should all celebrate the role of volunteers in keeping communities safe. We should support them to work effectively to service their communities, not put their volunteerism at risk.
During the election the Prime Minister said this to a meeting of volunteers:
The only way you can be sure that you will be protected from this union takeover is to return … my Government, on July 2.
Believe me the first item of business will be to protect you.
Let's briefly unpack this statement. It does not really align with a singular focus on economic reform, for a start. It shamefully and cynically mischaracterises a very complicated agreement—the very opposite of the approach to politics he promised when he sought the prime ministership. How diminished a figure is this man? Of course, it has not been the first item of business of this government. I spoke earlier about priorities of a national government, but this is clearly, squarely a matter for the Victorian government. For this government to pretend otherwise is unhelpful, opportunistic and, again, cynical.
Some context is important when we consider this bill. This bill is concerned with the Victorian Country Fire Authority, a body established under state legislation, a volunteer based organisation protecting communities ranging from suburban Melbourne to Victoria's regions, a body with 57,000 volunteers and almost 2,000 employees—a number that has been rapidly increasing in recent years as the challenges the authority faces in protecting communities change dramatically, as the member for Melbourne made clear. Of course, the relationship between volunteers and paid staff is of great significance. The dispute that apparently is the subject of this legislation goes to an enterprise bargaining agreement that has been running for more than three years. It has been a very difficult process, as these bargaining arrangements often are.
Earlier this year the Fair Work Commission made recommendations intended to resolve the matters in dispute between the parties. Ultimately the Victorian government endorsed the agreement shortly after this, and so did the parties. Matters which go to the heart of the legislation are now before the Supreme Court of Victoria, as has been addressed by members in this debate, in proceedings which have been brought by a body which is not a party to the enterprise agreement—another flaw in the propositions advanced by members opposite.
The bill before us has been described as far-reaching by Professor Julian Teicher, Professor of Human Resources and Employment at CQU. He also said:
… the bill—both in the manner of its launch and in its content—will generate continuing controversy. And it will not solve the problems to which it was allegedly directed.
… … …
… it is unlikely to be effective and will not hasten a settlement in this case.
He goes on to say this, and I think this is something that members opposite should reflect on:
If politicians … have any real concern for the CFA workforce and Victorians' safety, they would do best to refrain from further public comment.
Inflaming this dispute, which is what this legislation—this stunt—is all about, will achieve the opposite ends. It will not improve Victorian safety, it will not support volunteerism, it will not support the resolution of those matters which have been in dispute for some time between the Country Fire Authority and the United Firefighters Union.
For all of these reasons, if the government were serious about exploring its stated concerns about volunteers, about the relationship between volunteers and professional firefighters and about certain aspects of the enterprise agreement that Minister Cash seems incapable of working her way through, all these matters could be considered by a Senate committee inquiry after the resolution of the case before the Supreme Court. This would enable all the wider consequences of this legislation to be addressed, and very serious concerns have been raised by bodies such as the police association and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation. This is the way in which these issues should be addressed—through a considered process, to the extent that there is any role for a national government in this space.
The Prime Minister needs to remember the sorts of commitments he made when he sought office, and work through difficult issues in a manner that brings Australians together, rather than seek to exploit division.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:24): While I recognise that the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 affects Victoria and the ACT, and while I do have reservations about this bill, I wish to support it because I support our country firefighters.
I take this opportunity to talk about the fact that my electorate of Mayo is protected entirely by the Country Fire Service of South Australia, and so we depend on the generous spirit of around 3½ thousand volunteers in over 75 brigades. I am extremely grateful that there are these selfless people in my community, and many other communities, who are prepared to give their time, without any pay, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect all of us in regional Australia.
Just in the past 24 hours we have had flash flooding in the Adelaide Hills, with some homes nearly 1½ metres deep in water. The volunteers in both the CFS and the SES are working hard to protect homes, and they are removing debris and evacuating people from danger.
Of course, every summer we are reminded of their essential role in our lives. I have a stark memory of being evacuated from my home during the Sampson Flat bushfire which burned out of control for four days in January 2015. We were very lucky: the volunteer CFS captain lives just two doors down from me. He said, 'Rebecca, it's time to go.' Like many, we packed up photos, passports and insurance papers, and wondered if we would have a home to come back to.
This was the most destructive fire in the Adelaide Hills for more than 30 years, burning more than 12½ thousand hectares of public and private land, with losses including 24 homes, 146 other structures, five businesses and much livestock and fencing. Many native animals and pets also perished.
But those numbers do not tell the true personal cost. We cannot overstate the trauma of losing your home, your business, your animals and having to start again. That is a recovery process that takes years and years. And those numbers do not tell us the economic cost. The direct cost of fighting the fire was around $10 million, including aerial firefighting missions, fire suppressants, transport and accommodation, vehicle and equipment repairs. And those numbers also do not tell us about the brave volunteers who risked their lives round the clock for days. Our volunteers were joined by 600 firefighters from New South Wales and Victoria, and I thank each one of them.
In November that same year in South Australia we were again hit by another devastating fire, the Pinery bushfire, which raged for over seven days just north of my electorate, in the lower Mid North and Barossa regions. This fire affected 86,000 hectares of scrubland and farmland, with the loss of 91 houses, 388 non-residential structures, farm machinery and nearly 100 other vehicles. It also caused significant damage to rural produce. We lost over 50,000 poultry; 17,500 head of livestock perished; and up to $40 million worth of fodder and unharvested grains were destroyed.
Scientists tell us that bushfire risk will increase each year as a result of climate change, so we will be even more dependent on our volunteer firefighters in the future to protect us. And it is not just fires and floods. The volunteer members of the CFS are at every car accident, every road crisis, in my electorate.
I am a strong supporter of volunteer country fire services, and it is for this reason that I support this bill. However, I feel compelled to put on the record some reservations. There has been some debate among legal experts as to whether this legislation is beyond Commonwealth legislative power, which may lead to a potential legal challenge on the basis of it being unconstitutional. There is a constitutional principle that the states have the right to conduct their activities autonomously, without undue interference from the Commonwealth. I am concerned that this bill may be overreaching by the government.
I understand this bill will be referred by the Senate to a committee and examined for unintended consequences. I look forward to the outcomes of that inquiry, which will inform the consideration of this bill by my colleagues in the Senate. But I do support this bill, because volunteers are important to my community. They are the lifeblood of regional Australia.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (12:29): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 today. My comments should be viewed in light of the fact that I have been an emergency service volunteer and I understand the very unique issues faced by volunteers. The government's timing on this issue and the introduction of the legislation is a bit concerning. Why the rush? There is a Supreme Court action pending in Victoria, where legal ruling on the issues that this legislation is apparently dealing with will be handed down in a few weeks. Again, why the rush? Why not use the outcome of the independent umpire, the court, to inform the legislative process? We might find that federal intervention is not required. It says a lot about the nature of this government.
Over the last few months this government has made unnecessary intrusion into Victorian politics. They shamelessly targeted the most valued and trusted people in our communities—our firefighting forces—and engaged in a long-running industrial relations dispute in the hope of winning a few votes at the federal election. In a cynical and desperate attempt, the government made an election commitment to, as the government puts it, prevent a union takeover of the CFA. This rushed, poorly-drafted bill is the result.
Last week in question time the Prime Minister said that he wanted to ensure that volunteers could not be made subordinate to the UFU. Nothing can be further from the truth. This bill has nothing to do with respect for emergency service volunteers. Despite the title, it is about union crucifixion. The Prime Minister spoke about standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the CFA 'in the face of an assault' by the Andrews government. The only thing that this government has achieved with this bill is splitting firefighting forces right down the middle, pitting them against each other. Why? Because there is a union involved and, when it comes to unions, they just cannot help themselves. The division being fuelled by the Liberals led to a letter from one of my CFA brigade captains. He says:
Exactly when will it have gone far enough?
Will it be when a career fire fighter's wife or husband or child are reduced to tears in a country community because of the abuse hurled from some 'well informed source'?
Will it be when career fire fighters and volunteers, previously lifetime friends, come to blows on one of our trucks or in our stations?
Will it be when someone is more seriously injured by themselves or others due to the urging of those who think of this as simply another industrial stoush?
That's what I would like to know. When will it be enough?'
That is why this government refuses to talk about the bill—because it is not about protecting volunteer firefighters; it is about the demonisation of unions.
This is a backdoor approach by this government to undermine the union movement through proposed changes to the Fair Work Act. But do they actually know what they are changing? Certainly, Minister Cash does not. The minister is clearly clueless on this issue. Time and time again she has stated one thing only to have the facts proved the opposite. She claimed there are specific clauses in the CFA's EBA that will end volunteering as we know it. She cannot name them and she cannot show them to anyone, but they are there somewhere—surely, surely they are there! Channelling her inner Dennis Denuto from the film The Castle on that now-famous train wreck of an interview with David Speers, she basically said, to quote Dennis Denuto: It's Mabo, it's the Constitution, it's the vibe and—no, that's it; it's just the vibe.'
She claims there is no one specific clause in the agreement that is a problem—it will just make volunteers leave in droves. When asked how it would make them leave she cannot answer, because every concern that has been raised is being addressed or has been addressed. She takes claims by a sacked CFA board member about the EBA at face value without checking the facts. I have spoken to every single CFA captain in my electorate, and this is what is being said about those claims from the former board member:
There is absolutely no excuse for him to continue to repeat redundant clauses of a past draft of the CFA EBA. His comments are factually incorrect, ignorant, and can only incite further fear and division in the CFA ranks.
Every time the minister or the government come up with a new lie about this EBA there is someone there who shows it up. Even the chief fire officer of the CFA himself has come out and said that the EBA will not affect his ability to deploy his volunteers or to give them the training and resources they need. This is the chief fire officer of the CFA, not Liberals who have never volunteered in their lives. When pushed, Senator Cash could not even state how fighting the EBA is standing up for the volunteers. 'Sixty thousand volunteers can't be wrong', she said. But they can be deceived when they have been fed misinformation from this government, whose sole purpose is not protect volunteers, not to fight for our communities but, once again, to use them as unwitting pawns in a fight against unionism for no reason other than that they are a union. The government do it for political gain.
The government is genuinely dishonest to our firefighters. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not the first time. You just need to look at the rushed drafting of this bill itself. The majority of the bill appears, at first glance, to duplicate the existing definitions and provisions of section 109 of the Fair Work Act. Section 109 of the Fair Work Act defines a 'recognised emergency management body' and a 'voluntary emergency management activity'. It also provides for Fair Work regulations to prescribe an activity that would meet the definitions in section 109 and be ultimately included in the scope of the FWA. At first glance you would think this section is sufficient to cover emergency services volunteers, but the new section 195A proposed in this bill provides definitions for a 'designated emergency management body' and 'volunteer of a designated emergency management body'. That is essentially a duplicate of the existing definitions in section 109. So why would you need to put these new definitions in? That made me look at it again.
If this bill goes ahead, section 195A would require an organisation to meet two definitions—one under subsection 109(3) and subsection 195A(4)(b). Essentially, if you can meet one you meet the other. So it is a little redundant in my opinion. Why the two definitions, when one would do? Then we found it. The devil is in the detail, and this one carries a pretty hefty pitchfork. The kicker is hiding in plain sight in subsection 195A(5), with a brief explanation in paragraph 25 of the explanatory memorandum. The Fair Work Regulations may prescribe that an organisation is not a designated emergency management body for the purposes of subsection 195A(5). This relates to the definition in subsection 195A(4).
In all that technical talk, the subsection gives this government the capacity to decide on a whim, through the regulations, which emergency management organisation is in or out of scope of the Fair Work Act. You might meet one definition but find that you do not meet another. The lack of clarity and consultation on the bill, the uncertainty that it causes for those in career and volunteer firefighting communities, and the fact that there is an ongoing court case, should be enough for my colleagues on the other side to consider shelving it. But instead, they are trying to ram it through. They will argue that any opposition to the bill shows that Labor is not cooperating, that we are not being bipartisan. If this government says one thing to the community it will do something else in this legislation. Of course we are going to stand up and say something. It is not going to get a free ride. It will be held to account. In our state we have a long and proud history of cooperation.
Spring is coming, and with it comes a very early fire season—a fire season that our community knows too well. We have been at the epicentre of just about every major fire in Victoria in the last decade. Sixty per cent of the electorate has been burnt out. It is time the government pulled its head it. Let the courts and the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, do their job and let the CFA do theirs: protecting the property and lives of people in our community. Volunteers and career firefighters represent two sides of a priceless coin. I will not stand there and let the coalition split them down the middle purely for their selfish political gain.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (12:39): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
By agreement, and I thank the opposition for this, I wish to make a few closing remarks on behalf of the government. This bill is about the values of the Crib Point CFA, the Hastings CFA, the Kernot CFA, the Lang Lang CFA, the Moorooduc CFA and so many others throughout the seat of Flinders, the state of Victoria and their rural fire service counterparts throughout each state and territory of Australia. It is about a very simple proposition: when people around the world think of Australians, they identify our lifesavers, our CFA volunteers and our emergency service volunteers as the soul, the essence, the vision and the sense of what it is to be Australian. Against that background this government made a pledge during the course of the last election that the first bill we would introduce would be the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. That is what we have done. It honours our commitment to do all we can to protect Australia's emergency services from a hostile union takeover.
This is something that is fundamental to our communities, to our culture, to our sense of who we are. It is fundamental to our safety and our values. The threat to our communities is clear and present. It comes in the form of the agreement which has been rubberstamped by the Andrews Victorian Labor government and which has been greenlighted by the Shorten federal Labor opposition. What we see here is a clear and present danger. It is a danger not on the basis of what we say, but of what is said by those that are closest to the CFA, who were its defenders and protectors, and who have understood more closely than everybody else what it is to be a volunteer and why it matters.
Let us look at who has sacrificed their career to protect the volunteers. The Victorian Labor minister, Jane Garrett, national Vice-President of the Labor Party, resigned rather than rubberstamp this CFA takeover by the unions. That is the strength of concern which the Victorian emergency services minister had, which the national Vice-President of the ALP had. All credit to Jane Garrett for sacrificing her career so as not to be caught as a rubber stamp in the attack on volunteers' rights, freedoms and standing and the safety of our communities.
What did the CFA Chief Executive Officer, Lucinda Nolan, say in relation to her own resignation? She said before a parliamentary inquiry, only a few days ago in Victoria, that the agreement 'was not going to make the organisation a better place. It is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA … I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers and our volunteer contribution …'
Community safety was under threat. That could not be a stronger statement from the very person entrusted with the future of the CFA. Let me move even further. We go from there to the CFA board. The CFA board was sacked unceremoniously by the Victorian Labor government. What have they stated? On 6 June 2016 the board said:
We have serious concerns many of these proposed clauses—
in the EBA—
are unlawful and we have legal advice that indicates CFA would be in breach of its statutory obligations.
Legal advice!
Many of these clauses have no place in modern day workplaces and are out of step with today’s society.
They went on to say:
The proposed EBA undermines volunteers, our culture, allows the UFU operational and management control of CFA and is discriminatory.
Those are fundamental concerns from the people who know the EBA, the CFA and the union most closely. Then, of course, the chief fire officer, Joe Buffone, resigned. He resigned because he did not believe, with his statutory responsibilities for community safety, overseeing fire operations and other activities, that he could stay and justifiably discharge those duties.
Against that background we bring in this bill, which brings in fundamental protections for volunteers. It will protect in perpetuity the CFA volunteers of Crib Point, Kernot and so many other communities around the country. I commend the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network
Appointment
The SPEAKER (12:46): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Address agreed to.
The SPEAKER (12:46): Before I call the honourable member for Mackellar, 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 FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:47): It is an honour to stand here before you today representing the people of Mackellar. The Northern Beaches of Sydney are my home and the only community I have ever wanted to represent. The story of how I came to be here is not uncommon, yet it represents everything I love, everything I admire and everything I hope for Australia's future.
The son of a Polish migrant who fled communist oppression in 1957, my father came to Australia as a young man. His father, my grandfather, had fled Poland when the Nazis invaded. Returning to his home after the war, he changed his name to avoid discrimination. He met his wife, my grandmother, in the USSR. She was recovering from the Siege of Leningrad. When my grandparents looked to flee the old world of ancient grudge to a new world of hope and opportunity, they chose Australia. There is little that I can say or do to repay my gratitude for their choice. They were Polish Jews half a world away from anything they had ever known. They arrived here with nothing—no assets, no income, no connections. With the promise of a better life sustaining her, my grandmother spent her nights screwing caps on toothpaste tubes, often coming home with bleeding fingers. My father sold encyclopaedias door-to-door so he could learn English faster. Unfortunately, most of what he learned he could not use, and none can be repeated here.
Meanwhile, on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, my mother's parents—an Irish Catholic and an English Protestant—were getting married, overcoming a divide of history and tradition, religion and upbringing at a time when in other parts of this world Catholics and Protestants were still at war. It is remarkable that two people from such improbably different backgrounds would meet. But the most remarkable part is that in Australia it is not that remarkable at all. In Mackellar, as in too few parts of this world, I, a child of all those nations, all those cultures and all those religions, grew up to stand here before you today to represent every single member of my community who in their own way contributed to making this a great nation.
As anyone who has started their own business from the ground up will tell you, it is the most frustrating, engrossing, stress-inducing, yet strangely satisfying thing you can do. It was when I started my own business at the age of 34 that I understood what governments should truly be about. I dreamed of creating beautiful furniture and equipment and a business that would employ people. Importantly, I dreamed of a business that would enrich and improve the lives of those in aged care. It is my most fundamental belief that a government's role is to enable—not create, not dictate, but enable—all of us to reach our full potential. A good government should enable individuals to thrive. It should enable businesses to flourish. It should enable communities to prosper. Instead, over the years, successive governments have heaped program upon initiative upon program upon us, creating a thicket of regulations whose purposes no-one can any longer remember.
Governments should do less, but what they do do, they should do better. Liberals have never believed in a world of no government, just the dangers of unlimited government. No government of a free people has ever had to build a wall to keep its citizens in. I believe in a world of limited government—a world in which the government gets out of the way and in which it encourages and allows companies and industries to adapt to the future, to innovate and to push the boundaries in order to remain competitive. In that world, governments too should remain nimble and flexible in their governance. Start-ups change the world, but we do not know which ones will succeed. What we do know is that if they are to fail it is best that they fail fast. So should we admit defeat and change tack if the laws we pass and the regulatory burdens we impose on others do not achieve their intended purpose.
Seeped into the history of my family's journey to Australia is a yearning for freedom: freedom of individuality, freedom to associate, freedom of self-expression and freedom for self-realisation—none of the freedoms offered in a totalitarian Communist regime but all of the freedoms found in Australia. I believe the cornerstone of these freedoms to be free markets.
Take the fight against global poverty. After four decades of government-sponsored programs we had hardly moved the needle. Within two decades of opening up markets, trade lifted billions of people out of poverty—more than in the rest of human history combined. It has reduced inequality and conflict, brought us closer, improved education and human rights and reduced discrimination, especially against women. As Thomas Friedman pointed out, in the history of the world no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other!
But we cannot expect people who have not benefited from this change to welcome it. Globalisation has hurt those with easily-transferable skills in developed countries. And while some will say that Australia was not competitive in manufacturing and that these jobs were always destined to move elsewhere, I wonder what our reaction will be when globalisation starts to impact professions such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and nurses? Government's response to date has been firstly to erect tariff walls to avoid the inevitable and then to bail out failing companies—many of which were owned by overseas parent companies to begin with—and then finally to provide welfare payments to the unemployed. No wonder many of our fellow Australians feel like victims of forces beyond their control.
If I were to stand here and suggest to you that we need to implement a program that takes our most vulnerable and puts them into a system that will reduce their lifespan, education and health; increases their likelihood of teenage pregnancy and family breakdown; and subjects them to it increased incidence of violence and crime, and that entrenches this outcome from one generation to the next you would query my state of mind. Yet in too many parts of the world this is what the welfare system achieves.
I, like my fellow Liberals, believe that welfare reform is about saving lives, not saving money. So why is reform so hard? More money does not save more lives and less money does not save fewer lives. In education we have increased spending, yet outcomes have not improved. We need to stop fighting globalisation and dedicate ourselves to giving our fellow citizens the tools they need to thrive.
The greatest tool we can give them is education. As my father's family had to learn the ways of Australia and adapt to a foreign environment, so too should we adapt to the challenges of an increasingly rapidly-changing world. Educational institutions in other countries, like Germany, Switzerland and Singapore, and places like Silicon Valley, are an important part of their economies' ability to adapt and innovate. They have proven critical to ensuring that German manufacturing remains cutting edge and does not become a producer of commodity goods. It is through policy innovation that other countries have been able to improve their educational outcomes. In the United States and the United Kingdom, charter schools are experimenting with different ways to educate the most socioeconomically disadvantaged because they know that if effective it will be education that lifts the disadvantaged out of the cycle of poverty—not handouts.
But bespoke solutions require us to trust people on the ground to figure out how best to tailor solutions to their community's needs. Some experiments will fail but, more importantly, some will succeed. And those successes will achieve far greater outcomes than we can ever imagine.
It was my father who taught me that life without failure is a life half lived. He spent over 10 years building Osborne Computer Corporation into the largest manufacturer of PCs in Australia. After one of their biggest clients failed to pay their bills on time cashflow became stressed and the bank refused to extend a loan. The business went into voluntary administration and the bank took our family home. It was a devastating loss. It had the potential to destroy our lives; it could have robbed us of our identities and our sense of self. But that is not how we chose to see it—that is not how we decided to live it. Without risk there is no entrepreneurship—there is no progress. I do not have the answers to the problems of the future, but we will experiment, we will make mistakes and we will learn. And, ultimately, we shall succeed.
As we sit here today, the overwhelming majority of Australians suffer from crippling traffic congestion. Across the nation 40 per cent of our road capacity is underused. Every year we carry the burden of $6 billion in avoidable road congestion, and these figures are rising. Yet groundbreaking advancements like driverless cars are no longer science fiction. They are a reality of our lifetime. They will mean more time with family and friends, improved access to employment and might even make the most expensive real estate in the world more affordable.
When it comes to energy production in this country, our systems and infrastructure are outdated. We generate energy too far away from those who use it and use our grid too inefficiently, and consumers and the environment are bearing the cost. Leaps in household battery technology, the deployment of smart-grid initiatives and energy-saving devices are already changing how and where we source our energy from.
These changes are not dreams or figments of my imagination, they are happening now. And they are challenging perceived wisdom in industry after industry. The question before us is: what technology will wither and which will prosper? The good news is that we do not have to decide—the market will decide for us. Friedman's analogy has never been more apt: in a democracy you get the breakfast cereal that 51 per cent of people want. In a free market you get the one you want!
Free markets are not about money; they create fundamental social benefits. They empower the individual and turn our most selfish traits into public good. They civilise us all. Markets ensure that the only way to fulfil our needs is to fulfil the needs of others. A free market fosters accountability. A business owner is accountable to his employees and his customers, just as a parent is accountable for the education of their child. And so a politician is accountable to their community—I am accountable to you. To the many family members, friends and supporters who have brought me here, to the overwhelming majority of Australians who contribute to our collective representative system of government, to the constituents of the modern and dynamic Northern Beaches: I am accountable to you. I will account for how I spend your money. I will account for how I make the decisions that affect you. I will be held accountable for continuously striving to do better. I will explore possibilities and create opportunities for you, for your children, for our today and for your tomorrow.
To this day, my home of Mackellar has only been represented by three members. The first was Billy Wentworth, who, before many others, spoke of and demanded opportunity for the first Australians. The second was Jim Carlton, who brought an intellectual rigour to this parliament and what it means to be a Liberal. Jim recently passed away, but not before he had made a further contribution to public life as the head of Red Cross; The third was Bronwyn Bishop, whose dedication to this parliament and the Liberal cause will not soon be forgotten.
The Northern Beaches of Sydney is in urgent need of transport infrastructure. Three of the seven most congested roads in Australia serve Mackellar—and, for that matter, Warringah. The value-sharing model that has been proposed by Ministers Fletcher, Constance and Stokes promises to free up billions of dollars to build the infrastructure we need. It takes the average person in Mackellar nearly two hours a day just to travel to and from work. This must change. We need greater road bandwidth and more options, like a metro. We need the NBN, and we need it now. This vital piece of infrastructure that the Turnbull government is rolling out will bring jobs to the area and allow more people to telecommute.
Mum and dad remain grateful to the people who supported them along their journey. I too will never forget those who have stood by me. Few of us come to be here by accident; for most of us, there was a lot of work, support and understanding from others. To Pat and Allana Daley and Jose and Isobel Menano-Peres, who sustained me throughout those long four years that I sat on council: thank you. To Michael and Bronwen Regan, Helen Wilkins, Christina Kirsch, Rik Hart and Julie Sutton—or, as she prefers to be called, Granny Sutton: thank you for your friendship. To Stephen and Elizabeth Choularton, David and Karin Hand, John and Angie Beale—who ensured the campaign was not homeless—Stu Cameron and Ant Gleeson: you more than any others know what it is like. To the three wisest men I know in Pittwater—Jim Longley, Ross Barlow and Rob Stokes: I thank you.
But I do owe more to Rob Stokes' wife, Sophie, for she introduced me to my wife Nichola. I will repeat what many have said here before me: the sacrifice we make is nothing compared with that made by our families and our loved ones. Sweetheart, you have been my bedrock, my north star and the better angel of my nature. Your fierce conscience means that 'you will never go gentle into the night'. You have also given me the greatest gift of all. When Zara-Jean was asked by the Governor-General how old she was, she told him that she was seven and promptly asked him how old he was! ZJ, always stay curious. It is because of you that I persevere and keep fighting for a better world. They say that it takes a village to raise a child. I can confirm that it is a pretty big village! I would like to thank the most excellent Alison Brent, who runs Zara's school; her teachers, Rebecca Williment, Katherine Slattery and Natasha Zivanavic; and her netball coach, Susan Cook. To Jenny Stokes and Michelle Quinn, who look after Zara when Nichola and I can't be there: thank you.
Hubert Humphrey lamented that 'every time he went to West Virginia he kept running into Kennedys'. I imagine some of the other candidates in Mackellar were feeling the same by the end of the election. From my mother and father to my uncles and aunts; to all my brothers and sisters, including their children, Ted and Penny; and even to my self-adopted ones, Vanessa and Zac: thank you. I have bad news for those who are thinking of running in three years time: my brother, Nick, and his wife, Leigh, have just welcomed Hugh into the world. Not to be outdone, Nichola's side of the family may be smaller in numbers, but they cast very long shadows. Simone and Mark, Chloe and Ellie, Darrel and Therese, Helen and Barry, Marguerite and John: thank you.
They say in politics that if you need a friend you should get a dog. I have never needed a dog—I have Andrew Constance! As a minister, Andrew set up the sale of poles and wires, in various ways, and most famously pointed out that the very same unions who opposed it happened to own a privatised water company in England and even a privatised electricity asset in China. With Dominic Perrottet, he has recycled endless amounts of capital to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in New South Wales. Andrew was the lead minister who ensured that New South Wales was the first state to reform the taxi industry in over two centuries. His example is one I hope to replicate. To his team of Chris Muir, Ryan Bloxsom, Russell King, Barb Williams, Adam Achterstraat, Dom Cuscheri and Josh Murphy: thank you.
I was barely pre-selected when the Prime Minister called an election. Tony Abbott, you threw me a lifebuoy. You gave me support, guidance and, frankly, reassurance I did not even know I needed. To Nick Greiner, who inspired me to get involved: thank you. To John Emmett, Chaddy and Nick Johnson, Vicki McGahey, Alan Clarke, Wendy Starkie, Kate Raggatt, Tina and Geoff Hodgkinson, Michael and Dorothy Highland—who I know would have preferred to be sailing—Sarah Cruickshank, Leon Beswick, Natalie Ward, Alex Calvo, Audrey Harpur and Deb Wiltshire: thank you for the long days you put in. To Rory Amon and Kristina Cimino: thank you for the faith you showed from the very beginning. To Alex Briggs and Warren Wardell, who braved bus stops at 6 am: thank you. To Matthew Koder, my old friend; Adam Schofield, my even older friend; Roger Masey-Green; Rick Lee; and the many others I do not have time to mention here, who supported us when it mattered most: my deepest gratitude.
In standing here today, in this place, I have cause to reflect on Tennyson's words at the end of Ulysses:
Though much is taken, much abides, and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Mr Speaker, Australia's best days are ahead of us, for no other reason than that we have so much to hope for and so little to fear. Thank you.
The SPEAKER (13:08): Before I call the honourable member for Chisholm, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:08): In the early hours of 3 July 1995, I was overcome with the emotion of what I believed was a miracle, the birth of our first child—a son, Sam. Exactly 21 years later in the early hours of 3 July 2016, Sam's 21st birthday and the day after the federal election, I awoke suddenly and emotionally from a restless sleep and my thoughts and dreams went to my late father, Sofoulis Phillip Lolatgis. I imagined dad would be doing a Greek dance with those robust, jubilant and warm Mediterranean characteristics, which I used to find embarrassing as a child.
Dad would have thought the miracle was that his baby girl, as he used to call me well into adulthood, was elected to be a member of the parliament of Australia. Dad would have believed in a miracle not because he did not have immeasurable faith in me, rather because of how far and inconceivable this moment was from when he first landed in Australia in 1949 as a 15-year-old migrant boy from Greece who could not speak a word of English and who fled post-war poverty without his parents.
My mother, Helen Lolatgis nee Malios, who is in the gallery today and of Greek migrant heritage, was born in Australia. My mother was denied an education for different reasons than that of my father. Mum could not realise her aspiration to become a nurse not just because of her cultural upbringing but also because of her gender. Mum's two brothers, one older and one younger than her, had become doctors.
My father arrived here in 1949, the same year the division of Chisholm, located in Melbourne's east, was created and contested. It is particularly fitting that the electorate of Chisholm, which I now proudly serve as a member of this House, was named after Caroline Chisholm, who was a strong advocate for migration and helped women as a social worker. My parents and ancestors, like many of the people of Chisholm, had come, in the words of our national anthem, 'across the seas' and 'toiled with hearts and hands'. They came from the United Kingdom, China, India, Greece, Italy, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Korea to name a few, and have combined to make Chisholm the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia. They brought with them different languages, food, music and dance—all key elements which define a different culture.
In Chisholm, which covers 65 square kilometres, one can enjoy in any one weekend the community life of Aussie Rules football, netball and other sporting pursuits; the great Aussie barbecue; the vibrancy and richness of the Chinese festivals; the smells and delights of so many different Asian cuisines; the colour, vibrancy and warmth of the Indian community; and the life, movement and love of family events of Greek and Italian culture. The people of Chisholm contribute every single day, probably unwittingly so, by embracing different languages, food and culture to create this diverse Australian life and the most successful multicultural nation on this earth.
Chisholm is the home of many fine learning institutions and schools such as Deakin University and Australia's largest university, Monash University in Clayton, where my brother studied medicine and I studied arts law. Chisholm is a place of so many sporting communities such as the Waverley Gymnastics Centre, the home of female Olympians, and the Waverley District Netball Association, both of which I remain committed to support. Chisholm is a place where the liberal values of individual enterprise are at work every day for thousands of small business owners or where the innovative and caring hearts and expert minds are at work–of health professionals, including the doctors and nurses from the Box Hill and Monash hospitals.
Chisholm is filled with good, honest, hardworking Australians who pursue life and the dignity of work, and provide wonderful community services and events, and help those who need assistance—from the Box Hill RSL, Rotary clubs, Crossway LifeCare, many elderly citizens clubs, various neighbourhood houses and community and health services to the many volunteers, including school and kinder, parents and friends who all give of themselves.
Amidst all these activities in Chisholm, so many different languages are spoken and English is the second language for many—language, the key source of quality connection with people. Growing up, we always spoke English at home, though I learnt to speak Greek and French. To honour the people of Chisholm of any migrant heritage who have come to this vast island across the seas, I say this in the language of my immigrant heritage, albeit that this is my second language with an Australian accent: 'Tha eimai panta perifani na eime I foni ya tous Anthropos tou Chisholm. Ke panta tha statho ya agapi ke sevasmo, ikogennia ke I axioprepreia tis ergasisias, ke isi efkairies.'
To all, in Australian English the translation is: 'I will always be proud to be the voice for the people of Chisholm. My commitment is to always stand for love and respect, the dignity of work and equal opportunity.'
In my early years, prejudice and discrimination shattered my childhood world. Despite what I would describe as my very Aussie upbringing and seeing myself as an Australian girl who occasionally also enjoyed the joys of Greek food and functions, I did not know what a boy at primary school meant when he said to me, 'Wog, go back to your home country.' 'Home?' I asked myself. I was born and raised and knew and loved no other country than Australia as my home. I did not know the meaning of the word 'wog' and the first thing I did when I got home from school that day was to look up the word in my brother's dictionary. Incredulously, I read the definition over and over: 'Someone of dark skin who is foreign to the land on which he lives.' I was hurt more by the tone of the word and less by its definition. I felt ugly, scared and very alone.
I am a passionate believer in free speech, the hallmark of liberalism and our democracy. I have a deep-seated respect for the Australian people and for their ability to have their say respectfully in this our great democracy. 'Hate speech' is simply not part of Australia's moral code, regardless of our views. However, whilst this was just a primary school playground experience, it sowed the seeds for my belief that public figures, and those who have a big share of voice in the media and other forums, have a higher duty of care and responsibility to think before they write and speak. This is not 'political correctness gone mad'; rather, that those who have this voice should apply the test of respect and responsibility, and ask themselves: how would that Australian child who is watching or reading this feel? I suspect the same way I felt that day at primary school.
Fast-forward many years to the period during the election campaign. My opponents referred to me in a spiteful and negative tone as a 'corporate high-flying lawyer'—like it was a bad thing—and impliedly an 'absent, neglectful mother'. I was someone who was 'out of touch', they declared, whose objective in running for parliament was merely a 'grab for power'. To work and to have career success does not mean that one does not love or care—be they a man or a woman.
I also believe children do not need what is known as the traditional family unit of a stay-at-home mum and working dad to thrive in this country. Rather, children only need two things in life: love and stability. This has been proven to me by my parents, my relatives, my friends and my work colleagues throughout my life. My husband, Mike, and I raised our two children on the same basis. My son and daughter: the only two people in the world who have enabled me to feel the feeling of unconditional love. At the same time, I make no apologies for engaging and pursuing my life aligned to the values of hard, roll-up-your-sleeves work, the dignity of work, creating businesses small or large, employing people and the fundamental liberal value of individual enterprise.
My pursuit for individual enterprise is no different to the thousands of people in Chisholm who get up every day to go to work in their offices, schools, hospitals, community centres or at one of the 15,000 small businesses—the backbone of our country. My desire to run for parliament was not a grab for power; rather, it came from the heart. I believe the phrase 'work-life balance' should be replaced with 'work-love balance'. Entwined in my day job in the business world I love being an advocate, a supporter and a mentor for many, in particular for women and for people of different cultural heritage. To be that advocate on a broader platform is underpinned by my genuine heartfelt belief that my life and work experience would enable me to fulfil this role to be the voice for people like me.
A great joy for me during what was effectively a year-long campaign since my preselection in August 2015 was talking and connecting with thousands of people across Chisholm. One of my most poignant moments was after a conversation with a woman I had just met at a shopping centre, during which I had shared the two-minute version of my life journey. She became quite emotional and teary and said, 'I see the story of your journey in mine.' Experience defines our story and experience is something we can acquire throughout our life journey in love and in work.
The story of my journey is that I am an ordinary person and not someone who hails from the political rich or privileged elite. I am someone who has never worked within the iron fist of the trade unionist movement and who is not a career politician. I am a daughter of parents who were denied an education but who worked hard with optimism and faith in this country at two, and sometimes three, jobs so they could hope to provide their children with schools of their choice. I am the daughter whose mother, with tears in her eyes during financial struggles and woes, urged her to work hard at an education and never, ever to be financially dependent on anyone. The child who enjoyed simple pleasures in a loving environment learnt early in life that a barbeque was a claimed Australian ritual, that moussaka is an equally nice meal, and that Chinese food and fish and chips are two great Australian Friday night treats.
I am the young student who when she graduated had no connections and struggled for a job, and after 100 applications was knocked back because she was female and the employer wanted 'a male, not a young Greek girl'. But this was countered by being grateful for the many inspiring teachers and university lecturers during my student days, and the adventure and excitement of the various job opportunities that came my way—learning from the good jobs and the challenging ones.
I am the young woman who has experienced sexist comments throughout her working life, but that was counterbalanced by many good bosses and leaders and wonderful mentors, who saw in me that I just wanted to do the best job I could for my employer—from the start of my work journey and my student days selling Easter eggs in Eaton Mall in Oakleigh through to my becoming a young professional lawyer, a senior business executive, company director, board member and chief general counsel.
I am the woman who, in her late 20s, when applying for a home mortgage with her husband, was told by the bank manager that they would only take her husband's income into account, as she was of child-bearing age. I am the junior company lawyer who calmly walked past unionist wolf whistles on a picket line to attend a management meeting, but who shook with fear because, by the time the meeting had finished, the unionists had found out her Greek heritage and that she worked for the employer. As I tried to drive away from the factory, they threw themselves on the bonnet of my car, rocked it backwards and forwards and slammed their faces against the windows as they called me a wog—that word again—as well as other obscenities that went to my gender.
I am the woman who, at the age of 29, became one of the one-in-two Australians who have cancer enter their lives. I endured surgery and treatment and was completely cured. In only the unique way cancer can be a teacher, it taught me resilience and courage and to always count my blessings for my loved ones and friends, who supported me in my darkest hours. Consequently, my empathy and support for those who have experienced the same comes readily and intuitively.
I am the young mother who experienced the pure joy of motherhood, including the feeling of excitement to have been reunited with my kids at the end of each working day or business trip. I am the young mother who spent until 4 am with a very sick baby son with croup in a steaming bathroom just wanting the coughing and the crying to stop, whilst knowing I would be torn away in a few hours to go to an important work meeting. I am the mother who cried all the way driving to work, or to the airport, with the sounds of my child crying in my ears. My tears stopped as I knew in my heart that ultimately I was a better mother as a working mother, and travel was a mandatory part of my role and my career.
I am the woman who equally loves, cherishes and enjoys the counsel and company of those older than me and those younger than me, the woman who has treasured time with her friends—male and female—who are always there for me. I always do my best to be there for them during the highs and lows of their personal relationships, births, marriages, miscarriages, the perils of IVF and adoption barriers, career successes and job promotions, and the loss of loved ones and the joys of life. I am the person who has travelled far and wide for her job but who always tears up when the flight attendant says, 'Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Melbourne; and if Melbourne is your home, welcome home.' My journey in life and work continues, and that is why for the people of Chisholm I will be the person who will listen more than I talk and who genuinely feels the honour of working for such good people.
The first time I heard our national anthem was before it was our national anthem. It was a moving performance of the song at my older brother's school speech night. Over 600 boys bellowed out the song, and whilst I so enjoyed the performance I wondered why the lyrics were 'Australia's sons let us rejoice'. I was quietly delighted and thought it wonderful when I found out that these lyrics were later changed to become 'Australians all let us rejoice'.
Women represent roughly 50 per cent of the people of Chisholm, as they do the Australian population. However, women are not equally represented in leadership positions in business, politics or our communities. During the election campaign, at a public forum, one of my opponents argued that policies and positions were not feasible 'because the Australian parliament is full of white, grey-haired men.' It is ironic that an ageist and sexist comment is reversed directed.
I have worked in the world of business for over 25 years in large matrix organisations alongside CEOs and heads of business. Most of them have been white, grey-haired men, and many of them great leaders. One of our greatest prime ministers was a great, white-haired man and a great leader, as is indeed is our current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. I believe men—young, middle-aged and, indeed, white, grey-haired men—care as passionately about gender equality as to women. Many of them have daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters, and they would want an equal world for them. I do not believe that the other side of the House owns the cause for women or that the cause for women is progressed by demonising or labelling men any more than I think it is right to denigrate someone's views, work or life due to their older age. True gender equality will only evolve in Australia if men and women work on it together, no matter their gender, age, race, sexuality or ethnicity.
Australia does not have the seriousness of gender inequality that is faced in other parts of the world where there is sharia law or experiences like that of Malala, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for arguing that young girls deserve the right to education. Nonetheless, gender equality is necessary for the future prosperity of our country, our economy and our future. We have laws for equal opportunity, however we still are not represented in equal measure. The most serious, insidious and powerful barrier to gender equality is hidden, entrenched and unconscious. In business it has been proven that like recruits like, and unconscious bias and discrimination will always intervene. This makes the concept of meritocracy flawed. To say that women are not up to it or cannot get there simply because of their biological function is blinkered. Put simply, an equal number of women to men have merit in this country.
Those on the other side crow about their comparative numbers of women, but this is not just a numbers game. Notwithstanding their quota system, factional power plays and unconscious bias still take hold. Reportedly, this country's first and only female Prime Minister was preselected thanks to Labor's quota system but, nevertheless, overlooked two Labor women and endorsed at a preselection one of the so-called faceless men who had previously supported her in her leadership grab for the top job.
Women alone cannot resolve this debate and often are their worst enemy. Equally, it is never right to say never. It is true to say that women have borne the brunt of the caring responsibilities, but it is not right to say that we will never achieve a fifty-fifty ratio simply because that has been the case historically. This is the modern world. Increasingly, men and women share the responsibilities of domestic life and child care.
I believe authentic feminism practised by men and women alike and underpinned by structural mechanisms will pave the way to address the complex and multidimensional issue of gender equality, where men support men and women and where women support men and women—that is, the cause for gender equality comes equally from the hearts and minds of men and women.
Financial independence for women is key to our country's success, from an economic and social perspective. From a productivity and intergenerational perspective and given our ageing population, there must be increased participation of women in the workforce and, indeed, increased representation of women in leadership. A stay-at-home parent needs to ensure themselves that financial independence is always readily within reach. Absence from the workplace due to child bearing, child care or caring for the elderly demands an increasing need for flexible workplaces, and our policies are specifically designed to help those who want to work to work more and those on the lowest incomes. The employer needs to embrace flexible and part-time work as the norm rather than a curious favour for both men and women, but this agile, flexible workplace cannot be achieved by women alone.
Unconscious bias is here to stay. We all have it. We need to implement measures which ensure a diversity of unconscious bias. The business world, across industries, has always made the business case and understands that diversity deliver success. However, this happens only when real, substantive, measurable mechanisms are implemented to increase representation of women in leadership positions—measurable, achievable targets for which leaders demonstrate their accountability. In the recruitment phase, all employers, as many currently do, should request an equal number of male and female shortlists. In politics, preselection candidate pools should be equally balanced by gender and, indeed, preselectors should be equally balanced in terms of gender and age. That is, the level playing field will only be created by having and insisting on the quality of numbers which will ensure diversity of bias.
The impact of male and female models who reverse traditional roles should not be underestimated. The pursuit of gender equality is intrinsically linked to love and respect and the dignity of work. Our economy and our future do not have the luxury for those who, as a woman disparagingly said to my mother in the seventies that, unlike my mother, 'she didn't need to work.'
As has been said before, those who can work should and those who cannot should be helped and supported. Embracing the dignity of work in all its forms is our future and should be shared. The glass ceiling has been discussed ad nauseam, but it cannot simply be broken by women alone. Rather, it can only be lifted out, removed and taken away by men and women together so that our businesses, our parliaments and our communities are representative of the diversity of our great people.
I am a proud member of this Liberal family, as the values of love and family as a priority, individual enterprise and equal opportunity are in our DNA. There are so many in the Liberal family to thank for my journey thus far, including those in the gallery and in this House and others at home watching and listening, but by naming them I risk not mentioning some who are equally deserving of mention. My journey continues, and albeit I am a new member, I am sure that many of my new future friends in the Liberal Party—and my current ones—will remain as enduring friendships for my life's journey. I thank you all.
My life's journey would not have been as joyous without my late father—rest assured, Dad, your baby girl knows you are watching and Greek dancing; in fact, if you were here now, you would probably be dancing in the gallery, embarrassing me again—my brother Anthony, my uncle John, their families, my relatives and friends, and particularly my group of women friends; and my beautiful mum, Helen, my greatest role model, who planted the seeds of my passion for gender equality. As a child and through life, nothing took place for me until I told my mum. To my great life love, my husband Mike, to whom I said over 25 years ago, 'I do not want to imagine life without you,' I mean that more with each day we are together.
Finally, some 18 months after the birth of our son, Sam, our daughter Emma came into the world. Emma and I had our first mother-daughter connection when she was only a few hours old. We were alone together, and I held her in my arms. I whispered to her cherubic, peaceful face that I would do everything in my life to make the world a better place for her and a place where she has opportunities equal to those of her brother. I did not say this to baby Sam when he was a newborn, but I say it to Sam equally now as I did to Emma, that only as men and women together will we create true gender equality. Just as I say to my children, I say to all young men and women who are experiencing the story of their journey: know that our greatest strength comes from what unites us rather than what divides us; embrace your future journey with love, respect and a vast diversity of friends, and love them regardless of their gender, age, sexuality or ethnicity; navigate the roadblocks, the stops and the detours from the experience and wisdom of those before you, but have the courage, the confidence, the drive and the creative imagination to navigate many of those future roadblocks yourself; and live your life with love, respect and the dignity of work, for what we all have in common is that this is our home where we as Australians can all rejoice.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Mr MARLES (Corio) (13:33): I would like to start by reading some remarkable words:
You were abandoned and betrayed by governments, churches and charities. ... as government ministers and bishops and chairmen of charity committees congratulated themselves on their generosity and kindness, too many of you were left in the care of people who abused you, who beat you, who raped you, who neglected you cruelly. ... Today I want you to know we admire you, we believe you, we love you.
These words are beautiful words, but they are not my words. They were words uttered in the giving of the apology to the forgotten Australians by the now Prime Minister of Australia. These words and the sentiment in them underpinned the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which a year ago this week recommended redress for people who had suffered in this way. But how can it be that a person who was so eloquent and powerful then is so vacant and powerless now while occupying the position of the Prime Minister of Australia? The prime ministership is an office not just to be occupied; it is an office in which to act, and yet this Prime Minister is missing in action. I am proud that Labor has committed to providing redress to the forgotten Australians, but I hope we are denied this opportunity by the government acting now, because now is the time.
Boothby Electorate: Floods
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:34): A number of areas in my electorate of Boothby suffered extensive flooding yesterday, particularly near my home in Mitcham. My thoughts are with residents dealing with the stress of the past day and the clean-up to come. It has been a worrying time for the whole community.
I am grateful to City of Mitcham Mayor Glenn Spear and CEO Matt Pears, who have kept me informed of the situation and coordinated significant council support for residents. I pay tribute to our wonderful SES volunteers, who have dealt with around 1,000 requests for assistance in a very short period of time. I agree with The Advertiser's editorial today that states:
It takes a dedicated volunteer to drop what they are doing and head out in driving rain and howling winds to help others. ... They deserve our recognition and our thanks.
I would also like to thank my federal colleagues who are working with me to identify how we can work with local and state governments on flood mitigation, an issue the South Australian Labor government has ignored for far too long. Finally, I thank the Minister for Justice, who is continuing to monitor the impacts of the flooding and is liaising with the South Australian government regarding recovery assistance.
It is difficult to be in Canberra when events like this affect your community and I am grateful to the minister for his support and reassurance. The Australian government stands ready to assist South Australia through the jointly funded Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to help with the costs of providing certain relief and recovery assistance to disaster affected communities. These arrangements allow the state government to activate immediate recovery assistance.
Kingston Electorate: Floods
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:36): Today I also rise to recognise those in my electorate and right across Adelaide who have been affected by significant flooding in the last 24 hours. Today is not a day for politics but a time to actually think of those over 100 homes in my electorate that have been affected. The school of Old Noarlunga has been shut down and many people wait very nervously in the townships of Old Noarlunga and Port Noarlunga as the water moves down the Onkaparinga river. At this time, there have been close to 800 calls to the SES for assistance, and I would like to pay tribute to all those volunteers, those men and women who have been taking a proactive approach, knocking on doors to actually get people into a safe place.
I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage people who need to to visit the Old Noarlunga Institute Hall, which is currently a recovery centre. It is open for people who feel they cannot stay at home. Alternatively, you can call the recovery hotline assistance number: 1800302787. I look forward to joining with the South Australian government and the federal government in working with affected communities in the recovery effort because those people who have lost so many possessions and had their homes damaged need our collective support.
Roads
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:37): This week's Leader NewsRACV hotspot traffic congestion survey indicates that six out of the 10 major areas of traffic congestion in Melbourne affect my electorate of Menzies either directly or indirectly. Some 18,000 people participated in this survey and it shows that the major areas of traffic congestion in Melbourne are in the triangle between Clifton Hill, Greensborough, Doncaster and Templestowe. I see the member for Jagajaga here in the chamber. She would agree with me that Rosanna Road; Jika Street, which flows through into Manningham Road; Bulleen Road; Templestowe Road; Fitzsimons Lane; Chandler Highway; and the Eastern Freeway are all major areas of traffic congestion so far as Melbourne is concerned. It particularly affects my constituents and I know it affects the constituents of the honourable member opposite.
Melbourne needs two major pieces of transport infrastructure. It needs the East West Link—and this government has provided $3 billion of funding, which is sitting on the table, to build that link—and it also needs the North East Link. In the election campaign we committed funding for a feasibility study, which I understand was matched by the Labor Party. Therefore, we are looking for Labor in Victoria to get on board and look at how we can build both the East West Link and the North East Link.
Roads
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:39): I want to follow the remarks of the member for Menzies. It is correct that Rosanna Road is one of the most congested roads in Australia. The Rosanna Road-Banksia Street intersection was recently voted the second worst intersection in Victoria in the RACV red spot survey. At the last election Labor did commit $5 million towards a study for the North East Link. I am pleased that it was a bipartisan commitment. The Turnbull government did also promise $5 million. It is a matter of urgency that these funds are delivered by the Turnbull government to make sure that we get the feasibility study done, so work can start on looking at the best way the North East Link can be delivered. We need to look at its feasibility and the environmental impacts right across Melbourne's north.
Long-term infrastructure solutions are also required to fix the congestion problem on Rosanna Road. It is certainly the case that local commuters know only too well the daily frustration and safety concerns. There are still far too many trucks using Rosanna Road. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of the Resolve Rosanna Road group, who have lobbied consistently for safety measures and improved infrastructure. Last month I wrote to the minister for infrastructure. I am still awaiting his response. (Time expired)
Operation Christmas Child
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:40): One of the great things about Australians is their generous nature, and we harness that generous nature in the Mallee by partnering with a group called Operation Christmas Child. Operation Christmas Child uses these shoeboxes—and I know we should not use props. With your child you pack the shoebox with presents and a photo of your own child. This year we are aiming for 370,000 boxes. They will be distributed to seven of the poorest countries in our region. They will go to our refugee camps and poor countries. The children get a box packed by an Australian child that will make their Christmas.
It is my strong belief that if we engage our children in being generous we engage our whole country in being generous. So, if you have got time in the lead-up to Christmas, get on board with Operation Christmas Child and pack a box, slap on the $9 label that is required, label whether it is for a boy or a girl and what age group, and may you play a part in Australia being a generous country and bringing Christmas cheer to nations around our region.
Child Sexual Abuse
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:42): This is Stan's story. A couple of weeks after Brother Benton arrived at Christian Brothers orphanage in Victoria in 1953 he started raping 12-year-old Stan three times a week. That lasted more than two years. It took Stan 59 years to be able to talk about what happened to him. He told the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse his story a few years ago. He did not tell the other boys at the orphanage what was happening to him but he found out afterwards that it was happening to them too. Two of them later committed suicide. There are thousands of stories like this. More than 24,000 people have already given oral or written evidence to the royal commission.
Yesterday was the first anniversary of Malcolm Turnbull becoming the Prime Minister of Australia. It was also the first anniversary of the release of the royal commission's interim report. That interim report recommended the establishment of a national redress scheme—a compensation scheme for people like Stan, funded by the governments and organisations that abused and neglected them. A year later we are still waiting for the Prime Minister to implement this important recommendation.
As many of you know, I am a patron of CLAN, so is Richard and so is the Prime Minister. It is set up to help people like Stan. Of all the disappointments I have with the first 12 months of this Prime Minister's service this is the biggest. He knows how important this is. Prime Minister, please implement the recommendations of the royal commission. (Time expired)
Battle of Long Tan: 50th Anniversary
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:43): On the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan we gathered together as the Vietnam Veterans and Veterans Motorcycle Club Gippsland Chapter at Longwarry, supported by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Rider MC Gippsland Chapter, state member Gary Blackwood, Councillor David Balfour and motorcycle riders and supporters from all over Victoria. Our MC, Mr Denny van Maanenberg, also known as 'Skull', asked us all to assemble before the cenotaph. The RAAF Sale fly past began and the catafalque party from 5/6 RVR assembled. The President of the Vietnam Veterans and Veterans Motorcycle Club Gippsland Chapter, 'T Rat', Russell Oakes, addressed the gathering and introduced Joseph 'One-Eye' Weeks with his story of guts, courage and incredible survival after being literally placed in a body bag in Vietnam. Bubba from the God Squad led us in prayer and his wife gave a moving story about having your husband home called 'The Boots'. The wreaths were laid. The Last Post was played by bugler Garyth Hampson. I applaud the efforts of our Vietnam Veterans on behalf of the returned servicemen of this Great South Land.
I just witnessed Julia Banks, the member for Chisholm, give her first speech. I saw the tears in her family's eyes as she addressed this parliament. It is wonderful to have people with a story like that of Julia Banks, the member for Chisholm, in this House.
Coal Seam Gas Mining
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:45): I rise to commend the Victorian government for their recent moves to ban fracking. The Andrews Labor government recently announced a permanent ban on the exploration and development of all onshore, unconventional gas in Victoria, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and also coal seam gas. The permanent legislative ban to be introduced by the Victorian parliament later this year will protect the clean, green reputation of Victoria's agricultural sector. This will provide much needed certainty to those regional communities. Also, yesterday, we saw the Northern Territory government announcing that it is fulfilling its election commitment to implement a moratorium on fracking across the Territory.
Both of these moves have been very well received in my electorate of Richmond, as stopping CSG mining in our region is a major issue for our community. All the surveys, the petitions and the feedback from the people of the North Coast of New South Wales consistently show in overwhelming numbers that we do not want harmful CSG mining in our region, because it will be detrimental to your environment and detrimental to our community.
New South Wales Labor took a policy to the last state election to legislate to ensure the North Coast would be gas field free. In contrast to all of that, we have the National Party whose actions consistently show that they support this harmful industry. Even their recent North Coast Regional Plan promotes this. The fact is that only Labor can protect the New South Wales North Coast from harmful coal seam gas mining.
Marriage
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:46): Yesterday in the House we saw the introduction of the plebiscite same-sex marriage bill by no other than the Prime Minister. This is a potentially vexed issue. I call on colleagues to show the courage to respect the opinions of others during this debate and to show the courage of their convictions. We put to the Australian public that we would take this issue to a plebiscite. We were successful in the election. We are committed in this place to taking it to a plebiscite.
However, I am mindful that there seems to be an element of hate speech sneaking into the debate. Whether it comes from this chamber or whether it comes from advocates on either side of the debate, I would just call on all those who want to make a contribution to the debate to show the courage needed to be respectful of those who may have a different opinion from them. I take great umbrage when I go to my parish at my local church and have good people by all accounts being accused of being homophobes and facing a diatribe of insults.
There are good people on both sides of the debate. This debate needs to happen, regardless. I would just encourage those advocates on either side to show the courage needed to be respectful of an alternative position. There can only be two outcomes: a yes or a no victory.
Mid-Autumn Festival
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:48): Today many Australians of Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean heritage will be celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival with their families and friends. The Mid-Autumn Festival, or moon festival as it is often known, is an ancient festival during which gratitude is expressed for good harvests and abundance. It is also a festival where togetherness with family is celebrated. Today and this evening, I am sure families from many communities around Australia will be coming together to celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival. Some will be sharing moon cakes, some will be sharing fruit and gifts and others will be lighting and hanging lanterns.
Today gives us another opportunity to continue to champion the benefits of a vibrant multicultural Australia. The diversity of this country is a strength—modern Australia and multicultural Australia are the same thing. It also gives us a chance to celebrate the contribution of people of Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean backgrounds. These communities generously and openly share their culture, traditions and heritage with us all.
The full moon is a central part of the Mid-Autumn Festival, symbolising harmony and unity. These are values that the Labor Party strives to uphold, and we are grateful for the partnerships that have been created by these various communities. Modem multicultural Australia should give us the opportunity to celebrate every occasion with joy rather than avoid religious or cultural references out of fear. It is in the spirit of celebration and togetherness that I wish everybody celebrating this evening all the very best for a Mid-Autumn Festival!
Queensland: Sugar Industry
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:49): We are midway through the sugar harvest in North Queensland and cane farmers are now planting without a contract. This is a highly risky exercise, because without a supply agreement with the local mill they have no certainty of ever being able to sell what they produce. Farmers are forced into this precarious position because the Singaporean miller, Wilmar, is unable or unwilling to come to an agreement with QSL for marketing the sugar. Wilmar is railroading farmers into a monopoly situation that the state specifically legislated to stop last year. The Queensland parliament passed a law to give farmers real choice in marketing, and Wilmar has done everything it can to avoid complying with that law. Farmer distrust of Wilmar is proving to be a very justified exercise, because they have deliberately stalled this process—for years now—so they can perpetuate their monopolistic power. This is not in the spirit of the Queensland legislation. It is not in the spirit of fair dealing. It is unconscionable and it is anti-competitive.
As the representative for the largest sugar-growing electorate in this country, I will not stand by and watch a foreign-owned miller flagrantly disregard the rule of Australian law. I call on Wilmar to reveal the unfair conditions they are using to sabotage negotiations and to urgently meet with QSL and the grower collectives, such as canegrowers, before they destroy an entire industry and the farming families who have worked so hard in Queensland to create that industry.
Bendigo Electorate: Chiko Roll
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:51): Like many in Bendigo, I was outraged to learn yesterday that the new member for Calare is claiming that his community is the home of the Chiko roll. If we do not have to contend with the member for Riverina, it is now the member for Calare who is claiming that his area is the home of the Chiko roll. It is just simply not true.
Let me correct the record once again. Bendigo is the true home of the Chiko roll. The Chiko roll was created by a Bendigonian. It was invented by Frank. Frank wanted to be able to drink a beer at the footy and eat a snack at the same time. This is the folk legend about the Chiko roll, to the extent that it is on the back of the packet of the Chiko roll.
On the back of the packet it clearly states: born in Bendigo. Now, for a party that is always on their feet about food labelling, for a party that is always on their feet about the country of origin and region of origin, you would think they would pick up the back of the packet of the Chiko roll and read, clearly labelled: born in Bendigo. I am here today to correct the record and remind the member for Riverina and our new friend in this place that Bendigo is the true home of the Chiko roll. Read the back of the packet. Be learned before standing up in this place. Bendigo and Frank, we are proud of your efforts with the Chiko roll.
Banks Electorate: De La Salle College
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:52): On 2 September I attended the De La Salle College, Revesby Heights, HSC showcase. It was a terrific night, and I just want to reflect on it a bit this afternoon. I was able to present awards to the students on their achievements on the evening. A large number of people were in attendance—a lot of proud parents and community members looking at the HSC artworks, some of the industrial design and other matters. Catering was done by the hospitality students at the school, who did a great job.
I would like to congratulate the following Year 12 students who received awards on the evening. The people's choice award for music went to Tuitavake Manoa. The award for industrial timber technology: Matthew Greentree was successful in winning that award, and for visual arts, Blake Riddell. I would like to thank the school for hosting the evening, in particular the principal, Mr Tim Logue, Mr Paul Finneran, the Assistant Principal and MC on the night. In particular I thank Ms Michelle Greco, the Creative and Performing Arts Coordinator, who put together what was quite an impressive and substantial event. I want to thank her for her hard work in organising the evening. De La Salle College, Revesby Heights, is one of the largest and strongest schools in my community, and I congratulate everyone who was involved in the showcase evening.
Nigel Love Bridge
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:54): On 2 August I was fortunate to be at Sydney Airport for the naming of a new bridge, linking the northern airport precinct with Qantas Drive, in honour of the founder of Sydney Airport, Nigel Love. Nigel Love had a distinguished military career with the Australian Flying Corps during World War I, flying missions on the front line, on the airfields of Flanders against the Baron von Richthofen and his Flying Circus. Nigel was actually present at the Red Baron's funeral in Bertangles cemetery.
Upon his return to Sydney, Nigel joined with aeronautical engineer Harry Broadsmith and AV Roe & Co Ltd to manufacture their aircraft in Australia. Part of their contract obliged them to establish an aerodrome in Sydney—and that is exactly what Nigel did on a vacant bullock paddock in the Mascot area. As first managing director of the Avro company, Nigel Love established Australia's first aircraft manufacturing company, sold Qantas their first aircraft and piloted the first passenger flight from Sydney to Melbourne.
Our community and our nation owe Nigel a debt of gratitude. His foresight established Australia's busiest airport, which now contributes $30 billion to the Australian economy. Forty million passengers go through it every year and 29,000 jobs were created, many of those in my community. This is a fitting tribute to a great Australian, and it was wonderful to see so many of his family members there on the day.
Leichhardt Electorate: Awards
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:56): Communities in Leichhardt benefit immeasurably from the contribution of those who go above and beyond what is called for in their professional capacity. I would particularly like to recognise two locals today who have been awarded the Public Service Medal. Firstly, Wayne See Kee, the CEO of Torres Strait Regional Authority. As a proud Torres Strait Islander and the first Indigenous CEO of the TSRA, Wayne has an absolute understanding of the region's issues and the objectives of the TSRA. I have a very wonderful working relationship with Wayne. I respect him greatly as a knowledgeable and effective leader and look forward to continuing this relationship into the future.
Secondly, I am pleased to highlight the contribution of Lucy Karger. Lucy is coordinator for the yellow crazy ant eradication program at the Wet Tropics Management Authority. Lucy is a tireless and incredibly motivated campaigner who heads a team of extremely professional and capable individuals. Together they are driving efforts to wipe out this invasive pest from our Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Congratulations on this public recognition, Lucy, and I will continue to support your team, however I can.
To the other 12 recipients of the Member of the Order of Australia, Bravery Medal, Police Medal, Fire Services Medal and Order of Australia medal, I extend to you my deepest thanks on behalf of the Leichhardt community.
Turnbull Government
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:57): Well, a year and a day after the Prime Minister took office, I am left with a single question: is this how you imagined it would be, Malcolm? In all those decades—
The SPEAKER: The member the Gellibrand will resume his seat. I am calling the next member. I have made it clear on referring to members by their correct titles more than enough. I made it very clear yesterday. I am not going to keep repeating it.
Moore Electorate: Sacred Heart College
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:57): Sacred Heart College is celebrating its 50th anniversary. In the 1960s, when the area was undeveloped coastal land, the Sisters of Our Lady of the Missions had a vision to educate the hearts and minds of young people on the edges of the growing city of Perth. They built a college on the sand dunes of Sorrento and have inspired thousands of students to achieve their potential and contribute to the building of a better world. Today enrolments have grown to over 1,400 students. A number of commemoratives events have been organised to mark the occasion, including reunions of staff and students, a jubilee mass, opening of the gymnasium, commissioning of the observatory and a theatrical production of Beauty and the Beast.
I take this opportunity to recognise in parliament the team of outstanding educators and support staff led by principal Mr Peter Bothe and students represented by head boy Matthew Kolomyjec and head girl Gemma Devitt. Sacred Heart College is an outstanding institution which cultivates our future leaders by promoting the highest standards of academic achievement, sporting endeavour, as well as nurturing the spiritual development of students into well adjusted adults through pastoral care.
Taxation
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:59): Before the last election there was only one member for Banks, and he sits right there. But after the election there were at least 75 members for banks. They start there and they move right the way down there. But there is only one member for big bank and he sits over there, and sometimes he is called the member for Dawson. Well, today we learned that the people who represent some of the poorest electorates in this country—and I am talking about the National Party—are staging a backroom revolt to ensure that the most privileged people in Australia can put over $500,000 into their superannuation to get the tax concessions that are denied to some of the most poorest people in this country.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has expired.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today as she is travelling to the United States to represent Australia at the 2016 Our Ocean conference and the Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Child Sexual Abuse
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today outside parliament the Care Leavers Australasia Network protested against the Turnbull government's failure to establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to establish a national redress scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse, as recommended a year ago by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the honourable member for her question. I and the member for Swan met with Leonie Sheedy, the head of CLAN, the Care Leavers Australasia Network, and I have worked with her, and her group, over many years—in fact, since the apology in 2009. I consulted with them before I made that apology on behalf of the opposition and have worked closely with them ever since. We had a very good meeting as we always have had. As a care leaver himself, the member for Swan has a very keen insight into and empathy for the situation of the members of CLAN and the men and women who were wronged by churches, charities and governments when they were in their care. An important thing for us to do is to acknowledge those wrongs, affirm that we believe them, that they are believed—and they are—and then ensure that redress is provided. We are working with state—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: If honourable members take this issue seriously then they will not interrupt me. Let me explain.
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga.
Mr TURNBULL: There are a range of institutions and governments that owe responsibility to these Australians for the wrongs that have been done. Some state governments have very different views from others as to the manner in which redress should be provided. The Minister for Social Services has been working constructively with those governments to ensure that redress is provided and we will be seeking to deliver a nationally consistent approach. But what honourable members opposite are proposing, I gather, is that the federal government should simply pay all of the compensation or all of the redress.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The matter is being very carefully and empathically handled. We understand the situation. I say to honourable members opposite, particularly the member for Isaacs, who is a specialist in feigned indignation—nobody does a better line in indignation than him: there is no monopoly on compassion and empathy on their side of the House. We understand the problem. We are working sensitively through it with those affected, with institutions and with governments to ensure that justice is done.
Economy
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the government's commitment to deliver economic security for Australians, including through reforms to our superannuation system?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the honourable member for his question. My government is providing the clear economic leadership Australia needs to remain a prosperous and secure First World economy with a generous social welfare safety net. Every lever of our policy is pulling in the direction of stronger growth and we are delivering. Over the last year we have seen economic growth grow to 3.3 per cent. Jobs are growing. We are seeing strong growth across the economy. We are making the tough but necessary calls to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not burdened by mountains of debt because we could not live within our means. That is a critical element of fairness which the honourable members opposite should reflect and act upon. Today marks a very important step with the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services announcing the details of improvements to our superannuation package. These constitute the most significant reforms to superannuation in a decade. Labor had six years in government and did nothing. My government has acted. We have made real reform to superannuation to make it fairer, more flexible, with greater integrity, to make a substantial contribution to budget repair. This is a critically important element in our economic plan—96 per cent of Australians will be better off or unaffected by these changes. The announcements are expected to improve the budget bottom line by a further $180 million over the next four years and they meet all the objectives we set for superannuation reform.
I also want to acknowledge that this week we have worked with the opposition to pass the $6.3 billion omnibus savings package. I want to thank the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister for their cooperation. They demonstrated that the 45th Parliament can come together to pass sensible economic reforms.
We understand that for 70 minutes of each parliamentary sitting day the opposition feels it is obliged to come in here and accuse the government of bringing the country to the edge of chaos and financial ruin, say that every measure that is proposed is catastrophic, and cast the government in the worst possible light in as raucous a fashion as possible. But it is important for Australians to know that, as we break for the next few weeks, we should reflect on this: that, with a little less grandstanding, a little less name-calling and a little more constructive negotiation, we can achieve great things for Australians and their future in this 45th Parliament.
Turnbull Government
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Less than a week ago, the Prime Minister was asked, 'What would you say is your greatest achievement since being Prime Minister?' The Prime Minister responded: 'the reforms in superannuation, the reforms to business tax'. Today he has junked both. What is the point of the Turnbull government if the Prime Minister cannot even deliver on his so-called greatest achievements?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): The acting opposition leader's question underpinned, underlined and demonstrated, as if on cue, the very point I just made. We presented in the budget a superannuation reform package, the most substantial in more than a decade: on any view, making superannuation fairer, more flexible and with greater integrity, achieving savings for the budget and achieving all of those measures—very important. There were 12 distinct measures in that package which achieved, in total savings, $6 billion and, in net savings to the budget after the equity measures and funding the LISTO and so forth, $3 billion. So it is a big package—12 measures. One of them was controversial: this was the $500,000 non-concessional cap, and that amounted to $550 million of gross savings out of $6 billion.
I want to put on record my admiration and thanks to the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, because they were able to put together a set of reforms more substantial. The Labor Party love to talk about equity. They love to talk about fairness. The problem is they do not practise what they preach. They did nothing about superannuation when they were in government. The only approach they have to equity is self-help. That is the Dastyari approach, the self-help approach to equity.
So we have listened, we have consulted with our colleagues in the party room, we have consulted with the community, we have listened to the opposition, we have listened to all parties and we have achieved changes which we believe meet all of the purposes—all of the objectives. They are absolutely consistent with our commitment to ensure that super is fairer and more flexible, achieves budget savings, operates with greater integrity and does not serve as simply a tax shelter for very wealthy people. It is a very fair set of changes. When the pantomime of question time is over and honourable members opposite have the opportunity to reflect on the substance of the changes, I commend them to the opposition. They are fair, they are balanced and they achieve the purposes. Again I thank the ministers and my colleagues for their hard, collegiate work in ensuring we got the right outcome.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Particularly the member for Chifley, who is interjecting now and is now warned.
National Security
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the coalition government's continued strong approach to national security and border protection?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:11): I thank the honourable member for his question and I acknowledge his service to Australia in Australia's uniform, in Australia's armed forces, keeping Australia safe. There is no greater responsibility for a Prime Minister and a government than to keep Australians safe, secure and free. We pursue the security of Australians and our interests at home and abroad by being clear-eyed when it comes to the challenges we face. This weekend I will travel with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to the United States for meetings in New York with world leaders to discuss the security and humanitarian challenges posed by the uncontrolled movement of approximately 65 million people who are forcibly displaced around the world—many from the Syrian conflict.
The urgent need to confront this issue has been brought home by the perfect storm confronting Europe: failed integration, returned foreign fighters, porous borders and an intelligence apparatus struggling to keep pace with the scope and breadth of the threat. Just this week in Germany, as the foreign minister reminded us earlier this week, three terrorists suspected of being part of an ISIL sleeper cell responsible for the Paris attacks that killed 130 people were arrested.
I want to acknowledge on behalf of all members of the coalition, and I believe on behalf of all Australians, the debt we owe to the member for Warringah for the leadership he showed on coming into office as Prime Minister, in working to galvanise the strongest possible international response to the evolving threat of Daesh in the Middle East and beyond, and—every bit as critical—for the strength of purpose he brought to the task of restoring the integrity of our borders. The disastrous border policies of the Rudd-Gillard years weakened our national security dramatically. I remember standing at the dispatch box opposite, begging then Prime Minister Rudd not to weaken our border protection laws. He persisted, and what we saw was a tragedy: 50,000 arrivals, 800 unauthorised boats and, most tragically of all, 1,200 men, women and children drowned at sea. Under the policies of our government—and I acknowledge here the extraordinary contributions of leadership, grit and determination of the member for Cook, ably succeeded by the member for Dickson—we stopped the boats and we stopped the deaths at sea. That would never have happened had it not been for the election of the Abbott government in 2013. Regaining control of our borders enables us to have one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world. We are only able to do that—we are only able to maintain public support for it—because we control our borders. Labor failed. We restored our borders. It is one of the greatest achievements of the coalition government to restore the integrity of Australia's sovereign borders. (Time expired)
Dr Aly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will cease interjecting.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:14): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Harry Jenkins, a former Speaker of the House and former member for Scullin, who is here with Global Voices Australia. On behalf of the House, we welcome you back.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Superannuation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in June the Prime Minister was asked about superannuation:
Can you foresee any circumstance in which the policy as detailed in the May 3 budget will change following the election?
and that the Prime Minister responded that it was 'absolutely ironclad'? How can the Prime Minister claim to lead the country when even his 'absolutely ironclad' promises cannot survive the extreme elements of his own party?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:15): The honourable member opposite who just asked me the question of course went to the election with no superannuation policy at all. His plan was not ironclad; it was boundless! It was completely boundless.
Mr Pasin: It was a lazy Susan!
Mr TURNBULL: That is right: it was the lazy Susan of superannuation economics. Again, this is the point I made earlier about the feigned indignation.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member opposite and the two Treasurers that served in the Labor government, notwithstanding the widespread recognition that the superannuation system called for reform, did nothing about it in six years of government. They did nothing about it.
We took this issue—this tough issue—out of the too-hard basket. My government took it out of the too-hard basket. My Treasurer and my Minister for Revenue and Financial Services took it out of the too-hard basket. We took it on and we have made those reforms. The opposition urged us to make some changes. Many other people did too. When we listened to them and made some changes—
Mr Bowen: You listened to George!
Mr TURNBULL: When the honourable member says I listened to George, he may as well say I listened to him! I may as well say that we listened to everybody because we listen, we consult and then we make decisions based on the public interest.
Here is the thing Labor should reflect on: this is the party of Dastyari. Let's not forget that.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member for Griffith! There she is, complaining about unfairness and the rich getting away with too many tax rorts. What did Labor do? What did her distinguished predecessor Kevin Rudd do about this when he was Prime Minister? Nothing. Did they tackle it? Not at all. Nothing at all.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL: It is our government, the coalition government, that took on this hard job of reforming superannuation. It is notoriously difficult; everyone understands that. There were 12 measures. One was controversial; one we have changed. We have done that in a manner that is fair, that is flexible, that maintains integrity and maintains the budget savings. I say the Treasurer and the minister for revenue have served Australia well by their work, and I thank all of my colleagues for their constructive cooperation and feedback in this collegiate effort of government serving Australia, defending our security, securing our prosperity.
Welfare Reform
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer. Pensioner couples received $33,000 in income. Electricity, insurance and rates in the North are now over $10,000 a year, whilst average accommodation charges are $17,000. This leaves two people with $3,000 each to live on. Would the Treasurer not agree a primage gap-neutral charge of 10 per cent on all imports—$36 billion a year—would provide jobs for Australians and $12,000 a year for every pensioner couple? Further, would he agree with the supply land cheaply initiative and its proponents, an Oxford professor and a bright, innovative thinker named Malcolm Turnbull?
The SPEAKER: Three seconds to spare!
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:19): A 45-second special there, Mr Speaker! Thank you very much to the member for his question. Can I start by saying that the government does acknowledge the very difficult circumstances faced by pensioners in this country. The pension is not a generous payment. It is a welfare payment to support people who, for whatever reason, have not been able to put themselves in a position where they are able to support themselves in their retirement. The pension, which is the biggest of the social service outlays, is an incredibly important payment.
In last year's budget what we did with the pension was to change the assets test, which would mean that those who are on lower levels of assets, and particularly those who were previously only receiving a part-pension, would now be receiving a full pension. Those pensioners who are on the lowest level of assets have been supported by those on this side of the House for almost two years. Those opposite actually opposed that change, only to be brought to their senses just before the election, in one of their other backflips which went along with the schoolkids bonus and many other things.
The pension is important. It needs to be sustainable and it needs to be supported. But I would not agree with the member's suggestion that the proposal he puts forward would lead to an increase in their incomes, because what he is suggesting is to lift the prices of imports in this country. If you lift the prices of imports in this country then what you are doing is increasing the costs of producing things in this country, because our businesses make those imports. If you are going to increase the costs on business in this country, whether it is by that measure or by increasing taxes on business, like those opposite want to do, what you end up doing is costing incomes and costing jobs.
On this side of the House we believe that export trade delivers the prosperity, the income and the growth that deliver jobs. In the last 12 months there was 9.6 per cent growth in exports—the strongest export performance since the Sydney Olympics. So our view, with great respect to the member, is that you have to drive your prosperity and drive your incomes by ensuring that the Australian economy is competitive, that businesses can compete, that they can employ people and that they can drive the incomes of their employees to lift real wages, which will lift living standards for all Australians.
I thank the member for his question and for his concern about these issues, particularly on the matter of pensioners. I know the Minister for Social Services will be only too happy to talk more about the things we are doing to support pensioners and particularly those with low assets.
Superannuation
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:21): My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how Australia's current superannuation system can be made more flexible and more sustainable? What is this government doing to reform the superannuation system to achieve these aims?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Petrie for his question, and I thank him—like all other members on this side of the House—for being engaged in a very adult and constructive consultation process over the last few months. They have been listening to their constituents and we have been listening to what their constituents have been saying to them.
Those opposite seem to think this is some sort of problem with the democratic process. This is the job of members of parliament, this is the job of ministers: to ensure we deliver on our commitments in the best possible way. And what we put in the budget was a plan for fairer, more sustainable and more flexible superannuation arrangements with tax concessions so they delivered on their purpose—that purpose being to support retirement incomes that supplement or replace a pension.
Now, that is the purpose. And we put into the budget fit-for-purpose changes to superannuation tax concessions that not only would achieve that but would deliver on the urgent job of budget repair, to the tune of $3 billion. What we have announced today, as the Prime Minister said, is that there were 12 measures in the budget: there is change to one of those measures, the removal of another and the delaying of one. But all of the measures now, as I announced them today, continue to deliver absolutely on what we set out as the objectives in the budget—including on the important issue of budget repair.
I am pleased to say that ASFA today, in commenting on the announcement we made this morning, said quite simply that it makes the superannuation system more sustainable—that it will ensure:
… people approaching retirement will have more flexibility to add to their super.
They said it will provide income in retirement and that it:
… balances the need to ensure enough income for a comfortable retirement with ensuring the level of tax concessions is sustainable in the future.
The head of ASFA said:
This is the responsible thing to do …
But here is a message for those opposite: he said:
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) supports the government’s revised superannuation package announced this morning and urges the Parliament to pass the changes as soon as practical, …
I ask the members opposite, as I offered the shadow Treasurer today—the officials were in the building today, and I am sure they will have their briefing on the rather minor changes, ultimately, that were made today to a package of 12 measures—not to be the authors of uncertainty in relation to this issue, as they were in government: not the authors of uncertainty, but to provide that certainty.
Dr Chalmers: Are these ones iron clad too?
Mr MORRISON: I note the shadow finance minister feeling very chuckly over there. I remind him that he was the one who said:
People will know by the time they go into the polling booth where we stand on superannuation.
And then you vanished! You disappeared! Poof! There you went—you vanished. Completely vanished. This government did not vanish on making superannuation more flexible and more sustainable. We delivered.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The level of interjections is too high. The member for Shortland will cease interjecting, as will the member for Barker, who I have already mentioned. The member for Barker is now warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: In his answer, the Treasurer referred to a document—some legislation that he wants us to support. I ask that he table it.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Superannuation
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. The member for Dawson said about the Prime Minister's humiliating super backdown today, 'We put forward all our views, and they listened and they acted.' What happened to the Prime Minister's absolutely iron-clad promise? Isn't it the case that the member for Dawson and the extreme elements of his party are now in charge of the government's economic policy?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:26): The honourable member asked me where something was. I would ask him where his PhD in economics has gone, too. Really—what a pathetic response from the opposition! Seriously!
We talk about the pantomime of question time. Here you have a situation where a government consults, a government listens and a government improves legislation—
Dr Chalmers: It was iron clad. You said it was iron clad—you said it was an iron-clad policy!
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is now warned!
Mr TURNBULL: One element out of 12, affecting $550 million out of $6 billion. This superannuation package was well designed. It tackles major issues of fairness and major issues of flexibility, and it has been improved.
Does the honourable member suggest that the member to whom he referred should be treated with contempt? Should be ignored? Does he suggest that the only wisdom is on his side of the chamber? The reality is that honourable members opposite—
Dr Chalmers: He's the Treasurer now. He's got more say in it than you do!
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a). You can leave under 94(a)—I have warned you twice. The member for Barker will leave as well—he was interjecting after being warned.
The member for Rankin and the member for Barker then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: I would refer honourable members opposite—indeed, all honourable members—to this very important principle of my government: we will seek always to improve our measures. If measures we propose or implement can be improved, we will improve them. We will listen to all those who offer criticism or suggestions for change—we will listen to them in good faith. If we can improve measures we will improve them. We have to recognise that policy making must be dynamic.
What we have done here with the superannuation changes is that we have presented a set of changes in one of the most complex areas of law imaginable. Very few Australians understand the operation of the super system. We all know that. The Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue presented 12 measures, all of which made substantial changes. Their advocacy and that of our colleagues secured support for all of them. One remained subject to considerable criticism from many parts of the community—from the opposition, from those stakeholders in the industry, from constituents and from colleagues.
We listened carefully to that and we thought, 'How can we achieve the objects of the package and meet those concerns?' It is a great credit to my colleagues that they have done that, and that they have done that in the constructive, modern way we operate government in 2016. (Time expired)
Superannuation
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister advise the House how the government's superannuation reforms will make Australia's superannuation system fairer?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:30): I thank the member for Chisholm very much for her very first question in the House. She delivered a brilliant maiden speech just before question time today. I know that she has a number of supporters in the gallery—and that is because she is a very proud advocate for her community. She is someone who has lived the mantra of aspiration. And this is why we are making some modifications to our superannuation policy to make sure that it is fairer for all Australians, to make sure that they can achieve their aspiration to provide more for their retirement balance so that they can live a great retirement.
We have made some changes by not proceeding with the $500,000 non-concessional lifetime cap and instead taking it back to a reduced annual cap that will have an eligibility attached to it that means that they can only contribute those non-concessional or after tax amounts at a point where they have less than $1.6 million in superannuation. The reason we have done that is that we do not want to put a handbrake on their aspiration to get to the transfer balance cap.
Unlike those opposite, we on this side still believe in aspiration. We also believe in flexibility. We believe it is very important that we help and encourage people to provide for their retirement. We give them a level playing field for them to be able to make concessional contributions to their retirement. We do not think it is right that somebody who is employed by a small business that does not offer salary sacrificing cannot take advantage of their full concessional contribution. We do not think it is right that somebody who might have a part-salary income but also might have a small business also cannot contribute fully to their concessional contribution.
Those opposite would stamp out their aspiration and their flexibility to be able to contribute. We on this side believe it is important to make that contribution and to give them that aspiration. But we also think it is very important for working mothers—like Julie Banks, the member for Chisholm, who has lived this—to be able to have catch-up contributions. For those people who have spent time out of the workforce caring for their children and come back into the workforce, we believe it is important that they can catch up on their concessional contributions. So, from 1 July 2018, they will be able to do that on a rolling five-year basis.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms O'DWYER: Unfortunately, those opposite are carping. They would stamp out that aspiration, they would stamp out that choice, they would stamp out that fairness and they would stamp out that flexibility.
Superannuation
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Senator Abetz issued a press release claiming credit for the Prime Minister's humiliating backdown on superannuation. Are the extreme elements of his party so powerful that they can force a Prime Minister to abandon his 'absolutely ironclad' promise? What happened to the Prime Minister's absolutely ironclad promise?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for her question. I am happy for every member of the coalition party room to claim credit for every decision of the government. The truth is it is a team business. Of course, very often members are too modest to do that. But I think it is good. I want every member of the coalition party room—House and Senate—to claim credit for the government's decisions. It is very important—every decision that has been endorsed. That is the team spirit that we see, which is so important in politics. But let me deal with another point in the honourable member's question.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a).
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: Again, we are going through what I have described as the pantomime of politics, which is one of the reasons why her constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents get fed up with what politicians do and say. A government improves a measure—consults, changes it, improves it, makes it work better. In the real world, where all our constituents live, people say: 'That's good. They listened and they tweaked it. They made a change. Good on 'em. That's great. They're listening to us. It' sensible'—but in the pantomime of the 70 minutes of this parallel universe of question time it is a humiliating backflip! We have to get real about the art of policy making in this parliament, and that involves our side, your side and the crossbenchers working together constructively, honestly, openly and objectively to achieve the best policy outcomes. So perhaps we can suspend that for 70 minutes—it is a bit of entertainment—but I would say to the honourable member that, if she believes any of our measures can be improved, she should let us know. We will look on what she says in good faith. All suggestions are gratefully received. We are determined to consult, negotiate and achieve for the people of Australia in this their 45th Parliament.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite.
Workplace Relations
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister inform the House of the steps the government is taking to support emergency services volunteers? How are these measures and other achievements of the government proving that we are implementing our commitments to the Australian people?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:37): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. Today, the House did in fact pass the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill; through the parliament in to the Senate. This bill will strike out the objectionable clauses of the enterprise bargaining agreement in Victoria that covers firefighters and, effectively, hands unconscionable power to the unions over the volunteer firefighters. It is another good example of a government getting on with the job and achieving things for Australians. It is one of the latest examples of where this government is simply getting things done.
We are working constructively in this 45th Parliament. We are working constructively to deliver on our promises to create jobs, to grow the economy. Today, we passed the CFA bill. Yesterday, we passed the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill—repairing the budget by $6.3 billion—with the support of the opposition. Today, we announced our superannuation reforms, working cooperatively across the parliament, within politics and with the stakeholders to ensure we have fairer superannuation rules here in Australia. This week, we introduced the bill to hold a national plebiscite on marriage equality. So one after the other, we are implementing the promises and the commitments that we took to the election because this government are determined to do that and to get the fundamentals right. We are not forgetting that the economy is the No. 1 issue. Growth is 3.3 per cent. Jobs are up. We created over 200,000 jobs in the last 12 months. Business confidence is up. Consumer confidence is up. We are continuing with our strong borders and national security and defence security.
We will work together with whoever wants to work with this government—whether it is the Labor Party in the case of the omnibus savings bill; whether it is with the Greens in the case of other matters where they believe they want to support the government and we believe they can help us on national tax and so on; whether it is the crossbenchers in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, we will work with them. The most important thing that we can all do as parliamentarians is make the lives of Australians better, make our country and our economy better and make our society better.
Those members of the Labor Party who want to be so last 44th Parliament, let me say to them: we are in a new parliament and the parliament is working, and if you intend to continue with the same tactics that you have had for so long—
Mr Frydenberg: So passe.
Mr PYNE: So passe, as the Minister for the Environment and Energy says. If they want to continue with that, the public will mark them down. Let us work together to make our country great again, as we have been doing this year and this week, and we will into the future.
Superannuation
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Yesterday, was the minister aware that she was ridiculing a superannuation measure that the cabinet was set to adopt just hours later or was the member for Dawson yet to advise the minister of the government's new superannuation policy?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will just take a seat for a second. The level of interjections is far too high.
Mr Feeney: Someone should have told him.
The SPEAKER: The member for Batman will leave under 94(a).
The member for Batman then left the chamber.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:40): I thank the acting Leader of the Opposition for her question. I would say at the outset that her premise is completely and utterly false. We have been very, very clear that the intention behind our policy, as announced in the government, has in fact been delivered, that we would have an affordable, a flexible and a sustainable superannuation policy—a very important set of reforms that we would deliver and we have done just that. In fact, it has been welcomed by so many stakeholders.
Only today Industry Super Australia, who I am sure the member opposite would be quite familiar with, welcomed the announcement of the modifications to the Turnbull government's superannuation tax reform and they have said 'it is a workable compromise'. They have urged those opposite to support it, to not stand in the way and to not block it. Industry Super have said of our changes, that those opposite apparently are saying are so incredibly radical:
These are evolutionary, not revolutionary changes.
And they have said further:
The proposed measure will restrict superannuation being used for estate planning, while providing greater support for many more, lower income Australians saving for retirement …
I would have thought that those opposite would be supportive of that.
The Financial Services Council say that our changes are 'sensible'. ASFA say:
We are delighted that people approaching retirement will have more flexibility to add to their super.
They go on to say:
The ceiling of $1.6 million, once it is legislated, balances the need to ensure enough income for a comfortable retirement with ensuring the level of tax concessions is sustainable in the future.
They say:
This is the responsible thing to do for the superannuation system and for Australia’s long term, fiscal sustainability …
They also urge those opposite to support our changes. Even ACOSS have come out today and said, 'These are sensible if modest reforms that tighten tax breaks at the top end.'
So, frankly, we cannot understand why those opposite are going through this charade of pretending that they are not going to support our policy changes when they know they are right for the Australian people and they are right for the budget.
Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of the findings of the inquiry into the effect of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal's payments order on Australian small businesses?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (14:43): I thank the member for Page for his question. I visited the member during the election campaign and it was clear how vital the abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was to truckies within the member's electorate. With communities and farmers in the Northern Rivers who rely on truckies to get their produce to market, the member understands how important this report is for small business. He understands small business want to get truckies on the road and they want to do business in such a way that will generate income for more local small businesses and their families. I know the RSRT's abolition was one of the member's priorities, like every other Liberal and National Party member in this place. They also wanted to see the end of the RSRT and our owner-operators—truckies—get a fair deal.
Fleet owner Tony Flynn of Lismore, in the member's electorate, who runs a fleet of 70 rigs and employs more than 150 people on the North Coast in New South Wales, has applauded the government's decision to abolish the payments order. He told the Lismore Echo on 21 April that:
There is no way my business would be in the position it is today if there had been a scheme such as this when I was starting out as a small owner-operator.
Yet this is entirely at odds with the Labor Party's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal payments order brought about when the member for Maribyrnong was the employment minister.
This morning I stood with the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, and we spoke of the personal, the financial and the ongoing effects of the ill-named Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal payments order.
Last night, I tabled the 59-page report put together by the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell. I urge every member, especially every Labor Party member, to read the report and to consider the recommendations. I should read No. 1, which says:
When developing regulation that will have a significant impact on small businesses, consideration should be given to the potential impact on people’s mental health.
The inquiry was requested on 8 May 2016, the payments order came into effect on 7 April 2016, and the legislation to abolish the RSRT was passed on 18 April, taking effect three days later.
The road transport sector employs around 200,000 drivers and contributes $51 billion to the national economy. The report is a damning indictment of both Labor and the unions. It is also a damning indictment of the member for Maribyrnong. In his absence, I think the member for Gorton needs to step up, to look small business in the eye and to promise them that this payments order, which took so many owner-operators off the road, will never, ever be brought back in again. (Time expired)
Ms Scott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is now warned.
Superannuation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. In question time yesterday, the minister said of the government's superannuation package:
We announced it in the budget. We believe in our superannuation package.
Does the minister believe in the superannuation package announced today or does the minister believe in the superannuation package she believed in yesterday?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:47): I very much thank the member for his question. I do note that at a time when he was the Treasurer he did not embark upon superannuation reform; he embarked upon increasing superannuation taxes—that was it. No reform, no flexibility and no ability for people to contribute more to their superannuation.
We believe very strongly in our superannuation package, on this side of the House, because we know that it will help average Australians. It will help them to be able to save for their retirement. It will help people who have a low-income spouse be able to contribute to their spouse's income and their retirement savings, because they will receive an incentive for doing so—a tax offset for doing so. We have made it easier for them with our changes. It used to be, under the existing rules, that they could only get a tax offset if their spouse earned less than $10,800. We have said, 'No; we think that up to $37,000 you should be able to receive a tax offset for contributing to your low-income-earning spouse's superannuation,' because we believe in helping people to save for their retirement.
We also think it is very important for low-income earners not to pay more tax on their superannuation than they would otherwise pay in their wages. That is why we are introducing the low-income superannuation tax offsets. This helps more than three million Australians, including more than two million women. I think those opposite presumably would not argue with that, because this is again part of those measures that will assist people with being able to provide for their superannuation—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon! He currently has the MPI.
Ms O'DWYER: We believe that it is important for people to be able to make catch-up contributions, as I have mentioned before, helping more than 220,000 people. We believe in levelling the playing field, as I said before, helping more than 800,000 people. Those opposite would penalise people; we believe in their aspiration and in giving them a hand up.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister advise the House how the government is reforming the health system to enable Australians to access breakthrough medicines?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:50): Can I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and say how much I have appreciated meeting medicines and medicine device manufacturers in Macquarie Park in his electorate of Bennelong.
Today the government announced that we are taking action to bring medicines and medical devices to Australia faster. Our expert panel has found that it is taking up to two years to get listings from the US or Europe here to Australia. For example, the drug crizotinib, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, was listed in the US 13 months before it was listed in Australia. Brentuximab for lymphoma was registered in the US 16 months ahead of Australia. Today is World Lymphoma Awareness Day. This is a type of cancer that is on the increase, with a million people suffering and a thousand more worldwide being diagnosed every day.
These were medicines—the two that I just mentioned—that we went on to list on the PBS. In fact, we have subsidised $4.5 billion worth of new listings since 2013—three times as many as Labor. This is part of our commitment to list medicines without fear or favour.
Contrast that with the Labor Party's position.
A previous Labor health minister said:
Ultimately I think the important point is that we can't in every instance guarantee that a drug will be listed immediately because there are financial consequences for doing that …
What I say to the Labor Party is that the human consequences always outweigh the financial consequences. The Labor Party should take careful note of the human consequences of Australian patients and consumers not being able to access list of drugs early enough. It was the coalition that committed to listing without fear or favour. It is the coalition that has a medicines policy that continues with great determination to do the sorts of things we announced today, to make available faster pathways, streamlined applications under special access and provisional applications for new medicines when people are waiting for life-saving breakthrough drugs and they cannot wait the time it has taken up until now for those drugs to be listed.
There are lots of lessons to be learned from Labor's nonpolicy on health. I think one of the important ones is that what you cannot pay for you cannot deliver. Announcements like today's demonstrate that when it comes to affordable access to medicines you simply cannot trust Labor.
Superannuation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:53): In question time yesterday, the Treasurer said of the government's superannuation package: 'We continue to pursue those measures because those measures are essential.' Given the government abandoned those measures a few hours ago, can the Treasurer explain to the House why they were essential yesterday but not today?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:53): I thank the member for his question. We continue to pursue the measures in the budget, because those measures as improved in the announcement we made today the measures we announced today which improve those measure—that is what it means: you work on the measures; you make them even better. Those opposite seem to think that is a problem. Those opposite when they work on measures, they get worse. They do not get better they get worse.
In April last year, the Leader of the Opposition—this was when they say they led the debate on this issue and they put their superannuation policy out there—said to the country: 'If we are elected these are the final and only changes Labor will make to the tax treatment of superannuation.' But as we know, as time went on it all started to drift away. The member for Rankin, who is no longer in the chamber, said in May, just after the budget: 'People will now know by the time they go to the polling booth where we stand on superannuation.' Apparently, we knew what that was back in 2015, but by just after the budget in May the position had changed.
Then we go forward to June, when the member for Rankin said, 'They will be in no doubt what our position on super is.' But on election day people were in doubt, because we heard from the shadow Treasurer just days before the election: We're committed to raising the same amount of money as the government, but we want to sit down with the sector and work out the best way to proceed.' That is what the people of Australia knew about their superannuation policy, that it had completely vanished by the time of the election. On the same day, the Leader of the Opposition, rounding it out from what he had said more than a year before, said, 'If we win the election we are going to have to revisit this measure.' They went into a complete roundabout on superannuation policy and ended up in the same place they started, which was nowhere.
They have an opportunity, because we have removed every single impediment that would prevent those opposite from joining with the government in a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that superannuation is more sustainable, more flexible, fairer and contributing to the task of budget repair, which is necessary to deal with the debt curse left by those opposite to those on this side of the House. They have the opportunity to do that, and I look forward to them doing that, because they know they are going to support it, we know going to support it and the Australian people just want them to get on with it.
Rural and Regional Services
RIRDC Rural Women's Award
Mr GEE (Calare) (14:56): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the government is recognising and acknowledging the success of individuals across our regions?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for his question. He has great reason to be proud today, because one of his constituents from Calare, Sophie Hansen, won the Rural Woman of the Year award last night. I acknowledge that the shadow minister for agriculture was there to celebrate over-award with us.
That award goes to show the sorts of outcomes you get and the effort that goes in from so many people. They have every right to have that night to celebrate. Right back to Elizabeth Macarthur, at the inception of the merino industry in Australia, we have seen a continuing line of people who are willing to put so much into their community. There are people such as Lynise Conaghan who did such work with the isolated children's association and in getting the Clarke Creek mobile tower, one of our new 499 new and upgraded mobile phone towers. There is the incredible work done by people such as Jodie McRae in the seat of Page for cancer research. We wish Jodie all the very best at this very hard time in her life as she comes to the final moments of it. We also acknowledge Sarah Parker and the work she has done in the dairy farming industry down in the seat of Murray. There is so much that we have to celebrate. Anna Meares from the seat of Flynn did such great work as our flag bearer at the Olympics, a time that made us all as a nation eminence be proud of who we are. Laura Geitz from the seat of Maranoa who did work there.
It is all about community, all about family, and last night it was also about celebration about the farm, about making sure that we clearly understand that these people who put so much into also put so much into their own families and their communities. They do it in such a way that you find that not only is the person who is the casual worker on the farm doing the farm's books and dealing with so much of the regulation but also they are contributing to the community in which they live. This goes on and on. If we look at the work done by other people in local government, for example, people like Janelle Archdale at Walcha, who had a marvellous battle to make sure that her local council area at Walcha remained independent and was not amalgamated.
These people are all part and parcel of the tapestry that makes this nation a stronger place. Last night it was a great pleasure to be with so many people from regional Australia and acknowledge the work that those marvellous people have delivered for the agriculture industry and for our nation.
Superannuation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:59): My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have both claimed that budget repair is the Turnbull government's greatest moral challenge. So why is the Treasurer adopting a superannuation policy that leaves the budget $1 billion worse off over the forward estimates compared to the superannuation proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:00): I thank the member for his question, because reference was made earlier in question time to what was known as the low income superannuation contribution, which was introduced by those opposite.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga.
Mr MORRISON: The only problem was that they were paying for it with the mining tax, the genius invention of the former Treasurer, the member for Swan. The mining tax was going to pay for the low income superannuation contribution. That was their genius plan to pay for a genuine improvement in superannuation, which in our budget we sought to restore in the form of the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset. We came up with a way to ensure that those on incomes of less than $37,000 would be able to not pay more tax on their superannuation contributions than on their own income. We achieved that in the measures that we outlined in this budget and in the measures we announced today. When those opposite want to spend a lot of money, they never come up with the revenue or the other savings, more importantly, to pay for it. When it comes to childcare reform—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. The level of interjections is far too high. The member for Lindsay—I could not have made it any clearer yesterday or again today—will leave under 94(a). The member for Bruce is warned. The member for Deakin is warned.
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: I am reminded by my colleagues that I have committed a great offence to my good friend the member for Swan. I should never have referred to him in those terms paralleling him with the member for Lilley. That is a terrible slight and I deeply apologise for making a comparison with the member for Lilley, who was the great architect of 'the four surpluses we announce tonight' and the mining tax revenue that never existed. It vanished like the superannuation policy of those opposite. On this side of the House, if there are important measures we want to pursue like reforms to make childcare more affordable, we come up with ways to pay for it. When we want to reform superannuation to make it more flexible and more sustainable, and in a way that recognises more the challenges faced by those on low incomes, those in home based businesses or contractors—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned—
Mr MORRISON: we work out how to pay for it with real revenue, or, in the case of spending, by finding spending offsets to achieve it. Those opposite should reflect on the practice of a government that knows how to consult and work through difficult issues and improve measures, not see them retard as those opposite pursue their processes where they take something that starts as a pretty bad idea and always end up being something far worse. On this side of the House we are delivering superannuation reform that will help support Australians to become independent in retirement, and we will ensure that not only this generation of Australians can achieve it, but others can too. (Time expired)
M1 Pacific Motorway
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. During the election the Turnbull government announced a $215 million commitment to upgrading the M1 Pacific Motorway in Logan and the Gold Coast. Will the minister reaffirm this $215 million commitment, and advise what steps he is taking to ensure the people of Logan and the Gold Coast see this upgrade happen?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:04): I thank the member for Forde for that very important question. He is a very strong advocate for the people of his community, who are extensive users of the M1 between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. Indeed, the M1 is an extremely busy corridor. It carries some 150,000 vehicles a day. So as the member for Forde rightly says, the Turnbull government made a very important commitment of $215 million—$105 million towards a project to widen the M1 to five lanes from the Gateway Motorway merge to past the Rochdale Road off-ramp, and $110 million to upgrade the M1 between Mudgerabah and Varsity Lakes. I also want to acknowledge the terrific work of the member for Macpherson, who has been a very strong advocate for her constituents. Both the member for Forde and the member for McPherson have come forward to secure funding from the Turnbull government to deliver extra capacity on this vitally important corridor.
Of course, the Turnbull government proposed that this funding be provided on a fifty-fifty basis, with the Queensland government to match on the same level, just as previous funding of projects on the M1 have consistently been provided under federal Labor and federal coalition governments over many years. Unfortunately, it seems that the Queensland government has a different idea, and they have come up with all kinds of reasons why they are not able to provide their 50 per cent. I want to thank the member for Forde and the member for McPherson for joining me last week to meet with the Queensland roads minister, Gold Coast mayor Tom Tate, the RACQ and the CCIQ to discuss this issue and see if we can identify a way forward so that this money, committed by the Turnbull government to reduce congestion on the M1 between the Gold Coast and Brisbane to provide a better service, a better transport option for the people who use that vital corridor every day, can be put to work.
I encouraged the Queensland minister to go out to the construction industry and get a firm price, go to a request for tender or an EOI process, because around the country we are seeing very good prices at the moment when we go through that process. I also said that the Commonwealth stood ready to pay its contribution earlier if that assisted the Queensland government to pay its contribution and to fund its fair share. I want to thank the member for Forde and the member for McPherson. The Turnbull government has put this very significant contribution on the table so that we can improve the M1 and deliver better transport outcomes for the people of South East Queensland. I call upon the Queensland government to come forward and provide its fair share. We look forward to working with them so that the two governments can deliver the outcome the people of South East Queensland want.
Health
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (15:07): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Gina Rinehart offered $175 million for a charitable cancer centre in Darwin but has withdrawn that offer in response to the defeat of Adam Giles as Chief Minister? Will the Prime Minister undertake to ask Gina Rinehart, either directly or through her media adviser, Sophie Mirabella, to stick to her original commitment in the interests of cancer sufferers in the Northern Territory?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have asked members to cease interjecting. The question is out of order. There is no doubt that the question is out of order. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. I thought it was obvious even to the Manager of Opposition Business, why it is out of order. You are talking about a private citizen who has made a commitment to a Chief Minister for whom the Prime Minister is not responsible. The Prime Minister is responsible—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members will find themselves watching further proceedings on their television in their office if they keep interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business can have a go.
Mr Burke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of order. The final part of the question asked the Prime Minister whether he would make representations. That has to be within his control and therefore has to be in order for question time.
The SPEAKER: I appreciate the intent of the question, but the Prime Minister is not responsible for any arrangement that a private citizen has made with a Chief Minister. Now that is my view of the matter. The member for Grayndler.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the Prime Minister is absolutely responsible for his own actions and whether he will—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Albanese: I understand your point about the first half, but the second half of the question very clearly asks the Prime Minister to make representations. Surely everyone in this House would agree that it would be a good thing if he did.
The SPEAKER: No. I have made my ruling. As much as the issues are very important and close to all of our hearts, the question is out of order. There are other ways that the member for Solomon can address the matters within the chamber, including during the adjournment debate, 90-second statements and many other forms. I can see that the Prime Minister may well wish to answer, but we have to have questions that are within the standing orders.
Steel Industry
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. The minister has been closely involved with the ongoing negotiations to ensure the future of the Arrium steelmaking plant in Whyalla. I thank him for his commitment. I know he is aware of the pressure the city's citizens are under. Can he inform the House as to the current state of negotiations regarding the sale of Arrium's Whyalla assets and outline what the government has done to promote a successful sale? What more could we possibly do to ensure its survival?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:11): I want to thank the member for Grey. Shortly after the Prime Minister announced the new ministerial arrangements one of the first calls I received was from the member for Grey, who immediately raised the issue of Arrium and the security of the workers' jobs. In particular he wanted know that the government would deliver on the commitment of $49.2 million which was made during the election campaign for a loan through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation for a beneficiation plan. In fact, within three days of the new ministry being sworn in we were able to deliver that loan. We were able to make sure that $49.2 million was delivered. I am advised that plant has already been ordered, which will produce $200 million of cash flow over the next five years to assist with the Arrium plant.
This is a very serious issue for the workers of Whyalla. I went with the member for Grey, at his request, to both Port Pirie and Whyalla. In Whyalla we met with workers, we met with unions, we met with the administrators, we met with the council and we met with the community. There was a common approach. What they wanted to see occur next was the rail that had been ordered as part of the upgrade announced by the Prime Minister in March to the Adelaide to Tarcoola rail line. I am delighted to inform the House that only last week the first shipment from this steel plant for the Adelaide to Tarcoola railway line was delivered. That is a tremendous step forward. That should deliver $80 million of cash flow for the plant and for the future of the Whyalla steel plant.
More than that though we have seen actions in the last week about a level playing field for Australian steel. The assistant minister made a decision to end the dumping of steel grinding balls in the Australian market and to take action. The Prime Minister at the G20 was engaged in global action to ensure a level playing field abroad in the steel market. But there is a lot more still to be done. We have been working exactly as we said we would: constructively with the administrators, with the workers, with the union—and I have to say that, whilst we may have differences with the union on some issues, we have worked in lock step with them—and with the South Australian government. Again, we may have differences with the South Australian government in some areas but we have worked hand in glove, and this is an example of real cooperation that will deliver real results, because at the end of the day it is Australian jobs, South Australian jobs and jobs in Whyalla and for the community of Whyalla that matter.
So ultimately I am optimistic. We have provided a letter of comfort that indicates the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are available for the future. At the end of the day I am optimistic and it is all about doing the right thing by the workers. (Time expired)
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): Under standing order 103, I ask that you advise members of the House of what administrative arrangements have been put in place for 5 pm this afternoon.
The SPEAKER: I happily refer the Manager of Opposition Business to the amended standing order 31. If he wants to see how that operates he can join me in the House during the adjournment debate.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:14): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:15): I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 23 October 2016 be given to the honourable Member for Melbourne, for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received advice from the Prime Minister nominating members to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:15): by leave—I move:
That in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Sukkar, Mr Wood, Mr Hastie, Mr Byrne, Mr Dreyfus and Dr M. J. Kelly be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
Membership
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:16): by leave—I move:
That members be discharged and appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the list, which has been placed on the table.
As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
The list read as follows—
Appointment of members to committees
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources: Ms Keay, Mr Keogh and Ms Swanson;
Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration: Mr Hart and Ms Owens;
Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts: Ms McBride, Ms Templeman and Mr Watts;
Standing Committee on Economics: Mr Bandt, Mr Conroy, Mr Keogh and Mr Thistlethwaite;
Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Ms T. M. Butler, Ms Husar, Mr O'Connor, Sharkie and Mr Wallace;
Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy: Mr Conroy, Mr Khalil and Ms Stanley;
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport: Mr Freelander, Mr Georganas and Mr Zappia;
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs: Ms Claydon, Mr Hammond and Mr Snowdon;
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources: Mr Khalil, Mr Gosling and Mr B. K. Mitchell;
Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities: Ms Bird, Mr Entsch, Mr Giles, Ms McBride and Ms McGowan;
Standing Committee on Petitions: Mrs Elliot and Mr Georganas;
Standing Committee on Procedure: Ms T. M. Butler and Ms Ryan;
Publications Committee: Ms Lamb;
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs: Ms Claydon, Ms M. M. H. King and Ms Lamb;
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue: Ms T. M. Butler, Mr Dick and Ms Owens.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity: Mrs Elliot and Mr Zappia;
Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: Ms Bird and Ms Templeman;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services: Ms T. M. Butler and Mr Keogh;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: Mr Perrett and Ms M. M. H. King;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement: Dr Aly and Mr Hayes;
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit: Ms Brodtmann, Mr Hart and Mr Hill;
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Ms Keay, Ms Ryan and Mr Zappia;
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Mr Dick and Mr Giles;
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Dr Aly, Mr Champion, Ms Claydon, Mr Danby, Mr Feeney, Mr Perrett, Mr Snowdon and Ms Vamvakinou;
Joint Standing Committee on Migration: Mr Georganas, Mr Neumann and Ms Vamvakinou;
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Ms Husar and Ms Macklin;
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories: Ms Brodtmann and Mr Snowdon;
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia: Mr Freelander and Mr Snowdon; and
Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library: Mr Freelander;
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth: Mr Hill and Mr Khalil.
Discharge of members from committees
Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: Mr Alexander and Mr Ramsey;
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit: Mr Broadbent, Mr Morton, Mr van Manen and Mrs Wicks;
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Ms Price, Mr Robert and Mr Wallace.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Turnbull Government
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure of economic leadership.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:17): It is fitting that, at the end of the first sitting week and marking the anniversary the election of this Prime Minister, we have further confirmation, if we needed it, of the shambles at the heart of economic policy making in this government. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have had two signature policies over their 12 months—two signature policies with which they went to the election: superannuation tax changes and a cut in company tax. That is their big economic agenda. That was the centrepiece of their budget and the centrepiece of their re-election campaign, and today it is 'take out the trash day'. It is garbage day in Canberra, because those policies hit the wall. The Prime Minister was asked just last week: 'What are your greatest achievements in your first year in office?' The Prime Minister had an answer already to go. He said, 'Superannuation tax and business tax.' What achievements they are! And how well has it gone!
Let's deal with superannuation first. Let's talk about economic leadership—the failure of economic leadership provided by that side of the House and the economic leadership that has been provided by the Leader of the Opposition and this side of the House. The opposition released a superannuation taxation policy in April 2015. The Prime Minister was claiming, even at question time, that it did not exist. It was announced in April 2015 and the government has had multiple positions on this. At first they said this is outrageous. 'Nobody should ever touch superannuation taxes,' said the member for Cook and then the Minister for Social Services. He promised they would never increase tax on superannuation. 'That was an outrageous attack on retirement incomes,' said the now Treasurer. Then, of course, he became Treasurer and stood at that dispatch box and announced superannuation tax increases which were ill-thought out and based on no consultation. And now today that has come crashing down, as he has dropped the most egregious measure.
This is interesting. We had a press conference earlier today. I thought: 'This is a serious announcement. Clearly, the Prime Minister will be at this press conference.' He was not to be seen, because he might have been asked why, before the election, when asked 'Are there any circumstances at all after the election that this could change,' he said, 'No, this is absolutely iron clad.' The Prime Minister was in his office, perhaps hiding under the doona while the press conference was on, hoping that it all went okay.
It is not just about from before the election to now that the government has not been able to keep a consistent position. Over the course of a week or two their position has changed. In response to the proposal that the Leader of the Opposition and I released to the government to say, 'We will help you fix your problems; don't do the retrospective measure; and drop the other spending measures, including the mature workers measure, our old friend the minister for revenue was outraged. She said that it was going to disadvantage older Australians. She asked the question: 'Why is Bill Shorten attacking aspirational Australians—people who work hard and want to get ahead and save for their retirement?' Then the Treasurer said: 'This is a 1970s approach. It shows Bill Shorten is discussion in the 1970s.' They announced the policy a few hours ago. It was exactly the same policy as they were condemning! They cannot hold a line over a period of a couple of weeks. They condemn themselves by their own words.
I have a personal favourite, and it happened today. The Treasurer and the minister for revenue were out there announcing that they were dropping the older workers measure as part of their package. The minister for revenue was asked about it, and she said, 'We're very committed to the measure.' She was abolishing it during that press conference. I would hate to see it if they were not committed to the measure. It would not stand a chance. Measures they are very committed to hit the wall. If they are not really committed, I do not what happens to them.
And then we have corporate tax. Remember the $50 billion ram raid on the budget that the Prime Minister was so proud of. It was the centrepiece of his budget. Remember we probed the economic growth impacts, and we were told that it was going to increase the economy by a per cent—a full per cent we were told—in 10 years time. So in 20 years time the corporate tax cut would deliver a one per cent increase to our economy, and that was with the full suite of measures. Now we are told we are going to get the tax cut for businesses with a turnover under $10 million, but after that they will struggle. Well, I wonder what dividend that provides for economic growth in Australia? If the full measure provided one per cent in 20 years time, I wonder what this half-baked measure was?
We are told: 'We would love to do it, but we just cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' We are told: 'It is all too hard. It is very hard in the Senate.' The Labor Party has not had a majority in the Senate for one day since 1949. We managed to do a few things over the years—Medicare, superannuation, the greatest economic reforms of the eighties and nineties—without a majority in the Senate. This Prime Minister says: 'Oh, it is a bit hard. I cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' That is the economic leadership he has provided.
We have had the greatest hits of this government. From the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services we have had the greatest hits over this last year. The Prime Minister said he was going to be a new type of economic leader. He was going to have a mature conversation with the Australian people about such measures as increasing the GST and broadening the base of the GST. We said that we would not be in that because 60 per cent of the revenue raised would need to be used to compensate low-income earners, if you were to be fair, and there would be no economic growth dividend.
The government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said we were being backward and we were not being constructive. Then, lo and behold, the Treasurer got up in that famous 47-minute address to the National Press Club and said: 'We decided not to do this because 60 per cent of the revenue would be required to compensate low-income earners and there is no economic growth dividend.' Well, that is economic leadership Morrison-Turnbull style.
Then, of course, you had the Prime Minister thinking that economic reform was about the federation, so he had the Penrith oration—the member for Lindsay, unfortunately, is no longer with us. But it was in the Penrith oration, at a very similar location to where the former Prime Minister promised no cuts to health and education before the 2013 election, that the Prime Minister came out and said that he knew the answer: 'You cannot increase the GST, so we will have double taxation. We will let the states increase tax as well and we will withdraw all investment in public education.' The Penrith oration lasted 48 hours. That is economic leadership.
Then we had the greatest hits of the Treasurer. He stood at the dispatch box yesterday and said that it is outrageous that the Labor Party want to reform negative gearing. They are going to crash housing prices—forgetting that he had said to the cabinet that negative gearing should be reformed. I have to say, though, that it is one thing to be rolled by Peter Dutton; it is another thing completely to be rolled by George Christensen. You have to draw the line somewhere. Can you imagine Paul Keating or Peter Costello saying, 'Oh, well, George would not let me do it. I got rolled by the member for Dawson'? That is what this Treasurer has been reduced to—rolled in the cabinet, rolled in the caucus.
We have a Treasurer who will argue anything. Some honourable members might have been in the debating team at school. Some of our children are in the debating team now. You go home and say, 'What side of the argument were you on in the debate today?' and they say, 'Well, we tossed a coin and we were over in the affirmative.' That is what this Treasurer does: he goes into cabinet and says, 'George, what side of the argument am I on today? Can we have the coin toss', and he will argue anything. He is an advocate for any cause you like, even if it is inconsistent—totally inconsistent—with what has been argued by him before.
So, we do not really know what is going on the other side, but I do have a theory. We know what this government does with failed treasurers. We know where they go. So, I wonder whether there have been any polite inquiries made of the Minister for Foreign Affairs over recent days: 'What diplomatic postings are coming up? Where could I go?' asks the member for Cook. 'Is London available soon, maybe? Alex is coming home. London would be nice. Paris, perhaps.' So, that is what we heard from the Treasurer.
Then we had the sidekick, the minister for revenue, who argued that negative gearing would force housing prices up, when the Prime Minister and Treasurer were arguing they would force them down. That was her great contribution to the economic debate in Australia. She forgot to check: 'What is the scare campaign today?' It is a simple thing for a junior minister to ask. 'What is the scare campaign today? Are we saying they are going to force the prices up or down?'—and she forgot to do that.
There is a better way, and that is to provide economic leadership by seeking a mandate for reform, as the Leader of the Opposition did and the opposition did—seeking a mandate for important changes like negative gearing reform, capital gains tax reform, cracking down on VET FEE-HELP rorts, dealing with private health insurance and actually providing an alternative vision. Well, this side is up for it. The Leader of the Opposition is up for it. The Treasurer, the finance minister and the minister the revenue should make way for a team that is ready to govern—and I have to tell you: that is not the member for Dawson, despite appearances today. It is this side of the House.
It is this side of the House which has an alternative position. It is this side of the House which has done the hard work when it comes to policy development. It is this side of the House which will carry through on its commitments. It is this side of the House which will make sure that what we go to an election with is what we implement—as we did.
We have this Prime Minister who says, 'I give an ironclad commitment that we will not change superannuation', and he did not even have the courage to turn up to the press conference where the humiliating capitulation—the humiliating surrender—to the hard Right of the Liberal Party and the National Party was announced. Well, this is a Prime Minister of whom it has been said quite accurately: he may be in office but he is not in power.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:27): What is clear to us on this side of the House is that the member for McMahon is not only not up for it; he is not up to it. What he so quickly forgets is his own time in charge as Treasurer. He became Treasurer in June 2013, and one of his first acts was to stand by the forecast budget deficit of $18 billion that the member for Lilley had announced in May of that year. Eighty-six days later he presided over a PEFO—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—where the deficit moved to $30 billion. In 86 days he lost $12 billion. He was 67 per cent out in 86 days.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr LAUNDY: Yes, I do support the Giants, as the shadow Treasurer says. I would not put him in charge of the concession stand at a Giants game. But he was not the worst. His predecessor had it absolutely under control. In 2011-12 he announced a deficit in May of $22.6 billion. It was $43.4 billion the following year—out by 92 per cent. It makes the member for McMahon look good. But my favourite was the 2012-13 budget, where we were going to return for the first time to a surplus—the first of four—of $1.5 billion. It ended up being a deficit of $18.8 billion—out by 1,300 per cent!
This is what they stand for. This is what they stand by. They will have you come to this House and propose a question for an MPI on the government's failure of economic leadership when their credentials are non-existent. What did the member for McMahon propose in opposition? What did he preside over? He gave himself a hell of a rap—$16 billion of increases in the budget deficits over the next four years at a time when our AAA credit rating is under close watch. There is fiscal irresponsibility writ large. He plays politics with budget repair for three years and then backflips during the campaign on the Schoolkids Bonus, foreign aid and the pension asset taper. Why? Because he needed the $47 billion of savings over the forwards that that would provide, which is what we have been arguing for up to three years. But this is where it gets worse. Whilst he stands there and wants to claw back $47 billion moving forward, in those same three years net debt increased by $120 billion. If he had not played politics for three years and if he had been constructive as he has been, to his credit, in the last week, we would have been able to change that debt trajectory a lot sooner. Even the $6 billion this week that he has agreed with us is $6 billion moving forward, but it is also $18 billion that has been borrowed over the last three years. And it has to be paid back by future generations of Australians, by our kids and our grandkids. That is the gravity of the issue that we are saying. We have been saying it for three years and whilst I applaud the move this week to support us in this bill, I cannot help but point out that it comes three years too late. I hope that it is the start of more to come.
Then he presided over my favourite. He gave in his 10-minute speech his vision for negative gearing—the 96-word policy. The second paragraph of that policy is where the devil in the detail lies. You could deduct the net interest payments against any other investment income. Who has other investment income? It is not low and middle-income earners. It is high-net-worth individuals. The shadow Treasurer, by mistake, implemented a policy that favoured high-net-worth individuals. He is that economically illiterate that he could not even negotiate a class war properly.
But what is this government done in terms of economic leadership? GDP growth is at 3.3 per cent, its highest in four years. In both the NAB and ANZ surveys released this week, business confidence is at its highest levels since December 2013. In the last 12 months, 220,000 jobs have been created and 60 per cent of those have gone to women. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in three years. The member for McMahon and the Leader of the Opposition hold press conferences—they jump out in front of policy positions and claim credit, when at the same time they are costing, for three years, day in and day out taxpayers' money.
In the last term of parliament, we heard so much. Senator Dastyari has been mentioned a lot, but one of his favourite topics was multinational tax avoidance. For three years we heard their plan—never costed—about how they were going to raise $1.6 billion over the forward estimates.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr LAUNDY: Costed but not released, Member for McMahon. What did we do in those three years instead of going out and banging our gums? At the G20 convened in Brisbane the former Treasurer started laying the foundation for multinational tax avoidance reform. What has come from that? There are agreements with a plethora of countries, where for the first time we have access to their books. We have access to the companies based offshore that are diverting profits either through thin capitalisation or transfer pricing, which is how it happens.
What will the task force put in place by the Treasurer deliver? We heard that we have $1.6 billion on the counter. That was what the Labor policy claimed—costed, but never released—to deliver. On our side of the fence, through the changes we took time to initiate and instigate properly, over the next four years we will raise $3.75 billion, more than twice what Labor proposed through their policies.
Then, of course, we go to the free-trade agreements—Japan, Korea and China. I am proud to be a member of parliament for an electorate with a strong Chinese community. I am seeing it playing out on the ground as we speak—the benefits that will come from this. A young 29-year-old grad student came and said hello last week to thank me for initiating the free-trade agreement. I could not take the credit, because it was former Minister for Trade Andrew Robb. He explained to me that he had stopped at his local butcher. He had a strong family networking connection back in China and he had been working with his local butcher, who also owns a cattle property, about exporting boxed meat to China. They are now at the stage in their business career where they are seeking to build and accredit their own abattoirs. This is what free-trade agreements look like on the ground. They want to build the abattoirs in Wagga Wagga, in regional New South Wales, and with that will come profits, tax receipts, jobs and PAYE tax receipts. That is what economic leadership looks like. Of course, we have the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which Minister Hunt and I are continuing to roll out. We have infrastructure—$50 billion Australia wide. In my electorate, there is WestConnex, where the member for Grayndler, through the election campaign, so wilfully and recklessly flew off the cuff and threatened the future existence of that project, which is vital.
In conclusion, we have real problems. We do. You can either play politics with them or fix them. The member for McMahon comes into this place and in front of cameras every day and plays politics. He is all politics. On that side of the House they are all politics. On this side it is about policy, delivery and economic leadership.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:37): It is very difficult to work out whether the member for Reid is arguing our case or theirs. He says they have real problems. Yes, they do; they really do. He says they have a problem with the AAA credit rating. Yes, they do. He says they have a problem with debt and deficit. Yes, they do, because they have added to both. Now he is claiming that on the Prime Minister's self-described greatest achievement, that ironclad commitment to change superannuation, somehow today's changes are not a humiliating backdown.
We all know what is going on. The Prime Minister has been rolled. The Treasurer has been rolled. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services has been rolled. They have all been rolled by the backbench up here, complaining about the fact that high-income earners might actually have to pay a bit of extra super. The great irony of this one as well is that the minister for revenue's great achievement today was the low-income superannuation contribution. Seriously! What a great idea! I wish I had thought of that! I wish we had introduced that when we were in government! These people tried to get rid of it, and the fact that they could not get rid of it they are now claiming as a great victory: 'We couldn't get rid of it. What a great victory that is!'
Today we have another day, another capitulation, another stuff-up, another surrender—another policy that the Prime Minister said he was absolutely ironclad committed to, trashed by the conservative right wing of his own party. Yesterday the member for Chifley brought the Prime Minister a spine. I hope he kept the receipt. Once again we see this backbench calling the shots and this government like a chessboard, with the pawns up front and the king sitting up the back, unable to move.
Last week we heard a journalist with quite a sense of humour ask the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, to nominate his greatest achievement as Prime Minister. Unlike Peta Credlin and Jeff Kennett, the Prime Minister did have an answer. His answer was superannuation and the big business tax cuts, and today he has capitulated on both of them. What a shameful, shocking, embarrassing thing for this Prime Minister: to have a 10-year tax plan that did not last 10 weeks.
We know that the Prime Minister likes to get up. He is very confident in question time. He loves the sound of his own voice. He loves gesticulating with the glasses. He loves pointing at us with the glasses and marching up and down like Hamlet on the castle wall. But there is no substance to what this Prime Minister was saying today. This is a desperate effort to pretend that what has happened today is not that he was rolled by his own backbench.
The Prime Minister is trying to pretend that consultation is a good thing. Actually it is true: consultation is a great thing. When we develop policy on this side, we talk to our backbench. We talk to Labor Party members. We go out and talk to the industry. We talk to the industry groups. We make sure that when we make a budget announcement we can actually back in that budget announcement. I am not talking about 'out there' to people with vested interests or organisations that have a strong say. We can at least get our own budgets through our own backbench. This Prime Minister does not even have the strength to do that.
We think: is this unusual? No, because this Prime Minister has capitulated at every difficult decision. The right-wingers did not want action on climate change, even though we know the Prime Minister knows that climate change is happening and is a threat, so he has capitulated on that. Senator Bernardi wanted a plebiscite, so the Prime Minister has given him that. Senator Abetz and Kevin Andrews wanted public funding for the no campaign, so he wrote them a $7½ million dollar cheque. The member for Dawson wanted funding cut from Safe Schools; he got that. He wanted changes to superannuation; he got that. Every time the extremists ask the Prime Minister for something, he gives it to them, and every time he tells himself this is the last time. But every one of us knows that you do not win a fight with a bully by giving in to them, because they always come back for more.
This Prime Minister has gone from attack dog to lapdog. He sits. He begs. He rolls over: 'Yes, George. Of course, Tony. More funding, Cory.' You cannot run the country if you have to run your lines past your backbench, you cannot have a vision for the future if you spend your whole time looking over your shoulder, and you cannot lead Australia if your party leads you by the nose.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (15:42): What a lot of diatribe! We have just heard two speakers, the members for Sydney and McMahon, who have just let loose with a whole lot of criticism and negativity, and not once did we hear from either of those speakers any positive suggestions or counterargument. It was all just a diatribe of negativity and criticism. Aren't we used to that?
With great joy I say that 4½ minutes will not be enough time for me to go through some of the great economic leadership and some of the great economic things that we are doing as a government and have been doing for a while. I will just talk about a few. I will talk about the infrastructure spend; the free trade agreements that I have mentioned and the great, positive economic impact that they are having; and the importance of the tax cuts that we proposed in the last election. We understand on this side of politics—all being involved in business or having run businesses—the importance of that for growth in our economy and, importantly, job growth in our economy. There is the cutting of the red tape that we have done for the last three years and the importance of that, and there is budget repair, which we take very seriously because of the importance that it has.
Let's begin with infrastructure spend. As was previously mentioned by the member for Reid, we have proposed a $50 billion infrastructure spend. Just in my electorate, there is a very important spend that the federal government is committing close to $5 billion on, and that is the upgrade and duplication of the Pacific Highway. Not only is that creating 2,500 direct jobs but, with indirect jobs added to that, it is 6,000 to 7,000 jobs in my community while that upgrade between Woolgoolga and Ballina happens. That is obviously great in the construction phase with the jobs that it brings. It is great postconstruction with the increased efficiency that is brings with both tourism and moving things around. Most importantly, the reason you spend that money, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, is the decrease in fatalities, which is already happening because of that.
The free trade agreements have been mentioned, and we have done many—obviously, with China, South Korea and Japan. What does that mean? That means in my community that Norco, dairy producers, are now putting fresh milk into China. That offers them a great new market for their product. The meatworks in Casino export 70 per cent of what they produce. Seventy per cent of what they process is exported. These free trade agreements are a bonanza for them. There are other, more niche, markets, like our macadamia industry. Page is the home of the macadamia industry in this country, and the free trade agreements we have done are increasing the farm gate price for our macadamia farmers. I could go on. There are blueberries. The other day I went to the opening of a blueberry packing shed in Tabulam which in its peak season is going to employ close to 800 people. Again, this is all being encouraged by the protocols we are doing, getting access to new markets.
Tax cuts! The other side of politics do not get the importance of tax cuts. Tax cuts are important when you run a business and are employing people. And taxes are competitive. We live in a global economy. If we want to go back to a high-taxing economy, taxing our small businesses and taxing our corporations, we will see them leave the country. They will be able to do that. We will be giving tax cuts to our small businesses because we understand that we live in a competitive world. I would like to tell the opposition about quite a well-known case in Ireland. When they had a company tax rate of 60 per cent, do you know what they did? They lowered it to close to 10 per cent and were collecting more tax after three years at 10 than they were at 60. There was more tax at 10 per cent than there was at 60 per cent because corporations went there, flourished and grew. That is why tax cuts are important. But I do not expect those opposite to ever understand that, because they just do not get it.
Red tape is important. We have taken billions of dollars out of the red tape and regulation that has been done over the last few years.
What has all this meant? It has meant some very good figures that I know the member for Reid mentioned earlier. At the moment our economy is growing at over three per cent. Just last week the Prime Minister was overseas and he was the envy of the leaders of other countries because our economy is growing a lot faster than theirs. Over 180,000 jobs have been created just in the last 12 months, again because of the pro-business and pro-growth policies we have. Consumer confidence is up because the consumer knows that we are about fixing our economy.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:47): I have been struggling to understand what has gone wrong for the Prime Minister in the past year after his promise of new economic leadership. There seemed to be hope, there seemed to be excitement, there seemed to be a sense of change, and then there was nothing. Then I realised that was it—with the Prime Minister it was always perception, not reality.
I do feel for him in this, his birthday week. I was one of those shy young children who did not like birthday parties. I did not like the attention and I did not like the noise. Clearly, I have changed, but back then I usually ended up in tears, and I suspect that is a little bit how those on the other side are feeling. They do not look very happy. They certainly do not look like they are having fun. There is a brave smile here and there. The birthday presents were not quite what they expected. It really has turned more into, 'It's my party and I'll cry if I want to,' than, 'for he's a jolly good fellow'.
What are those disappointments? For the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the other side there are many, like the planned GST increase. The Prime Minister says: 'Here's what I'd really like: an increase in GST. That's all I really want. Just give me that present.' It took less than a couple of days before his friends said, 'Sorry, Prime Minister; we don't want to give you that present.' So he just shrugs his shoulders and says: 'Oh well, so far, so good. Maybe next time. Maybe I'll ask for something else.' Then he and the Treasurer say: 'Please could we have some reform of negative gearing? We both really want it. We really, really want it.' But again their friends say, 'Nope, sorry; that's not what we're going to get you.' Some friends they are on that side! It does not sound like the Prime Minister is the leader of his gang at all. It sounds like he just gets to tag along with them when it suits them. They seem to be bigger and tougher and have more influence than he does.
Now the same thing is happening with the plebiscite on marriage equality. That is the one present he probably does not want, and that is the only one they want to give him.
Mr Hogan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Page is out of his seat!
Ms TEMPLEMAN: He has had to roll over on so many of the things that he argued for in the election campaign, like a $500,000 lifetime cap on super that they could never admit was retrospective. Let's make it easier for next time, shall we? Anything that has the year 2007 in it is retrospective. To think about dropping the big business tax cuts by splitting a policy in two must be a hard one for them to swallow. It was their centrepiece. It was their plan to produce jobs and growth at home, although we knew that 40 per cent of it was going to end up overseas.
What is more, both of these things were cited by the Prime Minister as his greatest achievements since becoming Prime Minister. In my electorate of Macquarie, we have a bit of a thing about greatest achievements. It seems members on the other side have a bit of trouble coming to grips with what a greatest achievement is. For a start, you have to be able to think of something when you are asked what your greatest achievement is. That has proven to be a challenge for some. I have another piece of advice for the Prime Minister. I know it is rather impertinent of me, having only been in this chamber for a nanosecond, but I hope he will see it as coming from a fresh set of eyes. If you do think of something that is your greatest achievement, make sure you have actually done it.
When you talk about economic leadership, you only need to look at our side—and not only at the member for Lilley, who is sitting next to me—on negative gearing. We led a debate on a policy that would change the future for a generation of young people—the ones whose parents cannot afford to buy them a home. It would give them a fairer playing field so that their future would be different and they could afford to have their own home much more easily. Now, that is economic leadership.
There has been a bit of a gap for me in being in this chamber—from being up there in the gallery to down here. But when I was here, about 30 years ago, I watched another real economic leader on our side: Paul Keating. Whether it was the J-curve, tariffs, fringe benefits tax, CPI, parity or current account deficits, he did not talk down to people, like the other side does. He talked with people about these issues. The failure of economic leadership from the government is that a real leader opens people's minds and then leads them. Clearly, this Prime Minister has no ability to do that. (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:52): It is great to be able to talk on this MPI today. I had to laugh when listening to the members for McMahon, Sydney and Macquarie—three Labor members and all they could produce today was negative. It was nothing but negativity!
The member for Macquarie, who has been here for five minutes, said, 'Negative gearing—we want it,' and, 'Their policy would see a change for a generation of young people.' Of course it will see a change for a generation of young people. People in parts of my electorate, where they are doing is tough and where they are paying rent—what will happen to them if you get rid of negative gearing? People will gear positively, and when they gear positively rents will go up. What will that mean for people on welfare and for people on pensions in my electorate and for surrounding electorates? So we do not need a lesson or negative gearing.
The member for McMahon and the member for Sydney talked about superannuation and tax cuts. I will come back to that in a minute, but let's just remember that when Labor left office in 2013 they left Australians with a gross debt of $317 billion and $240 billion in accumulated deficits. And when they voted for that—those on the other side who voted for that—there was no thought for the future. There was no thought of, 'Well, how are we going to repay this later on?'
When you look back to 1996, when the Howard government came in with a $96 billion debt they had to sell Telstra to pay it. They had a growing economy with the mining boom and everything else—surpluses every year. And then these guys racked up so much debt so quickly. There is nothing left to sell—how are they going to repay the debt? How are they going to make sure that future generations—my children and other children—are left without that?
We had a clear economic plan—a national economic plan. In fact, we were the only party that went to the election with a clear national economic plan for stability, jobs and growth. In this week alone, we have seen billions of dollars in savings measures created. The member for Page spoke before about the trade agreements—how the trade agreements have been helping farmers in his electorate, and how they have been able to export more produce. In my electorate of Petrie, local companies like Job Fish have been able to export more spanner crabs. It is a flow-on effect. We know that exports are up.
We have also seen as part of our national economic plan our advanced defence manufacturing plan. We have seen a plan for manufacturing around shipbuilding. Now, for the new members opposite—they may not know, but perhaps the people in the gallery know? Do you know how many ships Labor ordered in their six years of government? How many defence ships they ordered? Member for Corangamite—how many did they order?
Ms Henderson: Zero!
Mr HOWARTH: Zero! Zero ships when the member for McMahon was Treasurer, and the member for Lilley. We have ordered—what is it?—42 or 46? I cannot keep track, it keeps going up so fast. What it means is that a generation of people will have jobs in South Australia for years to come and beyond.
Of course, we also have a clear plan in relation to company tax and what the benefit of cutting company tax will do for jobs. We know that small businesses under $2 million have about 10 people employed. When you up it to $25 million you might get 30 people employed, and up to $50 million maybe 140 people are employed. And all we hear from those opposite, from the member for Rankin and others who have been interjecting today, is that offshore investors will benefit from tax cuts and that the banks will benefit from tax cuts.
Well, when does that kick in? A decade from now? Ten years from now? In the next three years the tax cuts will be delivered: for businesses up to $10 million this year, up to $25 million next year and up to $50 million after that. This will help jobs—it will help jobs in those areas in particular.
A real estate business in my electorate—Bowmaker Realty—employs 24 local people. If there is a bit of a benefit there and they can increase their workforce by 10 per cent, then that is 2.4 jobs. If companies like East Coast Bullbars in my electorate, which employs 140 people, can employ 10 per cent extra then there are 14 jobs.
Maybe the member for McMahon should talk to people on his own back bench who have run businesses before. I understand the member for Longman has run her own small business before. Maybe the member for McMahon should go talk to her before he ridicules company tax cuts and only talks about large businesses, because small businesses will benefit.
In relation to multinational tax avoidance: will cutting company tax to 25 per cent from 30 per cent help that? It probably will. But they were not serious about it, because they did not vote for our measures either. Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, has a tax rate of 25 per cent. Singapore has 17 per cent, Ireland has 12½ per cent, Poland has 19 per cent and Montenegro has—what is it?—nine per cent over there. (Time expired)
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (15:58): I speak today on a matter of critical public importance in my electorate, and that is the government's complete failure of economic leadership.
The Prime Minister promotes himself as an economic lion, but in fact he is a pussycat. He has had more backflips than a Russian or Romanian gymnast. I think that today's policy is very likely to change tomorrow. Australia, as he is constantly telling us, should not be leaving a great burden of debt to our future citizens—our children and, in my case, grandchildren. But in fact we are at risk of turning our children into a group of serfs: unable to afford a house, with part-time jobs and with very poor education.
To me, what we need to be doing is concentrating on the principle that economic growth is important only if it is important for our people, not for our corporations. Giving billions of dollars of tax cuts to multinational corporations is not the way to help our children.
Australia has recently celebrated 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth, and many people have much to show for it—but not all. After those 25 years we do not even have an official rate of unemployment that is acceptable, and unofficial unemployment is much higher than we are being told. Certainly in my electorate many young people who I have cared for and who I see cannot get a job. They were at risk from this government of having even their very minimal allowances cut back.
What is truly scary is that, monthly variations in unemployment aside, we have unacceptable unemployment. If there is another major international economic problem, we are at risk of falling off a cliff. We may be also, for the first time, living in an era where the destruction of jobs through technological change is happening faster than we can provide jobs. If that is the case, we need to be very careful that in seeking to address one problem—the budget deficit—we do not totally ignore other issues such as access to employment, housing and health care.
I saw a lady during the election campaign who had terrible heart failure. She could hardly walk into the polling booth. She told me she could not afford to see her cardiologist because of the gap cost. That, in Australia in the 21st century, is a great shame. The great tragedy with this government is that there is no clear or consistent direction. The country has no confidence in this government to provide a continuing rational program of providing services. All they talk about is this mantra of jobs and growth. The growth might be in corporate profits but it is not in services to our people.
This is a government that cannot see the basic economic truth that spending $50 billion on poorly targeted and ill-considered tax cuts to corporations will not make a difference to our people. How can you have faith in this government? I had a small business for over 30 years. I know that tax cuts may very well end up in my pocket, but that would not make me employ more people. Housing affordability, specialist care for medical problems and infrastructure—we are going to build a second Sydney airport, yet I heard this week it is very likely to open without a rail link—are very important to the people in my electorate. Economics is about people; it is not about budget deficits or corporate tax cuts, it is about people. Our TAFE system is being emasculated to the point where many children I see cannot get proper training in the jobs we need. According to this government, we are not going to fully fund the Gonski reforms, and that will mean our educational outcomes will fall further behind international standards. Youth unemployment is terrible. Most of the new jobs being created are only part time. And the superannuation changes from this government seem to vary every day. (Time expired)
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:03): This is not a birthday party, this is not a game; this is our national parliament. All of us here, no matter which side of the House we sit on, have a responsibility to govern in the national interest and in the interest of all Australians. I say to those opposite—and I reflect upon the decisions the Australian people made in 2013 and 2016: we were voted in by the Australian people because Australians do not trust Labor to manage their money. We saw a disastrous six years of Labor. After we left the national books in really good shape, in 2007 our economy was trashed. When we tried to do a whole range of responsible things, including passing measures worth some $5 billion proposed by the previous government led by the likes of the member for McMahon, members opposite turned their collective backs on those savings. Can you imagine how much more difficult our job became when members opposite did not even have the courage to back their own savings? I do reflect positively on the decision members opposite have made this week to back our omnibus bill, which has delivered savings of $6.3 billion, but we have got a lot more hard work to do. And the reason for that is the irresponsible approach members opposite took not just in the six years in which they governed this country but in the last three years. So I say: stop playing these games. Australians are sick of these parlour games, all of these ridiculous analogies. Under the previous Labor government we saw four so-called record surpluses—which were never delivered—record debt, record deficits and even their refusal to pass their own particular savings.
We are very proud of our economic plan. We were the only side of politics to go to the Australian people with a strong economic plan—an enterprise tax plan to drive small and medium Australian businesses and lower the company tax rate. I am absolutely staggered by the contribution by the member for Macarthur, who has absolutely condemned company tax cuts. The Leader of the Opposition previously supported tax cuts. Members opposite do not know whether they are coming or going—and that is a perfect illustration. One minute, the Leader of the Opposition supports tax cuts—because he recognises they will delivers jobs and drive incentives and business confidence—and now you are condemning business tax cuts. What an absolute joke!
We have addressed bracket creep and rewarded hard work by raising the middle income tax threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. We have delivered the defence industry plan. As the member for Corangamite, I am working very hard to attract a big slice of that work—particularly with the LAND 400 project, which is worth $3 billion to $5 billion, a very important once-in-a-generation project for our country. We saw the absolute slothfulness from members opposite in not progressing any defence industry plan when they were in government. We have a very important innovation and science agenda—$1.1 billion of investment. There is $50 billion for national infrastructure.
We are also ensuring that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. And what an absolute disgrace. When we tackled multinational tax avoidance, we needed the support of the Greens in the Senate to pass the legislation because, regrettably, Labor opposed that very important measure.
So let's contrast. Today, of course, we have had some very good news with employment, which shows that our management of the economy is working—a 5.6 per cent national unemployment rate, and it is even lower in the Geelong region at 5.4 per cent. So we are driving jobs like there is no tomorrow. Our growth is strong—3.3 per cent. New jobs are being created. Over 180,000 jobs over the last year. Business confidence remains high and consumer confidence is high. Exports are strong. International education is playing its large part, and small business is playing its large part. I say to members opposite: please, for all of us, stop playing these games. It is absolutely irresponsible. Australians expect better of you. Join with us to make sure we can continue to run the economy responsibly.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:08): Before I call the member for Melbourne, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the students from Orana Heights Public School in Dubbo in my electorate.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Turnbull Government
Debate resumed on the matter:
The Government's failure of economic leadership.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:08): I thank the opposition for the opportunity for a crossbench spot to contribute on this very important debate on the government's complete failure to have a plan. It is either a failure to have a plan that is going to sustain Australia in to the 21st century or they do have a plan—that is, to deliver only for the top end of town and the rest of the Australian population can fall behind.
We are increasingly running out of money to fund the services that Australians rightly expect. In Australia, we should be able to—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Mr BANDT: No, you can send your kids to a good public school and get a world-class education.
We should be able to know that if we get sick or someone in our family gets sick, there is a public health-care system that will look after us. We should be able to know that the government are going to invest in productive infrastructure that will set Australia up for the 21st century—things like renewable energy and building more public transport.
We should be able to know that if you lose your job or you fall on hard times, there is a safety net that will hold you until you get your next job. We should be able to know that when governments boast about rising employment figures that they are actually meaningful jobs, that they are not just part-time or casualised jobs when actually what we are after is a full-time or a secure job.
If we do not have an economic plan, we will keep seeing governments like this one decide that the only way to balance the budget is to make average Australians pay more to go and see the doctor. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that there is not enough money for public schools and whatever promises they make prior to the election they are going to defer off to the never-never. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that the only way to balance the budget is to rip half a billion dollars out of renewable energy or take money off students start-up scholarships, or take money out of aged care, or take money out of the research and development tax concessions—measures that will drive and grow the industries that will succeed in this country in the 21st century and set ourselves up for what counts as real growth. Sadly, that is what this government have done, and sadly they have done it this week with the support of the opposition.
Why are we finding ourselves in this situation where there is so much pressure on the budget and we are finding it more and more difficult to fund the services that every Australian rightly expects? In large part, it is because this government continues to give unfair tax breaks to those who, frankly, do not need it. At a time when everyone else is being asked to tighten their belts, this government is quite happy to hand out billions and billions of dollars to those in the top one per cent who really do not need it.
When everyone else in this country goes and puts petrol in their car to fill it up, they are paying 39c a litre in tax. When the likes of Gina Rinehart put diesel in their trucks at a mining site, they get that tax back. Wouldn't every Australian love to be able to get that tax back? Well, no, they are not Gina Rinehart, who has the ear of this government. That costs us a few billion dollars each year.
We also know that the big banks are enjoying world-leading, record profits and the IMF has told us that the big banks get the equivalent of several billion dollars each year in subsidies. Does the government go to them and say, 'Perhaps you could chip in a bit more so we don't have to ask everyday Australians to pay to go and see the doctor?' No. They say: 'We'll keep giving handouts to the big banks. We'll keep giving the handouts to Gina Rinehart.' Then we wonder why there are these pressures on the budget.
A real economic plan requires courage. It requires standing up to those who have significant power in this country. It requires standing up on behalf of the Australian community to the big banks, to the likes of Gina Rinehart and saying: 'Maybe you could afford to pay a bit more. Maybe you don't deserve quite as generous a tax break as you are getting at the moment.' If we had the guts and the courage to stand up for those powerful vested interests and say, 'We're going to wind back some of the tax breaks that you get because there are pressures on the budget,' that would count as a real economic plan.
The government loves to come in here and tell us about the threats to the AAA credit rating. But they do not tell us that the rating agencies are saying there is also a problem on the revenue side. This government have a problem on the revenue side. What is the best way to fix a problem on the revenue side? It is not to come after students, as the government have done this week. It is not to come after the aged-care system. It is to say to those who are already doing very well, thank you very much, 'Perhaps we don't have the capacity to pay you the unfair tax breaks that we used to.' That would be a real economic plan.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:13): To be honest, I am a bit surprised the member for McMahon has put this motion forward given the economic mismanagement this country endured during his party's six long years of government. I can remember coming back into this place in 2007 and being on the other side of the chamber. I see the member for Moreton is here. You did not get thrown out today which is amazing. But as I said in a speech recently, and you agreed, 'You have been nobbled now because you are a whip.' Congratulations on your elevation.
When we came back to the parliament in 2007, just to remind the new members on the other side, we had GroceryWatch, we had Fuelwatch, we had pink batts and we had the mining tax and the carbon tax—all economic disasters and all visited upon the Australian economy by the Labor Party, who were on this side of the chamber at the time.
I need to remind the chamber that only three months ago during the election campaign, Labor also proposed adding $16 billion to the deficit. What sort of economic plan is that? What a great plan—adding $16 billion to the deficit; a massive budget black hole! They also put forward $100 billion in higher taxes and tried to con Australians by calling them saves. How do you call a tax a save?
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr IRONS: I see the member for Fenner here, who used to be the member for Fraser.
Dr Leigh: Very impressive!
Mr IRONS: You were; and most of the time you were referring to yourself when you used the word 'impressive'.
Dr Leigh: Do you know who the seat's named after?
Mr IRONS: I am talking about the economy. I am not talking about you and your seat.
I guess Labor has always had a short memory when it comes to the drastic economic leadership failures. We heard the member for Sydney referring earlier to being rolled. I saw a couple of Prime Ministers being rolled by that side. The member for Sydney has a short memory.
We have maintained our commitment to budget repair and demonstrated economic leadership. Should Labor decide to base an argument on fact, if they ever do, rather than the untruths that they have continued to spout since the election campaign for the purpose of misleading the Australian people—just like they did with 'Mediscare'—I will remind those on the other side that in the past year alone almost 220,000 jobs have been created. Our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan will give 870,000 incorporated small businesses in Australia a tax cut this year, allowing them the ability to create more jobs.
Not only have we done this; we have also been forced to once again clean up Labor's economic mess. Our abolition of Labor's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has allowed 35,000 owner-drivers to stay on the road. The road transport sector employs around 200,000 drivers and contributes $51 billion to the national economy. The RSRT had the potential to be immensely destructive to the economy and financially devastating for everyday Australians. As someone who has a transport hub in their electorate, as I do with Welshpool in Western Australia, which is full of trucking companies, I can say that you would not believe the applause they gave to the coalition government for stopping the RSRT. They thought it was so good that we had gone out and saved their jobs. The RSRT was simply another economic disaster from that side of the chamber that was bad for small business, bad for truck owner-drivers, bad for thousands of Australian families and bad for our nation's economy, but when has public interest, the economy or the livelihoods of everyday Australians ever got in the way of Labor's deals with unions?
In addition to this, our government has secured support for over $6 billion in budget savings through the amended Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, which has provided immediate and tangible progress towards restoring our budget. We will arrest our debt and, in doing so, continue to strengthen our economy and our living standards and create opportunities for our future generations.
This government has set out a clear plan for our economy, providing the economic leadership Australia needs. The Australian economy is growing at 3.3 per cent. Our economic growth is faster than that of any of the other G7 economies. Our exports of goods and services from Australia are 9.6 per cent higher than a year ago. Consumer confidence remains above the long-run average, where it has now been for 20 consecutive weeks—the longest stretch since late 2013.
In the great state of Western Australia, iron ore exports from Port Hedland reached a record 42.9 million tonnes for the month of August. Need I remind the other side about the disastrous, anti-Western-Australian mining tax imposed by those on that side, which was no sign of economic leadership. The coalition will continue to provide economic leadership for the Australian economy, for the Australian people in this term of parliament and into the future as well.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time for the debate has expired.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (16:18): On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That:
(1) the House invite His Excellency Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, to attend and address the House on Wednesday, 12 October 2016, at 10.45am;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 12 October:
(a) the proceedings at 10.45am shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore;
(b) at the conclusion of His Excellency's address the House shall suspend until 1.30pm; and
(c) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker or by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES TRUST
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (16:19): by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, Mr Entsch be appointed a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Auditor Registration) 2016
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:20): I go on the record in this, my address-in-reply and congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, on your elevation. I have had nothing but good dealings with you over the years. I somehow wish the elevation had been a little higher but I do congratulate you.
I sincerely thank the people of Moreton for re-electing me as the member for Moreton. Moreton is obviously the best place in Australia to live! The eight-week election campaign was long and arduous, and I am privileged and humbled to have been re-elected as your representative. I thank the people of Moreton for their support and trust shown in the recent election, which they have shown for the fourth time. The people of Moreton are a straight-talking lot who can see through spin, and thankfully they also saw through a very dirty, grubby smear campaign.
The issues my constituents care about are many and varied, but the one thing that unites us all is fairness. Fairness means families being able to access education and health; fairness in the workplace, be it equality of opportunity or safe conditions of employment; and fairness for the disadvantaged, the vulnerable and the voiceless.
Moreton has been a marginal seat for over 30 years and it remains a marginal seat, although I am pleased to say the margin is a little larger after the recent election. I would like first to thank some of my hardworking Moreton campaign team: firstly and most importantly my magnificent campaign director, Julieanne Campbell, and then the meticulous Lewis Lee, Trent McTiernan, Anna Carey, Scarlett Squire, Annie Sun, John Prescott, Graeme La Macchia, Damir Ahmetovic, Ken Boyne, Edwina Crowther, Frank Carroll, Robert Horn, Helen Bray, Richard Huang and Annamarie Newton to name just a few of the many, many campaign workers who turned out to help either on election day or for weeks and months—in fact, years—before. I especially appreciate them giving up their valuable family and private time to speak to the people of Moreton on the telephone, when doorknocking and at community events. They made a positive contribution to the campaign, and I have received wonderful feedback from so many people they spoke to about the conversations that they had. I would also like to thank my union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, for the support they showed throughout the campaign.
Post campaign, I am excited that my work as the member for Moreton is well and truly underway. I have been out in the community listening to the concerns of people, recently in Annerley and Tarragindi, and supporting my constituents in any way they need.
The Liberal-National Party candidate for Moreton made some election promises during the campaign. The candidate promised that on the re-election of a coalition government, which has occurred, the LNP would provide $10 million for a new 'home of netball' for Netball Queensland in the electorate of Moreton and $30,000 to the Sunnybank RSL Subbranch for the installation of an Indian heritage memorial. The memorial is an initiative of mine, and I am looking forward to working with Indian community leaders on this project. I am sure that the Prime Minister will come up with that money sooner rather than later. I wrote to Prime Minister Turnbull on 3 August asking for a time frame in which these election commitments would be honoured. I have not received a response as yet, but I am sure that the cheque will be in the mail. On behalf of the people of Moreton, I will continue to press Mr Turnbull to honour these election promises made by the Liberal-National Party.
In that letter to Prime Minister Turnbull I also sought a response to my previous request, sent to Prime Minister Abbott after the 2013 election. In the 2013 election campaign, the Liberal National Party candidate promised that a coalition government would stage a Moreton jobs summit within 100 days of being elected. No such jobs summit has ever eventuated. I have again asked the Prime Minister to honour the Liberal-National Party's 2013 election promise to hold a Moreton jobs summit as promised by the candidate in public.
Sadly, after three years of a coalition government, a Moreton jobs summit is much more important. The current unemployment rate in Queensland is 6.1 per cent, higher than the national figure of 5.7 per cent, on the figures that came out today. The average national unemployment rate under the former Labor government was 5.1 per cent despite the global financial crisis, which started with the collapse of Lehman Brothers eight years ago today. The Labor Party was able to steer the country through those horrible headwinds. The average national unemployment rate since the Abbott-Turnbull government took office is six per cent. There are around 40,000 more unemployed Australians since the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected. There are currently more than 700,000 unemployed Australians. Those figures are only part of the story. Since December 2015 there have been around 64,500 full-time job losses. The Abbott-Turnbull government announced the very modest target of creating one million jobs over five years. In order to honour that promise to the people of Australia, the Abbott-Turnbull government should have created nearly 600,000 jobs to date. They are well behind their own very modest goal. Instead of the rhetoric and the slogans, instead of the empty promises, Mr Turnbull first needs to honour the coalition's promises that are outstanding to the people of Moreton.
I understand that Prime Minister Turnbull has his work cut out at the moment just trying to keep his government together. I think I would rather muster cats than try to get the member for Warringah, Senator Abetz, Senator Bernardi—
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: The member for Dawson comes in on cue! I would rather try and muster cats than try to get them all together. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is out front as the leader. He needs to show leadership both to his government, his party room, and to the Australian people by delivering on what he has promised. We saw last time we were here on a Thursday afternoon that he could not even keep them in the building—something that has not occurred since the early 1960s. It was unbelievable.
I would also hope that Prime Minister Turnbull can show some mettle and control much the same motley crew that I just mentioned, many of whom are calling for changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This is an issue that is important to Moreton's multicultural community. Section 18C prevents hate speech and racist abuse. It is really just enshrining good manners. That is all it is doing, enshrining good manners. It has been in place for 20 years. Why do these members of the Liberal and National parties want to change it?
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: What does the member for Dawson want to say that he cannot say now? What does the member for Dawson want to say that he cannot say under parliamentary privilege? How much do you want to offend somebody and who do you want to offend? That is what I ask the member for Dawson, through you, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, there are many voices at the moment shouting out intolerance and getting an abundance of media attention. Sadly, some of those voices in the Senate recently have been from Queensland. These voices are drowning out the voices we need, voices of tolerance and cohesion recognising the modern Australia, not some skewed view of Australia that is set in 1952. We need to have a modern Australia that reaches out to Asia and recognises the fact that we are not a country where people come only from the United Kingdom.
Community members in my electorate are so concerned that they are meeting to discuss how to respond to the rise of intolerance in Australia. The rise of these voices in parliament, the people's parliament, is shocking and terrifying and will have implications in the schoolyards and the homes of Moreton.
I noted that there are 20 Liberal and National government backbenchers calling for changes to section 18C and who are prepared to sign off on that. It is yet another test of the Prime Minister's authority within his own party room, where again he failed. The Prime Minister needs to step up and lead, not only in his government but also the country. He needs to be a leader and show how we can have a tolerant and cohesive society. He does that not by saying simply that amendments to section 18C are 'not a priority of our government'. He needs to do more than that. He needs to draw the line on intolerance in his own, misnamed, party.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:30): Order! It being 4.30pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Cunningham Electorate
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:30): I want to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate today to boast a bit about my own electorate. I know that colleagues throughout this place often take the opportunity to talk about fantastic groups and organisations in their electorates. I have to say that I am not biased: I think my local community is a particularly strong one for reaching out and providing support and encouragement to people across our community. There were some great examples of that in the last week while I was in the electorate.
I want to start with last Tuesday evening, when I attended a graduation at the Wollongong TAFE. This was a group of students who come from Flagstaff disability enterprises. This is a great local disability employment provider that is very well regarded and does fantastic work in the community. The member for Whitlam and I very often visit there. It is easy to identify a good workplace; you just walk around and talk to the workers there. This is a great example where they are engaged, feeling very positive and proud of their work. Flagstaff has initiated a program of not just employing and training their staff directly on the job but also helping them to get formal qualifications. Many workers there were graduating from certificate II level qualifications in both food processing and waste management. I particularly want to acknowledge two of those students who won Pride of Workmanship awards: Jordan Bowater, who won the Pride of Workmanship award for the Certificate II in Waste Services, and Elicia Holland, who won the Pride of Workmanship award for the Certificate II in Food Processing. It was a really great occasion, to celebrate with all those students on their graduation.
A couple of days later, on Thursday, I was able to attend Flagstaff's workplace. This time, in partnership with the Illawarra Retirement Trust College, they were starting a new program to provide pathways into the aged care sector for people with disabilities. As we know, the aged care sector is one where there are increasing employment opportunities, and to find an effective pathway to get the qualifications for people with disabilities so they have access and opportunity in that sector is a tremendous initiative. That was launched on Thursday and will be delivered by the IRT College. Participants will be getting qualifications that allow them the opportunity to apply for jobs in that sector. I want to acknowledge The Illawarra Mercury's great local story on two of those participants. Broadie Faraday, who is 22 and has worked at Flagstaff for five years, said:
I've worked in packaging, production and waste recycling and have been able to achieve things I never thought possible. I've built my skills and confidence and I've met lots of new friends. Now I can't wait to try something new.
Zoe Davis, who is 27 and has worked at Flagstaff for two years, said:
I'm looking forward to working in aged care—to meeting older people and hearing their stories, to helping them when they need it and doing activities with them.
I commend Flagstaff CEO Roy Rogers and his team, and IRT and Nieves Murray and her team, for this great initiative.
I also had the opportunity on Wednesday to attend a really important forum on dementia, organised by Alzheimer's Australia. Importantly, it made the point for people with dementia that they were not alone. I want to acknowledge the great work of local campaigners Val Fell and Tom Ward on the issue of dementia. I have spoken to them regularly about improving support for dementia sufferers in our local area, and it was great to catch up with Tom at that.
Finally, on Friday the Illawarra Business Chamber had a Mental Health in the Workplace Corporate Luncheon. Former New South Wales opposition leader John Brogden gave a fantastic address at that by talking about how we should support each other as people deal with mental illness issues in the workplace. It was a really great fundraising event organised by the Illawarra Business Chamber. Janine Cullen, who was the MC, did a great job. So our area, once again, all supporting each other— (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:35): There are times in a nation's history when opportunity is heightened. For Australia one of those times is right now. Our current financial environment is ideal for exploring large-scale construction and the opportunities it can create for building our country's future. As a result of free trade agreements and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, agricultural food products are in demand in the Asia-Pacific region. Our competitive advantage is driven by our counterseasonal horticultural products, protein products—red meat and dairy—and mechanised starch products such as cereals.
This potential advantage provides us with an opportunity, but that opportunity only happens if we can actually get those products to the marketplace in a safe and efficient manner. The current annual expenditure in the federal budget is about $434 billion. One-third of that, $154 billion, is spent on social services. Whilst I believe in providing a welfare safety net for vulnerable Australians, I also feel that mutual obligation requirements whereby people give back to society are imperative to the integrity of the system as a whole. This is why I am a strong supporter of programs that get people job ready and transition them from being welfare recipients to being jobseekers.
Of the $434 billion in annual expenditure, only $6 billion is spent on roads and roughly $1 billion is spent on rail. Is it any wonder that roads continue to be an election issue? Given that there is surplus capacity in the labour market in construction as a result of the mining industry moving from the construction stage to the extraction phase, the ability to draw good value from investment in public assets is high. Additionally, the federal government can access long-term finance now at less than two per cent interest, ensuring that investments will return viable yields. Now is exactly the time for the federal government to further expand their building program on key infrastructure, using government bonds to capture the opportunities presented by our new and expanding markets.
With the federal government taking a build-and-ownership model in key infrastructure and receiving dividends from some fuel tax that is already levied it gives us a chance to substantially increase our expenditure from $7 billion annually to the tune of $30 billion annually. Driving infrastructure investment would also result in additional revenue moving state government treasuries forward by giving them greater opportunity to have payroll tax and stamp duty, which thereby would help the state governments deliver health and education services.
I am a strong believer that we also need to look at how we spend our road money and our infrastructure money more efficiently. We learnt some lessons from the recent public administration of some funds in my patch with the development of the Sunraysia Modernisation Project. There was $103 million of federal money partnered with $17 million of money from irrigators. The way we structured this is a lesson on how we should spend public funds. The organisation tasked with delivering this project sat outside in an individual unit. We then had the management, who were significant businesspeople, looking over and questioning everything they spent. When they called for tenders they looked at whether the scope of works could be expanded. We have now been successful in building what we thought was going to be a $160 million project for the cost of $120 million. We have been successful in actually putting in substantial pipework. Water that was on urban channels is now being delivered through irrigation pipes.
My belief is that we could expand this model in the way we administer our public funding for roads and the way we administer our public funding for rail. We could set up specific units to administer those funds and oversee the tenders and have external businesspeople looking over the top and questioning the delivery of those funds. The opportunities we have before us, which are largely as a result of trade minister Andrew Robb's work on the free trade agreements, can only turn into revenue and lift the standard of living of Australians if we build the infrastructure that can take the products we produce from where they are produced to the marketplace. Now is the time to increase capital works on our roads and rails substantially, to the tune of $30 billion annually. I think this would be seen as visionary by the Australian people.
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:40): Today I rise to acknowledge 67 women who are no longer with us—67 women who died a tragic and violent death, victims of an epidemic of violence against women in Australia. As I did in the last term of parliament, I want to honour and commemorate the lives of these women killed by acts of violence. I do so as a reminder to us all that these women are not just statistics; they are grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, neighbours and colleagues. They are real people with hopes, dreams, friends and family. They loved and were loved. Their deaths are tragic and they diminish us all. I want to acknowledge at the outset the work of the Counting Dead Women Australia researchers of Destroy the Joint, who undertake the heartbreaking task of updating this list of indescribable tragedy.
Today I want to honour the lives of Johann Morgan, aged 41; Simone Quinlan, aged 33; Jody Meyers, aged 20; Linda Addams, aged 67; Karina Lock, aged 49; Kirralee Paepaerei, aged 37; Corinne Henderson, aged 32; Penny Bailey, aged 59; Gail Parnell, aged 73; Marnie Lee Cave, aged 26; Simone Mottram, aged 51; Rachel Michael, aged 38; Maureen Boyce, aged 68; Danielle Miller, aged 44; Melinda Horner, aged 36; and four other unnamed women.
Sadly, a new year did not mean an end to this senseless violence. This year another 48 women have lost their lives through acts of violence—many in their own homes and many at the hands of those well known to them. They are: Valeria Fermendjin, aged 70; Karen Chetcuti, aged 49; Samantha Kelly, aged 39; Iulian Triscaru, aged 31; Sharon Micheluti, aged 48; Prasad Somawansa, aged 48; Nelda Edwards, aged 88; Jody Websdale, aged 42; Jackie Deng, aged 20; Manjinder Ghuman, aged 43; Sukhwinder Ghuman, aged 66; Olivia Tung, aged 41; May Ritchie, aged 81; Gayle Woodford, aged 56; Sandra Peniamina, aged 29; Michelle Reynolds, aged 46; Miming Listiyani, aged 27; Rosemary Gibson, aged 62; Rachel Tyquin, aged 44; Melanie Floyd, aged 28; Tina Kontozis, aged 51; Michelle Leng, aged 25; Violet Tamvakis, aged 75; Karen Belej, aged 31; Yvette Rigney-Wilson, aged 29; Tamara Turner, aged 39; Zeniab Taleb, aged 27; Kylie Cay, aged 44; Annabelle Chen, aged 57; Voula Delios, aged 68; Elizabeth Kippin, aged 80; Peta Fairhead, aged 27; Rhonda Baker, aged 26; Sabrina Bremer, aged 34; Mia Ayliffe-Chung, aged 21; Tasmin Bahar, aged 35; Anne Rogers, aged 61; and 13 other unnamed women.
That this list continues to grow is a national shame. These women's lives must not be lost in vain. They had every right to be safe, to be loved and to have a future. So we must double-down in our efforts to address the cultural, social and systemic causes of this violence. We must do more to ensure access to safe housing for women and children fleeing violence; that legal support is adequate and accessible; and that adequate funding is available to community organisations that are doing the hard work on the ground. Ending violence against women and children must be a priority of all governments. (Time expired)
National Security
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:45): It is time that we as a country had a straightforward conversation about national security. I accept that some people will go into apoplexy the minute anyone mentions one of their trigger words but they must form part of the conversation that we have to have around national security. So I suggest that anyone shackled to rabid political correctness and those who permanently search for reasons to be outraged to look away or turn off right now.
I am concerned about the rise of Islamism in this country and those who are willing to commit violence in the name of that ideology. We should consider some tighter controls on borders, such as restricting immigration from countries where there is a high prevalence of violent extremism and radicalism. Many immigrants entering this country in recent years do not share our Australian values. Their views are widespread in the countries from which they come. We must ask: if they are diametrically opposed to the values that helped shape our nation and that underpin our society and our culture, why do they choose to come to Australia in the first place? There are other countries they would find less offensive—countries where they could enjoy a similar level of oppression and violence to which they are accustomed and which they obviously want. It is not necessary for them to travel halfway around the world to come to Australia and demand Australians change their culture, their society and their laws to match those of their former homeland.
If we fail to realise that some of the people who do follow that path despise our nation, despise our people and despise our way of life and wish to do us harm then we as a nation will fail and the consequences will be catastrophic. We need to have this conversation about national security because the alternative is to allow free rein to those who do discuss our national security and discuss it in terms of violence, random killings, beheadings and acts of terrorism. For those we have already failed to stop at the front door or allowed to come by boat through the back door, we must act in the national interest to protect our values.
Those who come to our shores who do not share our values do not deserve Australian citizenship. If dual citizens demonstrate their hatred of our values by planning and committing acts of terrorism or by joining foreign armies to fight against our own they can now be rightly stripped of their Australian citizenship. But we should be going further. Those who do not hold dual citizenship but have the capacity to become a citizen of another country should have their Australian citizenship revoked and advised to seek alternative residency arrangements. I note the wording of the pledge made by residents when they become an Australian citizen:
From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
I note also that applicants for provisional, permanent and some temporary visas are required to sign a statement reflecting these core values in a little more detail. The statement says:
I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.
As a nation, we have made it very clear what is expected from citizens. If we are to take these responsibilities seriously, we must show the intestinal fortitude to take action against those who breach those rules. We must also have the intestinal fortitude to not only insist on the rule of Australian law but specifically rule out the possibility of any other law applying in this country. I particularly name sharia law. For a number of years there have been repeated calls for the introduction of sharia law into Australia. Back in 2010 TheSydney Morning Herald reported:
Elements of Islamic law—the sharia—should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according to their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says
That Muslim leader was the President of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, speaking at an open day at the Lakemba Mosque. In 2011, the ABC reported:
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law.
Recently, we have seen sharia law being practiced in this country, according to a report in The Australian on 23 December last year.
Australia may be a pluralist society but we only have one law. We enjoy many freedoms, including freedom of religion, but sharia is not a religion and, for that matter, neither is Islamism. In this country, there is no freedom to pick and choose which laws you obey. Our law, our values, our culture and our society have made this country the greatest in the world. We must continue a conversation on national security to ensure it stays that way. (Time expired)
Liberal Party
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:46): If Sir Robert Menzies were here today to see the way the modern Liberal Party treats Canberra, he would be appalled. They cut jobs. They cut services. They cut entire families out of Canberra and move them into electorates where they think they need the votes. He would not recognise this Liberal Party, because this Liberal Party does not care about Canberra. Everywhere you look you can see how far the Liberal Party of Menzies has fallen. Sir Robert Menzies said he would build up Canberra in the eyes and minds of the Australian people—a capital worthy of a nation. Since then, the so-called party of Menzies has set about trashing that vision of Sir Robert Menzies. They have taken the razor to thousands of jobs in the Public Service. They took the razor to tens of thousands of jobs in the Public Service in 1996. In 1996 John Howard's cuts plunged Canberra into an economic downturn that took us years to recover from. And they have done it again. The very next chance they get is another opportunity to have a kick at Canberra.
There is the government's unparalleled hostility towards Australia's national institutions, many of which are located in my electorate of Canberra: the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Museum,
the Museum of Australian Democracy, the Film and Sound Archive and the National Library. They have all been forced to absorb a massive and misguided cut, starting with more than $3 million this financial year. This is on top of the $20 million already cut from these institutions by this regressive and reactionary government. Make no mistake: this government's cuts are a matter of priorities and nothing else. They say there is no money and these cuts had to happen. But when it comes to an expensive, divisive and unnecessary plebiscite on marriage equality, which will end up with a parliamentary vote anyway, it seems that money is no object.
Then there is infrastructure. We have a government that only ever talks about public infrastructure and a Prime Minister that only ever tweets about it. The vision of this government's infrastructure agenda has a significant blind spot, and it is the shape and size of Canberra. Canberrans are sick of having their hopes raised and dashed, time and again, by a Prime Minister who promises rolled gold and delivers rusted copper. The latest three-year construction plan released by NBN Co shows some of Canberra's worst internet black spots have been overlooked once again. We are not even on the rollout map. And when it comes to both availability and quality of broadband, some of Canberra's worst internet black spots are also nation's worst—the nation's worst in the nation's capital.
We have some of the worst internet connections in the whole country, connections that are even worse than regional and remote Australia. We are talking 20 kilometres from Parliament House. We have some of the worst connections in the country. This is significantly inhibiting Canberrans' ability to take part in education, small business and active citizenry. The NBN was supposed to be available two years ago. But not only did this government fail to meet that deadline; it scrapped the deadline altogether. So, we have actually gone backwards. When the Prime Minister promised to roll out the government's copper NBN faster and cheaper, he took that commitment and then he ran the other way—the other way from 'fast', the other way from 'cheap', and the other way, as is so typical of Liberal governments, from Canberra.
So, even if you ignore the Turnbull government's appalling treatment of the staff at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, ripping whole families out of homes, schools, jobs and communities to shamelessly pork barrel the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate, even if you ignore the Turnbull government's cuts to public service jobs, and even if you ignore the Turnbull government's defunding of treasured cultural and national institutions—defunding institutions that bring together a nation, while funding a plebiscite that seeks to divide it—even ignoring all of that, one look at the handling of the NBN is enough to prove that the Liberal government does not care about Canberra.
But Canberrans do not need more evidence. Canberrans need action. So I am asking Canberrans to show the party of Menzies what they are doing to the vision of Menzies. I am asking Canberrans to show the Turnbull government what living with some of the worst internet speeds in the country actually looks like. If you are sick of a weak internet connection, courtesy of a weak Prime Minister, send a screenshot of your internet speeds to my office. I will collect the responses and I will present them to the government. Send me your speeds and send the government a message that it cannot ignore, because only the Labor Party can be trusted to fight for Canberra. (Time expired)
First Speeches
Taxation
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:55): The first thing I would like to do is identify with the remarks of the member for Newcastle in this House this evening and her clear passion and commitment to ending family violence in this country.
I have been apprised this week of some marvellous, sometimes entertaining and sometimes very moving first speeches—what we used to call the 'maiden address'. I would not dare set any one apart, but I do note the remarkable pain expressed here by Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra, and that he included us in part of his life's journey, a changing moment, obviously, for him. Also I note the member for Chisolm, Julia Banks, when she spoke today quite passionately about the little girl at school who was called a wog, and how she had to go home and grab her brother's dictionary and look up what 'wog' meant and then deal with the pain of seeing others seeing her as being different because of her darker skin and her dark hair, how she looked a little different and so was a point of attack.
Yet through all of this and through all of the maiden speeches I hear those who have survived their lives to be here and thrive and play a part in this place. I apologise to those members of parliament who gave their first speeches that I was not able to be here to hear every one, but I was watching you from my office. I took careful account, as best I possibly could, of those who presented their stories and their desires for their future endeavours in this House, as expressed in their first speeches, and I praise every one of them for what they have done.
But I want to refer to the speech by Damian Drum, the member for Murray, especially when he spoke about young people and sport and how important sporting infrastructure is right across our communities. This is a passion for me, because from Moe Newborough all the way to Pakenham and to the Bunyip soccer ground that is not there—there is a ground there, but it needs huge investment, huge infrastructure—all the way to Wonthaggi, these are $10 million exercises. They are not two-bob shows that need to be built. These are $10 million exercises, and that is only their first stages.
But the message that comes from the Wonthaggis, the Bunyips and especially from Moe Newborough and Pakenham is exactly the message that the member for Murray gave us last night, and that is that these community organisations grab hold of our young people and train them in their given sport, whatever that sport may be—he was perhaps referring especially to Australian rules football, but we could be talking soccer, the international football game; we could be talking baseball; we could be talking basketball; we could be talking all sorts of other indoor and outdoor sports. They come into a place where the children are mentored by their seniors.
I know from my own experience with my own children. There may have been a bit of grog around the place; there may have been. I am not denying that. But basically they got job opportunities through their parents and other contacts that they made—it is not what you know; it is who you know. They had the opportunities. I did not see any drugs around the place. I saw young kids entering into sport, and, because of their entering into sport, get other opportunities way outside that which was provided by the sport—and that is the point that Damian Drum, the member for Murray, was making last night.
It is great that he was here and putting that across, because I would like to see a sugar tax. In introducing that sugar tax we would take on childhood obesity. We really—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr BROADBENT: No, I really think it is important. The money that would be raised would be put into those facilities right across this country on behalf of young people and the future of their health and wellbeing in this nation. I think we can do it. I think it is something we should be looking out. We do it with cigarettes now. We do it with other things. We do it with alcohol. Well, sugar is a major trauma for this country, and we need to address it very seriously, and I call on the government to inquire into the probability or possibility of a sugar tax in this country to benefit our generations.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms C. F. King to move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to establish a National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which include the:
(a) creation of an independent National Redress Agency; and
(b) provision of counselling and financial redress with costs met by the institutions responsible for the perpetrators of the abuse; and
(2) recommends that the Government consult extensively on further details of a National Redress Scheme to ensure that it fully meets the ongoing and complex needs of survivors and their families.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:00): This Sunday I will be joining members of my community at the mandir in Rosehill to pay tribute to a great man, His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj, who passed away earlier this year. The people who celebrate at the mandir in Rosehill are members of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha faith, which I am fortunately allowed to refer to as BAPS, as they do. Thank goodness for that, for all concerned! They are an extraordinary community who live a life of faith as established by Bhagwan Swaminarayan when he established the faith in the 18th century. It is a spiritual way of life that considers the religious tenets of devotion to God, spiritual knowledge and detachment as those that lead one to becoming an ideal devotee of the faith. They work tirelessly in their community for the good of others, and we are very lucky in Parramatta to have them.
His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj was the guru there for 45 years. He was born in 1921 into a humble farmers family and succeeded the spiritual leader Yogiji Maharaj in 1971 to become the spiritual leader. Since that time, he has been much loved and known for his humility and wisdom around the world. He has created and consecrated some 1,100 mandirs around the world, including, of course, one in Rosehill. Originally a pie factory, the building was bought by the Swaminarayan community in 2000, where they began to worship. It was re-consecrated as a beautifully redesigned building, still with the structure of the pie factory, in February 2014. They were very lucky—and we were all lucky in Parramatta—to have his Holiness visit Australia three times: in 1984, 1996 and 2002. There are now five mandirs in Australia: Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. All are wonderful communities that follow the teachings of extraordinary leaders.
I am really looking forward to joining the community on Sunday to commemorate the life of this great leader. It is a wonderful community. They have lost a great leader, but they miss him because of his greatness. I look forward to celebrating his life with them on Sunday.
Warringah Electorate
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah) (10:03): I am delighted to inform the Federation Chamber that there are lots of good things happening in Warringah right now. Planning is underway for the Brookvale Oval upgrade, thanks in part to the $12½ million federal commitment to this important local project. Bear Cottage, the only hospice in New South Wales for children with life limiting conditions, is being upgraded currently thanks to $2 million that was pledged by the coalition at the 2013 election. As anyone who has been on Sydney Harbour would know, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust is doing a superb job restoring the natural and built heritage of former military sites around the harbour thanks to $100 million plus that was provided to the trust by the former Howard government.
In my maiden speech 22 years ago I said that our area needed a new hospital. Thanks to the good work of the Baird government in New South Wales, that is exactly what we are getting. I also said in my maiden speech that Warringah is the best place in the world to live—until you need to go somewhere else, when you get stuck in the world's longest parking lots. Military Road and Warringah Road remain two of the most clogged arteries in Sydney. For 22 years I have been consistently campaigning for better transport infrastructure and finally there is light at the end of this long tunnel, thanks again to the good work of the Baird government.
In this year's New South Wales budget, some $17 million was committed to the planning work for the Mosman tunnel. The idea is that this tunnel will then link up to a second harbour tunnel, and it will provide a connection between the Warringah Peninsula and the rest of Sydney's road network—excellent work from the Baird government.
The Baird government has been able to do this in part because of the support that the Abbott government gave it for major infrastructure works in Sydney. There was $2 billion plus for WestConnex, there was a half a billion dollars for NorthConnex and there was billions of dollars through asset recycling. Because of the good work that this Commonwealth government has done, this New South Wales coalition government has been able to do better work. In the next couple of years, that will include the Mosman tunnel. This is what happens when good state governments and good federal governments work together. The Prime Minister has said that this will be a term of delivery for our country, and I am confident there will be a term of delivery for Warringah too.
Khalsa Aid
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:06): Recently I was invited by my good friend Guri Singh and other members of my local Sikh community to a fundraising event for the organisation Khalsa Aid where I had the opportunity to meet its founder, the UK based Mr Ravi Singh. Khalsa Aid is a not-for-profit organisation which was founded in 1999 in the response to the Kosovo refugee crisis. Ravi Singh, in creating Khalsa Aid, was inspired by the tenets of his Sikh faith, which focuses on universal prosperity and recognises the equal dignity of every human being. I was very impressed with the work Khalsa Aid has conducted over the years, always inspired by the expression of common human dignity. Our local Sikh community consider Ravi Singh as a great, inspirational man.
Since 1999, Khalsa Aid has been tirelessly providing aid in response to numerous humanitarian crises across the world. The organisation has provided over 25 international missions since its founding in 1999. In 2015, Khalsa Aid worked with the Australian organisation Turbans 4 Australia to support victims of Cyclone Marcia, providing food, water and medical supplies.
Most recently, Khalsa Aid has been working on various projects in response to the humanitarian needs created by the crisis in Iraq and Syria. In addition to providing aid and support to refugees in the region, Khalsa Aid has initiated a food and water project for refugees in northern Iraq known as the Langar Aid project. The Langar Aid project takes its name from the Sikh term which refers to a common kitchen where food is served to all visitors freely and indiscriminately, promoting a sense of shared community. No rituals are observed in the Langar so that everyone eats together and shares in the tasks of the kitchen. I have enjoyed sharing such meals at my local Sikh gurudwara in Craigieburn.
While the Australian notions of equality and the fair go share much in common with these Sikh principles, there is still plenty that Australia can learn from them. Ravi Singh has encouraged the local Australian Sikh community to work with our Indigenous population to create stronger connections with Australia's first people. He emphasised that it was indeed their responsibility to begin their humanitarian work assisting the Indigenous people of their new homeland, Australia.
The values and work of Khalsa Aid show a deep and complex understanding of human dignity and commonality. Not only does its work promote tolerance and seek to remove sectarian and civilisational divides but it also converts a belief in equality into a positive obligation imposed on all of us to better our communities. I want to commend Ravi Singh for his efforts, and I want to thank him for visiting Australia to raise awareness of the good work his organisation does. I want to also commend my local Sikh community for giving me the opportunity to meet an exceptional human being, and I commend Khalsa Aid to the House. Thank you.
Dunkley Electorate: Economy
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:09): I am here today to talk about Dunkley and Dunkley's economic growth. Dunkley has the highest economic growth out of all federal electorates in Victoria, at 3.6 per cent, and also an unemployment rate which has dropped from 8.3 per cent last year to 6.1 per cent this year. We have three major sectors: health, retail and manufacturing. Manufacturing, in and of itself, is employing over 4,000 people in Frankston alone. The Carrum Downs-Seaford industrial precinct is now worth $2.8 billion. This is up 40 per cent since 2011. We also are a health hub, which is why I was proud to announce during the recent election campaign investment in both MRI services and the Peninsula Home Hospice. In addition, we have a growing agricultural sector, with three wineries in Dunkley, including Morning Star Estate, a berry farm at Bramble Farm and dairy at Blue Bay Cheese, which produces cheeses, yoghurts and other milk varieties. It is run by a couple of people who originally emigrated from the Ukraine are now supplying Woolworths, Coles and many other places and are looking to export all around the world. We also have great breweries like the Mornington Peninsula Brewery. In addition, tourism is booming. Dunkley is a natural, beautiful place with the best of the city, the country and the coast. Tourists do enjoy visiting places like our McClelland Gallery and Sculpture Park in Langwarrin, our wineries and our beaches.
We have a colourful mix of businesses, from small retail outlets such as Miss Velvet and the Cake Cottage to larger manufacturing facilities such as Nutech Paint in Seaford, which recently secured a large contract with Dreamworld in Queensland, beating Dulux, which is a great achievement for a local paint manufacturer. We also have, in the last week, set up a new digital innovation hub with start-up organisations, the Frankston foundry innovation hub, which is our first dedicated co-working space and business hub in the heart of the city centre. This will provide opportunities for a range of start-ups and small businesses locally, on both a full-time and a casual basis. We currently have interest from over 30 businesses, including software development firms, architects, design agencies and even a wakeboard manufacturer. It is interest from groups like these and entrepreneurs locally in Dunkley which will transform our economy and continue to see Dunkley grow and Dunkley being a hotspot and a hub in the region.
Holt Electorate: Oromo Community
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:12): I rise today on behalf of the Oromo community in Melbourne to again raise my concern about the actions of the state security forces in Ethiopia, with new and deeply concerning developments since the peaceful protests were conducted through Oromia, Ethiopian's largest region, in November 2015. Human Rights Watch has reported that, during this protest period, over 400 people are estimated to have been killed, tens of thousands have been arrested and hundreds have been victims of enforced disappearances. These atrocities have been directly identified as being conducted by the Ethiopian government.
As an example, on 4 September 2016, whilst we celebrated Father's Day here in this country, the Oromo nation was mourning the death of over 60 Oromos in a prison, called the Kilinto prison, that was set ablaze. This comes after nine months of peaceful protests which have spread countrywide with the emergence of the Amhara protests in the north and the intensification of the Konso protests in the south. Renowned leaders like Bekele Gerba have been issuing letters to the public to continue the peaceful protests and implement a program of civil disobedience. An example: a grand rally was conducted on 6 August 2016, where in one city alone, Asasa, over 20 peaceful protesters were killed. The imprisoned protest leaders have also issued a five-day market boycott before the Ethiopian new year. The timing of this economic boycott was critical as it substantially reduces and reduced consumer and general spending by the public and government during this period. The boycotts of the Ethiopian commercial bank, telecommunications and transport services lasted until 13 September. About 60 per cent of Ethiopia's GDP is from the Oromia region; hence the consequences.
Oromo farmers, artists and professional athletes are the backbone of Ethiopia but have for many years been marginalised and oppressed. A few weeks ago, that oppression was symbolised by the Oromo Olympic silver medallist Feyisa Lilesa, who was revered in Ethiopia by the Oromo people when, after participating in the marathon, he crossed the line with the Oromo protest sign that has been used for two years now.
Lilesa dedicated his achievement to the Oromo protest, thereby risking his life, his career and his family at this Olympics. His action exposed the brutal governance of the TPLF. More importantly, it highlighted the plight of the 45 million Oromos in Ethiopia. These people have won medals for Ethiopia since the time of one of the greatest runners of all time, Abebe Bikila, an Oromo himself. They have been unable to reap the benefits of their contribution to Ethiopian society. Consequently, there have been very large numbers of Oromos fleeing their country. Only this year hundreds of Oromo refugees perished in the Mediterranean Sea.
There has been an ongoing period of persecution by the Ethiopian government. It needs to be condemned by the Australian government. They are an oppressed minority. It is our job to raise in this place the oppression of minorities like the Oromo community. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:15): I rise today to speak on what is in store for the Bonner community in the year ahead. All across Bonner I have listened to what locals want. I am committed to delivering to them what matters most. My flagship commitment is to the Wynnum Manly Seagulls, one of the Bayside's most iconic institutions. The club will have their dressing sheds and gymnasium fixed, giving them and the Bayside sporting community the playing facilities that they deserve.
Other local sporting clubs that will receive vital upgrades to their facilities include the Mount Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club, the Bayside PCYC, AMAA Karate-Do Club, Manly Bowls Club, Mount Gravatt Bowls Club, as well as the Wynnum Rugby Bugs, to help them cover the costs of installing solar power.
The Mount Gravatt Men's Shed will also receive funding to install a new solar PV system. I have always been proud to support local men's sheds and their important work for the community. Wynnum Manly and District Men's Shed will also receive assistance to help them install and fit-out their new home at Wynnum North.
Wynnum-Manly Meals on Wheels is another organisation that does a great service to the community. It will receive funding to go towards new kitchen facilities at their Kitchen and Community Centre at Wakerley. I want to thank President Ken Edwards for his hard work on this. The new centre is going to be a huge boost for Wakerley and the surrounding areas and I cannot wait to be there on opening day.
Other local community groups that will continue to thrive under this coalition government include Eastside Community Church, 215 Squadron AAFC, St Agnes Catholic Primary School and the Moreton Bay Discovery Centre. Under the coalition, Bonner will receive more support through grassroots funding of community organisations than ever before. I will continue to support my community by supporting this government's agenda to grow jobs and deliver real results for our local community.
WestConnex
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:17): An infrastructure disaster is developing in our community and it is called the WestConnex. What started out as a $10 billion motorway with plenty of promise has blown out to a $16.8 billion shemozzle that has resulted in the destruction of heritage homes and gardens and left many in our community outraged. Despite this project's massive cost, the planning surrounding its construction has left many people dumbfounded. Right now, if you drive to Sydney airport on any morning, you are guaranteed to get stuck in a traffic jam. The demand for Sydney airport continues to grow, as does the demand just down the road at Port Botany, the second largest container port in the country. We have residential towers springing up all around Mascot, 15 storeys high, and they continue to be built just north of the airport. At the moment, 100,000 motorists use the M5 East every day. If there is a breakdown in one of those lanes, it is chaos.
The WestConnex is going to make things worse in our community. It does not connect up to the second biggest container port in the country. How could you build a new motorway that drives straight past the second biggest container port in the country but does not connect to it? The St Peters interchange is projected to carry an additional 31,000 vehicles a day on local roads, creating a choke point on the corner of Bourke Road and Gardeners Road at Mascot. Anyone who goes down Gardeners Road now, near Botany Road, understands how congested it is, particularly on weekends. We are going to deposit an additional 31,000 people there, many of them in trucks, because that is the only way they can get back to the port—on local roads. It is a planning disaster.
At the same time, Sydney airport passenger numbers will double from 33 million in 2013 to 74 million in 2036, and Port Botany container movements are forecast to rise sixfold between 2011 and 2014. This spells disaster thanks to horrific planning of the motorway that does not even include a link to Foreshore Road and Botany Road.
The New South Wales government has refused to release the full details of the cost-benefit analysis. We called for it in December 2014 and February and October 2015. They only released it in November 2015, and it was an abridged version. It was released after the project was started and there is no value in that at all. One needs to ask what the government had to hide in releasing that so late. Thankfully, the Australian National Audit Office is now conducting a thorough audit into WestConnex. WestConnex is looming as a planning disaster for my community and surrounding communities.
Patterson, Ms Lakeisha
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:20): Earlier this week I had the pleasure of sharing with the House the feats of the Olympians in Fisher who represented Australia in Rio last month. Today, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Federation Chamber to another amazing athlete who spent some of her formative years training at the University of the Sunshine Coast Paralympic training facility.
Last week, 17-year-old Lakeisha Patterson opened Australia's gold medal account at the Rio Paralympic Games, winning the women's 400-metre freestyle S8 final. She set a new world record, a Paralympic record and the Oceania record and sliced 0.11 seconds off the previous world record time. On Monday morning, Lakeisha backed up her gold medal performance to win silver in the women's 100-metre freestyle S8 final. Yesterday, Lakeisha placed fourth in the 100-metre backstroke final.
Lakeisha Patterson has cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is the most common physical disability in childhood, with one in 500 Australian babies diagnosed with this condition. There are approximately 34,000 Australians living with cerebral palsy and there is no known cure. While cerebral palsy affects people in different ways, it most commonly affects body movement and muscle control.
Lakeisha first took to the pool at the age of three as a means of treatment for muscle stiffness and to help her sleep better at night. While the swimming sessions did indeed help, they also introduced Lakeisha to a joy she may not have otherwise known. In 2014, Lakeisha got a late call-up to the Australian Commonwealth Games team for Glasgow. She was the youngest swimmer on the team at just 14 years of age. She broke through to win a bronze medal in the S8 100-metre freestyle final.
Lakeisha Patterson is a remarkable young woman who deserves the admiration and respect of us all. Although her nickname is Lucky to her friends and family, she has faced many challenges on her road to Rio. Escaping from domestic violence as a young family, Lucky, her mum and her sisters faced dire financial challenges. Lucky's mum told me the story of how, when Lakeisha was young, the family could not even afford a dining room table, so Lakeisha went out and bought one for 20c at an op shop and told the family that this was now their dining room table.
Lakeisha and her Paralympic athletes continue to teach each and every single one of us— (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: WEstjustice
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:24): I rise this morning to commend to the House the work of the WEstjustice Western Community Legal Centre. This is an incredibly important organisation that does incredibly important work across the west of Melbourne. Nowhere is this work more important than in the electorate of Lalor, where we have 200,000 residents of the City of Wyndham, many whom are new arrivals and young families—60,000 families. We have in our area the highest eviction rates in the state. We have high rates of mortgage stress. We have incredible communities developing on the edges of the city, where we are welcoming emerging communities and assisting in the settling of refugees.
The work of WEstjustice in this space is incredibly important. They run some great programs supporting people, and they do this in a difficult funding environment. They are not wholly reliant on government funds—neither state nor federal. They receive funds from a range of philanthropic sources and, as we all know in this place, that is tireless work—submission writing and meeting with people to attract funds into what are critical services for my area. They are creative in working with others—with local government, with state government and with business. They run youth casework services. They run refugee casework services. They run family violence services. They run a mortgage stress clinic in Melton that they would desperately like to bring to the city of Wyndham. They run a lawyer in schools program—the first in the state—and they have a lawyer in the emergency department at the Mercy Hospital for domestic violence one day a week. They have assisted over 4,500 people over the last year. They have made 100 presentations and they have written 16 reports and submissions, including submissions to the Senate. They take their work seriously. They represent the community seriously as well.
This very important work is under threat, with a $170,000 budget cut from this government. That will impact directly. They will lose three positions when that funding goes. That will impact on the youth casework services. The centre provides three days of casework services to vulnerable young people in my community. It will impact on the refugee casework services. The centre provides a range of casework, community development and education services for newly arrived migrants. It will impact on family violence services in my community. I implore this government to re-evaluate the decisions they have made about the cuts to the community legal services in this country, and specifically to WEstjustice in my electorate of Lalor.
Stronger Communities Program
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:27): Trafalgar Park in Umina is undergoing a transformation that will reveal a snapshot of the Central Coast's history. Today I am pleased to announce that the Turnbull government is supporting this initiative. Funding from the Stronger Communities Program will help our community advocates and volunteers on the peninsula, led by the Umina Community Group, uncover even more of our rich history. Thanks to the Stronger Communities Program, $10,000 is being committed to assist with the refurbishment, which ensures that all three levels of government will support this project, thanks to investments also from the New South Wales government and Central Coast Council.
Trafalgar Park is a small pocket of land in Umina Beach, but this project aims to rename the space Runway Park and tell a fascinating story that links to our region's wartime history. Steve Spillard, a passionate local resident and historian, told me that during the Second World War the RAAF constructed an airfield in Umina. The main taxiway ran along what we now know as Trafalgar Avenue, stretching from McMasters Road to Oxford Street, with adjoining streets used as taxiways. The runway was a truly local project, with sandstone from nearby Mount Ettalong and gravel from a quarry at Killcare. Residents described the gravel as a deep red, and the runway later earned its name as the Red Runway.
Throughout the war, it is believed that many British and American crews utilised the airstrip. Umina locals have recalled that American bomber crews would land then settle in the surrounding areas, with one entire crew liking the area so much that they stayed. Of course, the airstrip declined in use during the 1940s as the area became predominantly residential, but that did not stop an incident in 1950, when a pilot lost control of his Tiger Moth biplane in a strong gust of wind. Incredible newspaper clips from that time show how lucky the 21-year-old pilot was to stay alive, as the plane crash-landed onto the roof of a home in Nelson Street. He escaped with shock and a slight concussion.
Now, more than 60 years later, the runway, in a new way, is making a comeback. This project will upgrade the park and recognise its place in local history. Rod Unsworth, the Vice President of the Umina Community Group, told me that excavation work has just begun. Community involvement includes the planting of shrubs and trees, and the plans are that the park will be fitted with play equipment, seating and shade areas. There is even the occasional glimpse of that famous red gravel from Killcare quarry as it is unearthed during construction. The design has been developed by a local landscape designer and volunteer, David Duncan.
It is hoped that, when finished, Runway Park will be a delightful place to be enjoyed by local families, knowing with pride that their community made it happen. I would like to recognise the work of Tony Winch, Rod Unsworth, Julie Aitchison, Darrell Pannowitz, Melissa Chandler, Mark Nitsos, Debbie Sunartha and other community members who have contributed and worked so hard to see this project become a reality. I also commend the investment of the federal, state and local governments in backing this project.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Before I call the member for Batman, I understand it is the wish of the honourable members that constituency statements may continue for a further 30 minutes. There being no objection, the chair will allow statements to continue.
Renewable Energy
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (10:30): I have spoken out strongly against the Turnbull government's plan to annihilate ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. This was a very important issue in my electorate. I am delighted that, through the strong advocacy of Labor, we have saved ARENA and secured some $800 million in funding for that agency over the next five years. ARENA has very clearly stated that this level of funding will now allow it to continue a strong work program, and for that Labor are very pleased.
This is, sadly, the third time that this government has tried to destroy the renewable energy sector in Australia. I am proud to say it is the third time Labor has prevented it. First, this government tried to destroy the renewable energy target, but Labor was able to save it. Then the government tried to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and again Labor was able to save it. This is now the third occasion on which the Australian renewable energy sector has been saved from this government by Labor.
Importantly, this package of funding will develop much-needed certainty to the renewable energy sector, a sector crying out for that certainty. Under Labor, there was certainty and there was a clear vision for renewables. As a result of that, Australia had become the fourth most attractive destination for renewable investment and we saw a massive boost across the country in jobs in the renewables industry. By contrast, under the Abbott-Turnbull government, there has been a massive drop in renewables investment. This has come at a time when the world's level of investment in renewables dramatically increased. Rather than having to operate under the constant threat of annihilation, this agreement—the agreement struck between Labor and the government—secures ARENA's future for the next five years.
Dealing with the threat of climate change requires fundamental and long-term changes to our economy. Labor took a comprehensive set of climate change policies to the 2016 election, which would have achieved that fundamental change without leaving any individual or community behind. Labor have led the way on promoting renewable energy in Australia, and we remain committed to achieving the energy transition as soon as possible and practicable. That is why we have also secured a commitment from the government to come to the table and explore options for the acceleration of the clean energy transition Australia desperately needs. We cannot stand back and wait another three years to push this transition. We in Labor believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the renewable energy sector is in a healthy position when Labor reclaim government.
This agreement is just the first step. We will face a government that has a history of undermining renewables and listening to climate change deniers. Just as Labor have fought to save ARENA, we will continue to fight for real action on climate change and a clean energy future for Australia.
Harness, Mr James 'Jim'
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (10:33): Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your election to your position, and I am sure it is one you will adorn with great grace—well done!
I rise today to congratulate World War II veteran and long-term Albany resident, former British Royal Navy signalman James Harness—known as Jim—on his receiving the Chevalier class of the Legion of Honour medal from the French government for the part that he played in the D-day landings.
Mr Harness, who has just celebrated his 91st birthday, was 18 years of age when he was part of the first assault wave that landed on Juno Beach on the morning of 6 June 1944. Standing on the bridge of his landing craft with his captain, he was subjected to direct fire while witnessing the carnage on the beach. He was lucky to survive the first wave of the assault and risked his life assisting in clearing the beaches for the second-wave assault. As a signalman, he communicated with incoming craft on where best to beach. His vehicle was severely disabled by a Belgian Gate and took a week to fix. On becoming operational, his boat ferried supplies from merchant vessels to the British and Canadian armies on Juno Beach and Sword Beach over the next few months.
Mr Harness stayed in Normandy from D-day until his return to Portsmouth in October 1944. He later served in a Far East fleet until Japan surrendered. His prestigious naval career included time in Sumatra, Malta, Hong Kong, Malay, Hawaii and the West Indies. In 1956, Mr Harness married his wife, Valerie, and he moved to Albany with his young family in 1966. He worked at the Albany Woollen Mills and Cooperative Bulk Handling until his retirement in 1983.
His son Chris approached my office in late 2014 requesting I support his father's application for the Legion of Honour medal, and I was happy to oblige. As a British citizen, the necessary paperwork required much toing and froing between the British and French embassies in Australia and abroad. Finally, on Saturday 20 August, I had the great pleasure of attending the official presentation of France's highest military honour, the Legion of Honour medal, to Jim Harness—a decorated British serviceman and much-loved father, grandfather and great-grandfather—in front of his gathered family and friends at the National Anzac Centre in Albany.
In awarding the Legion of Honour, the French government acknowledges the sacrifices made by veterans like Jim who participated in the liberation of France. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Jim and his family for ensuring that his efforts for his country were justly recognised.
WestConnex
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:35): I rise today to express my ongoing concern about the lack of appropriate planning around the WestConnex project. This is having a considerable impact on people's lives as a result of the uncertainty which is occurring around this project. The Premier held a press conference in Rozelle on 21 July to announce amended plans, including a tunnel connecting the Iron Cove Bridge and the Rozelle interchange of the project, which is to be located in the Rozelle goods yard.
This means that 27 properties on Victoria Road will be compulsorily acquired to allow for this tunnel to be constructed. That means that these residents deserve proper and appropriate compensation. The state government has a report that shows that its current compensation mechanisms are inadequate, and it has refused to make that report public. People will accept the fact that infrastructure does result in disruption, but that disruption should be minimised and, when it occurs to families, they deserve appropriate consultation.
It is also important that the impact on open space be minimised. That is why I have raised before in this House the potential impact on Blackmore Oval in Leichardt and suggested that this oval needs protection, as do the more than 75 specialist businesses that comprise a big part of the Australian film industry infrastructure around the Canal Road Film Centre.
It is not surprising that these changes have occurred given that there seems to be a dismissal of the legitimate concerns that residents have. Indeed, it is of great concern that the chair of the Greater Sydney Commission, Lucy Turnbull, stated to ABC radio:
I am not aware that there are houses going to be demolished in Haberfield.
She went on to say:
I'm not aware of the loss of heritage at Haberfield, I have to tell you.
Anyone who drives through that part of Sydney will see not just that homes have been demolished but that entire blocks have been demolished.
The fact that the chair of the Greater Sydney Commission had no idea of the impact that was occurring was rubbing salt into the wounds of that community. That community deserves to be treated with respect, and we deserve proper consultation and proper community impact statements. Indeed, the government during the election campaign played politics with the EIS process, pretending somehow that it was the responsibility of the opposition to approve that during the caretaker period.
Renewable Energy
Trade with China
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:38): Yesterday, we had some rather unprecedented comments made by the US ambassador, John Berry. He said:
We have been surprised, quite frankly, at the extent of the involvement of the Chinese government in Australian politics.
Was he just talking about the junior senator from New South Wales' reckless and dangerous pro-China comments on the South China Sea or are there other areas where the Chinese government is having undue influence on Australian politics?
That is why I bring you to our policy on renewable energy. Photovoltaic solar panels are a wonderful invention. In the last five years we have purchased from China $3.4 billion worth of Chinese solar panels. I would argue that that money would be far better spent here in Australia on Australian entrepreneurs, businesses and researchers to try to have greater technological breakthroughs in the area of renewable energy. The reason I argue this is that the figures from the International Energy Agency 2015's report show that the world's annual production from PV solar panels is not one per cent of the world's energy supply but is only 0.1 per cent—less than one-tenth of one per cent. Even on their most optimistic forecast, by 2040 energy production from solar panels will amount to 0.7 per cent.
Therefore, I argue that rather than this country spending tens of billions of dollars on importing solar panels from China the money would be far better spent in Australia on research and development. But when I put that case there are groups out there in Australia at the moment arguing against that position. They are financed by none other than Chinese solar panel manufacturers, which themselves are financed by the Chinese government.
We need to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interests of Australia and the long term. It is my opinion that for this nation to spend $10 billion in the coming years to import Chinese solar panels is not the best use of our money. That money would be far better invested and spent here in Australia on research and development.
O'Reilly, Mr Bill
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (10:41): I rise today to pay my respects to Bill O'Reilly, whose last campaign was the recent federal election we have all just been part of. I am joined by the member for Grayndler, who was Bill O'Reilly's local member for 20 years. Our tribute to bill is because he was a true believer. He passed away on 24 July 2016, just 10 days after his 85th birthday. I want to pass on our deep regard to Kerry-Ann and to Bill's family. Bill's life has made all our lives richer.
Bill was overseas and returned to Australia in 1972 to take up an academic position in the pharmacy school in Adelaide. This true Labor man embraced the changes that were taking place in this country. Don Dunstan was the South Australian Premier and Labor was soon to in the federal election, ending 23 years of conservative rule. His wife, Kerry Ann, said that Bill constantly lectured her about the ills of the McMahon government, so she said, 'Well, re-join the Labor Party and do something about it,' and Bill did that. He remained a Labor member until his death, just two months ago.
Bill never lost the fire in his belly. He and Kerry Ann attended many fundraisers and did handouts and all the sort of work that a good Labor family does. Bill's core belief was pure Labor: equality, education and health for all. From 2008 until early this year he was vice president and president of the Ashbury branch of Labor. Bill was an active and considered member of Labor, with loads of passion and a big heart. He was an absolutely wonderful man.
I mentioned Bill in my valedictory speech, as I did in my inaugural speech, in 2003, and I would like to read from that: 'In my inaugural speech I also recalled the story of some advice given to me by Bill O'Reilly, a well-respected local branch member. … Bill said to me, "Girl, don't you ever change".' I have held onto that advice right throughout my parliamentary career, and I make a commitment now to take Bill O'Reilly's advice into this place, as well.
To his wife, Kerry Ann, and his children, Michael, AnneMarie, Chiara and Damian, and his grandchildren, I offer my sincerest condolences, along with the member for Grayndler and all of the wonderful branch members and the Labor family of Canterbury, Grayndler and Barton. Bill was an inspiration to all who knew him and he will be very deeply missed.
Page Electorate: Sport
Page Electorate: Tucabia Public School
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:44): Last Sunday was the rugby league grand final. For the first time in almost 40 years, it was a local derby. The South Grafton Rebels lined up against the Grafton Ghosts. The match was held at McKittrick Park—also knows as 'the fortress'. Remembering, I am sure you remember, Deputy Speaker Coulton, that last year the South Grafton Rebels won this for the first time in decades. The Grafton Ghosts were the winners in 2014. It was great to see two Grafton teams being the two premier teams in the competition.
This year the winners were the Rebels, with back-to-back premierships, winning 26-12. Congratulations to the Rebels. It was a great effort. But the Ghosts can also hold their heads high after a great season. The South Grafton Rebels team included: Ben Woods, Tom McGrady, Karl Woodley, Cam Wilcox, captain Grant Stevens, Xavier Sullivan, Jordan Walker, Hughie Stanley, Matty Laurie, Rhys Walters, Kieren Stewart, Jade Duroux, Theeran Pearson, Grant Brown, Oral Monaghan, Nick McGrady, Luke Walsh and Ron Gordon was the coach.
The Ghosts team included: Mitch Gorman, Daniel Lavender, Mitch Lollback, Joel Moss, Jay Olsen, Josh Brown, Mitch Wicks, Dylan Collet, captain/coach Ben McLennan, James Hughes, Adam Slater, Jake Barnett, Todd Cameron, Daniel Lollback, Raih Woodley, Jayden Connors, Khan Williams, Ryan Binge and Jake Frame. The support staff were Peter Brown, Terry West and Joe Kinnane, who is the manager. It was great to see two local Grafton teams in the final.
On Saturday, 27 August 2016, Tucabia Public School celebrated 125 years of public education in the Clarence Valley. Hundreds turned out to celebrate this occasion. There were many stories told on the day, including that of Muriel Firth's parents, Thomas and Mary Sullivan, who came to Tucabia in 1925 to take up a position with the Forestry Commission. All of her children went to this school, along with many of her grandchildren, and a great-grandchild will be starting at the school next year.
William Richard Cave and Jan Phelps settled on a farm at Tucabia. William was one of the main instigators for Tucabia Public School, with his signature on many of the original correspondence concerning the school. Some of their descendants living in the Tucabia area at present include the Lloyd, Jones and Lee families.
The school has a great history, with many people still keeping this school going strong. Lindal Lucas is the current principal, and she has been there for 16 years. It has 38 students currently, and the other staff include: Rachel Bishop, Cheryl Connor, Kylie Peterie and Traycee Woods. I would also like to congratulate the 125 year committee: Roy Bowling, Susan Grehbert, Amy Moran, Lindal Lucas, Kathy Jones, Shelley Jones, Jean Bowling and Debbie Bultitude.
Wills Electorate: Glenroy Community Hub
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:47): A number of years ago, Moreland City Council purchased the former Glenroy Primary School site on Wheatsheaf Road in my electorate of Wills. While preliminary plans had commenced for a project known as the Glenroy Community Hub, there had been no funding for it to actually commence. In the recent federal campaign, I made an important announcement that the Labor Party, if it formed government, would commit to provide $6 million of funding to enable the project to proceed.
The Glenroy Community Hub would include an integrated children's centre, including: maternal and child health services, a kindergarten and a childcare centre, a modern library to replace the current Glenroy library, facilities for the operation of Merri Community Health Services, and a Glenroy Neighbourhood House. A significant part of the site would be retained as public open space.
This project is critically important for Glenroy for a number of reasons. The Australian Early Development Census provides an index of several key indicators, which serve to illustrate the learning and development needs of our most important resource: our children. The five domains charted by the AEDC are physical health, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, and communication skills. On these metrics, vulnerable and disadvantaged children can be identified so as to enable the most effective path to improvements via policymaking and through the allocation of funding.
In the suburb of Glenroy, 34 per cent of children are considered highly vulnerable on at least one index measure. The Victorian average is only 20 per cent. It is cause for alarm, but we must examine the circumstances under which this has been allowed to occur. Early years facilities in and close to the suburb of Glenroy are currently at or close to capacity. This is in the context of birthrates in the area being close to double that of current mean projections. This factor alone makes it apparent that the area has an immediate need for quality children's services.
During the federal campaign, as I mentioned, I, alongside my Labor colleagues, fought very hard to obtain the funding necessary to deliver the additional services that we so sorely need in the Glenroy community. These statistical alarm bells alone should dictate that this funding is justified and necessary. Labor is the party of education and science, and this is yet another illustrative example of our bona fide commitment to this cause. I fought for Glenroy in the campaign, and the reason I stand here today is to continue that fight in opposition. I cannot stand idly by. The poor education outcomes in Glenroy are something which simply cannot be ignored.
Discrimination
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:50): This week we have seen an issue dominate our national conversation that this parliament and our society must treat with utmost seriousness: that of discrimination. As someone who is not from a minority ethnic group, it is my responsibility to speak out when I believe our society is embracing a movement towards greater discrimination. Yesterday, in the other place, we witnessed a speech that sought to do exactly that. I subscribe to the Voltairean principle of respecting someone's right to say things that I disagree with, but when that speech uses broad brushstrokes to demonise an entire religion, and all the observers of that religion, this must be called out for what it is: it is racism; it is discrimination. When someone considers they know more about that religion and feels empowered to instruct those who have spent a lifetime studying that religion how they should better practise it, this must be called out for what it is: ignorance.
Unfortunately, our nation has dark chapters in its history where racism and ignorance have combined to produce shameful results. The massacre of Indigenous people upon settlement and the treatment of Chinese people in the goldfields are just two examples. As policymakers and leaders of this nation, it is our responsibility to ensure that racism and ignorance do not combine again. That starts by identifying it and rejecting it, which is the purpose of this speech today.
Islam is a religion followed by 1.6 billion people worldwide. It is the majority religion in places from Kuala Lumpur to Kosovo. To insinuate that every one of these people share any trait, let alone one of hatred and violence, is preposterous. It is true recent atrocities have been carried out by an aspirational Islamic State. The number of these terrorists is equivalent to less than the population of Canberra and approximately 0.01 per cent of Muslims globally. Terrorists should be judged on their actions and their crimes, not their identity.
I am proud to represent one of the most multicultural electorates in the country. In Bennelong we have large communities of people with heritage from China, Korea, Italy, Armenia, Persia and many other countries. These communities work together to form an Australian community, to create a society that brings together the best of each group. We socialise together, we dine together and we play sport together—especially that wonderful game of tennis—and we are all better for it. Those words we heard yesterday were abhorrent, but the reaction today has been positive. The freedom of speech has spurred a greater freedom: one to pursue the Australian dream—a dream of equality where there is no discrimination, where enlightenment replaces ignorance.
Bullying
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (10:53): I rise to speak here in this place about bullying and, in particular, the impact that it has on young people and students across our constituencies. In my constituency of Ballarat, it is an issue which many parents have contacted me about, seeking a pathway to help, advice and resolution for the young people that they so deeply care about.
When a parent or a carer drops their child at school each day, there is nothing they want more than for them to thrive and, most importantly, to be safe at school. For children who are experiencing bullying, the last thing they feel is safe. The impacts of bullying should never be underestimated. Not only do they take a toll on the student's mental and physical health, bullying quite often saps a student's willingness to engage and to learn, and their education can suffer as a result. It has a lifelong effect.
Bullying often does not leave physical scars, although it can. The longitudinal study of Australian children found that almost one in three students aged 10 to 11 years reported being bullied or picked on by peers, with name-calling being far more common than physical bullying but no less hurtful. Cyberbullying is also of significant concern and means that bullying behaviour follows the student into their home. In my electorate there has been a significant amount of media coverage—and I congratulate The Courier-Mail for bringing this issue to light—of incidents of bullying in schools. While these stories of bullying can be confronting, they also spark an honest conversation within families and communities about the issue.
There is no doubt that this is a challenging issue and that there is a need to identify a range of strategies to deal with it appropriately. This week I commend the Victorian education minister for announcing a new independent panel for school dispute resolutions, providing an avenue for parents who have been unable to resolve their issue within the school itself, outside the education department or Catholic education departments, to have a place where they can be heard. It is a great announcement and I know it is one that will be welcomed.
The repercussions of students feeling isolated and internalising bullying can be absolutely devastating. Only this week the AIHW released a report that said suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians aged 15 to 24. I particularly want to acknowledge the damaging effect bullying has on LGBTIQ communities. Bullying is not just about kids being kids and a rite of passage. We need to confront bullying and cultivate school environments where bullying is not accepted. Above all else, we want our students to know and believe that it is okay to speak up and seek help, that they will be heard and that our school communities, our families and our broader community take this issue very seriously.
Capricornia Electorate: Australian Film Industry
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:56): A new TV series currently in production in Australia is set to put Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast on the map as a potential film location, leading to new economic opportunities. I am thrilled to report that producer Madeleine Kennedy, from Mad Lane Productions, chose to film the final 30 per cent of her new series We were tomorrowin the Rockhampton and Livingstone shires. Australian actors, including Underbelly's Gyton Grantley, were in Rockhampton during filming from 29 August to 10 September. The Rockhampton Heritage Village, some of our beautiful old Rockhampton Queenslander homes, local streets in Rockhampton and the beaches and salt pans in Livingstone shire will feature as key locations. This give us the opportunity to put our region on the map as a great film location and add another diverse notch in our region's economic belt.
We were tomorrow follows the journey of twin siblings who are forced to navigate through three lifetimes to escape a dying world and an immortal hunter. When a meteor collides with the moon the earth is ravaged by catastrophic natural disasters. A small percentage of the population is relocated to an alternative world—the new world—and given three lifetimes to rebuild humanity.
The film crew was attracted to Capricornia after extensive groundwork by the federal government's Fitzroy and Central West bureau of Regional Development Australia, which is based in Rockhampton. RDA executive officer, Kalair McArthur, took Madeleine around key sites which have subsequently become locations for the series. Regional Development Australia has been engaging with the film industry about many regional Queensland locations and was keen to show produces the great variety of locations Rockhampton has to offer. If the first run of this TV series is successful, the producers say that they would hope to return to Rockhampton to use it as a key base for a second and potentially a third series.
Becoming known as a great film location would create new and diverse economic value for the region. The presence of Mad Lane Productions could be a silver lining for a new industry that we have not previously tapped into in Central Queensland. The TV series is in its final stages of filming and will be delivered to a domestic and international broadcaster by late September.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with the resolution agreed to early, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the Treasurer’s Budget Night promise of tax cuts from ‘July 1 this year’ and the Prime Minister’s assurance they would be delivered ‘administratively’;
(2) notes the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook later confirmed the tax cuts would not be implemented on July 1; and
(3) calls on the Government to explain whether, if it cannot do something as simple as enacting a bipartisan tax cut, it is really up to running the nation.”
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (10:59): We support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016 and, of course, I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Fenner. We support the intentions of the bill because it increases the personal income tax threshold for middle-income Australians, and that does a little bit to help combat some of the effects of bracket creep. We on this side of the House are always prepared to consider and support measures that offer fair tax relief for those who need it.
Of course, those opportunities are pretty hard to come by under this current government. We have this absurd situation right now where the government cannot confirm whether it is going ahead with the centrepiece of its so-called economic plan, this $50 billion gift to big multinational corporations, which is the typically shambolic way that they have gone about tax policy not only over the last year under Malcolm Turnbull but over the three years of the coalition government. We also have a government that is offering, at the same time, tax cuts to the top three per cent of earners from 1 July next year while the bottom 75 per cent of people—people that I am proud to represent—miss out.
We have a government which is hopelessly divided over super. As I was coming in here to address the chamber, I walked past the press conference being given by the member for Dawson, who is obviously taking a big victory lap, having shredded the policy that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said was ironclad. They said that the policy was ironclad and would not change, and there is George out there, the member for Dawson, claiming credit for shredding the policy and humiliating the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. It is not that difficult to humiliate those three when it comes to economic policy, and particularly tax policy, but it is very interesting to see this big backdown today, after crisis meeting after crisis meeting and the member for Warringah leaking to The Australian that he had shirtfronted the Treasurer about these changes. There is all of this sort of absurdity, which has become, unfortunately and disappointingly, the norm under this government rather than the exception.
This is a bill which both sides support—this modest relief for people on middle incomes to give them some relief from bracket creep. Even on something as simple as that, with bipartisan support, the implementation has been stuffed up in a way that we have become all too familiar with when it comes to this government. The tax cuts contained in this bill were promised to take effect from 1 July, but those affected will have to wait another three months thanks to the government's incompetence.
We have led the conversation on tax reform and budget repair. We will continue to take the initiative, because there is an absence of leadership when it comes to economic policy in this country. We will continue to fill that vacuum left by the absence of that leadership that was promised one year and one day ago. We will be constructive, of course, as we always are. We are supporting the changes in this bill. It seeks to increase the 32½ per cent personal income tax threshold from $80,001 to $87,000. The measure will stop about 500,000 taxpayers from hitting the 37 per cent marginal tax rate this financial year. Without the change, the average full-time worker would move into that 37 per cent bracket, the second highest one, in 2016-17. The measure will provide a maximum tax cut—a modest tax cut, but worthy—of $315 a year for people on incomes of $87,000 and higher. The changes are expected to benefit around 3.1 million taxpayers this financial year.
But it speaks volumes about this government that it could not even manage to implement a tax cut that both sides agree on without stuffing it up. As I said, it was promised to come into effect on 1 July this year. The Treasurer said that on budget night. A day later—it did not even last a full day—the Prime Minister said the change would be 'covered administratively' after the election. But the 2016 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed the tax commissioner had indicated the measure would require relevant legislation to be passed before it could take effect, and that is why we are here today, and that is why we are in a hurry, frankly. It means the start date for middle-income tax relief has been pushed out by three months. That means that people will be effectively overtaxed in the interim, as they fall under the old rate. They will have to wait until after they lodge their tax return to recoup that hard-earned income that they were told they would not have to cough up in the first place.
This delay comes despite the government still planning to end the temporary budget repair levy on time, in 2017, for those earning over $180,000—this tax cut for the top three per cent of earners. So I think it speaks volumes that they can ensure that they give that tax cut to people earning more than 180 grand a year. That will be on time; do not worry about that. That will definitely be delivered on time.
But, when it comes to a bit of a modest tax relief for those in the middle, they are forced to wait. We are disappointed about that, but we are not entirely surprised. It is, as other members have noted this week, on the one-year anniversary of the Prime Minister taking over from the member for Warringah, this is a government that stumbles from one stuff-up to another.
Take superannuation, which I touched on briefly before. We have had this infighting and a backbench uprising that has left the policy in tatters. The Prime Minister said it was an ironclad policy. It has proven to be anything but, and they have had this humiliating backdown after the backbench shredded the policy. As recently as yesterday, they were unable to confirm even what the superannuation policy was, because the member for Dawson and the member for Warringah had not finished rewriting it yet. It appears that they have finished rewriting it now—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: Yes, we do—I take that interjection from the member opposite. We announced our policy at the Press Club straight after the election. We gave them a way out of this humiliating mess, which they have partially agreed with now.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: The member might want to check what the Treasurer said this morning. He might want to catch up or get someone to explain it to him. He would understand that the sorts of things we were worried about are the sorts of things that have been addressed now. We will take our time to go through our usual processes, of course. But it is really quite entertaining to get interjections from those opposite, following this humiliating backflip. We have had a policy on the table longer than they have. The member needs to keep up. He really needs to keep up. He is embarrassing himself again.
Beyond superannuation, there is this obsession with favouring the big end of town. At the same time, we get these lectures about the moral responsibility of budget repair, when the centrepiece of the policy—really, the only element of their policy—is this $50 billion tax cut. We read in the paper today, under the cover of the superannuation changes, that maybe that is not going ahead. We will wait and see. It is certainly their intention to take $50 billion out of hospitals and schools and give it to big multinational corporations. But it is typical, disappointingly, of this government that we have this shambolic half-measure and we do not know whether the government will continue with it or not. It is a total shambles. It reminds us of the 15 per cent GST that was on the table and then off the table.
Announced in the member for Lindsay's electorate is this other one, the double income-taxing of people, by the state and federally. The electorate now represented by the outstanding new member for Lindsay was unfortunately let down by the former member for Lindsay. She was not a bad person, but she was a pretty bad representative to let the Prime Minister come to her seat and say, 'Hey, I've got a great idea; why don't we get everyone to pay double income tax,' and poor old Fiona had to stand behind him and nod like she agreed with it. I am sure she would not have. The people of Lindsay have traded up in really quite a spectacular way to someone who would never let a leader go to her seat and say, 'We should jack up the GST on people,' hurting the most vulnerable people in our community.
The way that the government have mangled the implementation of this measure is symptomatic. We will do what we can. We will do our best to continue to be constructive. We do want to see fair and responsible tax reform. We have proven we are serious. We have put a whole bunch of suggestions on the table about super in this space, right across the economic policy front. We will continue to do that. We are always in the cart for a conversation about fairer taxes, especially ones that do not exacerbate some of the challenges we have in our economy, and this measure in our economy that we are talking about today really is the best of a bad lot.
We will continue, whenever there is choice between people on modest or middle incomes and people at the top end of town, to always stand up for the people on modest and middle incomes. That is what this bill is about. As I said, it is not the worst tax measure on the government's agenda—if they could implement it properly. But saying that is not giving it much of a rap, really. It is not much of a claim when so many of their other measures in tax have been so shambolic, so unfair and so much designed to exacerbate inequality and division in our society.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:09): It is interesting to follow the member for Rankin. We see from that speech why the six years of Labor policy were so disastrous—because they simply do not understand the concept of incentives. We have to grow the economic pie and create more wealth in this economy to pay for all those things that we need to do, to pay for our schools and our hospitals and our roads and our public transport and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
If we are going to fund all of those things, we need to grow the economy. The only way we can grow the economy is to have incentives for people to take entrepreneurial risks, to go out there and to put their own capital on the line—to chance their arm, as the member for Berowra said in such a wonderful speech yesterday. That is what grows the economy. That is what creates wealth. That is why this bill goes a small way to improving those incentives that we need.
Currently, on our marginal tax rates in this country, if you earn less than $18,200, you pay zero income tax—not one cent. From $18,000 to $37,000, you pay 19c for every dollar above that $18,200 threshold. Once you get to $37,000, you pay 32½c for every cent above that. Once you get above $80,000, you actually pay 37c in every dollar that you earn.
We recognise that that rate of tax is a disincentive for people to go out there and produce. If we are to grow the economy, we cannot grow it from the demand side. We must grow it—and can only grow it—from the supply side. What we are doing is lifting that $80,000 threshold to $87,000. Now, for every dollar that you earn between $80,000 and $87,000, the marginal tax rate you will pay will be 32½c.
It is important that we talk about incentives. The member for Fenner—I think he is the shadow Assistant Treasurer—talked about how we have an open economy. It is important to have a look at how our marginal tax rates compare with those of our competitors. We as a nation are in an competitive international marketplace. We compete for people's talent. People have never been more mobile or had more options to travel and take their businesses or their ideas overseas. If we look at New Zealand, their top rate of marginal tax is 33 per cent. Our top rate of marginal tax is currently 45c in every dollar, plus the two per cent Medicare levy, plus the two per cent temporary budget repair levy. So our effective top rate of marginal tax is 49 per cent. In New Zealand, it is only 33 per cent.
Looking at Singapore, if someone earns more than the equivalent of $80,000—without having a quick look at the exchange rates, I understand the Singapore dollar is pretty similar to the Australian dollar at the moment—their marginal tax rate is just 11.5 per cent. So we are taxing someone who earns above $80,000 an extra 37c for every dollar up to $180,000. In Singapore, it is only 11½ Singaporean cents, and the top marginal rate of tax is 20 per cent. These massive differentials in taxation rates, in personal taxes, create a disincentive in the Australian economy. The ultimate victims of that disincentive are the very people that we want to help. It is those people on pensions. It is those people on low incomes. It is those people that need all the government resources that this government can muster.
I have been asked to keep my comments on this bill short so it can get through to the Senate. I will leave them at that, but I would say I commend this bill strongly to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:14): I am pleased to add my contribution to the debate regarding the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill. This bill perfectly highlights the lack of cohesion and commitment from this government to getting on with the job of undertaking budget repair but, importantly, to putting in place the necessary taxation reform measures that will boost our economy, grow jobs, contribute to economic growth and improve productivity.
This bill introduces legislation to implement the government's 2016-17 budget measure to increase to 32½ per cent the personal income tax threshold from $80,001 to $87,000. This measure is aimed at dealing with the issue of bracket creep, the phenomenon whereby the combination of wage increases and inflation over time pushes PAYG taxpayers into a higher tax bracket and they pay more tax than they otherwise would have if the brackets for progressive income tax had been adjusted for inflation and indexed.
On budget night, the Treasurer boasted that he would deliver these income tax cuts from 1 July 2016 and he did not introduce any legislation. There was no legislation for the implementation of measures to deal with this issue of bracket creep and the increase in the marginal tax rate prior to the parliament being prorogued and an election being called. Later, when the Prime Minister was asked on ABC radio about the likelihood of delivering the promised tax cuts, he confirmed that, in the absence of legislation, these would be delivered administratively after the election. So we got no legislation and the Prime Minister gave a commitment that they will deal with these tax cuts administratively after the election. Then we had the Commissioner of Taxation confirm in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the Treasurer had over-promised. This is not the first time that this Treasurer has over-promised, but this is one of the most monumental stuff-ups from a Treasurer in recent times. The tax commissioner has confirmed that the tax cuts could only be implemented when the relevant legislation had passed parliament, as was the view of the Labor Party prior to the last election and why we were asking why the legislation had not been introduced.
This government has made some shocking stuff-ups over the course of the last four years, but this is in a league all of its own. Here we have a non-controversial measure, a measure that is backed by the opposition and could have gone through the parliament prior to the last election, but what do this Treasurer and this government do? They fail to introduce and pass the necessary legislation before the election and, incredibly, find a way to break their promise to the Australian people, many of whom were desperately looking forward to receiving a tax cut on 1 July this year. Eligible taxpayers will need to wait until the middle of next year to receive the benefit in full of the income tax cuts for this financial year. So, many people are worse off because, really, of an administrative stuff-up by the Treasurer and this government. It does amount to a broken commitment to the Australian people that was delivered by the Treasurer on budget night, and it highlights that this government has its priorities all wrong and is all at sea when it comes to developing a coherent economic plan to take the nation forward.
This is made further clear by the $48 billion giveaway to multinational corporations that the government are undertaking through their company tax change and their redefinition of small businesses in the Australian economy. That includes $7.4 billion direct to the profit and the bottom line of big banks. Regarding this policy of a tax cut for multinationals, the government's own Treasury's modelling demonstrates that there is very little economic benefit of this to the Australian people. Their modelling indicates that GDP growth will only increase by 0.05 per cent per annum. Employment will only increase by 0.1 per cent over 20 years—very little benefit when it comes to creating jobs in the economy. Treasury modelling further indicates that wages will only grow by 0.1 per cent per annum. So there is very little to show in terms of economic development and so-called jobs and growth from this government's multinational tax plan.
Just last week, a collection of business leaders, former Liberal politicians, academics, economists, administrators, lawyers and lobbyists berated the Prime Minister for his performance over the last 12 months in The Australian Financial Review. They gave him a D-plus, and that is from friends! 'He is in danger of being seen as a total fizzer,' said one former Liberal MP, Warwick Smith, who also failed to nominate Turnbull's greatest success in government, saying, 'The search continues!'
When it comes to developing and implementing policy designed to bolster the economy, there is much to be said about a steady hand, consistency and predictability. But, unfortunately, this government has been all over the place with thought bubbles, rising and popping at an alarming rate. Firstly, we had the increase in the GST. That lasted about a month, then that was taken off the table. Then we had the prospect of the states raising their own income tax, and that lasted about a day. The lack of a clear, coherent economic plan is harming Australia. We have seen that, although the economy continues to grow, it is mainly due to external factors such as a bottoming out in the reduction in the terms of trade—our exports comparative to our imports. That has generated some growth in the economy, but, domestically, conditions remain quite uncertain. Australians are reflecting that. A lot of people are underemployed, and real incomes have not increased for many, many years now.
This government has smashed private capital expenditure. Over the last quarter, it decreased by 7.4 per cent. It has decreased by a whopping 17½ per cent over the course of the last year. Business investment is going backwards. When you talk about creating the conditions to grow jobs and encouraging businesses to invest, this government is simply not up to the job. It is reflected in the way that they have approached this bill. Through an administrative stuff-up, they managed to deny Australians 12 months of a tax cut that, importantly, alleviates some of the sorrow of bracket creep.
By contrast, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party have outlined a clear, concise and responsible way to undertake budget repair, but it is one that will also, importantly, grow our economy over time, invest in new businesses and create jobs. Labor are committed to an economic plan that would save $8.1 billion over the forward years and $80 billion over the next decade. This includes $37 billion in savings from overhauling negative gearing and capital gains tax. That is something that we all know, in terms of housing growth in our economy, is a big problem, but it is one that this government is afraid to tackle. There is also $4.7 billion in an increase in the tobacco excise and a $8,000 per year cap on VET FEE-HELP loans. We also oppose three of the government's superannuation measures which will actually cost the budget $1.5 billion over the forward estimates. At the same time, we will invest in those areas of the economy that will grow the economy and create jobs. They include: protecting Medicare, investing in education from early childhood right through to university and, of course, investing in renewable energy and tackling climate change. Labor have a clear, concise plan for our economy. It is reflected in the fact that we have had a lot of these policies for a long period of time and that we took them to the election and they were well received.
Unfortunately, this government is all at sea. It is reflected in their performance in the parliament—the fact that they lost votes in the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago and the fact that they had nothing to debate in the Senate on Monday and all the senators talked about was what they did on the weekend. That is the reason they stuffed up passing on this tax cut to Australians in a timely manner, and that is the reason we are debating this legislation today. It should have been done in the last parliament. Nonetheless, I am happy to support this important tax relief for Australian taxpayers.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:24): Acting Deputy Speaker Hogan, it is good to see the member for Page from The Nationals in the chair.
Before I get to the fundamental issues that we speak on today in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016, I would like to address some of the comments by the member for Kingsford Smith. Just like the 'Mediscare' campaign, it is—as I am sure you are aware, Deputy Speaker Hogan—just wrong. They are just making it up. In fact, this bill will, from 1 July 2016, provide a tax cut to 3.1 million taxpayers—that is the reality. There will be a tax cut from 1 July 2016. So Labor are wrong once again. They are wrong to state that taxpayers will not receive a benefit from this tax cut until the end of the financial year. Page three of the explanatory memorandum says just this.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will issue new income tax withholding schedules once the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) is confident that Parliament will pass these amendments.
I am very pleased that the member for Kingsford Smith has said that Labor will support this bill.
The commissioner has already amended the pay-as-you-go withholding schedules, and all affected taxpayers will be able to obtain the benefit cut not at the end of the year but from 1 October. This is already published online. It means that the tax cut will be reflected immediately at this point in the take-home pay of all Australian taxpayers.
As I am sure you know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, as someone who comes from the real world and as someone who has been employed, who has employed people and who has been in business—in fact, I believe you are an economist; one of two we have in the Nationals party room—things change over a financial year. They change constantly. They change depending on how much work you do. They change depending on how much overtime you work. They depend on whether you get ill, whether you do less work or more work, whether you take holidays, whether you get leave loading, whether you get a lump sum payout, whether you retire. Consequently, this is exactly what happens in normal working life for normal working people who are employed. So there will be a tax cut. It will be effective from 1 July 2016, and people will see the benefits. They will see the benefits. So there are no real differences there at all. Labor, in their statements, are fundamentally wrong on this issue.
This was announced in the budget by the Treasurer. It will be a course of tax reduction for hardworking Australians and it does deliver on the coalition government's commitment to bring down personal income taxes, because we are about less taxes for hardworking Australians. This is an important step in modernising the tax system. It means that individuals of taxable incomes from $80,001 up to $87,000 will be subjected to the lower tax rate of 32.5 per cent rather than the rate of 37 per cent.
I know, as someone in this place who has actually paid taxes for most of his working life, that is an important change, because that trigger point is critical to many families and many earners in this mid-range level. If you earn an extra $1 because you do decide to work extra time and to work harder, to be driven into a higher tax bracket is usually very difficult. Around 500,000 taxpayers—many of them, as I said, are working families—will be kept out of the 37 per cent tax bracket in this financial year. About 3.1 million taxpayers will receive an annual tax cut of up to $315 in 2016-17 and beyond. This tax measure will reward hardworking Australians for doing more overtime, taking a promotion or a better, new job without being penalised by paying more tax through the higher rate. We do not want a tax system in this country that limits opportunity or that punishes those who work hard or take risks in their business, particularly those who take risks in small business.
Small business is the economic life blood of regional communities like mine and like yours, Deputy Speaker Hogan. On this side of the house, we want to see them prosper. There are some 8,600 small businesses in the Hinkler electorate operating across a range of sectors, including construction, manufacturing and agriculture. Most of those are family-run businesses run by mums and dads, aunts and uncles and their siblings. They work long hours, they take few holidays and they, sometimes, take enormous risks to provide important services and products to our community.
Across the country, small businesses employ more than four million people. Four million Australians are employed in small business. In Queensland, small business is responsible for over 90 per cent of all employment. We want those small businesses to have confidence because businesses with confidence are businesses which expand and they are businesses which employ more Australians. Small businesses, as I am sure you know, are the backbone of the nation, and they will drag us forward. The more support we can provide to them, the better off as a country we will be.
The coalition government is focusing on building a strong economy which will help working families and small businesses with tax cuts right now. As a government, we have already delivered free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea, and they have provided unprecedented trade and export opportunities for producers and businesses in our regions. Those opportunities are helping their bottom line, and stronger bottom lines means more confidence. Those free trade agreements result in giving local producers the better return that we want them to have, and the more that we can give to their bottom line, the better the opportunities for them to employ more of our people, particularly in regional areas. That is what as a government we are about—providing more employment.
Just recently I had the pleasure of visiting the member for Capricornia in her electorate, in my capacity as the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, after an invitation from my colleague Michelle Landry. Well, it is not really an invitation; it is usually a phone call that says, 'You'll need to come to my electorate as soon as possible,' which, of course, we always try to do. So we visited tropical fruit grower Ian Groves, one of these small business owners, and discussed new market opportunities in Asia for Central Queensland producers of things like mangoes. Mangoes are an important fruit export for Queensland, and the China-Australia FTA has already cut the tariff for Australian mangoes from 15 per cent to nine per cent. That means that the forward-looking price to those people who are purchasing this product has the capacity to be lower, which means more products, which means more products sold, which is great for our producers. Trade data shows that in the early part is this year Chinese imports of fresh Australian mangoes more than doubled compared to the previous growing season. This meant that Australia overtook Thailand as China's principal supplier of mangoes in the first half of 2016, and that is a fabulous result. We are increasing our exports, which is great for this nation.
Under the KAFTA—the Korea-Australia FTA—the 30 per cent tariff which Korea charged on shelled macadamias is down to 12 per cent already. You might not have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, but my area is now the largest producer of macadamias in the country. This was only just recently announced. I see you are looking sceptical, but it is in the press, so you have to believe it! We have enormous growth in this country in macadamia exports. These tariff cuts contributed to a tripling of macadamia exports to Korea in the first half of 2015 compared to 2014, and they maintained that higher export level into the first half of this year. To give you an example, some years ago the high-quality kernel for macadamias was only worth about $3 to $3.50; now I have heard of prices as high as $8.60 a kilo for high-quality kernel. That is an enormous turnaround in price, which means that these businesses are being very, very successful. As I have said, the Bundaberg region is now the largest macadamia-producing region in Australia, and of course it is still the home of the world's best rum—officially.
The beef outcomes in these FTAs have been a boon for Queensland. Australia is now the only major global beef exporter that has preferential access into all three of these large North Asian markets, meaning we have the jump on our competitors, and that is where we need to be. Australia needs to be positioned so we are first and foremost in these trade agreements.
Another success story under ChAFTA is the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative in Perth, which I toured last week as part of my role. They are the biggest rock lobster processor and exporter in the world, selling around $450 million worth of rock lobsters each year—almost half a billion dollars worth. ChAFTA opened doors almost overnight to allow the co-op to export directly to any port in China, which was previously not commercially viable due to the high tariffs. Not only do they produce $450 million worth of rock lobsters; they employ 350 hardworking people. So GFC have invested heavily in response to the FTA to recently become the first Australian seafood exporter to own a live holding facility in China. They have gone and built a facility within the grounds of Guangzhou airport which will be paired with another under construction alongside the Perth airport. When complete, the latter will be the largest facility of its kind anywhere in the world, aiming to have the shortest tank-to-tank flight time of just 14 hours. This literally means that in 14 hours they can take fresh, live Australian produce from tank to tank into China—one of the biggest markets in the world.
We will continue to work on free trade agreements that provide advantages for our producers, because the stronger they are the more Australians they employ. These types of investments will continue to happen when there is a strong economy, and right now business confidence is up, and that is a result of strong coalition policies which have helped to build this economy. There has been over three per cent growth, according to the most recent figures, because we have a plan for the economy. We have a plan to make a stronger economy for Australia. The stronger the economy is, of course, the more people are employed, the higher confidence is and the more services we can deliver as a government.
But what has the opposition got? Bill Shorten and Labor have a debt wish. That is all they have. They have a debt wish. They wish to ensure that future generations of Australians cannot pay off the debts of this nation. We need to control the budget, and I would certainly thank the Labor Party for seeing sense in terms of the omnibus bill, because we do need to work together. The Australian people expect it of us, and we need to deliver for them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my contribution and thank you very much. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I make the point that, while production may be what it is, the electorate of Page will always be the home of the macadamia industry.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:34): I am pleased to stand and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016. Actually, I am particularly pleased that I was in the House to hear the member for Hinkler, because I want to make a few comments on his remarks.
Ms Vamvakinou: He's not interested.
Ms OWENS: Yes, I know. Well, he is not interested in very much, obviously, because he does not know what this bill actually does.
First, I want to start with the comments at the end of his speech about the government's record in managing the debt. I would like to point out yet again, as we have in the House many, many times—and it is clearly in the budget papers, so cannot be refuted—that under the Liberal Party, the deficit has tripled since they won government in 2013 and the debt has doubled. Far from tackling debt and deficit, which seems to be their mantra—every day they get out and say they are doing it—the actual results are completely the opposite. They have tripled the deficit and doubled this country's debt, and they are not on a path to reducing that. In fact, they are far from it, so let's call them on that every time they stand up in this place and make these statements about their great management of the economy. It is really not that good.
The second point I would like to challenge him on is when he called us on the Labor side liars. I get really tired of being called a liar for pointing out that people are not receiving the benefits of this tax cut at this point. I would just like to read the statement from the Treasurer that confirms absolutely that people are not currently receiving the benefits of this tax cut, which is what Labor has been saying. Here is the statement from Friday 2 September 2016:
The Australian Tax Office has confirmed they will now issue the new PAYG withholding tax schedules next week.
So the schedules are not even out. Businesses are operating on the old schedules according to the current law, which is what the ATO was supposed to do. The ATO was supposed to issue schedules according to the law as it is. That is what they did, so businesses are currently using the PAYG withholding schedules according to current law, which do not include this tax cut because it is not law yet.
The ATO has now said they are actually going to bring that forward and issue new schedules, but expect taxpayers to factor in the new lower tax rate from 1 October. There it is in the words of the Treasurer, proving that the statements by the Labor opposition are accurate and proving that the member for Hinkler either does not know what is happening with this bill or is deliberately trying to imply that Labor does not. They are the words of the Treasurer. They prove absolutely what we are saying in this House and what I am about to continue talking about.
This government, in its previous three years and in this term, is proving a level of incompetence that few of us could have imagined. Few of us could have imagined the level of incompetence. We expected some, but I doubt that there is anybody on either side of politics that expected this level of incompetence, whether you are talking about the NBN, whether you are talking about the decimation of Australian science, whether you are talking about goading Australia's car manufacturing industry to leave the country or whether you are talking about the vocational education shambles which is costing the budget billions and putting people in my community and communities right across the country in personal debt that they do not even know about to the tax office. I suspect that all of us who represent communities that have large disadvantaged groups or groups for whom English is not a first language are finding hundreds of people that have been exploited by very shonky providers, without any real remedy offered by this government. Whether you are talking about the census—the mighty institution that we have all been so proud of; that we have all so relied on—disassembled before our eyes in this screaming heap—
Ms Vamvakinou interjecting—
Ms OWENS: The member sitting beside me is quite right: they did not want to do it. The previous Prime Minister talked about not doing it—doing it in a different way, effectively abolishing the census, before they finally came to their senses but gave us something which has damaged the reputation of one of our incredibly important pieces of infrastructure. The census and our knowledge of ourselves and where we are is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle. Whether it is the uncertainty and the thought bubbles about whether or not the GST will increase to 15 per cent or double taxation—you name it—you can make a list as wide as this room of the things the Turnbull government and its predecessor, under Abbott, tried to do and failed or botched badly.
This week we have seen two new forms of incompetence and I am going to draw them together. One is the Cancer Screening Register and the other is this one. The reason why I am drawing them together is that both of them involved announcements or actions before the election about pieces of legislation that had not passed. This government knew they could not pass them, because they knew they were calling an election.
The management of the Cancer Screening Register, for example—which they gagged and rushed through the House in the last couple of days, trying to get it passed—was outsourced and privatised during the election campaign. The contract was signed four days before the calling of the election and then it was announced during the election campaign that they had given the contract to manage the Cancer Screening Register to Telstra—before there even was a register. Until that bill passes through parliament, there is no Cancer Screening Register. What kind of government—what kind of business, for that matter—lets a contract for something that does not actually exist when they cannot guarantee that it will?
This is another case. There was an announcement in the budget about a tax cut from 1 July, when they knew full well that they were not going to pass the legislation to make that law until well after 1 July. They knew that. They had the opportunity to deal with it. Immediately after the budget there was bipartisan agreement on this very modest tax cut to assist a particular group of taxpayers with bracket creep. They knew immediately after the budget that they had the bipartisan support of the opposition and that this could have passed. It is a very simple amendment. It is just a tax schedule—not a biggie, very easy to draft and very simple—and, with bipartisan agreement, it could have gone through at the speed of light. They even called us back for a special sitting a couple of weeks after the budget. They had the time to do this and they did not. Yet they announced that this tax cut would apply from 1 July even though the law would not have been passed. They were expecting the tax office to apply a law that had not passed to the tax schedules from 1 July.
So there are two instances where this government have either been ridiculously incompetent—I suspect that is part of it—or had a profound disrespect for the parliament. They thought that they had the right to actually move ahead and let contracts for things that did not exist because the parliament had not approved them. They expected the tax office to apply a law which did not exist, because it was their wish that they would. They also showed overwhelming arrogance back in May last year, believing that they were going to win the election and that therefore they could get whatever they wanted, whether parliament agreed or not. It was one of those three: sheer incompetence, profound disrespect for the parliament or incredible arrogance that they were going to be in power and they were going to be able to push whatever they wanted through. It turns out that that is not the case. But, as the colleague sitting beside me said, I suspect it is all three.
So here we have this really simple bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016, which changes the tax schedule for a group of taxpayers whose income is between $80,000 and $87,000. It is legislation to implement the budget measure to increase the 32.5 per cent personal income tax threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. Again, it could have been done in a couple of hours in both houses. We understood the deadline; we were ready to do it. There was no legislation. By the way, a lack of legislation was a symptom of the last parliament altogether. We were ready to do it and they did not do it.
However, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, even though they knew the bill would not pass until much later, both said that the tax schedule would apply from 1 July. Of course, the Treasury and the Department of Finance thought differently. This does not surprise me. The tax commissioner confirmed it in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—and remember that the PEFO, as it is called, is done by Treasury and Finance independently of government. That is the one time in the whole electoral cycle where those two extraordinarily experienced departments actually get together and speak entirely on their own behalf. There is no political interference in the PEFO, and this is what the tax commissioner confirmed then: that these tax cuts would not be delivered from 1 July, as promised by the Treasurer, but instead would only be implemented when the relevant legislation had passed the parliament. Again, that is pretty standard for the tax office. Tax office stuff, in many ways, is really simple. You wait for the law to be passed and then you apply it according to the schedule—very simple. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, prepared by the secretaries of the departments of Treasury and finance, says on page 40:
There are a number of tax measures included in the 2016-17 Budget that take effect on or before 1 July 2016. Many of these measures can be legislated at a later time within 2016-17 without materially affecting the estimates. However, the Commissioner has indicated that the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan—targeted personal income tax relief measure requires the relevant legislation to be passed before the change will be incorporated into the income tax withholding schedules.
Of course it does.
Then we seemed to see the Prime Minister and the Treasurer a little concerned about this difference between what they were saying and what the tax office was saying, and so then, on Friday, 2 September 2016, we had this extraordinary circumstance where the Australian tax office indicated it would apply tax schedules on the assumption that they will be passed into law. They are going to apply them from 1 October. Again, this is not usual behaviour; it is extraordinary and it does mean that, from 1 October, small businesses, which have already entered their tax schedules for the year, are going to have to enter new ones. All those small businesses—and I ran one too, like the member opposite and, I know, many others—set up their regular payroll as automatic payments from the banks so they do not have to do it every fortnight or every month or every week. They will have to go back and redo all of those automatic payments. In some cases, this will be for many, many staff members. So there will be this extraordinary paperwork burden on small business and big business as the schedules change over the next month or so. Then, of course, every taxpayer who earns between $80,000 and $87,000 over this financial year will have their tax adjusted at the end of the year. So there will be a great new job for the tax office at the end of the year—again, this is not something that usually happens, because tax schedules usually come out for the start of the financial year and remain in place.
Again, this is a really interesting situation that we have and it can only be explained by incompetence. If this was the only incident that we could find of a government stuffing up the implementation of something, then perhaps we would not have as many speakers on this side calling it for what it is. If it was just this, I think we could all kind of say, 'Well, yes, every now and again it happens. Maybe the Treasurer didn't know when the election was going to be called, so maybe he thought he would have time to put it to the parliament. Maybe Prime Minister Turnbull had not brought the Treasurer into the loop. Maybe, in the great communication that they seemed to have last year, he just forgot to tell the Treasurer, so, when the Treasurer said it would apply from 1 July, he actually thought the parliament would be back in session.' Maybe we could write it off that way, but, given the number of instances of this government botching simple implementation and failing to act when things start to go wrong until they are chronically in appalling circumstances, we have to call this for what it is.
As I said, I do not know whether it is sheer incompetence. I do not know whether it is disrespect for the parliament and parliamentary processes and the fact that parliament makes laws—not the Treasurer and not the Treasurer's office but the parliament makes laws—or an extraordinary arrogance that just assumed that it did not matter what they wanted to do, they would win the election so convincingly that they could ram anything through. But this is yet another case that demonstrates exactly how incompetent this government is.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:49): If you had a pot of money of $4 billion and you knew that that was going to grow bigger and bigger over time, what would you spend it on? There would be some who might say, 'Well, if there's $4 billion and rising that can be found in the budget, let's put it into Medicare.' Some might say, 'Let's put $4 billion into hospitals so that whoever gets sick in this country knows that they have a hospital to go to. Let's put it into schools. We know public schools are incredibly underfunded, so let's put it there.' Some might say, 'If there's a spare $4 billion and rising lying around, let's put it into lifting the level of Newstart for people who are trying to find a job, because they're living below the poverty line, which means they can't afford to buy new clothes or get a haircut or go into training and do all the things that you need to do in order to get yourself a job.' Some might say, 'Well, if there's $4 billion to be found in the budget and rising, let's put it into building renewable energy, getting solar plants and wind turbines going around this country and creating the thousands of jobs that come with that in places like South Australia, where we know they are needed, or Victoria, where very high unemployment is looming as the manufacturing crisis hits.' If you are a deficit hawk on the government's side, you might say, 'If you have a spare $4 billion or more lying around, let's put $4 billion into paying off the deficit,' given how important they keep reminding us it is.
If you asked the majority of Australians how they would spend an extra $4 billion and rising, what most people would not think is, 'Well, let's give a tax cut to above average income earners.' But that is exactly what the government and Labor have just stitched up in a deal. In these times when the government has told us that we need to get the budget into shape and when Labor has said we need budget repair that is fair, they have said, 'As the first expenditure item straight after the election, let's spend $4 billion on tax cuts for above average income earners that they won't even notice.' The Australian Bureau of Statistics told us a couple of months ago that the average annual wage in this country is about $60,000. This bill that we are dealing with talks about people who earn above $80,000. One report that I read suggested that that is the top 25 per cent of taxpayers. So the top 25 per cent of taxpayers are going to benefit from this bill. In one fell swoop, Labor and the Liberals are saying: 'Let's take a scarce $4 billion and give it not to the bottom 25 per cent or the bottom 50 per cent but to the top 25 per cent of taxpayers in this country. Let's not put $4 billion into schools. Let's not put $4 billion into hospitals. Let's not put $4 billion into nation-building infrastructure. Let's give it to above average income earners.'
Do you know how much the people who are earning above $80,000 are going to benefit? You are talking about, for many of them, around $6 a week. They used to talk about the 'sandwich and a milkshake' tax cut. In most inner city cafes in Melbourne you cannot really get a sandwich for $6. Six dollars a week is something people who are in the top 25 per cent of taxpayers probably will not even notice.
But I tell you what would be noticed: $4 billion going into propping up Medicare so that average income earners do not have to keeping paying more and more to see the doctor. I tell you want would be noticed: $4 billion going into schools so that parents do not have to keep paying these so-called voluntary fees every year as the cost of a public education goes up and up and up.
To rub salt into the wounds, not only are Labor and Liberal saying that the first big act of this parliament—the first big expenditure—is to give a tax break to those who are doing very well comparatively, thank you very much, and ignore those at the bottom, we know the other thing they have done this week is work out how they are going to fund this money going to the top. They are going to rip money out of renewable energy to pay for it. They ripped half a billion dollars out of renewable energy yesterday to pay for this. They are ripping money out of the Student Start-up Scholarships to pay for this. So university students—who are not exactly the richest in this country, who are living under enormous pressure with rising rents, who are finding it hard to find work and to balance work and study—are going to end up with less money. They are getting cut to pay for this.
We know, because Labor and the Liberals agreed to it yesterday, they are going to take money out of aged care to pay for this. We know, because they agreed to it yesterday, that newly arrived migrants to this country are going to suffer because they have to wait longer to get payments. This is all to pay for a tax cut for the top 25 per cent of income earners. What is this rubbish from Labor about repairing the budget fairly, when the first thing they do is crawl over to the government benches and ask, 'How can we help you give a tax cut to a high-income earners who probably won't even notice it?'
We also know that this is going to be paid for by cutting funding for research and development. There is a research and development tax break which is going to help create the jobs of the present and of the future in this country. It is actually making a difference. Companies in Australia say that the research and development concessions that we get make Australia an attractive destination to come and set up and to continue to do business. We hear all this talk and this rhetoric about becoming an innovation nation. The way that you do it, and the way that other countries do it, is to give tax breaks to companies that want to come and invest in research and development here. And what are we doing with this? The Liberals and Labor are saying they will cut the R&D tax concession to give a tax break of $6 a week to people who probably will not even notice it.
I suggest to the Australian people this is probably how the next couple of years are going to roll out. You might hear stuff before the election such as: 'Oh, they're going to privatise Medicare. You can't vote for them. Oh, they're going to wreck the economy. You can't vote for them.' But as soon as the election results are declared, as soon as we are back here, within a fortnight, what happens? There is a dirty deal between Labor and the Liberals to rip money out of renewables and off low-income earners to fund an income tax cut for those on above-average incomes, and everyone else can go and get stuffed. There is nothing in the first couple of weeks from parliament for you. It is a dirty deal that is rammed through quickly. Why are we here in the Federation Chamber with everyone speaking for only a few minutes on one of the most significant expenditure items that we are probably going to see this year? It is going to mean $4 billion less in the budget—it is $4 billion and rising—to spend on all the services that Australians expect.
I expect this kind of Thatcherite economics from the government. I expect this kind of Thatcherite economics from the Liberal Party, because they say: 'If we just keep cutting taxes and cutting taxes then it will mean less money available to spend on social services—less money for schools, less money for health, less money for hospitals.' But what astounds me is that every time the Labor Party falls for it! The Labor Party says, 'Oh, well, we don't want to be accused of not wanting to give tax cuts, so we'll sign up to whatever the Liberal Party suggests.'
What does that mean? When you do that, two things happen. One is that you end up with less money in the kitty to spend on services, and you have to go and do ridiculous stuff like cutting support for students, aged care and research and development in order to pay for it. Secondly—and I plead with the Labor Party to rethink their position on this—you shift the terrain of the political debate. It becomes normal to turn every election into a tax cuts arms race in which we ask, 'Who can compete on tax cuts?'
The problem is we know that we have a looming revenue crisis in this country. We know it because organisations as diverse as the Business Council of Australia and left-wing economists, and also the rating agencies, are telling us, 'Look, Australia needs to address the revenue side of the equation as much as the expenditure side of the equation.' So we should be having a discussion in this country about what a reasonable level of tax is that people would be prepared to pay in return for which kinds of services. What kind of social welfare safety net do we want? What kind of access to schools and hospitals do we want? How much are we prepared to pay for it?
If we had that kind of discussion, I suggest to those sitting on the opposition benches that it would be much, much easier. If we could have a sensible and honest discussion with the Australian people about the appropriate level of tax and who it should come from, it would be much, much easier to fund things like an expanded Medicare system. It would be much, much easier to deliver on the Gonski reforms. But, instead, Labor keeps creating a rod for its own back by signing up to unnecessary tax cuts and then doing what must come next—signing up to unfair cuts to social spending to pay for it.
If we keep going down this road, the right is going to win. The hard right is going to win. Because if every time they bowl up a tax cut for above average income earners and the Labor Party says, 'Yes, let's get this through parliament as quickly as we possibly can,' then we are going to find ourselves in trouble. There are better ways of spending $4 billion than a $6-a-week half a sandwich for people on above average incomes. But we do need to ask ourselves: where should we be bringing the money from to fund the services that Australians expect? There are plenty of places where we can find that money. We could go and ask the likes of Gina Rinehart in the mining sector and say, 'If you paid the same on your diesel fuel as every Australian pays on their petrol when they go and fill up, and we stopped giving you that tax break, that's an extra couple of billion dollars a year.' Keep the tax break for farmers and those in agriculture—there is a legitimate case there. But what possibly is the case for subsidising the likes of Gina Rinehart to buy cheap diesel fuel? It does not exist. We could go to the banks and we could say, 'You have your world-leading record profits, and you're doing it, the IMF tells us, off the back of implicit support from the government and the public, so you could probably afford to pay a bit more,' instead of taking the axe to renewable energy or taking the axe to students in higher education.
We could have that debate, but, the thing is, that requires a bit of spine. It was interesting that yesterday on the first anniversary of the Prime Minister's time in power, one Labor wag went out and presented the Prime Minister with a backbone. It is interesting that they took it back after the stunt was done and took it back into their office because, on many occasions, that is where it belongs. One of the jobs of an opposition should be to oppose when the government is doing something bad. The clue is in the job title—'opposition'. When the government says, despite all the rhetoric of tight budgetary restraint, we are going to give a tax cut to high income earners who probably do not need it, truth be told, as much as many others in our society, the job of a good opposition should be to say, 'No, that's not something that we're going to support.'
From here on in, let it be known that the Greens are not going to be participating in this tax cut arms race, and we are going to hold Labor and Liberal to account when they do these dirty deals to fund tax cuts for the top 25 per cent of income earners at the expense of low-income earners, because that is what Labor has done this week. Labor has helped the government redistribute wealth upwards. Labor this week has said: 'We don't mind if you take money off students to give to those on $100,000 or $200,000 a year. We don't mind if you take money out of aged care to give it to those on $300,000 a year.' That is what they have done this week. Bravo, Labor! You expect this from the Liberals, but you expect better from the Labor Party.
The Greens are very, very happy to call this out for what it is: it is unfair and it is bad economics because it slices out a big chunk of revenue from the government's coffers at the time when we are looking for ways to fund the services that people expect, and it sets an extraordinarily bad precedent. If this is what can be done in the first couple of weeks of this parliament—if Labor is not going to oppose it but they are going to crawl cravenly over to the government benches and sign up with every bad idea—I fear for what is going to happen over the next couple of years in this place.
Question negatived.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. All those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.
An honourable member: The noes have it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (12:06): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Moreton Electorate: Metro South Engineering Trade Skills Centre
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (12:06): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. It is always good to speak before you, and welcome back to this wonderful place.
Recently, I attended the official opening of the Metro South Engineering Trade Skills Centre at Runcorn State High School. Runcorn High is already well advanced in offering its students practical training for the modern workforce. Runcorn High is a manufacturing and engineering gateway school. It provides career opportunities for students to enter the manufacturing and engineering industries. The Queensland government—in particular the Minister for Education, Kate Jones, and the Minister for Training and Skills, Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath—have collaborated with Manufacturing Skills Queensland to implement the Gateway Schools project. Gateway Schools provide students with learning experiences and opportunities to enter the manufacturing and engineering industries through trade, paraprofessional and professional career pathways. These schools have an innovative curriculum structure and embed manufacturing and engineering industry related content into the school's core curriculum. Runcorn High is one of 14 Queensland high schools involved in the Gateway Schools project and is the only school participating in South-East Queensland. The opening marked the completion of a Trade Skills Centre at Runcorn High, and it will now be putting its students through the incredible trade training facilities on site.
Runcorn High's new Trade Skills Centre was built with Commonwealth government funding, part of Labor's 2007 Trade Training Centres in Schools election commitment. The Attorney-General of Queensland, Yvette D'Ath, was elected to the federal parliament at the same time as me, 2007, so she well knows this election commitment and Labor's commitment. The Rudd government's 2008-09 budget provided $2.5 billion over 10 years to implement this program. Four rounds of phase 1 of the program were completed under the Labor government. Sadly, the coalition government announced in 2013 that funding for the trade training centres would cease following round 5 of phase 1 and the projects will now be known as Trades Skills Centres.
The objectives of the Labor program included: addressing skills shortages in traditional trades and other eligible occupations by improving student access to trade training facilities that meet industry standards; improving the quality of schooling offered to secondary students undertaking trade related pathways; and assisting young people to make a successful transition from school to work or further education or training. The Runcorn High facility that I inspected will make an enormous difference for these young students' futures. The Runcorn High site was opened by the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, and we were joined at the event by the state member for Sunnybank, Peter Russo, and the state member for Bulimba, Di Farmer. The Runcorn High principal, Jo Soothill, proudly showed off her school to visitors from Yeronga State High School and Balmoral State High School. These two other Trades Skills centres are clustering together. The principals, Terry Heath from Yeronga State High School and Linda Galloway from Balmoral State High School, were there to witness the opening of the Runcorn facility, and we actually did three plaques all at once.
I met Michael, a grade 10 student at Runcorn State High School, who was very proud to show me around the workshops and equipment. Michael said he was looking forward to the workshops starting so that he could actually help to build a Formula One race car—parked outside the facility was a Formula One race car. Yes, one of the programs that will be offered at Runcorn High will be the Formula High School program, which will teach students engineering skills and practices while they build a race car, which is a little bit more exciting than the coffee table I made when I did woodwork! This is not just fun; the students will find it informative and transformative. Students who undertake the Formula High School program will be completing a Certificate II in Engineering Pathways, an engineering qualification that will prep them for a range of occupations. They will also learn practical general work, ready knowledge and team-building skills. These are all attributes an employer would be eager to see in any prospective employee. Perhaps the coalition opposite might like to consider sending Senator Abetz, the member for Warringah, Senator Bernardi or even the member for Dawson to work on their team-building skills at Runcorn high school. I am sure they would be welcome.
It is unfortunate that the coalition government does not follow its own jobs and growth mantra. If there is one initiative that will create jobs and growth, it is addressing the skills shortage in traditional trades. Industry knows that, and the Trades Skills centres will help do that. Sadly, the coalition government, when it took office, axed the funding for many more of these centres. I am pleased that students in my electorate attending the Runcorn High— (Time expired)
Wright Electorate
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:11): It gives me great pleasure to stand and address the House in acknowledging the incredible contribution that led to my re-election. Before I do so, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding maiden speeches that I have witnessed over the last couple of days from new members in this place, from both sides of the House. I can assure the Australian public that this government is in good hands when we look at the new talent coming to this place, if the calibre of their maiden speeches is a reflection of what they want to achieve whilst in this place. I offer my congratulations to and my appreciation for those outward-going members of the last term whom I have not yet had the opportunity to acknowledge in person. I take this opportunity in the Hansard to acknowledge their contribution to our nation.
I come from a business background. In my business, there are many key performance indicators that give an idea of how the business is performing. In politics, there is one true key performance indicator, and that is an election. I am very humbled by the results that we were able to achieve in the electorate of Wright. That humbling experience of being given the privilege to serve the electorate of Wright for a third term is testament to an enormous contribution that was made by my volunteer base. It was a difficult and tough campaign, run in the middle of the holiday period, when a lot of the families that would normally have given time on our booths spent time with their families—and rightly so. Being in the middle of winter, it was the time that our grey-nomadic families would normally go on a holiday further north with their caravans, and good wishes to them. But we were humbled by the number of new people that rolled up and manned no fewer than 60 booths in my electorate. A collective of over 350 volunteers that helped with pre-polling gave their time freely because they believe in the cause. They believe in the economic direction that this government is taking and they believe in the policy settings.
I will mention some of those kind people, but let me start with the support that I was given by my staff. I boast proudly that I still have the same contingent of staff that I have had since the day that I was elected. When I was in business, I took the principle that I always wanted smarter people around me. I wanted my law firms to know more about the law than I did. I wanted my accounting firms to know more about the accounting standards than I did.
As a result, I am privileged to have Greg Birkbeck as my chief of staff, who knows more about politics and campaigning than I do. I thank Alice Warby, a terrier and warrior, who deals with our constituents in the office. Jo looks after our books and did an enormous job in preparing us to be ready for the campaign. I thank Susie Cunningham, who looked after my media, and Hannah Robinson, who travels with me and looks after my diary. To all of them, thank you.
More importantly—they are paid staff—I thank each of my volunteers: FDC executive Matthew Enright; Rod Venz, who played a role as treasurer; our SEC chairman who looked after the Lockyer Valley, Jim McDonald; Lloyd Venz and Gordon French, who were our handymen who did all our corflute work; and everyone who had a corflute in their front yard, who made not have made a contribution but proudly put their name to our cause. I thank Frank Klan for kitting out a six-metre truck for me. It was one of my trucks; I pulled it out of my fleet. He sexied it all up, and we had mobile billboards running all around the electorate. Susan Calvert and Sue Mason were saints on pre-polling and for that I am humbled.
I thank other tireless volunteers such as Ken Turnbull, Sheila Venz, Tim Andrews, Colin Lagoon, Ian Pocock, Marjorie Yarrow, the Puccis, Steve Monteath, Ruth Doyle, Sue Margetts, Steve Neville, Glen Pavey, Tony and Sandra Landridge, Catherine Drynan, Ian and Muriel Sheppard, Kate and Sarah Seymour, John Bridges, Melissa Hall, Rob and Julianne Murphy, Gary and Edwina Stark, Warwick McLean, John Clarke, Derek Pingel, Fred Scott, Lance Pollock and Wayne Keys. I will not run through the whole 300, but they made an enormous contribution. Without their help and their volunteering contributions, I would not have been re-elected. We were the only candidate team that manned every single booth from the time it opened until the time it shut.
There is an enormous contribution still left for me to make in my electorate. We have a number of programs that are rolling out. It gives me great please to be able to continue to represent the people of Wright and deliver for them. (Time expired)
Indi Electorate: Local Government
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:16): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, congratulations on your election win. It is lovely having you back here. It is often said that local government is the form of government that is closest to the community. I am very proud to have a strong and productive relationship with all of the local governments in Indi and, as an MP, I see it as one of my priorities to strongly represent the interests of local government in Indi to the parliament.
As we prepare for the Victoria local government elections, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge, honour and thank all the councillors who work across the nine local government areas in Indi. Thank you for your work over the past four years. As a community, we are grateful to you for your commitment, dedication and ability to truly engage with all communities. As a member of parliament, I am particularly grateful to you for your public service, your public advocacy, your policy advice and your true commitment to advance the future of our communities. So to retiring councillors, I wish you well and say thank you. For those standing for re-election, happy campaigning and fine weather as you move among the electorate.
On Monday 5 September, I met with CEOs and mayors of local government in Indi in what we agreed will form the foundations of the Indi LGA advisory group. I have committed to being a strong representative for local government in this place. Today, I am very pleased to bring before this House a summary of issues placed before by local government in north-east Victoria.
Consistency of funding is a key issue. Local government needs consistency of funding to enable long-term planning and budgeting. For this in particular, the federal government's Financial Assistance Grants program and the current freeze on indexation has placed great inconvenience and cost to all our communities. They call on the government to lift that freeze and to put in place a strategy for regrouping the cost to local government over the last three years.
Another issue is the National Stronger Regions funding round. Local government has been expecting a reply from the government and announcements in July this year. The delays in making the announcement are impacting on local government's ability to plan. I call on the minister to make the announcement soon to give local government surety for its planning and its ability to build infrastructure.
There has been great support and interest in the proposed new building stronger regions program. Local government ask that the federal government make the announcement of when those guidelines will be announced. There is also very strong support for the Roads to Recovery Program and a sense from my community that this is really important funding that brings huge benefit. However, this funding is on an ad hoc basis, so what my local government asks is that we have consistency of funding for the long term and that we do not have to keep coming back time after time for renewal of funding—that it be incorporated into the funding that the Commonwealth gives local government so that local government can rely on that really important roads funding.
Connections, particularly via telecommunications and transport, are another really important issue. This includes the rollout of mobile phone towers, the NBN and our railway line. Another issue brought to my attention is the impact that the NDIS is going to have on councils. Local governments request an opportunity to work with the NDIS on how that will be delivered in our rural communities.
However, all these issues are underpinned by the need for the involvement of the Commonwealth government, which campaigned at the last election on a slogan that it had a plan for jobs and growth. My questions to the Commonwealth government are: what is your plan for jobs and growth for regional Australia, how will you acknowledge the role of local government and how will you give us a national plan that recognises the role of regional Australia in our growth?
I was pleased to meet with Senator Nash, the Minister for Local Government and Territories, on Wednesday and convey these findings from my local government to her. We have agreed to have regular meetings and I have extended to her an invitation to come to Indi and meet with my local governments in Indi. I am very pleased to say that she has accepted that invitation.
In closing, thank you, local government. Thank you, councillors. Thank you, staff. Thank you for so much of what you do to make Indi such an amazing place to live and to work and for me to be such a proud representative of in this place.
Whitsunday Islands
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (12:21): I am fortunate to have in my electorate what some would consider the finest tourist destination in the world—and that is, the Whitsundays. World-class attractions include the Great Barrier Reef and its prolific marine life; Conway National Park and its unique Australian wildlife; the 74 islands in the Whitsundays, some with resorts; and the beaches, including the spectacular white sand at Whitehaven Beach, voted the best beach in Australia and consistently ranking in the top five beaches in the world.
Rapidly becoming a major tourist attraction in its own right is the Abell Point Marina. Yesterday the Abell Point Marina became the first marina in the world to be awarded the five gold anchor accreditation from the Marina Industries Association, acting in their capacity as partner of the global gold anchor marina accreditation scheme. The gold anchor scheme operates somewhat like the five-star rating system for hotels. The new system places greater emphasis on customer experience. I note that the Marina Industries Association representative, Colin Bransgrove, said this yesterday:
Abell Point Marina is a fitting recipient to be presented with the first accreditation under the Global Gold Anchor Scheme. It epitomises what Gold Anchor stands for: a focus on the customer experience, quality services and facilities and an enduring commitment to continuous improvement.
Locals in the Whitsundays will attest to the transformation of the Abell Point Marina in recent times. Entrepreneur Paul Darrouzet acquired the marina in 2013 and spent some $12 million upgrading both its on-water and shore-side facilities and services. Some of the improvements at Abell Point Marina include demolishing the old marina office and building new ocean side facilities; refurbishing the village buildings; creating an additional 250-space car park, bus lanes, new restaurants, two marina helipads and a multifunction event facility for weddings, conventions and conferences; dredging the marina to increase deepwater access for marine tourism; and developing a 15,000 square metre park to host and attract festivals, markets and events. It is indeed a world-class facility for a world-class location.
The investment is already paying dividends for the local economy. From 2014 to 2015, Abell Point Marina saw an increase of 53 per cent in berthing nights for superyachts, which are vessels that are over 24 metres. This year it has seen a further 25 per cent growth in berthing nights, with a resulting 35 per cent increase in revenue. The length of stay has increased by 10 per cent. The largest catamaran in the Southern Hemisphere berthed at Abell Point Marina last year. The impact that superyachts have on the local Whitsundays economy cannot be overestimated. Every week a superyacht is in port, it contributes about $50,000 to the local economy.
Mr Darrouzet and many members of the local tourism and business community appreciate the massive impact that even a handful of superyachts can have on the local economy and local jobs. It was unusual that such a highly regarded destination as the Whitsundays did not already have a thriving superyacht industry, but there were, and still are, significant hurdles to overcome. Some work still needs to be done.
One major disincentive was a multimillion dollar, one-off tax hit just to bring in a superyacht and charter for a week. However, discussions that I had with the then minister for transport, Warren Truss, meant that this issue was resolved with the same exemption that now applies to cruise ships. The other major hurdle has been the plan of management for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a large number of latent permits—that is, permits that were issued but were not being used—meaning that the real number of visitors to various locations did not necessarily reflect the number of visitors technically allowed. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has agreed to a full review of the plan of management for the area, looking at permits and latent permits with a view to maximising the benefits for the area and minimising the impact.
I look forward to having this hurdle cleared, because a flourishing superyacht industry in the Whitsundays would provide the most benefit with the least impact on the natural environment. Although these vessels are quite large, at more than 24 metres, they carry very few passengers—perhaps only two or three with half a dozen crew. The Whitsundays is one of the finest natural environments in the world. The world loves the Whitsundays and want to visit it. It has been great to see the growth and development of Abell Point Marina through the vision of Mr Darrouzet and the hard work of his general manager, Luke McCaul, and their team.
Medicare
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (12:26): There has been a 40-year project in this country from the conservative side of politics to destroy what was first Medibank and then Medicare. Since the 2014 budget, the Liberals have put a whole series of propositions on the table to eat away and white-ant the very foundations of Medicare. The Libs proposed at the last budget to privatise the Medicare payment system. That, along with their failure to index rebates, which would push down rates of bulk-billing, meant that they were effectively getting rid of the very basis of Medicare. To my way of thinking, that is privatisation.
Thankfully, during the election Australians saw right through the Prime Minister and his values. They clearly rejected the idea of electing someone just because they were a celebrity and because they had support from the top end of town. The Prime Minister's overreach on tax and Medicare confirmed the public's worst fears about conservative Australia—that is, the radical agenda of the right. The radical agenda of the right is a recipe for American style inequality and a struggling middle class. Of course, part of that agenda is the destruction of Medicare. It is an essential part of their trickle-down agenda.
Since the election, that radical agenda has continued. Although the Prime Minister has been forced to defer his Medicare payment system privatisation plans, his statement about that turns out to be mere weasel words. If what my constituents are telling me is correct, the Liberals are actively working to dismantle Medicare service levels and Medicare accessibility to the general public. Like many other members in this House, since 1 July, I have received through my office a steady stream of complaints from constituents about reductions in Medicare service levels at Centrelink offices and about delays in receipt of cash from claims left at offices. This week, it was reported to me that for some complex Medicare claims it is taking over a month before the rebate appears in bank accounts. Other constituents report frustration. When they visit their local Centrelink office with a Medicare claim, they are told to go online, download an app or leave the claim because there is no longer face-to-face service. Staff are telling the public that, by November, there will be no face-to-face claim service at Centrelink offices because 'That is the way the government wants to do Medicare now.'
A Tasmanian colleague has advised me this type of service ceases in Tasmania this Friday evening. I am advised there will be no exceptions to processing on-site refunds, regardless of a customer's age or ability. It will need a manager's decision to process under financial hardship. If the manger says no, it could potentially take three days for a refund to appear in a desperate customer's bank account.
Many years ago I used to visit the Medicare office at my local shopping centre at Toombul, and I always remember the staff there telling me that many of their customers on meagre incomes had a pattern of visiting the doctor and then claiming their Medicare rebate straight away so that they could use that rebate to purchase medicines prescribed by their doctor. I have no doubt that there are still many constituents of every member in this House who rely on speedy and efficient Medicare rebates to be able to afford their medications. What will happen to these people now that Malcolm Turnbull is introducing a policy of removing that efficient Medicare rebate service from Centrelink offices, particularly when many elderly people do not have access to online or smart phone facilities or capabilities.
I think this is legitimately leading the Australian people to ask: 'How good is Malcolm Turnbull's word? Did the Prime Minister and the health minister just commit to leaving Medicare payments in "government hands" so that they could cut Medicare staff numbers, shift Medicare staff onto Centrelink work, remove the rebate service from our local Centrelink offices and plague the service with enough delays so that they could, again, mount the case for privatisation?' From what I am hearing from other electorate offices, I think that is exactly the plan. They intend to strangle services for Medicare and they are starting that with what is now occurring in Centrelink offices.
The Australian people know that this PM cannot keep his hands off Medicare. Why can't he? Because this Prime Minister is a Liberal, and the Liberals have a 40-year project of strangling and wrecking Medibank and Medicare. I think the Prime Minister's word on this question of privatisation is absolutely worthless. If he wants to contest that, he should stop the decision that is being implemented now to reduce access to one of Australia's great public—(Time expired)
Banks Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (12:32): I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to talk about a number of tremendous organisations in my local electorate that are doing great work in our community. Recently, I met with the Padstow RSL Fishing Club. With Steve Pomroy as president and Geoff Lapworth as secretary, the club has gone from strength to strength in recent years. It has a very active community of recreational anglers amongst its members. It was good to discuss issues of concern to the club during my recent visit to Padstow RSL, including matters such as the cleanliness of the Georges River—something I am personally very passionate about—and the issue of gross pollutant traps and their role in keeping the water clean on the Georges River. We also talked about the importance of fish-attracting devices and a number of other concerns that the club has in relation to the environment for recreational fishers in the Sydney area. Thank you very much to the club for having me to their meeting, and I look forward to future meetings in the months ahead.
Recently, I attended an evening at East Hills Scouts. East Hills Scouts was formed in 1956, and for the last 60 years they have been providing a great environment for local kids to learn about the scouting movement—a proud movement of a century's existence. On the night that I visited and talked to Michael Hoynes, the Scout Leader, and some of the other leaders, it was great to see the kids getting involved in all the fun activities. We talked a little bit about government and a range of different things. It was a terrific visit to what was obviously a very tight-knit and close community. To Michael, all the other Scout leaders and all the kids who were there that evening: thank you very much for your hospitality, and I certainly hope to be able to continue to work with you in the future.
We have a very strong baseball community in my electorate, and recently I met with Peter Archer, the President of the East Hills Baseball Club, and Jill Archer, the secretary. It is a very large baseball club which has been in existence for a long time at Kelso Park. We discussed a range of different issues. The club, of course, won the Bankstown district baseball club championship in 2015-16, which it has won many times in the past, but it is particularly good to see the club being successful this year. Like many clubs in our area, it has the support of Panania Diggers, led by its president, Gary Murray OAM. Panania Diggers do a tremendous job in supporting our community, particularly local sporting clubs. We have a very active sporting community, particularly in the Panania region, and I thank Panania Diggers for their ongoing support, not just of East Hills Baseball Club but of so many other sporting clubs in our community. Congratulations to everyone at East Hills Baseball Club on your great success in 2015-16.
I also recently attended the annual awards presentation of the St George District Netball Association. Across the St George region of Sydney, there is a very vibrant netball community. Everyone gets together up at Rockdale, where there are a substantial number of netball courts, and all the clubs come together each weekend and play at Rockdale. That is also where the annual awards presentation was held. Thanks to Liz O'Brien, the president, and Tamlyn Holtz, the secretary, for inviting me along on the day and to all the executive members and players who were present. It was great to see a couple of clubs from my electorate recognised on the day. The Titans, based at Olds Park at Penshurst, is a new club but a club that has grown dramatically under the leadership of Vanessa. It was great to see the Titans there on the day. Of course, Oatley RSL Youth Club conducts activities across a wide range of sports and other pursuits, and it is terrific to see its ongoing support of youth in our area through the netball club and many other activities. So thanks again to the St George netball association. We look forward to another great year next year.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:37